When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
youtube just recommended me this and I thought of your build. if the runners don't get you what you need, be cool if someone knew how to draw up what you need and sent it off to be 3d printed in aluminum. seems like it has the possibility be make to look oem and get the numbers you need.
FYI - The ASM runners shipped Thursday but I have been so busy I forgot to look. They should be at Charlies Wednesday for some interesting testing and... Final flow figures!
youtube just recommended me this and I thought of your build. if the runners don't get you what you need, be cool if someone knew how to draw up what you need and sent it off to be 3d printed in aluminum. seems like it has the possibility be make to look oem and get the numbers you need.
While we wait, I took some pics of the beast after a quick wash… it’s still got some water spots but I love how these cars have aged. They still look fantastic IMO.
I absolutely cannot wait to see how the ASM runners change things.
I love how these cars have aged. They still look fantastic IMO.
I absolutely cannot wait to see how the ASM runners change things.
Man, you are spot on. They look as HOT 'N SEXY, today? As ever. Maybe even more so, since modern cars look so weird and out of proportion. When ever I seen a clean IROC...or a clean GTA, man....they look so perfect/special...they look so "right", to me.
Not sure that the ASM runners will have much affect on that, though.
Man, you are spot on. They look as HOT 'N SEXY, today? As ever. Maybe even more so, since modern cars look so weird and out of proportion. When ever I seen a clean IROC...or a clean GTA, man....they look so perfect/special...they look so "right", to me.
Not sure that the ASM runners will have much affect on that, though.
The car should run as good as it looks. So hopefully they do it some justice. 👍
Flashback: Fall 1981.
I saw my first 3rd gen Camaro roll by. I said to myself, "That will be a really cool hot rod one day". I was driving a 68 Chevelle at the time.
When the opportunity came to buy my first in 1998, a white Z28 with a carbed 305, I was all over it. (That's the pic in my avatar.) At that time it was dated and always held that "m*llet" reference. These days, it's a well received piece of automotive art.
The styling is epic in my estimation.
Got an updated video with the ASM runners vs the modified stock runners. Yes, we know we should run a test where we use the stock vs the ASM runners too and he is going to as far as I know.
By looking at the data the worst port on the system flows 225cfm all bolted together. That would be cylinder 1 as described in the picture. But before you start slinging mud and saying, that I did all that work for 4 measly CFM think again, HIS tests were just through the INTAKE ONLY.
So... Lets actually take a look at the Vette thread results -
Looking at these results and reading the thread, he was getting these figures with just the intake manifold bolted on and NO HEAD. The best cylinder was cylinder 5. The worst, is cylinder 8. The average flowing cylinder that actually represents the system was cylinder 1, the one Charlies using. Now for another comparison... just to compare fully assembled flow numbers....
Going back over to the speed-talk thread, which was mentioned in this thread, with everything bolted together, he's "at a Big 187CFM" and this is with TFS 175 heads which are a little smaller than my ported Darts.
So what does all this mean? Well.. It means that Charles Darts and port job is doing pretty well! This is certainly a HUGE gain from the results posted by other members. This is almost 40cfm total were talking about here and under the curve is really doing well.
The thing I dont understand is, bare with me here... is what PIPEMAX is telling me. Now before I show you the results on a known TPI engine I want add that Larry Meaux is probably the smartest guy in the room when it comes to engines. I want to also say I have spoken to Eric Weingartner recently about my heads and he also says the same about Larry and PipeMax and so does pretty much everyone I talk to. The data from PipeMax has to be correct... btw... Eric also told me a few things he would like to see on my heads done but for the most part they are very good.
So heres the dilemma. According to PipeMax, Richard Holdeners 372hp 355 with AFR L98 heads (180cc) and 218/224 cam, along with the TPIS (same intake) thats been extrude honed and TPIS runners (ASM is the same) with port matched plenum, THAT motor should be flowing 236-252CFM through the intake manifold to achieve 372hp and 460ft lbs of tq. IF I increase the VE loss to a higher percentage which reflects the 225cfm, which coincidentally is the same Charlie is getting and the same the Vette thread guy got just though the intake... It lowers the HP all the way down to 321hp and 374ft lbs!
How is it possible a 10.25:1 355ci with aluminum AFR heads and fully ported TPIS TPI intake is only doing 321hp? Its not, because its certainly making more than that. So therefore if PipeMax is correct, which I think it is, why is the data not jiving? Any takers on this?
IGNORE the VE engine number. Larry calculates VE different than a dyno does and the engine is not hitting 170% VE. Its calculating the whole intake runner I think. Anyway... Do you think we should re-flow the intake only? Do you think we should flow more ports for a more average cfm number? In order to get the CSA right on the money, we need to know the CFM and airspeeds. Otherwise its a wash.
I've been following along in the background as the amount of work going into this, not to mention some of the name dropping, has been difficult to keep up with (on a casual basis I should add). I've dropped in on Charlies updates and have read the sim data that's been laid out but I have to say there's a lot to digest.
