And if in fact no one else on the planet can get these numbers then I have accomplished exactly what I set out to do two years ago...

Not sure what I missed.....Bernoullies law states that faster moving air.will have less pressure but that.is.in reference to.the pressure BEHIND the air column not in front....as speed(velocity) of an object(air) increases so does its inertia.....as MCA decreases velocity increases...pressure drops behind(vacuum signal at venturi) but inertia of the column as a unit increases and probably at something.like with.the square...

Not to get into this due to you guys are smarter than
me when it comes to heads but are you figuring in
the overlap of the cam which is drawing air/fuel
through the cyl to help keep the velocity up

overlap helps to draw in charge when inertia is almost non-existent,, at higher speeds overlap is needed less and less

im glad to see you have it figured out,, so a smaller cross section will not limit the engines ability to "fill" and actually enhance it as engine speed increases? too bad it doesnt actually work that way,, in real life....

Two cylinder heads, all else equal, the smaller MCA(and we are talking within reason...not to any extremes like a 2")should, according to the definition you stated earlier, make more power...

I don t think they ever used w9 s on pro stock trucks, w8 and p5 s

I have some early nickens w8 s , they flowed 410- 412 on my bench , my CFE s flowed 402 -403 on the same bench

I will continue my stance that most of what we are talking is theory and not law...the Bernoullie effect however IS law....and as such is open to much interpretation....if it was set in stone we could take CA 'A', CA 'B' and CA 'C'.....connect them...take them over the SSR at about 10* blend them into throat diameter 'X' through valve diameter 'Y' and over seat angle 'Z' and have the perfect port everytime.....unfortunately the real world does not work THAT way and as such we have flowbenches, dynos and computers to anaylize all our data and tell us what actually works....

I was picking my battles.....wasn't gonna argue that point...

Also don't consider the rest of the thread, and hope Jim doesn't either, arguing but rather debating......

For the sake of arguement.....if I was to post that I made some changes today and now my port flows 400 would you say that my bench is not correct....because I have been there and can do that....I can 'undo' some of my work and make it flow 380-400....then I can reapply what I have learned...although it takes time to 'get it right' and get back to where I am....I have done it many times along the way....when it seemed I hit a wall I went back to point 'A' and tried again....

My heads flow 280@.600

Small block eddies, 2.02 valve

Quote:

---

Two cylinder heads, all else equal, the smaller MCA(and we are talking within reason...not to any extremes like a 2")should, according to the definition you stated earlier, make more power...

---

this is based on your conclusion on how velocity operates in a port,, maybe based on you thinking its like a flow bench and the port is "on",, not in a running engine that has "velocity" of the charge as dictated by the piston speed/depression created in the intake stroke,, there is no vaccum in the compression stroke to generate velocity,, it is created by the residual charge in the port upon sweeping the intake stroke,, which we call inertia,, which impacts the cylinder as the piston is comming up,, the smaller the window it has to flow through,, the less of an impact it has AT HIGHER SPEEDS

a side note,, in drag racing,, "we" try to make power at higher speeds,, to get down a 1/4 mile track faster and quicker

No...thank you....that is the point I have been trying to illustrate all along.......that is based on your comment that my heads need to have MCA dimension 'A' or they cannot flow what they do.....I am trying to illustrate these theories are guidelines not rules....YOU said they are not theories they are proven...now you are saying that I am the one claiming these are concrete because of how I believe air flows on a flowbench.....I am simply saying that just because YOU need a 3.74MCA does not mean I do...you said they cannot flow 470 unless they have that dimension.....

HAHA....that about sums it up perfectly!...

with a w-9 head it is impossible to get 470cfm through a 2.8-3.0 minimum cross section,, it just isnt big enough,, period,, im tired of this stupidity,, nobody on the planet in comp, pro stock, nascar, or whatever has even came close to that number,, but i guess you figured it out

show me the timeslip? that sums it up? mr bwacked,, what have you worked on that has made 2.2 or more hp/cubic inch? for real

First of all...Jeff....I apologize I kept referring to you as Jim....second....let's just agree to disagree...we are all here because we have some common interests and should not be turning this into a battleground as I am sure that is not what the developers had intended.....as I said before I respect you for your accomplishments...if you cannot do the same for me I respect that....but I herein have decided to discontinue this debate before things get ugly....good luck on that Ford!

Gary

i think the best way in the world to see these badboys,is to build a 440ci sb motor with them heads on it,,,if they work you should be able to make over 1000 hp with the w9's ur workin on...i know its been done with Sb2's by a local builder here on long island,and they flowed around 420ish int and close to 300exh

I have never claimed anything more than what they flow.....I continue to say that they could prove to make no power at all...I also never specified a 2.8-3MCA....just to set the record straight....thanks for your input....I am working on these for a 468 2x4 on e-85.....time will tell!