Cylinder Head Shootout

I'll second that and say that your 6.1 package will never beat his in a side by side race at a track. I got $2000.00 on that. Put up or shut up nuff said. You got till Spring Fling to put your money where your mouth is, after that his car will be completely out of your league.

 

does he even own a 6.1L?

 

Weren't you banned from the Cherokee forums? Nice to see you starting all over again. Not to mention how you represent yourself here as a vendor is truly a one of a kind show. Keep it up sport I keep getting PM's about your behavior and how they will never do business with you. One of a kind I tell you.

 

Bring it on!!! A gentleman's bet of $1 (loser signs and gives to winner) says my stock longblock, tuned by me, LX on spray, whoops all over you!!!!!

:thumb2:

 

Your posts where deleted due to your unacceptable behavior, and the fact that you are way off topic. Keep the posts related to the thread topic or leave.

 

Josh and Chris
The faster you get off the internet, the faster we will stop biting our nails!!

Good Luck!

 

Sorry bud. If I was out of line I apologize. Goodnight

 

My posts were deleted because I ate your lunch, just like I did this entire thread, maybe you should consider moderating on the red site--you know, if you can't beat 'em, delete 'em. Best of luck cracking 11.8s with that 392. :moon:
My Indy offer is still on the table.

 

I'm back. Had a really nice dinner in Vacaville at Pietro's.

I still believe its a matter of time before anyone running 175 shot will eventually collapse a top ringland. They are only .10 thick. With my cam, I've stayed at at a 100 shot with only 19 degrees. I know my car is capable of mid 11's under the right conditions even running that conservatively. I'm seeing lots of 1.6's and a couple of 1.5 60''s, one being a 1.51 from Jeremy, which is amazing. CMR with a few bolt-ons are getting 420HP. That's what many early H/C setups netted. So a stock motor with a 175 shot is making more power than some H/C with a 100 shot.
I almost pilled it up to 150 along with bumping the timing up 3 or 4 degrees. That would have been a hell of a run. My car was the only car in the 11's late in the day at the rumble. An 11.85 and a 11.92. DA had moved up to about 2650 to 2800.
Pretty much everyone's cars/Jeeps will slow down as the DA goes up. So claims about ET's not being as quick as others, come on out and see how much your car slows down. Dyno's mean nothing to me other than bragging rights, track does. I've beaten many cars over the years with more Dyno HP. Side by side is the only real comparisons. We will prove nothing at El Toro. Both times I broke halfshafts, getting out of my car at midtrack I greeted me with very sticky asphalt. We're only thinking about putting down some VHT at the starting line. We will be able to break traction mid-track without the sticky. Going to be very frustrating.
I've stated it before and I will continue to say, It's apples to oranges until you line them up same time, same place. I do my talking at the track. Except when I'm racing Cam. LOL

We are all trying for to attain the same end using different approaches. I was amazed what JMATT ran with a 175 shot. Hell Moose has been doing 11.98's -11.99's and doesn't even have a cat-back with only a 100 shot on street tires at over a DA of 2000. I think our motors love N2O stock. To bad they didn't put a good piston and rod in these motors.

OK, the nurse says its about my bedtime.

 

Isn't it nice how DA doesn't affect N20 users or boosted engines near as much, There is nothing like making your own atmosphere. LOL

The other bolt on mods don't count as much either when your boosted or on the juice.

 

Anyway, back to the Shootout,,,,,,,,,,,

 

Not true, what happens as far as flow on a static flow bench and what happens in the dynamic environment of a running engine with pressure waves, wet flow, elevated temperature and a hundred other different parrameters are two different things. Thats why you can have a head that flows significantly less air on a bench but will make more power on the track. When compairing heads from the same casting flow bench data is not very significant in regards to power a head can make. You can do things that kill Flow and they will make more power and you can do things that pickup flow and will loose power.

For example, with identical flow you can do something that will effect the fuel shearing at the valve seat like a radius instead of a back cut on the back of an intake valve. The radius will probablly flow a bit better but it will effect combustion effiency so even though the flow is greater less fuel gets burned and the O2 sensor reads a richer condition. Things in an IC engine just aren't simple enought to run a static flow test and get very much meaningful information.

 

As one of the cylinder head vendors that have submitted heads for this test. I knew jumping in that each set of heads would not be optimized by an individual tune. I knew that the tune was being based off of the PPP heads. We accepted this, and are really looking for a good comparison in cylinder head specifications between the many different vendors. As long as there is not a drastic change in the heads, as in castings, then there should be comparable data results from this test. I think what we will see coming out of this is the differences in quality and workmanship. As each set of heads are being torn down, spec'd out, and then run on the same calibration. Sure there will be power differences that more than likely could be negated by individual custom tuning. So I will not be dissappointed if the Mopar CNC heads come out on the bottom of the power curve, but I would be dissappointed if they are at the bottom of quality and workmanship, as the price of these would not justify that at all.

