Why would low lift head flow hurt power?

-
It’s so funny, I feel the same way, why oh why did I try and reply to you when you just like to argue and split hairs against anything you can followed by word twist and blaming others for your short comings.

Why did I take this freakin carrot?!?!?
Honestly where did I try to argue with you?

I get and generally agree with what you said, He stated he's talking under 8000 rpm engines and broke it down to .500-.650 cam lift engines were they focus on heads .300-.500 lift and engines with cams above .650 lift focus on .400-.600,
Just pointing out Al Noe set the boundaries of type of heads were talking about
and understand that .100-.200 probably don't do much and based mainly on valve size.
Kind of agreeing with some points you made
Still not getting exactly how better .100-.200 numbers is counterproductive, and even stated with bigger valves they like valve angles that hurt it.
point out i'm still haven't really got an answer, or at least got it if one has been made
Now if .100-.200 gains generally comes at sacrifice of higher numbers that makes sense,
me just restating what is what I think some are saying the reason is
just never seen anyone state low lifts can be counterproductive to power, usually people say you want strong under peak, higher average flow numbers etc...
me saying why I don't get Al Noe's statement.

There is no argument or reason to name call, I don't know how you see me through text but it seems you give me the worst interpretations.
 
Last edited:
Honestly where did I try to argue with you?
Most every post where there is some sort of tech you don’t understand or know about. But here again, I’m telling you what you already know, like you said above. So why do you need to be reminded if you already know something? Seems to be kind of a condescending remark looking to start some ****, yet again. These are your own words. So don’t get pissy with me.
Just pointing out Al Noe set the boundaries of type of heads were talking about
We read the article in full realize that one persons account doesn’t always measure up against or agree with someone else’s account. Decide what you want to argue about with someone else. Again that you already know. This you’ve already read. This is where you’re splitting hairs. This is where you make something out of nothing. This is where you like to start **** and argue. This is where you like to flip things around. This is where you like to twist things up. This is where you get condescending.
Kind of agreeing with some points you made
Talk about gaslighting! Hypocrite.
point out i'm still haven't really got an answer, or at least got it if one has been made
I can’t help your measure of understanding.
me just restating what is what I think some are saying the reason is
If you say so. Seems more like gaslighting and twisting words to me to start **** yet again.
me saying why I don't get Al Noe's statement.
Same comment as above.
There is no argument or reason to name call,
You start an argument I call it like it is. You’re an asshole. You don’t like the fact that You start a argument I call it like it is. You’re an asshole. You don’t like the fact that I curse, to cry in the corner. We get duncecap on while you’re at it. You’re I should be facing the corners.
I don't how you see me through text but it seems you give me the worst interpretations.
As you do I. You take things in the worst possible way each and every time and then cry a river over it that I’m being bad and I’m a bully I make a cry, I make you upset, or use bad words, it goes on and on. It’s the way I speak in person but you act like I’m going to screaming at you trying to belittle you. You’re a ******* idiot! Grow up be a man grow some freaking balls, hopefully have hair on them too. I’m going to resist trying to help you out and answering your question since you like to twist stuff up, turn it around and then cry a river and blame me for being mean. Guarantee, 100% fact, you’ll never have a teacher like me in person ever. He certainly won’t come back at me the way you do now. Your disrespectful prick. You’re a You certainly won’t come back at me the way you do now. You’re a disrespectful prick. You’re a complete and a child. Totally moronic in the responses. You act like a teenage girl who’s butt hurt.

If you really understood what was read, and I told you what you already know, then, why didn’t you open up with the stupid fax to begin with? That is totally stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. I felt for the bate, I fucked up. And if you don’t like my adjectives, then **** off.
 
Honestly where did I try to argue with you?


Just pointing out Al Noe set the boundaries of type of heads were talking about

Kind of agreeing with some points you made

point out i'm still haven't really got an answer, or at least got it if one has been made

me just restating what is what I think some are saying the reason is

me saying why I don't get Al Noe's statement.

There is no argument or reason to name call, I don't know how you see me through text but it seems you give me the worst interpretations.

