[dci]

Please keep in mind that dyno's, flow benches, and wet flow flow are only a tool. Talk to any of the Pro's and they will tell you that any one of those tools can and will lead you down the wrong path. If the data is analyzed and interpreted correctly meaning from real world analysis these tools can help you. I can remember not so long ago everyone thought that 320 fps for intake port speed was gospel. Now we are finding out that it's application specific and not one size fits all. I'm not saying slower is better or faster is better. Just saying it all depends on the combo and application. Texturing in my opinion is a great tool for certain area's of the intake track. Texturing is also good for other area's like race car body's, wings, golf balls, etc. Texturing can also hurt in some area's if you need the air to cling to the surface. Engine science is advancing rapidly right now because of the tools available to us now as amateur racers. Not so long ago most bracket racers didn't even care what their heads flowed or if they had the correct header for their application. Now these same guy's are starting to realize the importance of the complete combo from carb to tail pipe. We are in an advanced stage of technology in everything we do in life right now. Some of it is advancing so fast that we cannot even learn today what we need to know before it changes tomorrow. I still like the saying: Lead , Follow, or Get the Heck out of the way !!! PG version LOL.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Stan you guys simply cannot just claim physics to back up your claims. It's not physics when there's no proof that it works. Or that it won't work. Hypothesis at best. You guys claimed over and over again coatings make more power and it's just physics. Bull crap. That's what you guys claim every time you can't prove what you think. No offense to you Stan.

And yes I will share the minimal cross-sectional area. Let me figure what it is currently

Mike,
Glad to see you missed me.

Still quick with the keyboard diarrhea but slow with the Math. No wonder you do not like physics.

Still looking for where I stored your dyno sheet. Is this it?

Engine_Size_=__566.534_ci

Dyno_Barometric_Pressure_=_28.61_-_Dyno_Vapor_Pressure_=_0.3064_-_Dyno_Air_Temperature_=_70.0

_________________________________Fuel___________Un Corr__UnCorr_UnCorr_Correct___A/F
__RPM___Horse__Torque___BMEP____lb/hr_____BSFC______HP__Torque___BMEP__Factor__Ratio_ ___SCFM____VE%
_7800__1130.7___761.4__202.7___384.77____.3760__10 23.3___689.0__183.4__1.1050__12.50__1050.1___88.5
_7900__1138.2___756.7__201.4___394.96____.3830__10 31.2___685.6__182.5__1.1037__12.50__1077.9___89.7
_8000__1145.9___752.3__200.2___400.01____.3860__10 36.3___680.3__181.1__1.1058__12.50__1091.7___89.7
_8100__1151.8___746.8__198.8___406.54____.3900__10 42.4___675.9__179.9__1.1049__12.50__1109.6___90.0
_8200__1155.5___740.1__197.0___409.33____.3920__10 44.2___668.8__178.0__1.1066__12.50__1117.2___89.5
_8300__1157.3___732.3__194.9___413.59____.3960__10 44.4___660.9__175.9__1.1081__12.50__1128.8___89.4
_8400__1160.0___725.3__193.1___420.73____.4020__10 46.6___654.4__174.2__1.1083__12.50__1148.3___89.8
_8500__1156.6___714.7__190.2___424.48____.4070__10 42.9___644.4__171.5__1.1090__12.50__1158.5___89.6
_8600__1151.9___703.5__187.2___423.38____.4090__10 35.2___632.2__168.3__1.1128__12.50__1155.5___88.3
_8700__1143.3___690.2__183.7___418.73____.4080__10 26.3___619.6__164.9__1.1140__12.50__1142.8___86.3
AVG:
_8250__1149.1___732.3__194.9___409.65____.3949__10 37.3___661.1__176.0__________12.50__1118.1___89.1
MIN:
_7800__1130.7___690.2__183.7___384.77____.3760__10 23.3___619.6__164.9__________12.50__1050.1___86.3
MAX:
_8700__1160.0___761.4__202.7___424.48____.4090__10 46.6___689.0__183.4__________12.50__1158.5___90.0

Average_based_on_=_10_points

Have a Good Day!

