Direct Connection ( Mullen LA ) heads

-
moparallen said:
I think a 15 degree angle on the valve face will also bring the numbers up but I haven't tried that yet. These are tulip style stems and the port work is impressive. But I can see only 2 angles on the valve face and the 15 degree back cut may help? Maybe one day I will get to it.
Click to expand...


If you are talking about a 15 degree top cut on the intake valve do not do that. You will kill power so fast your head will spin.

You can put a radius on the exhaust valve but never do that or a cut on the intake valve. Some call it clipping the valve. That’s a big power loser, but it looks good on the flow bench.
 
yellow rose said:
If you are talking about a 15 degree top cut on the intake valve do not do that. You will kill power so fast your head will spin.

You can put a radius on the exhaust valve but never do that or a cut on the intake valve. Some call it clipping the valve. That’s a big power loser, but it looks good on the flow bench.
Click to expand...

From the stem down the valve, I am talking about a 15 degree angle cut, then a 30 degree angle, then the 45 for the seat.
Do you think that would help or hinder power?
Thanks for the info.
 
Last edited:
moparallen said:
From the stem down the valve, I am talking about a 15 degree angle cut, then a 30 degree angle, then the 45 for the seat.
Do you think that would help or hinder power?
Thanks for the info.
Click to expand...
Thank you for photos info etc , we belong to an exclusive club since we have similar heads !!!
Keep info coming as will I when they are completed.
 
Just as PHR said, there is some fkd up math going on if you think you have 178cfm @.100 lift corrected @28"
AND with no radius...
Nope, re figure time
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Just as PHR said, there is some fkd up math going on if you think you have 178cfm @.100 lift corrected @28"
AND with no radius...
Nope, re figure time
Click to expand...
NOPE, I posted what MY bench did on MY heads. I never claimed my bench was the standard. Some of YOU made that assumption.
What I did say is the set of heads I have, that are very similar to what the original poster has, outflowed my unported Econo W2 heads. On MY bench by a bunch.
I do not build racing engines for pay Nor do I custom build heads.
I Currently use my bench for my stuff only.
That may change in 8 years when I retire. I am trying to learn, although when people chose to prove their supposed smartness and NOT attempt to help others It gives a bad taste to fellow Mopar people....
 
moparallen said:
NOPE, I posted what MY bench did on MY heads. I never claimed my bench was the standard. Some of YOU made that assumption.
What I did say is the set of heads I have, that are very similar to what the original poster has, outflowed my unported Econo W2 heads. On MY bench by a bunch.
I do not build racing engines for pay Nor do I custom build heads.
I Currently use my bench for my stuff only.
That may change in 8 years when I retire. I am trying to learn, although when people chose to prove their supposed smartness and NOT attempt to help others It gives a bad taste to fellow Mopar people....
Click to expand...
Keep your info coming
A younger person new to site may be enthralled with this topic and become interested in such , we both ironically have an interesting topic pertaining to some vintage Chryler parts and thats always a plus .
 
Last edited:
moparallen said:
NOPE, I posted what MY bench did on MY heads. I never claimed my bench was the standard. Some of YOU made that assumption.
What I did say is the set of heads I have, that are very similar to what the original poster has, outflowed my unported Econo W2 heads. On MY bench by a bunch.
I do not build racing engines for pay Nor do I custom build heads.
I Currently use my bench for my stuff only.
That may change in 8 years when I retire. I am trying to learn, although when people chose to prove their supposed smartness and NOT attempt to help others It gives a bad taste to fellow Mopar people....
Click to expand...
I know a guy, had his own bench and then audipro 'metric deal' or something like that. He could see before and after to know if he made improvements or not or hurt it...however it didn't show the same flow numbers as another ind std bench does. That said ..time went on and the industry went from 25 to 28 'to time the era'... it was great, till people were aware more of flowbench testing and the industry standard of flow ratings. His numbers didnt jive and people got uppity about it...
He'd say..."the before n after shows 43 cfm gain"... And the customer would say..""but you cant tell me what the head flows, at the industry std""

He bought another setup, "superflow 600"
Point is don't brag about number that don't translate accurately, people who aren't very aware will think a head can flow near 200 cfm @.100 lift with a 2.02.
If you have a before n after and your bench isn't @28....just share the gains and we can figure from stock head where abouts you may be...but if you wanna ASSUME we know it's not and then gripe and say We assumed..well we aren't greasing very well here. No one is picking on you. We just need to make sure YOU aren't confusing people who are learning about this for the 1st time by posting the total flow which is immeasurable for us and therefore useless!!
Share the gains, not the misleading results from your crackerjack box bench. Sorry in advance if that sounds insulting to you. You seem a bit riled though..
Thanks for sharing.
 