I’ll post a link in this thread of about an hour of 3 of the best minds in the business discussing several topics, one of the longer ones being exhaust cam timing and headers and how they (together and seperately) affect the intake charge and volumetric efficiency.

Watch it because it should answer at least most of your questions.

I have been a proponent of reverse flowing the ports about 1 month after I bought my flow bench.

Any time you can reduce reverse flow in either port (even at the expense of flow in the forward direction) you will make more power.

Thats why when I can I use 50 degree seats. It looks like hell on a flow bench but they make more power. Everywhere. Even with less low and mid lift flow numbers.

Shape, shape SHAPE matters. And the shape of the 50 degree seat (done correctly which means you need a seat forming tool because a stone will not get you the same results) is better for flow at higher depression and it retards reverse flow.

To that end, not all 50 degree valve jobs are not the same. IMO, they need a full, sharp two angles coming off the seat, a .100 wide (minimum) top cut of 5 degrees (45 degree) for the intake and the exhaust wants a tight (relatively) radius right off the bottom of the seats (no angles) and a well defined .100 wide (minimum) top cut that blends right into the chamber.
 
Most every post where there is some sort of tech you don’t understand or know about. But here again, I’m telling you what you already know, like you said above. So why do you need to be reminded if you already know something? Seems to be kind of a condescending remark looking to start some ****, yet again. These are your own words. So don’t get pissy with me.

We read the article in full realize that one persons account doesn’t always measure up against or agree with someone else’s account. Decide what you want to argue about with someone else. Again that you already know. This you’ve already read. This is where you’re splitting hairs. This is where you make something out of nothing. This is where you like to start **** and argue. This is where you like to flip things around. This is where you like to twist things up. This is where you get condescending.

Talk about gaslighting! Hypocrite.

I can’t help your measure of understanding.

If you say so. Seems more like gaslighting and twisting words to me to start **** yet again.

Same comment as above.

You start an argument I call it like it is. You’re an asshole. You don’t like the fact that You start a argument I call it like it is. You’re an asshole. You don’t like the fact that I curse, to cry in the corner. We get duncecap on while you’re at it. You’re I should be facing the corners.

As you do I. You take things in the worst possible way each and every time and then cry a river over it that I’m being bad and I’m a bully I make a cry, I make you upset, or use bad words, it goes on and on. It’s the way I speak in person but you act like I’m going to screaming at you trying to belittle you. You’re a ******* idiot! Grow up be a man grow some freaking balls, hopefully have hair on them too. I’m going to resist trying to help you out and answering your question since you like to twist stuff up, turn it around and then cry a river and blame me for being mean. Guarantee, 100% fact, you’ll never have a teacher like me in person ever. He certainly won’t come back at me the way you do now. Your disrespectful prick. You’re a You certainly won’t come back at me the way you do now. You’re a disrespectful prick. You’re a complete and a child. Totally moronic in the responses. You act like a teenage girl who’s butt hurt.

If you really understood what was read, and I told you what you already know, then, why didn’t you open up with the stupid fax to begin with? That is totally stirring the pot for the sake of stirring the pot. I felt for the bate, I fucked up. And if you don’t like my adjectives, then **** off.
your insane, unhinged, rant over nothing, this comes off as little child freaking out.

here you go

1687453369315.png
 
I’ll post a link in this thread of about an hour of 3 of the best minds in the business discussing several topics, one of the longer ones being exhaust cam timing and headers and how they (together and seperately) affect the intake charge and volumetric efficiency.

Watch it because it should answer at least most of your questions.

I have been a proponent of reverse flowing the ports about 1 month after I bought my flow bench.

Any time you can reduce reverse flow in either port (even at the expense of flow in the forward direction) you will make more power.
I'm gonna look more into reversion, it's a subject I haven't dug to deep in.
Thats why when I can I use 50 degree seats. It looks like hell on a flow bench but they make more power. Everywhere. Even with less low and mid lift flow numbers.

Shape, shape SHAPE matters. And the shape of the 50 degree seat (done correctly which means you need a seat forming tool because a stone will not get you the same results) is better for flow at higher depression and it retards reverse flow.

