Why would low lift head flow hurt power?

-

273

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
8,138
Reaction score
5,272
Location
Ontario
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."
 
Last edited:
Are these hypothetical theories based on opinion or dyno testing? It would discredit fast ramp cams and more area under the curve.
 
Are these hypothetical theories based on opinion or dyno testing? It would discredit fast ramp cams and more area under the curve.
I don't know who is Al Noe and how much control/involvement he has designing Trick Flow heads, but i'm guessing he's up there and basing it on a lot of R&D.
 
What is it that makes you think any different after reading that? Heads modified or designed for engines turning over 7,000 RPM, race, will typically always have a 50 or 55 seat angle with all of them using a closed chamber and that is directly related as is to. Common to hear that the smaller valve or smaller Port version of something flowing the same as a larger valve will definitely work better..due to Velocity.. that old "smaller valve" talk... and it's true how much air flow can you get versus what you would maximize at lower lifts it's just not feasible ...it would be a saturated head. I might be sharing half thoughts here but just imagine the highest flowing small blockhead and what the industry considers very strong 3 and 400 lift numbers for the 2.02 valve.. let's use [email protected] and [email protected]..
Now where do they peak flow at?
So many variables and so many ways to build around and utilize things. It starts to come down to the wire when people are trying to build the ultimate Best of Both Worlds type of engines that's when all of these things will make or break it but for the most part if you build it with one purpose one intention not multiple....well..
 
Just saying, I don’t have the correct answer. I don’t have a dyno. But dyno testing backed up by time slips would give one the answer.
 
What is it that makes you think any different after reading that? Heads modified or designed for engines turning over 7,000 RPM, race, will typically always have a 50 or 55 seat angle with all of them using a closed chamber and that is directly related as is to. Common to hear that the smaller valve or smaller Port version of something flowing the same as a larger valve will definitely work better..due to Velocity.. that old "smaller valve" talk... and it's true how much air flow can you get versus what you would maximize at lower lifts it's just not feasible ...it would be a saturated head. I might be sharing half thoughts here but just imagine the highest flowing small blockhead and what the industry considers very strong 3 and 400 lift numbers for the 2.02 valve.. let's use [email protected] and [email protected]..
Now where do they peak flow at?
So many variables and so many ways to build around and utilize things. It starts to come down to the wire when people are trying to build the ultimate Best of Both Worlds type of engines that's when all of these things will make or break it but for the most part if you build it with one purpose one intention not multiple....well..
What I'm kind of getting is good low flow numbers generally comes at the expense of mid-higher lift numbers ? So it's not that higher low flow numbers are bad in themselves but your generally given up better mid-higher lift numbers to get them?
 
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.
 
What I'm kind of getting is good low flow numbers generally comes at the expense of mid-higher lift numbers ? So it's not that higher low flow numbers are bad in themselves but your generally given up better mid-higher lift numbers to get them?
This should be the case for most heads used on the street and light strip applications. The quoted words are aimed at a specific head for a specific use. He’s not wrong, but remember you can’t effectively make good usable power with a tunnel ram, twin 950’s, 2 inch tube headers, etc….

On a 7.8-1 - 318, when the rest of the package is designed toward a 400+ stroker designed to go racing in a winner take all and no prisoners.

Make a little more sense now?
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.
There not concerned with low lift numbers because the cam is a super quick rate of lift and probably further Lu coupled with increase rocker ratios to get the valve up as quick as possible and let it hang at max lift for as long as possible. In addition, the rest of the combo is designed for all out. Of course.

In a actual bad *** race engine designed for racing, absolute max output, the thing your concerned with as far as induction is concerned, is getting as much air and fuel into the cylinder in the least restricted path as possible. This is going to happen at where ever the max cfm occurs. Yup! You bet! When the valve is wide open.

At the speed of which the event are going on, probably making lightning look slow, the valve at max lift is open a pretty long time. The biggest flow area (max lift) is also a time just before and after max lift. In this time the valve is open, the best and most amount of air and fuel are hopefully just simply pouring in.

