Direct Connection ( Mullen LA ) heads

-
yellow rose said:
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.
Click to expand...

I suppose if you are using the HP number to baseline your ET it would help isolate other potential chassis or drivetrain issues it would matter but if you are using the dyno/flowbench to track progress the actual number wouln't make a difference as long as it was consistant.
In other words if yourdyno reads 100 hp and after you change jetting it reads 105 it was a positive change... if you jet up a little more and the HP goes to 95 you know to jet back down .

Its only when you are comparing data to other dynos/flowbenches that things get things up. Or communicating data to others such as in this case .
 
Last edited:
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...


All i said was he needed do his math over and that 178cfm @.100 isnt a number anyone can really do anything in relation the std we all use.
He flipped out, called me a jerk or arrogant. Lmao . I aslo said that he would be helping more to show the gains and the work he did or didn't do, pics maybe even.
He was acting like an ***, butthurt.
Im kinda surprised really, idc at this point.
 
I have a some Mullen flow sheets. But nothing on this over the counter head.

Small block wise, heavy race ported heads and one-off developmental stuff. Trans Am castings, W-2’s in ‘73... W-2 1/2 ... W-3

7F704E70-8C73-46C7-B6A2-71C290B49CCB.jpeg
 
Pretty cool.
2.19” intake valve

108@3” = 330@28”

Since the flow drops sharply and suddenly after .650 lift, being tested at 3” pressure....... it’s certainly possible the onset of that phenomenon could easily start to occur at a lower lift than .650....... if the head were being tested at a higher presssure.......like 28”.
 
Last edited:
2.19 intake is what Glidden is said to have used in small block Mopar heads he had. Here’s a little more retro stuff on Glidden. It’s dealing with the Cleveland Ford, but anyone who appreciates what was being done in pro stock though the small block years should enjoy watching just how innovative the racers were.
 
When you look at some of the lengths the serious porters here are taking to get large intake flow numbers from the new aluminum heads, those 1973 flow readings are definitely no joke.
 
Using this flow sheet to illustrate a few points discussed earlier......

To convert from the 3” pressure used for that test, to 10”...... you use a C/F of .547.

That chart shows 108@3”, which corrects to 194.7@10”.

The valve is 2.19” diameter.

At .100 lift the area is .688sq/in.
At 86.7cfm per sq/in, and 100% C/D the flow would be 59.6cfm@10”.

The chart shows [email protected] lift, at 3” test pressure.

22/.547 = 40.2cfm

40.2/59.6 = C/D of .674

5F9C0DFB-B02D-456E-853B-01B074A1A944.png
 
Garrett Ellison said:
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.
Click to expand...

I hope I didn’t infer he was trying to cheat his numbers. His stuff is high enough that I don’t think it would quite get there with the spark plug out.

His numbers make it hard to tell if he’s going the right way or how much he is really gaining.
 
mbaird said:
I suppose if you are using the HP number to baseline your ET it would help isolate other potential chassis or drivetrain issues it would matter but if you are using the dyno/flowbench to track progress the actual number wouln't make a difference as long as it was consistant.
In other words if yourdyno reads 100 hp and after you change jetting it reads 105 it was a positive change... if you jet up a little more and the HP goes to 95 you know to jet back down .

Its only when you are comparing data to other dynos/flowbenches that things get things up. Or communicating data to others such as in this case .
Click to expand...


If this is the case then anything you do on the dyno will not relate to the track. It takes X amount of power to produce Y amount of power. That’s science. If your Dyno isn’t close, you have no idea what you have.


In your scenario you could add a zero to the end of each number and by your thinking it wouldn’t matter. I say it does.

You example of 105 verses 100 HP is a 5% difference which is a mile. 5% on 600 HP is 30 HP and that’s a mile.

You should be able to put your engine on 5 different dyno’s and all of them should be within 1% high to low. If they aren’t, someone isn’t correcting for weather and such or they lie.

As one more example, if I know that on my flow bench 300 CFM with a well prepped short block and proper tuning makes 600 HP and your bench says that same head flows 330 but it makes he same power. One bench is wrong.

It’s simple really. To keep repeating the same worn out nonsense over and over, bullied along by the same guys who make their benches lie keeps the hobby ignorant and it makes people make bad choices.
 
Garrett Ellison said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have spoken with Mr. Bruce and he is assisting. Thanks to those that have pointed me in his direction.
 
yellow rose said:
I hope I didn’t infer he was trying to cheat his numbers. His stuff is high enough that I don’t think it would quite get there with the spark plug out.

His numbers make it hard to tell if he’s going the right way or how much he is really gaining.
Click to expand...
No didn’t take it that way at all. Completely understand the frustration against unscrupulous people in the performance business. I don’t think anyone sets out to make this a “character building forum” (well, I may have a time or too, lol!). There are some brusque characters here, but at least you can expect an honest answer. If the dreaded red X I’d the worst thing that happens during the day, I consider myself pretty lucky...
 