To that end, not all 50 degree valve jobs are not the same. IMO, they need a full, sharp two angles coming off the seat, a .100 wide (minimum) top cut of 5 degrees (45 degree) for the intake and the exhaust wants a tight (relatively) radius right off the bottom of the seats (no angles) and a well defined .100 wide (minimum) top cut that blends right into the chamber.
This I'll definitely keep in mind.
 
The .100 to .200 thing is the classic overlap pulling intake right out the exhaust. Otherwise with the street engine you want strong numbers everywhere because you're probably not going to be 'actually' lifting the valve over .550 .. and the kind of overlap to create that scenario would be a poorly cam'd engine to begin with. A lot of this you have to chalk up as an entirety of the combo. It's quite easy to go down a rabbit hole when you separate these things speaking of them individually without all the environment/factors they would need to exist
 
Tim mentioned the form/carbide seat cutter in regards to ability vs stone. If I'm interpreting that right..
So the trick is to use as big a stone as you can and cut to fit so as to control the depth. How many times you see Stone jobs in Stones weigh down in the bowl turns the thing into a megaphone.
The other is this you either need to be spending that driver up faster than you know what or slow in order to not bite and blow Stones apart. I remember switching drivers and then all the sudden doing a 75 angle took a lot more care because the the bigger driver turned more RPM.
50 isnt a problem at all though so again I'll just revert back to my statement about using a large enough Stone so that you're just doing the valve job not the entire bowl with it. As much as I love Stones for their malleability ? I'd love a cutter for time savings... then probably still add or narrow and or recrispen the lower angle after some bowl finessing
 
Last edited:
Tim mentioned the form/carbide seat cutter in regards to ability vs stone. If I'm interpreting that right..
So the trick is to use as big a stone as you can and cut to fit so as to control the depth. How many times you see Stone jobs in Stones weigh down in the bowl turns the thing into a megaphone.
The other is this you either need to be spending that driver up faster than you know what or slow in order to not bite and blow Stones apart. I remember switching drivers and then all the sudden doing a 75 angle took a lot more care because the the bigger driver turned more RPM.
50 isnt a problem at all though so again I'll just revert back to my statement about using a large enough Stone so that you're just doing the valve job not the entire bowl with it. As much as I love Stones for their malleability ? I'd love a cutter for time savings... then probably still add or narrow and or recrispen the lower angle after some bowl finessing

I‘m sure if you have a good selection of stones and you keep them really sharp and clean you can do a 50. The most I’ve done with a stone is a 48 degree seat.

I know I don’t have the balls to try and stone a 55!! I’m a gutless turd like that.

It’s been a while but I remember trying to get the bottom cut in there without it chattering its brains out. The top cut was kind of a PITA too, but the bottom cut was a real Bastid.

IIRC I use 82 degrees and that far in the bowl it’s hard to get a .100 wide (or wider if I can get it in there) cut without chatter.

Plus, my old *** is way faster with a seat forming tool!!

EDIT: I forgot to mention that with a 50 degree seat you’ll be about 90-90.5% bowl. That’s pretty big and if you don’t take some of that out before you hit the bottom cut with a stone it’s a real beeotch.
 
I‘m sure if you have a good selection of stones and you keep them really sharp and clean you can do a 50. The most I’ve done with a stone is a 48 degree seat.

I know I don’t have the balls to try and stone a 55!! I’m a gutless turd like that.

It’s been a while but I remember trying to get the bottom cut in there without it chattering its brains out. The top cut was kind of a PITA too, but the bottom cut was a real Bastid.

IIRC I use 82 degrees and that far in the bowl it’s hard to get a .100 wide (or wider if I can get it in there) cut without chatter.

Plus, my old *** is way faster with a seat forming tool!!

