AlV
Crabs in a barrel
x2^^
you have my attention.
New Magnum heads for 347 with Flow data
- Thread starter RAMM
- Start date
-
you have my attention.
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Below are the only flow numbers I have ever collected personally. These are the '302's from the other 347 threads I have started. J.Rob
Revised valve job------the number to the right is what it flowed backwards
.1 57.3 66.2
.2 107.5 103.5
.3 155.4
.4 193 (194 cfm was recorded @ .420")
.5 191
.6 192
Bakerlite
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,431
- Reaction score
- 3,316
Because he has 18 years in the industry and he want's everyone to know it... Sigh...
Hebrews10:26
Banned
Sure bud, will do.
I'll put a 1.88 valve in some 356 heads , mildly port them ,post pics and they will flow more than the magnums in this thread.
kennygene
Well-Known Member
Numbers will just be numbers unless all heads are tested on the same flow bench.
FWIW,love the thread. Some people can't open their minds up,to new ideas.....
RAMM
Well-Known Member
After further scrutiny of the exhaust ports I decided I would spend a little more time on them. I don't want this engine to fall off very quickly after peak power. Here is one thing I have done in the past that is cheap (free)and just about anyone can do it. I chucked an exhaust valve in the lathe and hit the backside of the valve with an 80 grit sand roll.I also like to round off the margin which usually promotes flow as well. If I can get the exhaust out with minimal pumping losses then this should help the engine exhibit a very wide torque curve. I haven't quantified the effort on the flowbench yet but will soon. J.Rob
skrews
Well-Known Member
Quoted for the truth. Alot of people lose sight of this fact. Different flow bench brands can have quite the variance in numbers. Even in the Super Flo line I've seen some fairly wide discrepancies between the 600 and 1020 and from one 1020 to another 1020. People get caught up in the bench racing game too easily, myself included. What really matters is the A to B testing results off the same bench with the same operator.
Above 2 posts,absolute truth....
bdusted440
Well-Known Member
Love this thred. Don't care for the DH but you will have them and think ive been in this profession for 25 years. LMAO Keep it up and thanks for the read. Your a credit to the trade my friend.:thumbup:
Hebrews10:26
Banned
True.
For the most part I get about the same as most, but Hughes must have a a mouse hole in the bottom , that or theirs is the end all and we are all full of it.
Mainly something to consider aside from that is honesty in prep, are the heads really untouched ? 3,5,7 angle valve job? What valves? Sunk? Chamber unshrouding cut?
When I see numbers from anothers bench fall in line with my own, consistantly, for instance 3 vendors here have posted numbers damn near identical to my own testing ...it which says a lot about the accuracy and how close most bench in reality are. When others numbers don't jive with my own honest testing...kinda shows they may have a problem on their end.
:sign3:
This was in line with skrews post, not directed at RAMM.
Start another post,Hebrews.. Somebody ,once posted ,a great post here... Maybe ,you can can improve on his....
skrews
Well-Known Member
Yeah Hughes's numbers are "out there" lol along with many others. Seems like everyone in the cylinder head sales game is guilty of pushing inflated BS numbers in my book.
I was in an interesting test years ago. Myself and 2 others ran a flow test on the same head same port. The bench was a Super Flo 1020 with a Brzezinski fixture. Each of us setup a clay radius entry from scratch for our test. Each of us got different numbers (8 cfm difference at peak). My clay adapter flowed the lowest, guess I wont get a job at Hughes or Indy. We then built a .75" plexi inlet which actually had the lowest flow of all. Absolute consistency and repeatability, just low. This head was then tested on another 1020 bench with the plexi inlet which yielded different numbers yet again (higher).
Ever since this experiment I haven't put much stock in comparing flow numbers ie bench racing.
Truth^^
winstoninwisc
Taint easy livin free,season ticket ona 1wayride
you have to respect a guy like that , go out of his way to do some r and d work to try to help us find less expensive proof of real #s than to throw up a graph with no R&D work proof done to it at all even by joe blows heads and try to sell it on us to figure out by word of mouth . interesting thread . like to see it with an intake added when this testing done. by the way Screws thanks for the visuals on the rockers the other night real world prospective showed huge differences in after market parts and brands thanks
Winston, explained, I love it...
