 
     |
| Project 3400 Roller Cam Block (Page 33/82) |
|
carbon
|
MAR 26, 03:08 PM
|
|
Trolls... with real flow data and power output numbers...
With all your pontificating about the capabilities of the iron heads all we have for data is the data for Will's Fiero pro ported iron heads, Francis T's stock chart and:
| quote | | My machinist did an amazing job. He ported and polished as deep as possible only backing off where he thought there might be a coolant passage near by. |
|
Do it up! I'll be interested to see the results, if somehow your machinist found a way get 80CFM more flow over a stock GEN1 head to match a stock 3500 head, I will be duly impressed.
Mention of GEN2 aluminum heads in relation to performance comparisons are always funny though:
| quote | Chevrolet made a pace car out of the Beretta. This car of course had to be special and so did the engine. The traditional cast iron block was first tossed in favor of GM's high performance V6/60-degree aluminum bow tie block. With the block punched out to 3.4 liters, a compression ratio of 10.7:1 and filled with GM and aftermarket goodies, like a Crower solid lifter camshaft with .459-inch max intake lift and .484-inch exhaust lift, Iskenderian solid lifters, custom-made Smith Brothers pushrods, Crane aluminum roller rocker arms, special studs from Ryan Falconer Racing Engines, the engine produced 225 horsepower.
 |
|
LOL... 225HP out of a pimped out, race prepped GEN2 based 3.4L... still looks cool and that intake doesn't look hobbled the like GEN2 2.8/3.1MPFI[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 03-26-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Will
|
MAR 26, 05:12 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Francis T:
Flow-bench numbers for Stock intake and SR14 & LR17 below.
Valve lift_________________________.100"____________.200"__________.300"_________.400__________.500"
Stock intake----CFM----------------55.945-------------106.88----------124.415--------131.93----------139.445
Trueleo Short---CFM----------------62.625-------------114.395---------133.6----------146.96-----------146.96
No intake-head-CFM----------------64.295--------------116.9-----------133.6----------146.96----------146.96
|
|
This shows the heads are the bottleneck. Duh.
If the bottleneck isn't as restrictive, the power goes up... that's been proven for the entire existence of the idea of hot rodding.
If the heads were that great, 200 RWHP N/A wouldn't be an achievement.
And yet, for some reason, it is...
Just face the truth
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
MAR 26, 05:49 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by carbon:
Trolls... with real flow data and power output numbers...
With all your pontificating about the capabilities of the iron heads all we have for data is the data for Will's Fiero pro ported iron heads, Francis T's stock chart and:
LOL... 225HP out of a pimped out, race prepped GEN2 based 3.4L... still looks cool and that intake doesn't look hobbled the like GEN2 2.8/3.1MPFI
|
|
So you have Will's #'s where Falconer clearly got rid of the intake vane where GM clearly says don't get rid of the vane and you think they are the pinnacle of performance?
Oreif didn't get rid of the vane and flowed more CFM. However that's beside the point because you don't realize that the heads haven't been the limiting factor in V6/60 performance.
If 2 engines are dyno'd and one has a set of higher flowing heads but dynos at less horsepower than the engine with poorer flowbench #'s, then tell me troll, what do the heads matter if they aren't the restriction?
Quite frankly, this thread is about the engine in my car and how IT performs...not YOUR anything. I'm not going to pull heads off a perfectly running motor for the sake of any troll in the internet. I don't care if my heads only flow ONE CFM as long as my engine performs to MY satisfaction. Take it somewhere else.[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 03-26-2013).]
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
MAR 26, 05:51 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Will:
This shows the heads are the bottleneck. Duh.
If the bottleneck isn't as restrictive, the power goes up... that's been proven for the entire existence of the idea of hot rodding.
If the heads were that great, 200 RWHP N/A wouldn't be an achievement.
And yet, for some reason, it is...
Just face the truth |
|
This only showed that his intake wasn't limiting his intake ports on the heads.