EDIT: I forgot to mention that with a 50 degree seat you’ll be about 90-90.5% bowl. That’s pretty big and if you don’t take some of that out before you hit the bottom cut with a stone it’s a real beeotch.
A ledge. Could remove material beforehand with the grinder but you can also throw a little 45 60 angles on the bottom edge of the Stone that never touches. Depends on what stage you are at with it. Stones come in handy when you come manipulate them for the top cut and get a nice radius right into the chamber wall. You can use a a cutter that does the chamber sweep on one side as well though and adjust it but just an example of stone craftiness.
Finish the seat by dressing it by hand with the stone works.
 
So now that you've realized that intake/exhaust flow isn't one directional ask yourself what a bigger valve (increase in valve curtain area) and a bigger port with a big cam or too aggressive for the piston demand (piston speed) on a tight lobe separation angle (more overlap) with a large throttle bore carburetor do to encourage reversion.......
 
Last edited:
So now that you've realized that intake/exhaust flow isn't one directional
Not like I haven't heard and have basic understanding of reversion
ask yourself what a bigger valve (increase in valve curtain area) and a bigger port with a big cam or too aggressive for the piston demand on a tight lobe separation angle (more overlap) with a large throttle bore carburetor do to encourage reversion.......
but it will be something I'm gonna read more on.
 
Not like I haven't heard and have basic understanding of reversion
Very basic.....I thought an engine is just an air pump? What happens on the flow bench happens in the engine.......:rofl:

Once you actually comprehend that flow takes place in BOTH directions and how it can disrupt intake cylinder fill and therefore power production it becomes a much more complex puzzle to solve does it not.....
 
Last edited:
Cylinder Head Design - CHP How It Works

"A larger valve diameter will almost always produce higher 0.100- to 0.200-inch flow figures, which can be counterproductive to making power. /// For race engines we use larger valves, but are able to reduce the 0.100- to 0.200-inch flow even further with steeper seat angles. "
Why is low flow # counterproductive to power ?

Here's the whole statement

Al Noe: "One very important characteristic of airflow is not only peak cfm, or relative velocity, but where in the lift curve those events happen. Are you looking at flow numbers at 0.100- to 0.200-, 0.300- to 0.500-, or 0.600-inch lift and beyond? Are you building a street car, or an 8,000-rpm race engine? The head has to be tailored to what it's being used on, and if this is done properly, the higher-flowing head will almost always make more power. However, we need to clarify what we mean by higher flowing. At Trick Flow, our goal is to maximize the airflow from 0.300- to 0.500-inch lift, and for typical street cars we're not concerned with flow beyond 0.700-inch lift. That's because the majority of hot rodders use cams that peak in the 0.500- to 0.650-inch range. We also develop airflow with a different flow bench from most, and we feel this makes a difference as well.

"The next thing you must consider is the valve diameter. A larger valve diameter will almost always produce higher 0.100- to 0.200-inch flow figures, which can be counterproductive to making power. Larger valves also tend to be more shrouded and have trouble with the all-important mid-lift airflow from 0.300- to 0.500-inch, but then these larger valves tend to shine at the highest lift points simply due to shear volume. For race engines we use larger valves, but are able to reduce the 0.100- to 0.200-inch flow even further with steeper seat angles. We then try to maximize airflow from 0.400- to 0.600-inch. As rpm increase to 10,000 the intake and exhaust port shapes become very critical for power production. Lower-rpm engines don't seem to be as sensitive to the port shape as higher-rpm engines. Our customers are generally looking to make peak power by 8,000 rpm or less, so the importance of flow numbers are still very relevant in their search for power.
"The velocity around the circumference of the valve is actually more important than the velocity in the port. We feel having equal localized velocities around the circumference of the valve is far more important than having equal velocities in the port, and as these velocities are equalized at the important lift points, the port will flow more air at these same lift points as well. We can measure the velocity of the air around the circumference of the valve every 45 degrees, and having these velocities equalized during the all-important mid-lift flow area yields max airflow and best power.
"The better measure of head efficiency is computing the coefficient of discharge. This is simply the airflow at each lift point divided by the valve curtain area, which is valve circumference multiplied by lift. Let's say we have two heads that both flow 300 cfm at 0.400-inch lift. One has a 2.200-inch valve and the other has a 2.100 valve. If you multiply each valve by Pi to get the circumference, you can then multiply that figure by the lift to obtain 2.76- and 2.63-inches, respectfully. Now divide the 300 cfm by each valve circumference to obtain 108.7 and 114.0 cfm/inch, respectfully. I know that is an odd unit of measure, but it is the correct terminology. In this example, you can see the smaller valve clearly has more velocity, will be easier to cam, and will generally run faster. This is the best way for the average consumer to compare two heads to one another."
Well stated. Application is important to making decisions on valve angles. NASCAR are pretty much all using 50° to 55° seats. High lift and RPM dictate those angles. Street engines get minimal benefit from those angles. With max lift at or under 0.600" the seat curtain is the controlling factor up to about 0.350" to 0.400". Back cut intake valves and 40° exhaust seats provide a benefit to these lower RPM engines. When installing larger valves, shrouding is a definate concern considering the cylinder wall and head gasket sealing surface limit how far clearancing can be pushed. The combustion chamber wall by the intake valve seat can be relieved to aid low lift flow during the important scavenge cycle during overlap. Caution on cam dwell and overlap must be exercised to not blow too much intake charge out the exhaust at lower RPM street driving conditions.
 
