dart 215 pro 1 platinum upgrade on 383 sbc

[B Original]

Settle down children please try to be productive. I have been reading for years on here and I have respect for all of you but I have seen threads carry on with pages of wasted reading. I wish I could have passed over but because its there I feel compelled to read so I don't miss anything. I Have a close friend that has been developing heads for longer than some of you have been alive. He has been my mentor for quiet a few years I know little in comparison but I post what I have verified on the flow bench and dyno I am always open to learning when someone shares good knowledge. The most important thing I have learned from being around him is over the last several years is how much I didn't know. Some on here have learned this also. But others should take a back seat and listen instead of trying to educate us on what someone else lack's in knowledge. Let the "know it all's" bee what they are. Anyone on here that is intelligent enough to be here can see the same as you without the need to bicker and insult, pointing out other members shortcomings. I know of a few on here that are complete idiots (no one posting here in this thread) and if you don't provoke them you don't get pages of worthless gibberish.

Now that I have that off my chest There is a community with a wealth of information on here and I value each and everyone knowledge here. Those that some you think little of, I have gained information from as well as the super stars in the performance industry that post frequently here.

Back to porting Don't forget that the boring basic stuff I posted earlier is just as, if not more important than advanced port development and reshaping. If you get the groundwork done right the port shaping will yield better results. Most importantly the seat work and chamber work close to the intake valve cylinder wall side. The Port restriction below .250 lift on a 2.02 valve it's not the pinch area, its the curtain area

And what groberts just posted is the most valueable thing that has been posted for someone that is schooling themselves

IMO, if Steve wants to learn on these sets of heads then more power to him. But I myself would not start getting over the top on something which is already running decent and obviously very heavily invested in to begin with. Do the basics, maybe get a little fancy with port speed equalization since he has a flowbench pitot to check progress.. but learn and cut teeth harder on something else that isn't so important.

[Warp Speed]

Nothing personal but your first statement is both historically and factually wrong.

I would however have to agree with your second one based on my limited testing.

If your talking about cylinder heads being developed without a pitot and a calibration plate or?
If so, I stand by statement fully. Hell, I've witnessed the same being done and never ran across a flow bench! Lol
Or is it the part about Carnut needing run his stuff? Lol
Your "historically and factually" statement I'm confused about.......?

I remember Ferrari making the claim that they have moved beyond the flow bench because they were so technologically advanced and how they have moved beyond traditional cam development and grinders but they forgot to mention that all their programs were developed by farming out to head developers that use flow benches and cam designers that use traditional methods and grinders.

But even if they take that "information" to the next level via computer/advanced "tools" they still need "information" and "tools".

History documents the development that has brought us modern day information and it is factually impossible to develop anything without information and tools.

Yep, if it wasn't for a flow bench and a pitot tube we would still be in the dark ages CFD wise! Lol
Try to paint it as you will, but the fact remains, a cylinder head can be developed without a pitot tube, and without a flow bench for that matter. You would be surprised at the amount of successful port designs that are in use today, that were never flowed by the original producer! FACT!

But enough mucking up the guys thread, I think better advise would have been some cross sectional recommendations for what he is trying to accomplish. Its not rocket science.......
JMO

[GARY C]

If your talking about cylinder heads being developed without a pitot and a calibration plate or?
If so, I stand by statement fully. Hell, I've witnessed the same being done and never ran across a flow bench! Lol
Or is it the part about Carnut needing run his stuff? Lol
Your "historically and factually" statement I'm confused about.......?

I remember Ferrari making the claim that they have moved beyond the flow bench because they were so technologically advanced and how they have moved beyond traditional cam development and grinders but they forgot to mention that all their programs were developed by farming out to head developers that use flow benches and cam designers that use traditional methods and grinders.

But even if they take that "information" to the next level via computer/advanced "tools" they still need "information" and "tools".

History documents the development that has brought us modern day information and it is factually impossible to develop anything without information and tools.

Yep, if it wasn't for a flow bench and a pitot tube we would still be in the dark ages CFD wise! Lol
Try to paint it as you will, but the fact remains, a cylinder head can be developed without a pitot tube, and without a flow bench for that matter. You would be surprised at the amount of successful port designs that are in use today, that were never flowed by the original producer! FACT!

But enough mucking up the guys thread, I think better advise would have been some cross sectional recommendations for what he is trying to accomplish. Its not rocket science.......
JMO

I agree, what cross sectional recommendations would you suggest?

[JoePorting]

I'd just run the heads as is. They probably flow around 270. I don't think you are going to find much more than that. There's a good chance that if you make it bigger, you'll actually lose flow. Head porting is a two way street.

If you want to learn about head porting and flow benches, start with a junk head and figure out what works and what doesn't.

[ozyfordman]

Steve,
Thanks for the reply. I`ll check that website for sure.
Evan

[user-9274568]

Use the flow bench. Use the pitot tube. Don't listen to the back ground noise. It has ZERO to do with your program. It's the 1%ers... They found help every place that would help. Thank God for CFE!

[pcnsd]

I'd just run the heads as is. They probably flow around 270. I don't think you are going to find much more than that. There's a good chance that if you make it bigger, you'll actually lose flow. Head porting is a two way street.

If you want to learn about head porting and flow benches, start with a junk head and figure out what works and what doesn't.