Last edited:
@moparallen
Back cutting the intake valve is great for next to no overlap cams with lift in the .400's....Or stock head/cam stuff.
1 down side ...It helps reversion back up into the intake manifold when the overlap is intro'd and increased as the cam gets bigger
The higher lift doesnt respond so much to it too. Ime. Telling .

Take and flow your port without a valve.
Plug the guide, its only 7 cfm that guide flows btw. If it flows more, you have more work to do or you ruined the port.

If it flows less without the valve, you're doing it right.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
I know a guy, had his own bench and then audipro 'metric deal' or something like that. He could see before and after to know if he made improvements or not or hurt it...however it didn't show the same flow numbers as another ind std bench does. That said ..time went on and the industry went from 25 to 28 'to time the era'... it was great, till people were aware more of flowbench testing and the industry standard of flow ratings. His numbers didnt jive and people got uppity about it...
He'd say..."the before n after shows 43 cfm gain"... And the customer would say..""but you cant tell me what the head flows, at the industry std""

He bought another setup, "superflow 600"
Point is don't brag about number that don't translate accurately, people who aren't very aware will think a head can flow near 200 cfm @.100 lift with a 2.02.
If you have a before n after and your bench isn't @28....just share the gains and we can figure from stock head where abouts you may be...but if you wanna ASSUME we know it's not and then gripe and say We assumed..well we aren't greasing very well here. No one is picking on you. We just need to make sure YOU aren't confusing people who are learning about this for the 1st time by posting the total flow which is immeasurable for us and therefore useless!!
Share the gains, not the misleading results from your crackerjack box bench. Sorry in advance if that sounds insulting to you. You seem a bit riled though..
Thanks for sharing.
Click to expand...
Dont worry.
 
I am trying to learn although when people chose to prove their supposed smartness and NOT attempt to help others It gives a bad taste to fellow Mopar people....
Click to expand...

I’m not trying to be confrontational at all.
I’m just pointing out that some of what you posted isn’t physically possible.

There is a relationship between pressure, area, and flow.
Meaning, a given amount of area, will only flow so much air..... at a particular pressure.
It’s why the flow number itself is useless without knowing the pressure.

To use your flow number at .100 lift as an example:
The max flow at 10” test pressure is 86.7cfm per sq/in.
A 2.08 valve at .100 lift creates a hole that is .653 sq/in.
So, if the discharge coefficient of that opening was 100%(which it never would be with the way the air has to turn to get past the valve and seat), the flow would be 56.6cfm@ the test pressure of 10”(86.7 x .653 = 56.6).
The typical C/D at low valve lifts are around .70-.77....... so what would be a “normal” reading for a 2.08” valve, at .100 lift, using a test pressure of 10” would be more like 39-43cfm.
You’re showing over 178cfm(over 3 times a C/D of 100%).
This points to something way way off from the norm.

If you’re really interested in learning, as I mentioned in an earlier post, buy a few PTS test plates.
These are orifices with a known flow capacity.
You flow them on the bench, and then you can make adjustments to the flow ranges of the bench until the reading matches the capacity of the test plate.

For example, if you are testing a 200cfm(at the specified pressure)plate, and the bench says something other than 200cfm(at the same pressure)...... the bench is wrong.
Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
PRH said:
I’m not trying to be confrontational at all.
I’m just pointing out that some of what you posted isn’t physically possible.

There is a relationship between pressure, area, and flow.
Meaning, a given amount of area, will only flow so much air..... at a particular pressure.
It’s why the flow number itself is useless without knowing the pressure.

To use your flow number at .100 lift as an example:
The max flow at 10” test pressure is 86.7cfm per sq/in.
A 2.08 valve at .100 lift creates a hole that is .653 sq/in.
So, if the discharge coefficient of that opening was 100%(which it never would be with the way the air has to turn to get past the valve and seat), the flow would be 56.6cfm@ the test pressure of 10”(86.7 x .653 = 56.6).
The typical C/D at low valve lifts are around .70-.77....... so what would be a “normal” reading for a 2.08” valve, at .100 lift, using a test pressure of 10” would be more like 39-43cfm.
You’re showing over 178cfm(over 3 times a C/D of 100%).
This points to something way way off from the norm.

If you’re really interested in learning, as I mentioned in an earlier post, buy a few PTS test plates.
These are orifices with a known flow capacity.
You flow them on the bench, and then you can make adjustments to the flow ranges of the bench until the reading matches the capacity of the test plate.

For example, if you are testing a 200cfm plate, and the bench says something other than 200cfm...... the bench is wrong.
Simple as that.
Click to expand...