Well stated. Application is important to making decisions on valve angles. NASCAR are pretty much all using 50° to 55° seats. High lift and RPM dictate those angles. Street engines get minimal benefit from those angles. With max lift at or under 0.600" the seat curtain is the controlling factor up to about 0.350" to 0.400". Back cut intake valves and 40° exhaust seats provide a benefit to these lower RPM engines. When installing larger valves, shrouding is a definate concern considering the cylinder wall and head gasket sealing surface limit how far clearancing can be pushed. The combustion chamber wall by the intake valve seat can be relieved to aid low lift flow during the important scavenge cycle during overlap. Caution on cam dwell and overlap must be exercised to not blow too much intake charge out the exhaust at lower RPM street driving conditions.

How many “street” engines have you built using 50 degree seats that didn’t see any benefit?

If a 40 degree exhaust seat is an improvement (it aint) why not 35? Or 30?

Oh that’s right, this **** has been tested to DEATH and a 45 degree seat is the MINIMUM angle that should be used.

Lift be damned and curtain area too because the SHAPE of the seat (and the valve) is far more critical than the other two unless you live and die by flow numbers alone.
 
Why I ask
Cause what I take from Al Noe statement is it seems they go out of their way to keep low lift flow numbers low.
If you compare older AFR airflow charts against same year competitors, the AFR seemed to have better flow numbers across the board. As the competition improved so did AFR. Now the low hanging fruit is easy to pick but as that is cleaned up the rest gets increasingly more difficult to get to.
On any project you need to determine you goal and stick to it. Generally a race port on a street engine that sees a maximum of 6500RPM is not going to perform well. The 70 Boss 302 is a prime example as the intake valves were huge for street and the ports also. On the race track with the engines turning 6500 to 9000RPM they worked well, but getting a car going off a stop light they felt sluggish. Once up to 3500 RPM they came alive. For 71, Ford reduced the intake valve size a bit. The 2V Cleveland heads had a large open combustion chamber with poor combustion qualities but smaller ports. CHI in Australia combined the smaller ports of the 2V heads with the smaller quench combustion chambers for Boss, Cleveland and Clevor engines. Ford of Australia produced 302C and 351C engines for a number of years.
For a street engine using a cam producing up to 0.550 valve lift, low lift flow is of primary importance as the valve is not out of the valve/seat curtain flow controlling range for long. At lifts of about 0.350" to 0.400" and above the port becomes the limiting factor. With this in mind, high lift flow is important but more consideration should be devoted to the valve diameter, the seat profile and the angles on the valves for the average street engine that sees occasional track use.
 
How many “street” engines have you built using 50 degree seats that didn’t see any benefit?

If a 40 degree exhaust seat is an improvement (it aint) why not 35? Or 30?

Oh that’s right, this **** has been tested to DEATH and a 45 degree seat is the MINIMUM angle that should be used.