Stan

[John Langer]

That can't be his, correction factor way too high.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Glad to see you missed me.

Still quick with the keyboard diarrhea but slow with the Math. No wonder you do not like physics.

Still looking for where I stored your dyno sheet. Is this it?

Engine_Size_=__566.534_ci

Dyno_Barometric_Pressure_=_28.61_-_Dyno_Vapor_Pressure_=_0.3064_-_Dyno_Air_Temperature_=_70.0

_________________________________Fuel___________Un Corr__UnCorr_UnCorr_Correct___A/F
__RPM___Horse__Torque___BMEP____lb/hr_____BSFC______HP__Torque___BMEP__Factor__Ratio_ ___SCFM____VE%
_7800__1130.7___761.4__202.7___384.77____.3760__10 23.3___689.0__183.4__1.1050__12.50__1050.1___88.5
_7900__1138.2___756.7__201.4___394.96____.3830__10 31.2___685.6__182.5__1.1037__12.50__1077.9___89.7
_8000__1145.9___752.3__200.2___400.01____.3860__10 36.3___680.3__181.1__1.1058__12.50__1091.7___89.7
_8100__1151.8___746.8__198.8___406.54____.3900__10 42.4___675.9__179.9__1.1049__12.50__1109.6___90.0
_8200__1155.5___740.1__197.0___409.33____.3920__10 44.2___668.8__178.0__1.1066__12.50__1117.2___89.5
_8300__1157.3___732.3__194.9___413.59____.3960__10 44.4___660.9__175.9__1.1081__12.50__1128.8___89.4
_8400__1160.0___725.3__193.1___420.73____.4020__10 46.6___654.4__174.2__1.1083__12.50__1148.3___89.8
_8500__1156.6___714.7__190.2___424.48____.4070__10 42.9___644.4__171.5__1.1090__12.50__1158.5___89.6
_8600__1151.9___703.5__187.2___423.38____.4090__10 35.2___632.2__168.3__1.1128__12.50__1155.5___88.3
_8700__1143.3___690.2__183.7___418.73____.4080__10 26.3___619.6__164.9__1.1140__12.50__1142.8___86.3
AVG:
_8250__1149.1___732.3__194.9___409.65____.3949__10 37.3___661.1__176.0__________12.50__1118.1___89.1
MIN:
_7800__1130.7___690.2__183.7___384.77____.3760__10 23.3___619.6__164.9__________12.50__1050.1___86.3
MAX:
_8700__1160.0___761.4__202.7___424.48____.4090__10 46.6___689.0__183.4__________12.50__1158.5___90.0

Average_based_on_=_10_points

Have a Good Day!

Stan

No that is not it cubic inches wrong. I'm pretty sure the rest of it is too

So fool. Tell me all about those coatings and I'll much horsepower they're worth again. So it should be really easy for you to explain to all of us dummies

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

No that is not it cubic inches wrong. I'm pretty sure the rest of it is too

So fool. Tell me all about those coatings and I'll much horsepower they're worth again. So it should be really easy for you to explain to all of us dummies

Mike,
Maybe I should have addressed that questions to John, he seems to know more about your dyno sheets than you do.

I would not have placed you in that group, but now that you have placed yourself there who am I to argue with you.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Maybe I should have addressed that questions to John, he seems to know more about your dyno sheets than you do.

I would not have placed you in that group, but now that you have placed yourself there who am I to argue with you.

Stan

Lol. Listen up phuctard. You go trolling around the internet coping and pasting all kinds of crap and you think that makes you a genius. You are anything but. You think you have mastered physics yet have accomplished NOTHING but a bromance with another calculator queer. You have never faced the fact that your ideas are only that. The truth is you are obssesed with being precieved as a genius because your intellect is not up to your own standards. FACT

John may well know more about my sheets than i think he does. But he does not care about anything I do and therefore puts almost no thought in it outside the displays about him not caring.

