[cwatson411]

I am refering to cylinder heads fyi, but ive heard that massive's ult. head flows more than the FR head but doesnt have the same velocity. how does this equate to engine performance?

 

[iminhell]

Higher velocity would mean that with a longer duration cam you should be able to match the higher flow of a slower velocity head.
Also velocity has to do with low RPM drive-ability. Generally a higher velocity will yield better low RPM combustion and in turn better low RPM response/TQ.
Least far as I understand.

Now the part that sucks is you have no clue where in the port they are measuring the velocity or if the two are measuring at the same point. Velocity can change quite a bit from one wall to the next or one side of the valve to the next. One would hope that the flow is close to laminar around the valve but you really have no clue.

 

[saps]

we were taught that the key to making power is air speed. Higher air speed atomizes fuel better, and fills the cylinder quicker, which means for a given duration more air can be put in.

 

[myfafp3]

the ford racing head is the best bang for the buck in my opinion. its cheaper than pretty much everything out there and can be modified by SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY ARE DOING to have he best of both worlds.

 

[silveib]

we were taught that the key to making power is air speed. Higher air speed atomizes fuel better, and fills the cylinder quicker, which means for a given duration more air can be put in.

mass transfer in general depends on both velocity and cross sectional area ( a head with more volume will have a greater cross sectional area through the ports).
i believe its a linear relationship for the most part where if you double the cross sectional area and half the velocity then the flow is the same. now when it comes to engines specifically there are other things coming into play of course. things i dont really understand

 

[cwatson411]

Higher velocity would mean that with a longer duration cam you should be able to match the higher flow of a slower velocity head.
Also velocity has to do with low RPM drive-ability. Generally a higher velocity will yield better low RPM combustion and in turn better low RPM response/TQ.
Least far as I understand.

i see, kinda like a 4-2-1 header (svt for instance) will make more low end torque, and a 4-1 header will flow better up top.

Now the part that sucks is you have no clue where in the port they are measuring the velocity or if the two are measuring at the same point. Velocity can change quite a bit from one wall to the next or one side of the valve to the next. One would hope that the flow is close to laminar around the valve but you really have no clue.

i see what you mean about where they are taking the measurements. i bet they would be a good deal diff. if they measured in a diff. location.

i am def. leaning towards the FR head, and have been for a while just b/c of the price. also, like a few people have said before, the FR head is proven performance.

 

[1turbofocus]

There is NOTHING that supports massive "claim" to have the best flowing head because they dont I do , but for the time it takes to do this head its to big for most and cost to much for the rest so with HRS and HRS on my flow bench and on my dyno testing what a GOOD flowing head does after you bolt on the intake manifold , TB , header and everything else to see you flow numbers go down down down it just isnt worth it vs the FR head

Out of everyone that sells ported heads none have a flow bench to spend the time needed , none have a dyno that once the flow bench work is done go to the dyno to see if it even helps then back to the flow bench ,non have posted any numbers with the intake and TB bolted on there ported head vs stock or the FR , I have , so they can claim what they want , I have the tools and I know what it take , Go with the FR Head , best bang for the buck hands down

Tom

 

[iminhell]

Tom,

If your going to continually harp on other shops about their heads, maybe you should link to your flow numbers (which btw I've looked for for quite some time and never found). All I can ever find are dyno's, and few at best.

Focus Sport has published data --> http://www.focussport.com/cylhead.htm
CFM has published data --> http://focus.c-f-m.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1301
Steeda has published data --> http://www.steedafocus.com/store/En...nder-Head---Zetec---'00-'04/product_info.html
BAT has published data --> http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...lRxjxerrHq27hyBRw&sig2=vcRESsKzJMnOaM66rXA4lQ
Northhampton has published data --> http://www.northamptonmotorsport.com/default.asp?id=70


There are a few others I'm forgetting simply because I don't have enough time at the moment.

 

[03OrangeSVT]

I prefer velocity over volume........

 

[cwatson411]

faster air sounds better to me than more air

 

[silveib]

it depends. once you get to a certain point you may not be able to increase the velocity effeciently, which is when you need to increase the volume. Kind of like a turbo. a small turbo will spool up to 10 or 15 psi super fast but the faster you spin the thing eventually it runs out of breath, then you need to increase the volume.

but for most focus applications i can see velocity taking priority, because the odds are once you have something like the FR head you probably wont reach that point....

 

[cwatson411]

yeah, then your bottle neck would be the IM IMO

 

[silveib]

that i have no idea.... i am no where near knowledgeable (sp?) or experienced enough to determine that.
I know mustang guys will see more power with less volume on NA applications. It came up on that engine build up competition they did on SPEED network between the two wyotec schools. or maybe that was cfm instead of volume.... ah well....

btw we are now having conversations on three threads cwatson

 

[cwatson411]

that makes sense that less volume would make more n/a power.

only 3!?!?! HURRY! start another thread! i just need one more fix! lol

 

[03OrangeSVT]

In the 96-98 Cobra's there was a problem with a loss of low end power (due to the 4 valve setup) Fords answer was to put a secondary butterfly in one of the 2 intake ports per cylinder. What this did was it increased the velocity of the incoming air which in turn provided a more complete miture of the fuel and air... giving it a more powerful ignition.

