Flow bench results

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: Flow bench results

Post by paulzig » Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:58 pm

Frankshaft wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm
Define flow quality please.
Flowz energy... :)

Scotthatch
Pro
Pro
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:12 pm
Location: 7000 ft up

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Scotthatch » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:24 pm

paulzig wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:58 pm
Frankshaft wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm
Define flow quality please.
Flowz energy... :)
If your talking David's deal your not even close

randy331
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2882
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: N.W. MO.

Re: Flow bench results

Post by randy331 » Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:35 pm

Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:21 pm


What it shows is the potential of the engine power you can be lower if things are not correct ....

I posted lots of dyno tests where the HP was dead on

Mine is higher 60-70 HP higher than your math,
cgarb is lower.

Both were dyno tuned.


When engines that similar don't line up with a formula, it's the formula.

Have you ever went to a bigger cam and made less power ?
Have you ever seen a head that flowZ more cfm, make less power ?
Examples are out there of both, which means the math would be flawed if your using CFM and IVC to determine HP.

But if it always matches your engines, use it.

Randy

portinguy
Member
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: Flow bench results

Post by portinguy » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:03 pm

It has ALWAYS been about the quality of flow, period. And you can look at a flow curve and have a better than average idea what is going on. Becuase it's all about .25, especially for those who don't like low flow.

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Warp Speed » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:14 pm

Frankshaft wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm
Define flow quality please.
Right

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Warp Speed » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 pm

randy331 wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:35 pm
Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:21 pm


What it shows is the potential of the engine power you can be lower if things are not correct ....

I posted lots of dyno tests where the HP was dead on

Mine is higher 60-70 HP higher than your math,
cgarb is lower.

Both were dyno tuned.


When engines that similar don't line up with a formula, it's the formula.

Have you ever went to a bigger cam and made less power ?
Have you ever seen a head that flowZ more cfm, make less power ?
Examples are out there of both, which means the math would be flawed if your using CFM and IVC to determine HP.

But if it always matches your engines, use it.

Randy
=D>

paulzig
Pro
Pro
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:29 am
Location: Australia

Re: Flow bench results

Post by paulzig » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:11 am

randy331 wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:35 pm

Mine is higher 60-70 HP higher than your math,
cgarb is lower.



But if it always matches your engines, use it.

Randy
Your 383 was 290CFM and 690HP wasnt it?

So nearly 2.4CFM per HP... Can I use your formula?

digger
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1234
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 6:39 am

Re: Flow bench results

Post by digger » Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:45 am

one indicator of flow quality would surely be the BSFC, another might be the velocity gradients

Rimmo
New Member
New Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:15 pm
Location: Qld Australia

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Rimmo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:28 am

Frankshaft wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm
Define flow quality please.
How about cfm per sqin at the maximum velocity that will allow the intake charge to move cleanly through said port and it's changes in CSA and direction without causing choke, separation or turbulence.

Can we agree on that and move on with the discussion? I think most here know it's not just the CFM number.

cjperformance
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2933
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:20 am
Location: South Australia

Re: Flow bench results

Post by cjperformance » Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:02 am

Rimmo wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:28 am
Frankshaft wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm
Define flow quality please.
How about cfm per sqin at the maximum velocity that will allow the intake charge to move cleanly through said port and it's changes in CSA and direction without causing choke, separation or turbulence.

Can we agree on that and move on with the discussion? I think most here know it's not just the CFM number.
Hang on , but now we need chart to indicate sq"/cfm, something like , Poor, Fair , Good, Average, Great and Yes we're on!
Just had to throw that on you as you were ready to move on ! :lol:
Craig.

Warp Speed
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2497
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: NC

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Warp Speed » Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:07 am

Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:57 pm
randy331 wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:10 pm
Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:33 am
... if I need more HP I can up the cfm or move the closing point of the intake valve out more ... now this just deals with peak HP
Wish it was as easy as you make it sound.


Randy


Everyone that has pulled heads and ported them to gain power is doing so to up the cfm flow not to change some wave characteristic .... when you add high ratio rockers and gain power why is it helping? More flow from peak lift? Changing cam specs? Or did it change the waveform?

You guys are so hung up on the cool idea of how to refine a engine you have forgotten the bread and butter of how it works most of the time .....
Not really, you start with the basics (bread and butter as you mention) then add the rest to over achieve!
Scott, most of your views are based purely on the data supplied in the Superflow manual and inertia-supercharging effect. Being as you do not believe in the resonant pulses /waves and their effects on the intake tract, did you skip page 31 9.0, or just don't believe it?

