Quote:
Originally Posted by Dissident
When doing comparative testing, it is imperative to use the same radius inlet guide (not rolled up clay method) as the specific entry has influence on results. On the exhaust side, one should always use a short length of pipe for the same reason.
The methodology of area under the curve is best evaluated by graphics and using the cfm/sq in rating. One should have a graph of the cam / valve lift for that evaluation as well. It is in these types of details that gains are sqeezed out of otherwise run of the mill components.
After the heads are evaluated, then one can begin sorting out manifolds and carbs and placement of same.
Notes, lots of notes so you can take a look at what items worked the best. This is particularly important when you are evaluating valve jobs.
Lots of patience, study, and thoughts with coffee will help get the job done. 
Regards,
HB2 
Dissident |
I'm playing with those curves now. That is one reason I am asking the questions I'm asking. Trying to determine if area under the curve if just area under the curve and doesn't matter where it is.. obviously where the curve moves will determine other pieces like cam and timing events, possibly converter as well and potentially effect header lengths and sizes, but I have to choose a set of heads first to match those things to the flow curve.. If area doesn't matter as long as the other parts are matched well to the system as a whole... great.. if having the flow low but giving up some up top is better.... great... if wanting the great numbers around peak lift while giving some up early is best... great.. just thought I'd pick the brains of others that have had to think about this stuff before I did.