RAMM
Well-Known Member
I'm really not sure how this train went off the tracks. I have posted nothing but truth with no hidden agenda. I purchased some new castings that I have never used before and flowed them-this is what they flowed. I tried 3 or 4 simple modifications that just about anyone can do (except for VJ) and re-tested along the way-this is what they flowed. I don't recall saying how these heads were superior to any other head except perhaps the '302-and even then I will wait to pass final judgement until dyno testing is complete. Even then I hesitate a little until it is running in a vehicle and I have a true picture of the engine's personality. Capiche?
Clarification here would go a long ways me thinks. J.Rob
Hebrews10:26
Banned
I completely understand. Margin for me is about 4 cfm, that is a same head, same port, same day testing. The numbers were that close. It will always vary a tad but should still be close. Somehow we all get almost identical 318 ,1.88 360 numbers, 906, and magnum flow numbers, within 2-3 cfm.
Ive used lots of clay, and little clay, so far the only diff it makes is if a smoosh it up a little bit above the port floor...it will cure some turbulence, gee...now what was that about a step from the manifold to port floor again? ;)
Hebrews10:26
Banned
You aren't under fire.lol
These are side notes to help people understand and some of us find common ground as well.As for the 302, you will find if you put enough work into one that you can carve them into a 360 port size and flow beyond what a magnum and its pinch will allow. The 318 port has all the meat a 360 port does with the ability of improved approach.
Looking forward to the next update.
Hebrews10:26
Banned
I've talked to you on the phone.
You already know I've done the work.
Btw its still really hard as hell to read your posts.lol hope all is well in cheeseville
X's 3! I don want a pissing contest or flow bech racing, just the facts. And that is what he got. That's what we get. This is a good thread on "How to" for the guy at home. I do not expect the heads he or someone else does to flow exactly the same numbers at anyone else's bench. The improvements he has made help the home guy and the CFM amount isn't the big important thing here but the improvements are. Showing gains. GthT is the important part.
If 10 CFM show up, great. Should I expect 10 at home? Bad expectation!
AlV
Crabs in a barrel
X2 Personally I am looking at it from a purely procedural standpoint. Getting a sense of the improvements possible by each progression. I believe this is insightful for someone who doesn't do much head and valve work, or has never done it (I am the later). I like the slow approach because It helps get me oriented and pointed out the areas that can be targeted.
I hope this thread doesn't stall.
Looking forward to the next post.
RAMM
Well-Known Member
At this point I just want to get the exhaust a little more developed so I proceeded to square up the sides almost to gasket size, blend all humps and bumps, knock the guide boss down a little and cartridge roll the S.S. and call it done. The little bit of work paid off better than expected.
With pipe stub is on the right
.1 52.5 53
.2 103 103
.3 153 161
.4 167 182
.5 170 184
.6 170 183
Here's what the bowl looked like. This is just common sense stuff.
I took a pic of port side of the worked head and untouched. J.Rob
With pipe stub is on the right
.1 52.5 53
.2 103 103
.3 153 161
.4 167 182
.5 170 184
.6 170 183
Here's what the bowl looked like. This is just common sense stuff.
I took a pic of port side of the worked head and untouched. J.Rob
RAMM
Well-Known Member
Getting the exhaust out of the way I wanted to go back and try and unlock a little more flow above .450" valve lift. The port wants to stall at anything above .400" and I know it is because the S.S. can't handle the airspeed coming off the small pinch. At this point I have to make a choice between more time invested or leave well enough alone. Well I made the choice to go after some more flow because this engine is destined for my '73 Cuda AND because I know that a port that stalls on the flowbench is not going to yield a smooth power curve.
So using a 13mm wrench that measures .820" as a quick and easy Go/No Go guage I knocked almost .090" out of the pushrod pinch. Flow was up a noticeable amount but the stalling condition was still present.
.1 62.7
.2 125
.3 187
.4 224.5
.45 217
.5 215
.6 216
The stall is present at anything above .400" lift.
It's also important to roll out the sharp edge from the backside of the pinch. I use an inverted cone cartridge roll. J.Rob
So using a 13mm wrench that measures .820" as a quick and easy Go/No Go guage I knocked almost .090" out of the pushrod pinch. Flow was up a noticeable amount but the stalling condition was still present.
.1 62.7
.2 125
.3 187
.4 224.5
.45 217
.5 215
.6 216
The stall is present at anything above .400" lift.
It's also important to roll out the sharp edge from the backside of the pinch. I use an inverted cone cartridge roll. J.Rob
-
