[twinturrbo406]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

It sure looks to me like less flow at every lift under 1.1" (compared to the prior set of numbers). I was more impressed by the prior test- building quickly to 402 CFM @ .500" lift!

(Final Test)
.100 - 84.1
.200 - 175.5
.300 - 257.9
.400 - 328.7
.500 - 395.0
.600 - 448.4
.700 - 478.5
.800 - 480.4
.900 - 494.6
1.00 - 507.4
1.10 - 515.3


(First Test)
.100 - 98.4
.200 - 195.3
.300 - 244.9
.400 - 307.3
.500 - 377.2
.600 - 434.8
.650 - 454.7
.700 - 471.6
.800 - 495.2
.850 - 502.4
.900 - 491.6
1.00 - 499.8
1.05 - 507.4
1.10 - 516.9


... the port is more balanced now and the dip is gone, not to mention the sound is better also, in order for it to turn on like that early, the short-turn wasn't correct ...

[Jack Gifford]

Bill- I was merely comparing your flow numbers of Jan 19th to those of Jan 21st.

[twinturrbo406]

Originally Posted by Jack Gifford

Bill- I was merely comparing your flow numbers of Jan 19th to those of Jan 21st.

... oh i know Jack, i was just putting the starting point beside the final, it's difficult to know how the port is changing in more ways than just the flow, as you refine the shape, it's good to see what can happen to the flow, and many times a port can turn on real early and pop a big number at a low lift, but actually not be shaped correctly for higher lift ...

... the sound of the bench and the port is very important ...