Flow Data from Intake Valve Relocation

Newbomb Turk said
You can’t have proof of anything unless YOU test it. That’s my point. Just because I say it or Morgan says it doesn’t mean it’s gospel.

Darin and I don’t agree on several areas. One being when to use a 50 degree seat. I use them on anything I can and I’ve never lost power doing it. He says if you don’t have some arbitrary lift number they lose power. My testing (and others have tested it too) and that’s not the results we found.

If you think that hurting a flow number on the bench is bad, you’ll end up with oversized ports. Bigger holes always flow better.

I’ve said it before but the Stage VI head requires porting that is “wrong” by most every account.

I have a customer that his Stage VI heads made more power than his B1’s. On the dyno and at the track.

Then I did his B1’s and that was the first single 4 I did that went over 1k, and they used 20w50 oil (that killed probably 15, maybe 20 horsepower right there) and the plugs said it was dead fat.

The point is don’t fall in love with flow numbers. Flow and test anything you can. Raise and lower the test pressure.

Way more learning and useful information from that than just flowing a port.

Maybe this is the source of some confusion. I have stated several times that I am trying to find the flow limits of a 2.02 valve. But that is not the same as saying I believe more flow is always better. I'm trying to understand what exactly is going on the the port that stops flow at the 305-310 cfm range. Why can't it go higher? It's about understanding the limits and what is really happening.

For example, if someone says the port won't flow more because of a lack of area at the apex, then I would say "why?" If the answer is because the velocity gets to high I would ask "so what?" If the answer is it leads to flow separation then I would ask "where?" and "how do we fix that local problem?"

My point is it looks like I'm chasing flow, but I'm really chasing understanding.

I totally agree that flow can increase and power go down. I have never disputed that. Think about this. If I was chasing flow only, I might be using the 45 degree seat. I also would not be using a 2.02 valve. I'm interested in efficiency and to some extent the coefficient of discharge. If a 2.02 valve can be made to flow what a 2.055 valve would normally flow, it should be more efficient, have higher velocities around the valve perimeter and give better fuel distribution throughout the chamber. I have spent hours with velocity probes both in the port and in the chamber. That's searching for the right shape and trying to reduce gradients, not just increase flow.

As I said, I appreciate the input. I'm sure I'll play around with reverse flow at some point. I'm sure I'll learn something.