My hat's off to HoP for conducting the test and allowing us to be a small part of it.
(ok Josh, does that get me the 20 bucks now?) j/k

 

Good point Ted, I do appreciate Josh taking his time and resources to run this series of testing. To telly you the truth the fact that the car was tuned around one set of heads does concern me because I know there are allot of variables that can effect where the best timing and A/F will be and just because the flow numbers are similar I'm not convinced that the best tunes will be the same, although, in this case there probablly not wildly different there still will be some difference. For example if the base tune was just as optimal why is a dyno cmr tune better than a mail order for a stock vehicle that was developed on a dyn? I mean different cars with the same exact components should be closer than vehicles with different heads yet most tuners say that there all a little different and even with vehicles that have the same mods your better off getting a dyno tune than using the same tune for both. Just my opinion.

 

Maybe Josh could retune the last heads after the baseline PPP tune has been logged. That way we could see how much difference there is in the tune.

 

I see your point and this did cross my mind when we started the discussion about the head shootout. I logged your cylinder heads via the dataviewer as I basically do every car on my dyno. What I saw on the first two pulls was no kr, then on the third at @4800 I saw .5kr. This is telling me in the fat meaty part of the torque curve the timing is pretty spot on. If I giver her more timing I'm going to see more kr. Doing the heads Ted sent over will back up a theory I have, both PR&D and HHP sent over 2.02 heads, Mopar and PPP are 2.05. If the "flow bench test" is inaccurate like a few of you are saying then why is it widely used? Should we just ignore the test? and let the dyno speak for itself or should we just look at the ports and say "Dam those are some nice heads" without any concrete evidence?

This is what I'm really after. As a buyer of cylinder heads for these cars I want to see the same thing as a customer, workmanship, parts, and attention to detail.

Every one of the vendors is using the same casted head. A factory 5.7L head.

1) None of the vendors modified their combustion chambers

2) The intake ports as verified by the test show similar CC's overall

3) The exhaust ports as verified by the test show almost the same CC's some within 1 cc of the others.

Now when I saw the flow charts again..... not one head say at .350 lift was 140 cfm higher. More like it was 10 cfm higher. If I saw 100+ cfm then I know you did some drastic changes but you didn't. Everyone one of the heads basically was nothing more than "cleaned" up. You can't change the location of the intake port, and you can't change the locations of the valves without re-casting a head. So what everyone of the vendors or manufacturers did wass increase the overall size of both intake and exhaust ports. Does this require A different tune, again not in my opinion and yes we are datalogging the runs. The last set of heads for arguments sake will go back out and have a VE check done, and we will change the spark and fuel accordingly to see if any "Magical Numbers" Appear.
Again it's like Ted stated "workmanship" is what I want to see. If you have rockers hitting retainers chances are your not going to do to well. That goes back to "quality control".

Stu I see your point about "overall" flow numbers. Remember the test are all done in increments of .050 up to .600 lift. I get to see the "entire" range of low lift vs high lift flow. Not to mention I had the ports cc'd meaning what the size is. Again if cylinder head A was 200cc's on the intake and cylinder head B was 310cc's. That right there is gonna grab my attention for sure and tell me right off the bat that a general tune is not gonna work. Question, do you think everyone that buys heads is gonna go out and get a custom CMR Tune? Chances are no, and I bet that they are gonna run a Diablo CAN Tune. Wouldn't this be exactly what we are doing by establishing a baseline tune?

Exactly what I'm going to do Halv :dance4: To remove suspicion I hope.

Again thankyou all for the constructive input, but we really need to keep this simple and not keep saying : what if? I'm being a lot more thorough than a Magazine test would ever be, and those of you know if you've ever seen this done know what I'm talking about.

Thanks.

 

Thanks for re-tuning Josh. It means a lot to us (the buying public) and it means that each vendors products will be compared on equal ground. I know its a lot of work for you guys, and I wish I had the time off to come up and help.

 

Thanks Josh. Keep up the good work. No supicious mind here.

 

I believe thats because in a Magazine test the winner is usually the biggest advritiser. Not a comment about this test though.

I understand that nomatter what it can never be a perfect test and the tune should be pretty close for all involved but I'm just a bit concerned that were compairing pretty close and perfect. But sometimes close has to be good enough.

On the flow bench thing, I have seen Hemi heads that flow very close numbers to each other that have 25 HP differences. Flow numbers just don't equate directly to power like most people believe. It has more to do with port shape and size. The valve job can be pretty significant to. Flow benches are popular because at one point in time every head porter in the country thinks the flow bench is king. Some learn thats not the truth and others don't. They also get emphasized because the public wants set numbers. Most adveratised numbers are pretty optimistic and are not repeatable on other benches.

 

Ok....good.....whatever.

maybe you should read what you just wrote.