Lift be damned and curtain area too because the SHAPE of the seat (and the valve) is far more critical than the other two unless you live and die by flow numbers alone.
How much are you lifting your valves off the seats? If you are not lifting the valve above say 0.500" a 30° seat may flow a tad bit better. The problem with the 30° seats is valve seal. A number of the OEMs used 30° seats in the 50's. Valve spring technology did not lend itself to high lift very well. Also materials in cam and lifters were not very compatible to high spring loads and fast ramp rates. Engines then that exceeded 6000RPM were rare for street use. Again we get back to intended use. What works for you may not be what other people expect.
 
How much are you lifting your valves off the seats? If you are not lifting the valve above say 0.500" a 30° seat may flow a tad bit better. The problem with the 30° seats is valve seal. A number of the OEMs used 30° seats in the 50's. Valve spring technology did not lend itself to high lift very well. Also materials in cam and lifters were not very compatible to high spring loads and fast ramp rates. Engines then that exceeded 6000RPM were rare for street use. Again we get back to intended use. What works for you may not be what other people expect.


You’re kidding right? So every OEM almost EVER got it wrong? With .450 lift they damned well should have had 30 degree seats.

And you’re thinking that 30 degree seats don’t seal or won’t live is DEAD wrong. Millions of pontiacs had 30 degree seats and went hundreds of millions miles with them and they sealed.

Diesels use a 37.5 seat and how many miles do they go?

I’ll say it again. Curtain area is over played. If it was THAT CRITICAL every lift rule engine EVER would have 30 degree seats and no one I know does that.
 
Curtain area is over played.
So if you kill the vacuum generated at the valve curtain area at the start of the intake cycle (IVO) because its too big not to mention its effect on fuel vaporization (yes it takes place there too) how much intake ram do you expect to see on the closing side of the intake cycle (approaching EVC) if you don't get the charge moving at the start?
 
So if you kill the vacuum generated at the valve curtain area at the start of the intake cycle (IVO) because its too big not to mention its effect on fuel vaporization (yes it takes place there too) how much intake ram do you expect to see on the closing side of the intake cycle (approaching EVC) if you don't get the charge moving at the start?


You kill it and you see that in VE.
 
Engine Masters 2002 winning engine

All that power with a smaller head and between 2500 and 6500 on street fuel

CHI 3V 185 Ford Cleveland

The 185cc intake ports are designed to deliver maximum power and torque for the serious street car enthusiast, whilst keeping their RPM levels down to a respectable level. By utilizing the advantage of a taller than standard 4V intake port height, and downsizing the port to a mere 185ccs, we have an intake port capable of making in excess of 550hp, with exceptional torque and power along the way, as proven in Dave Storlien’s 2002 Engine Masters Clevor, which produced the outstanding figures of 605hp and a whopping 530 ft/lb of torque, and all this from a 366ci power plant utilizing a flat tappet cam, running on pump fuel, with a 6500 rpm limit.

The 3V 185cc Cleveland cylinder heads uniquely shaped intake ports, have the smallest runner volume of any 300cfm Cleveland cylinder head available today, giving street car enthusiasts unmatched torque and horsepower levels right where they need it most. Coupled with our matching high velocity 185cc 4150 Holley intake manifolds, these heads are the ultimate choice for the serious street car enthusiast wanting the best spread of torque and horsepower from engines making up to and around 500hp from their Small Block Fords.

Why use the 3V 185 head? Even though 2V factory heads have a minimum cross section of approximately 2.0” at the pushrod area of the port (which is close to the 185ccs 1.9” minimum cross section area), the 2V heads have a much larger opening at the intake manifold face of the cylinder head (2.4”” minimum cross section).

What this means is that when manifold are made to match a 2V head they start out at 2.4” to match the intake face of the cylinder head, and taper up from there, creating a runner that is way too big for the majority of street engines. With the 3V 185cc head this is not the case, as we made the manifold suit our port size, and thus kept the velocity up high where it is most effective, by keeping the runner small. Because of this the 3V 185cc head and manifold combination has far superior torque and throttle response than any other available Cleveland cylinder head and manifold package at around the 500hp mark.
 
Last edited:
-
Back
Top