That is the type of info that is helpful!
Thanks.
I still maintain that I put a disclaimer on my numbers when I posted them. Evidently others didn't realize that or chose not to.
I plainly stated my homemade bench..
Again, thanks.
 
I guess I look at it this way....... you already have the bench, and it’s up and running........

More than likely, with a few calibration plates and some range value adjustments you could probably have it so the numbers were more aligned with the industry standards.

As it is right now....... your numbers can really only be compared to...... your numbers.
 
moparallen said:
That is the type of info that is helpful!
Thanks.
I still maintain that I put a disclaimer on my numbers when I posted them. Evidently others didn't realize that or chose not to.
I plainly stated my homemade bench..
Again, thanks.
Click to expand...
All of us, not some.

Get out of your feelings.
Your disclaimer was buried in a bunch of misleading, miscalculated unverified numbers. Like PHR said...get a test plate. I have one with my flowbench, though its never been off more then maybe a quarter point, i still check it every time.
 
moparallen said:
That is the type of info that is helpful!
Thanks.
I still maintain that I put a disclaimer on my numbers when I posted them. Evidently others didn't realize that or chose not to.
I plainly stated my homemade bench..
Again, thanks.
Click to expand...


We all get that. The issue is guys like PRH and the rest can’t make sense of what your are doing if your numbers don’t equate to standard science. I mean, if you think about it, you could measure your air flow in some made up standard...like buckets of air per minute. The you'd need to determine how big the bucket is, and at what test pressure you are filling said bucket at. Then you’d need to be able to scale your buckets per minute (BPM for short) to CFM so you can determine, understand and quantify if what you are doing is actually working or if you are just making numbers.

I have never been, nor will I be convinced that a correctly operated flow bench will read more than 1% (in practice I know it’s that much at most) difference between them.

If you are using a calibration plate and if you use correction software (you should be using both) any flow bench, anywhere in the country will read the same, with the exception of crooks and liars, of which there are many.

To steepen your learning curve you should be working to get your bench calibrated and get some software to correct for temperature and barometer. You can take the same exact port and flow it in early spring or late fall where I live and get her numbers. Do it again in the dog days of summer and that same port will be sucking buttermilk. You have to correct for that and use the corrected numbers or small weather changes will skew the results.

It’s not a slam on you or being critical of your work. They are trying to help you (for free I might add and what they are telling you is big $$$$ if you had to pay for it) to be a better head porter and to be able to do that, they need numbers based in science and not just arbitrary stuff.

BTW, the only advice I can offer is never port the exhaust using the numbers. If you do that, you’ll kill power every time. The flow bench will lie to you and tell you to make the port bigger and bigger and then it will reward you with big flow numbers. But although they look good and the numbers are big, that exhaust port will kill power so fast your head will fall off.

Get the port as small and as quiet as you can and screw the flow numbers. Flow the ports in reverse and see what they do. Experiment. Just use numbers that are relatable and the guys here will help you learn more, faster.
 
yellow rose said:
We all get that. The issue is guys like PRH and the rest can’t make sense of what your are doing if your numbers don’t equate to standard science. I mean, if you think about it, you could measure your air flow in some made up standard...like buckets of air per minute. The you'd need to determine how big the bucket is, and at what test pressure you are filling said bucket at. Then you’d need to be able to scale your buckets per minute (BPM for short) to CFM so you can determine, understand and quantify if what you are doing is actually working or if you are just making numbers.

I have never been, nor will I be convinced that a correctly operated flow bench will read more than 1% (in practice I know it’s that much at most) difference between them.

If you are using a calibration plate and if you use correction software (you should be using both) any flow bench, anywhere in the country will read the same, with the exception of crooks and liars, of which there are many.

To steepen your learning curve you should be working to get your bench calibrated and get some software to correct for temperature and barometer. You can take the same exact port and flow it in early spring or late fall where I live and get her numbers. Do it again in the dog days of summer and that same port will be sucking buttermilk. You have to correct for that and use the corrected numbers or small weather changes will skew the results.

It’s not a slam on you or being critical of your work. They are trying to help you (for free I might add and what they are telling you is big $$$$ if you had to pay for it) to be a better head porter and to be able to do that, they need numbers based in science and not just arbitrary stuff.

BTW, the only advice I can offer is never port the exhaust using the numbers. If you do that, you’ll kill power every time. The flow bench will lie to you and tell you to make the port bigger and bigger and then it will reward you with big flow numbers. But although they look good and the numbers are big, that exhaust port will kill power so fast your head will fall off.

Get the port as small and as quiet as you can and screw the flow numbers. Flow the ports in reverse and see what they do. Experiment. Just use numbers that are relatable and the guys here will help you learn more, faster.
Click to expand...