I'm sure you both think we just keep making more power because we are lucky and have no clue at all how or what to do and just make some knee jerk choice and get lucky over and over.....right? Because johns engine builder skewed my Dyno results to try and make me look better? Or him worse? Really???? You guys think uncle tony would do that???? Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard out of.

Yea we are just knuckle draggers that get lucky. Never thought of physics. Hell we can't even pronounce it. Besides we hated gym class.....Right

We made 1067, 1137,1172, and more than that by about the same improvement. And will improve again. All luck and stretching dynos though.

RIGHT?????

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Lol. Listen up phuctard. You go trolling around the internet coping and pasting all kinds of crap and you think that makes you a genius. You are anything but. You think you have mastered physics yet have accomplished NOTHING but a bromance with another calculator queer. You have never faced the fact that your ideas are only that. The truth is you are obssesed with being precieved as a genius because your intellect is not up to your own standards. FACT

John may well know more about my sheets than i think he does. But he does not care about anything I do and therefore puts almost no thought in it outside the displays about him not caring.

I'm sure you both think we just keep making more power because we are lucky and have no clue at all how or what to do and just make some knee jerk choice and get lucky over and over.....right? Because johns engine builder skewed my Dyno results to try and make me look better? Or him worse? Really???? You guys think uncle tony would do that???? Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard out of.

Yea we are just knuckle draggers that get lucky. Never thought of physics. Hell we can't even pronounce it. Besides we hated gym class.....Right

We made 1067, 1137,1172, and more than that by about the same improvement. And will improve again. All luck and stretching dynos though.

RIGHT?????

Mike,
I know this is getting to you. But just calm down. I sure do not want to be the reason that you have a stroke or heart attach.

Have a great day!

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
I know this is getting to you. But just calm down. I sure do not want to be the reason that you have a stroke or heart attach.

Have a great day!

Stan

Don't worry Stan. Your opinions not matter to me enough to cause any real discomfort. Although you do make my head hurt a little bit sometimes.


So I'm curious did you finally give up on your engine coating theory? Have you called someone that maybe works at a NASCAR team or pro stock team that isn't using it?

[John Langer]

I wouldnt guess those dyno results are from a Pontiac. Makes no torque. Wouldn't pull down the track. Maybe a bbc? From the correction factor, it must have either been pulled in Denver in the middle of summer or the operator got happy and turned the knob. Let's get back to what it would take to make 2.3@565".

[JSPONT]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Does this mean no one ever put one on an engine and dyno'd or ran it to see if the results supported his views of it not working?

No they have and that's what's confusing. There have been nascar engineers that have been let go for a head redesign that was based on "physics" was supposed to be 12.5 cfm more per cylinder. The porter did as told, after many many hrs of work, the motor made 40 less h.p.

I know its a good base, but if physics was perfect there would be no reason to jet a carb. Yet there has not been 1 carb that I bolted on a motor that I could not get to run better. And that's just a small parts of the equation.

The next problem is, a guy try's something and it works, then they keep going and hit a wall, everyone bust there balls and says you failed....but guys like this (dci, langer,fulton, leech...) are gather real good info weather it works or not, sometimes they don't say anything after that. It is like going to college, they school themselves. It takes time and money. A bunch of those guys should get together and have a convention once a year and share there findings, it would better the hobby.

[johnta1]

There have been nascar engineers that have been let go for a head redesign that was based on "physics" was supposed to be 12.5 cfm more per cylinder. The porter did as told, after many many hrs of work, the motor made 40 less h.p.

That sounds like the problem to me?
He didn't base it on 'physics', he based it on his opinion of what the physics should be.

There is more to porting than just getting 12.5 cfm more flow.
As Don said, there is a lot of other things that need to be determined.
FPS flow, SSR profile, etc.

Was the head that flowed more also textured?



Some of the problems with this thinking, is that 'because one does things for a reason' usually means they don't have a clue what is actually happening. This guy did it, and the previous guy before him did it, etc.