Rimmo
New Member
New Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:15 pm
Location: Qld Australia

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Rimmo » Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:13 am

cjperformance wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:02 am
Rimmo wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:28 am
Frankshaft wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:23 pm
Define flow quality please.
How about cfm per sqin at the maximum velocity that will allow the intake charge to move cleanly through said port and it's changes in CSA and direction without causing choke, separation or turbulence.

Can we agree on that and move on with the discussion? I think most here know it's not just the CFM number.
Hang on , but now we need chart to indicate sq"/cfm, something like , Poor, Fair , Good, Average, Great and Yes we're on!
Just had to throw that on you as you were ready to move on ! :lol:
ahhhh....yes...but you already know what Good CFM is, so the chart would only be a distraction
I would however be open to a chart like that defining Good/Fair/Poor resonant waves in an intake tract, what say you :wink:

CGT
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1136
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 12:29 pm

Re: Flow bench results

Post by CGT » Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:24 am

Warp Speed wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:15 pm
randy331 wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:35 pm
Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:21 pm


What it shows is the potential of the engine power you can be lower if things are not correct ....

I posted lots of dyno tests where the HP was dead on

Mine is higher 60-70 HP higher than your math,
cgarb is lower.

Both were dyno tuned.


When engines that similar don't line up with a formula, it's the formula.

Have you ever went to a bigger cam and made less power ?
Have you ever seen a head that flowZ more cfm, make less power ?
Examples are out there of both, which means the math would be flawed if your using CFM and IVC to determine HP.

But if it always matches your engines, use it.

Randy
=D>
So a later IVC is always worth more peak power?... that seems ridiculous. ..I've noticed the more developed higher power stuff that the IVC seems to get earlier than what youd expect.. Especially when looking at high output NA 4V stuff. So now its flow bench flowz and IVC run the show. I see. :?: #-o

Scotthatch
Pro
Pro
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:12 pm
Location: 7000 ft up

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Scotthatch » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:39 am

randy331 wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 9:35 pm
Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 8:21 pm


What it shows is the potential of the engine power you can be lower if things are not correct ....

I posted lots of dyno tests where the HP was dead on

Mine is higher 60-70 HP higher than your math,
cgarb is lower.

Both were dyno tuned.


When engines that similar don't line up with a formula, it's the formula.

Have you ever went to a bigger cam and made less power ?
Have you ever seen a head that flowZ more cfm, make less power ?
Examples are out there of both, which means the math would be flawed if your using CFM and IVC to determine HP.

But if it always matches your engines, use it.

Randy


No the math looks dead on for your motor too ...

You did not give a lot of information on your build but you did say 290 cfm , intake duration about the same at 272 on 109 but you have more aggressive ramp and .100 more lift . So since I have specs for his cam I will go with it or a Z of 1.09 from the chart

At 2.46 HP per cfm and 290 cfm you made 713.4 HP

So 290cfm x 1.09 Z x .257 HP per cfm x 8 cylinders x 1.1 for running alcohol = 714.8

You do know alcohol is a power adder ......

As for his engine yes it should be higher ... one thing to note is as you go past 100 % port efficiency things have to be right ... in your case you have a groomed port With a moved pinch point and would guess good stortside and different valve angle ... all this helped you get to the number you did ..... lower there are problems to fix ..higher and you need more cfm or cam ....

Now if you wave tuned this engine how did you pick the induction events ? Or change the intake runner length and to what rpm did you tune to and how wide is that band? ...not talking exhaust side as I have already agreed there is power there that I am ignoring by choice... induction tuning is what I am asking

Scotthatch
Pro
Pro
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2018 11:12 pm
Location: 7000 ft up

Re: Flow bench results

Post by Scotthatch » Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:52 am

Warp Speed wrote:
Thu Jun 07, 2018 8:07 am
Scotthatch wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 6:57 pm
randy331 wrote:
Wed Jun 06, 2018 5:10 pm


Wish it was as easy as you make it sound.


Randy


Everyone that has pulled heads and ported them to gain power is doing so to up the cfm flow not to change some wave characteristic .... when you add high ratio rockers and gain power why is it helping? More flow from peak lift? Changing cam specs? Or did it change the waveform?

You guys are so hung up on the cool idea of how to refine a engine you have forgotten the bread and butter of how it works most of the time .....
Not really, you start with the basics (bread and butter as you mention) then add the rest to over achieve!
Scott, most of your views are based purely on the data supplied in the Superflow manual and inertia-supercharging effect. Being as you do not believe in the resonant pulses /waves and their effects on the intake tract, did you skip page 31 9.0, or just don't believe it?


I addressed it in the thread link below

.https://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic. ... tart=180

Post Reply