Again that is helpful info. I do compensate for temp and humidity differences when I flow the pipe unrestricted, explaining that may be an issue though.
I am actually searching for the plates mentioned between calls.
At least 1 poster here made some very snidely comments and he came across as a jerk. I am always amazed at how callous knowledgeable people can be... yet I know why Mopar people are considered jerks.
You and PRH have been very helpful. I thank you for that.
 
Last edited:
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
All of us, not some.

Get out of your feelings.
Your disclaimer was buried in a bunch of misleading, miscalculated unverified numbers. Like PHR said...get a test plate. I have one with my flowbench, though its never been off more then maybe a quarter point, i still check it every time.
Click to expand...

Have a great day!
I am not hiding anything. It is not my fault poor reading skills and cognitive usage are in effect here.
YOU need to get off your arrogant hi horse and stop being a jerk. Having read through many of the comments you have posted all over this forum, you do have the ability to be helpful, yet you would rather just not....
Thanks again for your intellect, but shove your arrogance.
 
Orifice Plates

I’d get a few to see where you are at in various places in the range.
100, 200, 300(@28”) is a good place to start.

That would be 59.8, 119.6, 179.4 @10”.
But I’d talk to Bruce a bit about your bench, and it’s total capacity before deciding on exactly what to get.

I wanted to be able to test several different ranges on my bench, so I bought the 100, 200, 300, 350, and 400.....all at 28”.
 
Last edited:
Flow benches and dynos are just tools for comparisons... as long as they are consistant it doesnt matter what they read . You are just looking for incremental changes between modifications using the same tool .
It's alot like yards in archery... it doesnt matter if your 30 yard mark is actually 50 as long as it is consistent .
Because no one elses eyeballs will be looking thru your peep .

So if your flow bench says you have 1000 cfm @ .100 and 1200 cfm @ .200 its ok because its just a bench mark for measuring. As long as its consistant .
 
mbaird said:
Flow benches and dynos are just tools for comparisons... as long as they are consistant it doesnt matter what they read . You are just looking for incremental changes between modifications using the same tool .
It's alot like yards in archery... it doesnt matter if your 30 yard mark is actually 50 as long as it is consistent .
Because no one elses eyeballs will be looking thru your peep .

So if your flow bench says you have 1000 cfm @ .100 and 1200 cfm @ .200 its ok because its just a bench mark for measuring. As long as its consistant .
Click to expand...


But it DOES matter what it reads. If you dyno says you make 950 HP and mine says 550 HP and in the car it runs like 550 then your dyno is worthless.

Horsepower is a calculated number, based of torque. Torque is easily measured. So that means HP is easily calculated. And if you correct for temp and baro then why all the different numbers?

Because the dickhead throwing the stick is a lying cheater. Seen this for decades. And the same thing with flow benches. You are measuring airflow. Why the ridiculous numbers? Because the guy running the bench is a lying cheater.


Numbers matter. And they better add up. All this bullshit that dyno’s and flow benches can’t all measure and read the same is a lie.

If they don’t, the operation is either stupid or lying.
 
Well, obviously the bench doesn't appear to being used for less than noble purposes like so many are in order to generate profit. But it does help when even the hobbyist user standardizes their bench so that when numbers are produced, and not just for apples to apples comparison. When you have results that are wildly different than what a standard procedure shows, then it's also unlikely the bench is maintaining a truly linear airflow. I'm curious to see what the calibration plates show on that aspect, too. But hoping the best for you with it, and please keep us posted on your findings. I'm encouraged by anyone who builds their own flow benches because that's another "someday" on my project list at present.
 
moparallen said:
Have a great day!
I am not hiding anything. It is not my fault poor reading skills and cognitive usage are in effect here.
YOU need to get off your arrogant hi horse and stop being a jerk. Having read through many of the comments you have posted all over this forum, you do have the ability to be helpful, yet you would rather just not....
Thanks again for your intellect, but shove your arrogance.
Click to expand...

I don't help..?
Evidently you are an ungrageful biased and unforgiving child, and a post stalker...?
Audios, pendejo.
 
moparallen said:
Again that is helpful info. I do compensate for temp and humidity differences when I flow the pipe unrestricted, explaining that may be an issue though.
I am actually searching for the plates mentioned between calls.
At least 1 poster here made some very snidely comments and he came across as a jerk. I am always amazed at how callous knowledgeable people can be... yet I know why Mopar people are considered jerks.
You and PRH have been very helpful. I thank you for that.
Click to expand...

Lets see...

Callus, jerk, arrogant, are how you are describing mopar people, more so indirectly at me. Glad i dont associate with weirdos like you. You should really see someone about your insecurities and temper, lashing out is no way to make friends or earn respect...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top