Looks like to me trying to let the original poster know I had a set of the same head and I thought the numbers produced were good has created a lot of unintended strife. That was never my intent.
As stated, I am not a shop that produces or competes with anyone. I have just been comparing my numbers to see if I am making gains.
Nothing more or less.
I want to thank those that have been helpful but arrogance doesn't help.
 
@moparallen
Thanks for sharing those jacked up flow numbers. I always wondered what fell between reading rpms from a little fan ducted to the port...to an actual flow bench.

You really need to brush up on your people skills. I see you have 33 posts , yet you've been signed up since 2010... so either you're an alter-ego of somebody else... or there's a reason why you don't post much.:rolleyes: either way.. i didnt try to come off in any ill way before you lashed out.
People aren't the same, you might want it served differently.. but life doesnt work that way.
 
Looks like to me trying to let the original poster know I had a set of the same head and I thought the numbers produced were good has created a lot of unintended strife.
Click to expand...

It’s not a big deal at all really.

When you’re used to looking at flow numbers pretty much daily, things that don’t make sense really jump off the page.
Equating flow & pressure data from a particular set of heads probably isn’t as easily relatable to the average Joe as say...... some HP figures.

If you said, I have a home built dyno and I tested a 100% stock 340...... and it makes 600hp...... that would jump out to pretty much everyone on this forum.
They would know that just isn’t “correct”.

So, when I hear 296cfm@10” from a modified factory Mopar SB head....... it stands out to me as much as the 600hp stock 340 would.
I just know it isn’t “correct”.
 
PRH said:
Pretty cool.
2.19” intake valve

108@3” = 330@28”

Since the flow drops sharply and suddenly after .650 lift, being tested at 3” pressure....... it’s certainly possible the onset of that phenomenon could easily start to occur at a lower lift than .650....... if the head were being tested at a higher presssure.......like 28”.
Click to expand...

There’s other flow tests later with “other” heads at 28”, but those test were done by Phoenix (Tarozzi) in later 70’s.

He (Tarozzi) even creates a factoring sheet between his and another flow bench.

These correction factors are not linear. Different factors for different SCFM....hmmm

63673BEF-4326-448D-BD26-5D6657EF74CA.jpeg
 
Last edited:
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
@moparallen
Thanks for sharing those jacked up flow numbers. I always wondered what fell between reading rpms from a little fan ducted to the port...to an actual flow bench.

You really need to brush up on your people skills. I see you have 33 posts , yet you've been signed up since 2010... so either you're an alter-ego of somebody else... or there's a reason why you don't post much.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I have a job, I do not get to sit on my azz and critique other people. Get over yourself.

Your not so subtle insults are telling the world what type of arrogant jerk you really are. Your edits are telling.
 
Last edited:
moparallen said:
I have a job, I do not get to sit on my azz and critique other people. Get over yourself.

Your not so subtle insults are telling the world what type of arrogant jerk you really are. Your edits are telling.

Do a search on google for moparallen. I might learn ya sumtim.
Click to expand...
Go ***** at someone else. I tried telling you the 1st post wasn't a slam on you.
Google yourself a shrink , you need one.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Go ***** at someone else. I tried telling you the 1st post wasn't a slam on you.
Google yourself a shrink , you need one.
Click to expand...

Hungry for more? I can trade insults with you, if you like?
Here I am trying to learn and share, there you are being arrogant and azzy...
I won already though, cause I am in ya head.....
 
autoxcuda said:
There’s other flow tests later with “other” heads at 28”, but those test were done by Phoenix (Tarozzi) in later 70’s. Even creates a factoring sheet between his and another flow bench.

These correction factors are not linear. Different factors for different lifts. ....hmmm

View attachment 1715641668
Click to expand...
Interesting history you have there...Thanks for sharing.
 
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...

Maybe he is experiencing
[SPS ]
mbaird said:
I suppose if you are using the HP number to baseline your ET it would help isolate other potential chassis or drivetrain issues it would matter but if you are using the dyno/flowbench to track progress the actual number wouln't make a difference as long as it was consistant.
In other words if yourdyno reads 100 hp and after you change jetting it reads 105 it was a positive change... if you jet up a little more and the HP goes to 95 you know to jet back down .

Its only when you are comparing data to other dynos/flowbenches that things get things up. Or communicating data to others such as in this case .
Click to expand...

The amount of distance from bottom of tire to asphalt also is a measurement !!!
Formula [ B O T T A ]
 
The amount of distance from bottom of tire to asphalt also is a measurement !!![/QUOTE]

True .... one that indicates how far off your suspension combo is .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top