Make up your mind Will, is an engine a system or just a set of heads? What good are heads that flow 100000000 CFM behind a 300 CFM throttle body?[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 03-26-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Will
|
MAR 26, 08:21 PM
|
|
It's a system with throughput limited by the bottleneck, just like a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
To turn your logic around, what good does putting a 1000 CFM throttle body in front of 100 CFM intake ports do?
We've established that the engine's volumetric flow demand is far beyond what any available heads can supply. Continuing to insist that the heads aren't limiting performance is purely head-in-the-sand behavior.
But, as we said before, if you're satisfied with an engine that will top out at most 230 WHP, then you've built exactly the engine you needed.
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
MAR 26, 11:11 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Will:
It's a system with throughput limited by the bottleneck, just like a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
To turn your logic around, what good does putting a 1000 CFM throttle body in front of 100 CFM intake ports do?
We've established that the engine's volumetric flow demand is far beyond what any available heads can supply. Continuing to insist that the heads aren't limiting performance is purely head-in-the-sand behavior.
But, as we said before, if you're satisfied with an engine that will top out at most 230 WHP, then you've built exactly the engine you needed.
|
|
"We" haven't established anything. I find your behavior amazing. The cam I'm using and the displacement I'm using is established. If I can make the same power as the almighty AL heads then clearly, it's not the heads that is limiting the power but the cam. Rather than wait for a dyno, you and trolls keep trolling. GM, yes, GM said the heads can support 1.5 HP/CI which means 207ci * 1.5 = 310 hp. The limit will be the stock cam before it is the heads.
Yes, if this engine does put out 230 whp then it is the exact engine I need.
|
|
|
|
Will
|
MAR 27, 11:58 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
GM, yes, GM said the heads can support 1.5 HP/CI which means 207ci * 1.5 = 310 hp. |
|
For obvious reasons, taking that out of the context of the original displacement is absurd. Can they continue to make 1.5 HP/cid on a 3900 and make 350 HP? I think it's clear that statement was originally made in reference to the 2.8 and approximately 260-280 crank horsepower. Regardless of how much displacement is under it, any head will have a horsepower limit.
And yes, we have established that your argument for why the heads are not a restriction is faulty. Over and over again.
|
|
|
carbon
|
MAR 27, 01:07 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
So you have Will's #'s where Falconer clearly got rid of the intake vane where GM clearly says don't get rid of the vane and you think they are the pinnacle of performance?
Oreif didn't get rid of the vane and flowed more CFM. However that's beside the point because you don't realize that the heads haven't been the limiting factor in V6/60 performance.
If 2 engines are dyno'd and one has a set of higher flowing heads but dynos at less horsepower than the engine with poorer flowbench #'s, then tell me troll, what do the heads matter if they aren't the restriction?
Quite frankly, this thread is about the engine in my car and how IT performs...not YOUR anything. I'm not going to pull heads off a perfectly running motor for the sake of any troll in the internet. I don't care if my heads only flow ONE CFM as long as my engine performs to MY satisfaction. Take it somewhere else.
|
|
LOL... wow. Thank you for telling me what I think and know about these engines... you really are hung up on the Falconer thing. 
I didn't know where those numbers came from as the quote was out of context and don't believe I ever said anything about pinnacles of anything. Having a tantrum about intake port vanes still doesn't say a single thing about the flow characteristics of the heads you have in your hands though either. But it's not relevant, apparently deeper and wider is the best and velocity and equal flow is meaningless...
A stock 3500 top end on a 3400 block with a decent cam and a so-so tune can put 220HP to the wheels... people with J and N-bodies do it all the time.
So... like I said, I'm interested to see where you end up.  [This message has been edited by carbon (edited 03-27-2013).]
|
|
|
|
carbon
|
MAR 27, 01:08 PM
|
|
...
Stupid fingers...[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 03-27-2013).]
|
|
|
|
Francis T
|
MAR 27, 02:55 PM
|
|
|
Juast a lil FYI: Removal of the intake vane may add CFM but it does so at the cost of good fuel atominzatoin and is thus frowned upon. If I recall correctly, there were some Vet heads with vanes for the same reason?
|
|
|
|