+1 for starting with junk heads to learn. It is tough to recover mistakes on your race gear short of buying another and starting over. Even epoxy and welding has its limits. I started with a garage built venturi based flowbench before building a PTS bench and purchasing accessories like flowballs and pitot tubes. Yours looks light years ahead by comparison. I learned a lot just using modeling clay and a pressure probe. A pressure probe is the poor mans pitot tube and it fits to places pitot tubes struggle to go. Perhaps because I started with one, it is still one of my favorite tools. They are easy to build. I could share with you all my mistakes over the years, but there is not enough time. This is a pressure probe. The magnehelic range need to match + your bench range. 28" test range needs to max around 40"

Pressure probe.JPG

[cgarb]

Yes, buy a set of cheap Chinese heads that are copies of a Dart to chop on. I just put together a set of heads for a fellow racer on a budget last weekend and they looked very, very close to what you have posted. Right down to the guides were sunk down in the aluminum around the guide bosses inside the ports just a bit. Chambers looked the same, ports looked the same. These were 200 runners and not a 215 but you could learn some from them I'm sure. Plus if they turn out nice you could sell them when you are done. I've wasted 400 dollars on worse things in my life for sure.

[user-30257]

Use the flow bench. Use the pitot tube. Don't listen to the back ground noise. It has ZERO to do with your program. It's the 1%ers... They found help every place that would help. Thank God for CFE!

So you are comparing yourself to him because you use a flow bench. . Lol

[user-30257]

Funny, but I doubt it.

Are you guys really serious?!? LOL
I mean, tools and information are good, but PLENTY of great cylinder heads have been developed without the use of either.
I know you guys are strong proponents of such, but really?

BTW Carnut, you need to actually get something to run with success before you start throwing jabs, because all the stuff you have posted over the last year or two is all theory, and has yet to run on anything!
And while I'm at it, I don't think your floor is near wide enough to require that monster vane/fin, but that's just my opinion. It obviously doesn't count here in the midst of all these experts, but hey, it's a free country!

Nothing personal but your first statement is both historically and factually wrong.

I would however have to agree with your second one based on my limited testing.

I can assure you I along with others have set track records, beat the competition without seeing a flow bench or velocity probe.

In my opinion of you have to have a head on and off a bench all the time it's either
A.)You have no idea what you are doing.
B.) Read too many books by someone
C.) Like to waste a bunch of time
D.) Like to elude people into thinking porting Is some type of VooDoo, and to gain credibility.

I wish others would chime in on the FACT you do not need a flow bench to design a head. IN FACT flowing a head is nearly and soley for sales.
Simple cross section porting will get you there.

[user-30257]

Use the flow bench. Use the pitot tube. Don't listen to the back ground noise. It has ZERO to do with your program. It's the 1%ers... They found help every place that would help. Thank God for CFE!

So you are comparing yourself to him because you use a flow bench. . Lol

What are mumbling about?

I'm not comparing myself to anyone. However comparing this to a cup head or CFD is retarded.

Requiring the use of a flow bench is retarded.

[user-9274568]

So you are comparing yourself to him because you use a flow bench. . Lol

What are mumbling about?

I'm not comparing myself to anyone. However comparing this to a cup head or CFD is retarded.

Requiring the use of a flow bench is retarded.

Whatever you say Headguy...

If you think it's all just about cross section, your an idiot.

Guarantee the stuff you do is WAY too big.. But I can't point that out because your all mouth and no proof.

[user-30257]

What are mumbling about?

I'm not comparing myself to anyone. However comparing this to a cup head or CFD is retarded.

Requiring the use of a flow bench is retarded.

Whatever you say Headguy...

If you think it's all just about cross section, your an idiot.

Guarantee the stuff you do is WAY too big.. But I can't point that out because your all mouth and no proof.

Guarante mine is faster. And not too big! FACT

[GARY C]

Are you guys really serious?!? LOL
I mean, tools and information are good, but PLENTY of great cylinder heads have been developed without the use of either.
I know you guys are strong proponents of such, but really?

BTW Carnut, you need to actually get something to run with success before you start throwing jabs, because all the stuff you have posted over the last year or two is all theory, and has yet to run on anything!
And while I'm at it, I don't think your floor is near wide enough to require that monster vane/fin, but that's just my opinion. It obviously doesn't count here in the midst of all these experts, but hey, it's a free country!

Nothing personal but your first statement is both historically and factually wrong.

I would however have to agree with your second one based on my limited testing.

I can assure you I along with others have set track records, beat the competition without seeing a flow bench or velocity probe.

In my opinion of you have to have a head on and off a bench all the time it's either
A.)You have no idea what you are doing.
B.) Read too many books by someone
C.) Like to waste a bunch of time
D.) Like to elude people into thinking porting Is some type of VooDoo, and to gain credibility.

I wish others would chime in on the FACT you do not need a flow bench to design a head. IN FACT flowing a head is nearly and soley for sales.
Simple cross section porting will get you there.

Please share the needed cross sectional dimensions for the OP, that is what he started the thread for.

[KnightEngines]

I rarely use the flow bench till I'm 'done' with a port, I find if I'm on & off the bench I'll go too far down the rabbit hole searching for something that may or may no exist.
" If you mess with something long enough you'll eventually screw it up "
So I set my sizing etc, port to suit the application & use experience for the shaping (particularly short turns).
I'll flow it & probe it when I'm done to confirm stability, check velocity profile & confirm I have enough flow for the purpose - it's rare I go back & rework it (although it does happen, most often on 'unfamiliar' heads).

There is of course a difference between 'bread & butter' porting of heads you've ported many times before & developing a specific purpose racing port profile - the latter WILL require significant flow bench time.

There are some heads I know so well I don't actually bother flowing them at all, I know where they'll be & it's a waste of time confirming it, they always perform as expected.