Low lift is of nearly no concern. While it is very helpful in order to get the column air moving to help create more inertia & im sure more the merry, but the trade off of more low lift flow could come (and most likely probably does) come at an expense of not flowing as much if you don’t pay it so much attention.

This is all “RACE” 101 stuff.

The cylinder head porters, race teams, R&D teams have been struggling with a balance and still do within the as cast architecture of the cylinder head. This is why you see every so often a new cylinder head design or major modification to a cylinder head that shows just a little bit of a gain.

Let’s look at the small block Chevy head (mouse motor) in its early days and where they are now. On upper level cylinder heads, the went to moving the valves more on center while adjusting there angle sometimes and using a Chrysler like rocker arm system.

Glad your asking about this.
 
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.


Anyone with a flow bench and a dyno and some track time knows that dicking with low lift flow is just for bragging rights because it is a waste of time.
 
Like Bubba Hendershot said, "Fucked if I know, Bubba, fucked if I know"
 
This should be the case for most heads used on the street and light strip applications. The quoted words are aimed at a specific head for a specific use. He’s not wrong, but remember you can’t effectively make good usable power with a tunnel ram, twin 950’s, 2 inch tube headers, etc….

On a 7.8-1 - 318, when the rest of the package is designed toward a 400+ stroker designed to go racing in a winner take all and no prisoners.

Make a little more sense now?

There not concerned with low lift numbers because the cam is a super quick rate of lift and probably further Lu coupled with increase rocker ratios to get the valve up as quick as possible and let it hang at max lift for as long as possible. In addition, the rest of the combo is designed for all out. Of course.

In a actual bad *** race engine designed for racing, absolute max output, the thing your concerned with as far as induction is concerned, is getting as much air and fuel into the cylinder in the least restricted path as possible. This is going to happen at where ever the max cfm occurs. Yup! You bet! When the valve is wide open.

At the speed of which the event are going on, probably making lightning look slow, the valve at max lift is open a pretty long time. The biggest flow area (max lift) is also a time just before and after max lift. In this time the valve is open, the best and most amount of air and fuel are hopefully just simply pouring in.

Low lift is of nearly no concern. While it is very helpful in order to get the column air moving to help create more inertia & im sure more the merry, but the trade off of more low lift flow could come (and most likely probably does) come at an expense of not flowing as much if you don’t pay it so much attention.

This is all “RACE” 101 stuff.

The cylinder head porters, race teams, R&D teams have been struggling with a balance and still do within the as cast architecture of the cylinder head. This is why you see every so often a new cylinder head design or major modification to a cylinder head that shows just a little bit of a gain.

Let’s look at the small block Chevy head (mouse motor) in its early days and where they are now. On upper level cylinder heads, the went to moving the valves more on center while adjusting there angle sometimes and using a Chrysler like rocker arm system.

Glad your asking about this.
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, and understand that .100-.200 probably don't do much and based mainly on valve size. Still not getting exactly how better .100-.200 numbers is counterproductive, and even stated with bigger valves they like valve angles that hurt it. Now if .100-.200 gains generally comes at sacrifice of higher numbers that makes sense, 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...
 
Anyone with a flow bench and a dyno and some track time knows that dicking with low lift flow is just for bragging rights because it is a waste of time.
I don't disagree and can see it be of little to no benefit, but it's the use of counterproductive to power and where he activity hurts low lift numbers, is what got me.
 
I don't disagree and can see it be of little to no benefit, but it's the use of counterproductive to power and where he activity hurts low lift numbers, is what got me.
You don’t disagree but continue to disagree and by with us trying to break it down to an easier level of understanding and comparing and from the text read that generates the question, the top guys in the industry.

I see you just post these things to start arguing with others.

Or your just an utter asshole having fun.
 
I don't disagree and can see it be of little to no benefit, but it's the use of counterproductive to power and where he activity hurts low lift numbers, is what got me.