 

[K Dog]

There is NOTHING that supports massive "claim" to have the best flowing head because they dont I do , but for the time it takes to do this head its to big for most and cost to much for the rest so with HRS and HRS on my flow bench and on my dyno testing what a GOOD flowing head does after you bolt on the intake manifold , TB , header and everything else to see you flow numbers go down down down it just isnt worth it vs the FR head

Out of everyone that sells ported heads none have a flow bench to spend the time needed , none have a dyno that once the flow bench work is done go to the dyno to see if it even helps then back to the flow bench ,non have posted any numbers with the intake and TB bolted on there ported head vs stock or the FR , I have , so they can claim what they want , I have the tools and I know what it take , Go with the FR Head , best bang for the buck hands down

Tom

Riiiight. Nothing to back up our claims. Except... Flow bench data. On a well calibrated SuperFlow.

And your head that is the "best" but you've yet to produce any data. And from the pics, theres no freakin way. And you constantly promote the FR head - why? Wouldnt YOU want to sell yours? And if your such a pro with your HRS and HRS on the flow bench you'd know the FR head has very minimal work.

 

[killer ZETEC]

i think the only thing to do is strap all three on the same car with the same cams, etc.
and let the numbers do the talking. someone third party and wholly unbiased.
like me, lol.
and we should do this at a random dyno.

its the only true way to see whose stick is bigger instead of teh internet war.

 

[1turbofocus]

Riiiight. Nothing to back up our claims. Except... Flow bench data. On a well calibrated SuperFlow.

A good flowing head has NOTHING to do with how well the flow bench is calibrated , your right all you have to back anything up is the flow bench data , and thats all you ever will have , because you head wont out do the FR head , if you knew anything at all about head flowing you would know that bynow , you send your heads off and have them ported and flowed then you "claim" to have the best head , it takes a lot more then flow numbers and I have you beat there by about 20% , I have the best flowing head for the Focus and have backed it up with making 700HP , How have you backed up yours ?

And your head that is the "best" but you've yet to produce any data. And from the pics, theres no freakin way. And you constantly promote the FR head - why? Wouldnt YOU want to sell yours? And if your such a pro with your HRS and HRS on the flow bench you'd know the FR head has very minimal work.

My data to suport my claims comes from making HP something you guys have yet been able to do , in the end thats why we do all this work and add heads , intakes , turbos isnt it ? Your flow numbers are just that numbers you use as well as other Co to sucker customers into buying your head over other heads

Flow numbers are for compairing a stock head to what you just ported NOTHING MORE , more flow does not mean more HP , bigger isnt allways better.

You stated "And if your such a pro with your HRS and HRS on the flow bench you'd know the FR head has very minimal work." It isnt the amount of work done its where and how the work was done that makes for a well flowing ,HP/TQ producing head

The FR head is still the best bang for the buck out there .

Tom

 

[1turbofocus]

Tom,

If your going to continually harp on other shops about their heads, maybe you should link to your flow numbers (which btw I've looked for for quite some time and never found). All I can ever find are dyno's, and few at best.

There are a few others I'm forgetting simply because I don't have enough time at the moment.

Because flow numbers are for bragging rights and have little to do with what HP/TQ they put out , I have seen time and time again a WELL flowing head not make any better HP , been there done that , so why give numbers if in the end they cant make the % better in flow equal to gains in HP

massive claims to out flow the FR head by roughly 20% at .400 lift what should that equal to in HP gain ? , Im guessing about 8% , I have done many FR heads with tons of boltons and made in the 158 to 160 range with out raising the compression so if these guys added the massive head they should see about a 9-10HP gain and they wont , Why you ask because the intake , TB , piping to the TB , header & exh , cams and cam ramp speed are all things that are restrictions not factored into when they flow there head , so in the end the claimed best flowing head isnt allways the one that makes the best TQ/HP and we have even started on what a LARGE flowing head does to low and mid range TQ

Tom

 

[iminhell]

A good flowing head has NOTHING to do with how well the flow bench is calibrated

No, but a well calibrated machine will yield reliable repeatable results.

I have the best flowing head for the Focus and have backed it up with making 700HP

I asked you to post flow data proving your claim. Just because you make the most HP does not mean the head flows the best. Remember the game does change when you add boost, and a shit load in your case (40PSi+ IIRC). This discussion is about Naturally Aspirated power and not forced induction.

Flow numbers are for comparing a stock head to what you just ported NOTHING MORE , more flow does not mean more HP , bigger isn't always better.

You just contradicted yourself.






Like I said, Post flow data and quit bullshitting these kids.


And to both you guys, these kids need to know the test conditions for the test; test pressure (H20 or inches of Mercury), temperature and humidity.