One would have to figure out why something didn't work or why something does work.
And be able to recognize what they are observing.
(which usually is lots of trial and errors)

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

I wouldnt guess those dyno results are from a Pontiac. Makes no torque. Wouldn't pull down the track. Maybe a bbc? From the correction factor, it must have either been pulled in Denver in the middle of summer or the operator got happy and turned the knob. Let's get back to what it would take to make 2.3@565".

How close are you to Dyno?

[JSPONT]

Nascar not based on physics? Most technology we have probably trickled down from Nascar. The have spent Billions on research and development on the small block chevy. That's why they did not go LS yet.
They make 650 + h.p. with a 390 cfm carb. Ever see inside a nascar small block?? I have, very interesting. The motor runs over 8000 rpm for hours and lives. You can turn the motor over at the crank with a 3/8 ratchet and 1 finger.

So for you to say a Nascar engineer did not base his findings on physics is a little silly. I think you just set yourself up for another Leech tongue lashing!!

This is why people do not post, it is complicated and you get crap for it. The guys that keep going faster every year are the guy's trying new stuff and different things.
All the bracket racers run the same # every year, they upgrade after the pioneer guys prove something.

[John Langer]

1400 miles. It's in Indiana and I'm in New Mexico.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

1400 miles. It's in Indiana and I'm in New Mexico.

All right now that we know the distance from you to the Dyno how about a timeframe from the time your engine is ready to go on the Dyno?

[John Langer]

Originally Posted by mike leech

All right now that we know the distance from you to the Dyno how about a timeframe from the time your engine is ready to go on the Dyno?

2 weeks +/- after receiving shaft bars. Have everything else. Heads are done. Intake is pretty much done.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by John Langer

2 weeks +/- after receiving shaft bars. Have everything else. Heads are done. Intake is pretty much done.

So on track for end of month hopefully then. Very cool. Thats prolly gonna be the first good candidate for 2.3

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by John Langer

I wouldnt guess those dyno results are from a Pontiac. Makes no torque. Wouldn't pull down the track. Maybe a bbc? From the correction factor, it must have either been pulled in Denver in the middle of summer or the operator got happy and turned the knob. Let's get back to what it would take to make 2.3@565".

John,
What SAE correction factor is used on the dyno you use? 5280 feet altitude is about 24.635 BP with 60F and zero vapor pressure SAE J607 is 1.2x.

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by JSPONT

Stan, there is the law of physics, but the problem is when you take and intake and head with different textures, add it to a pump(engine) add a carb and fuel then air, swirl, spark, combustion chambers....... it would be impossible to really nail down exactly what is going on. With a flow bench you can watch air flow, add a wet flow bench then you realize there are so many factors involved it is mind boggling. Valve angles, valve shapes matter.
Physics will get you close but nothing like real world testing. Just like the texture issue in intake runners and heads, might not mean as much as you think when you add fuel to the air flow.
Don't get me wrong, Physics always give a good base, real world gets these top guys to the top.

The laws of physics show them self in many ways. Next time you talk with your local air flow expert. Ask him if he has ever changed a ports design because it did not sound right?

Stan

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by John Langer

I wouldnt guess those dyno results are from a Pontiac. Makes no torque. Wouldn't pull down the track. Maybe a bbc? From the correction factor, it must have either been pulled in Denver in the middle of summer or the operator got happy and turned the knob. Let's get back to what it would take to make 2.3@565".

Yes. Ahem, well when a 1st CYL fires and commences the POWER stroke, no other CYL shall fire u til That 1st CYL has opened the exhaust valve. This is a rule for multi-CYL engnes trying tomattian > 2.3 HP/CYL.

Next, When a CYL inhales to make max POWER, the air in motion ( momentum) shal be used to feed THAT CYL's next inhale. Therefore a tuned runner length.

Next, No such thing as a shared PLENUM. Each CYL will have perfectly timed inhale momentum individually, or with it's " POWER-BALANCED" other CYL. Too tough to do with the V8, so individual.

Next, no such thing as raw fuel washing the runners and walls. Therefore get the runner to be a straight shot.

Time for comment/concurrance before I goes on.