R-E-V-E-R-S-I-O-N is real. Don’t discount how bad it screws up everything.
 
You don’t disagree but continue to disagree and by with us trying to break it down to an easier level of understanding and comparing and from the text read that generates the question, the top guys in the industry.

I see you just post these things to start arguing with others.

Or your just an utter asshole having fun.
I knew I shouldn't went for the carrot

You said nothing that I didn't already know and didn't give one reason why higher .100-.200 would hurt/counterproductive to power.

It's like I asked a meaning of a word and you replied with the alphabet.

Moparofficial I was guessing his point don't know if it is.

Rat bastaid is the only forsure explanation I got so far, I made no argument with him, or you, just point out I already know the things you stated to see if you have a real answer, but of course not you just gaslight and name call etc...

I ask the question cause I want to know the answers I like learning, should see me with music theory. Me and Rat generally agree on things along with others and there others like you where I don't that's how things goes, I'm not trying piss you off I just think your wrong about some **** and agree with other peoples points of views like Rat Bastaid and value them more than yours. To me you just like to gaslight troll insult me, I could be wrong but that's how it seems.

1687395324846.png
 
So talk about shape. How about the valve job vs the throat diameter.
The trick flow 190cc flows what, like 290 something?
with our small block Dodge heads safe to say we can pretty much velcro the port volume to the average Peak
 
It's simply a separation or sacrifice of getting that high side ssr to get as much air across the valve as possible as opposed to shaping it to use the valve and more closely relate the throat shape and Venturi
 
"Remember that there are also a lot of inert contaminates in reversion too, and they amount to wasted mixture volume because they don't burn."
Larry Widmer.
 
My son does machine work for a Viper performance shop. They brought heads here that were ported by another shop. They were opened up to gain power. We had sliced a head for the porting to be done by a shop so he could see how much meat was there to remove.. What did they gain? A thinner wallet. LOL.
 
R-E-V-E-R-S-I-O-N is real. Don’t discount how bad it screws up everything.

Imagine looking at the seat n valve like a clock... common/bore @9:00 ...plug @1:30 ..ssr @8-5 perhaps..
Play the game of "guess that reversion time"
Where a pitot helps us learn even more.
we can just cam around it too.
 
I knew I shouldn't went for the carrot

You said nothing that I didn't already know and didn't give one reason why higher .100-.200 would hurt/counterproductive to power.

It's like I asked a meaning of a word and you replied with the alphabet.

Moparofficial I was guessing his point don't know if it is.

Rat bastaid is the only forsure explanation I got so far, I made no argument with him, or you, just point out I already know the things you stated to see if you have a real answer, but of course not you just gaslight and name call etc...

I ask the question cause I want to know the answers I like learning, should see me with music theory. Me and Rat generally agree on things along with others and there others like you where I don't that's how things goes, I'm not trying piss you off I just think your wrong about some **** and agree with other peoples points of views like Rat Bastaid and value them more than yours. To me you just like to gaslight troll insult me, I could be wrong but that's how it seems.

View attachment 1716105227
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?!?!?
 
What I'm kind of getting is good low flow numbers generally comes at the expense of mid-higher lift numbers ? So it's not that higher low flow numbers are bad in themselves but your generally given up better mid-higher lift numbers to get them?
Generally speaking we could just make the port bigger and then all those numbers would be bigger including the low lift we would just have kind of ..a lower velocity thing going on.... oh wait, that's the hemi. Lol no wonder they went with two intake valves on the new Hemi

Think of velocity also as a flow curve..it is.. every lift increment, how much is gained ...and when that starts to slow what it does to power/rpm.
 
Generally speaking we could just make the port bigger and then all those numbers would be bigger including the low lift we would just have kind of ..a lower velocity thing going on.... oh wait, that's the hemi. Lol no wonder they went with two intake valves on the new Hemi

Think of velocity also as a flow curve..it is.. every lift increment, how much is gained ...and when that starts to slow what it does to power/rpm.

Or what happens when the velocity is too high.
 
-
Back
Top