Regarding the discrepancies: Could it be that the calculated data and the real world testing simply don't jive? Ultimately, you have to trust the dyno wouldn't you think? How many times has it been said (here, there and everywhere) that a running engine isn't anything like a flow bench. How would the data change if the test pressures were elevated beyond the typical 28"?
To correlate the data is the key to this. And I'd venture a guess to say that it's even more importantly so when dealing with a unicorn such the TPI style of intake.
And I'd still like to know how this would translate to a 4.00" x 3.00" 302 that's not looking for 7000 RPM. (as there's a member here that's considering doing just that).
232-235cfm total from throttle body out of the valve at cylinder 1. We are also going to flow a couple more I think just to look at cylinder to cylinder flow differences but this is a pretty good representation of what it should do throughout. Comparing this to say, just swapping on an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake with a 750 carb, number wise the Edelbrock only does around 215-220cfm so, 232-235 aint bad.
I've been following along in the background as the amount of work going into this, not to mention some of the name dropping, has been difficult to keep up with (on a casual basis I should add). I've dropped in on Charlies updates and have read the sim data that's been laid out but I have to say there's a lot to digest.
Regarding the discrepancies: Could it be that the calculated data and the real world testing simply don't jive? Ultimately, you have to trust the dyno wouldn't you think? How many times has it been said (here, there and everywhere) that a running engine isn't anything like a flow bench. How would the data change if the test pressures were elevated beyond the typical 28"?
To correlate the data is the key to this. And I'd venture a guess to say that it's even more importantly so when dealing with a unicorn such the TPI style of intake.
And I'd still like to know how this would translate to a 4.00" x 3.00" 302 that's not looking for 7000 RPM. (as there's a member here that's considering doing just that).
Theres been a lot of data going on, and I tried to consolidate it all by posting it here. Yeah there are some minor details missing and others probably talked about way too much but this isnt over. We still have real world testing to do.
I was zipping through Charlie's latest video and he asked why he'd be testing the number 1 runner. Kinda posed the question as to why he\d test that in particular to those watching. My guess is that number 1, being closet to the throttle body might be the weakest. I hadn't followed up on that although I'll ask if other runners were tested as well.
A question to Charlie, and I might ask him directly (although some of the comments get buried and are never viewed) and that's what are his (or yours or anyone following along) experiences with manifolds and heads flowed as an assembly in general?
260 CFM @ x lift is one thing but if it gets killed once the manifold is in play (and I'm thinking about my own junk here) what are the expectations? Might a topic for Speed-Talk as I've come across a few tests done in that regard before over there.
Were ported, the entry to the runners is matched and tapered to the ID of the runners. The epoxy around the inside of the plenum runner entrances is a cool idea, looks like it wasnt really worth a whole lot though. The base is ported pretty good. It vastly outflows the upper plenum and Charlie has done tests which shows the runners are actually ok flowing with the base at around 250cfm, but when you bolt on the plenum thats where the air gets stubborn and that alone kills 20cfm. I wish the runners actually had curved scoops at different heights to grab the air out of the plenum and help it make the turn. Like scallops of sorts on the back side of the runner entrances in the plenum, so when air enters the plenum it hits these scallops and softly tries to grab the air into the runners. I dont know if that would help or not, just a thought.
What I think we need to do is hog out the plenum totally and see if that helps it any.
I think the plenum is too small and the TB too close to the front 4 runners. The air velocity in the front 1/2 of the plenum has got to be pretty high, I'd think.
It helps me stay consistent, but it's also more "visual" than looking at just numbers.
The first thing I do on an intake is cut a template the runner size at the gasket surface and then slowly cut it down until it passes all the way through.
This visually shows your smallest CSA.
On the Edelbrock, it is a little past the injectors.
Can compare the smallest stock Edelbrock CSA , and my ported CSA to the size at the gasket.
As you probably know it's best for Inertia Ramming, at the end of the intake stroke, to always be accelerating towards the valve.
With the smaller CSA, your speeding up the air around the injector, and slowing it back down as it enters the head port, than it has to speed up again heading to the valve.
Lost inertia
In the TPI's case, inertial ramming helps to build boost pressure at the lower rpm we all expect, but if you want to carry that power further up in rpm I believe you need cfm.
Extrude Honeing manifolds would by design, scour out this small CSA area around the injector, and probably the reason those TPI builds hold horsepower longer.
Just some food for thought
Some interest visual of the airflow through the TPI Plenum.
Watch the air bounce off the bottom of the plenum and turn into the first runners.
So @MrIROBZ can you provide a summary of where you're at? There's such a pile of information between you and Charlie that I've lost track. 7 pages and 325 posts! Plus the content from Servedio Porting.
Heads? Runners and base? Have you made a move on the plenum? What throttle body?
Is there a finish line and then a test toast anytime soon? (Seems to me I may have asked this before but a refresher is always handy).
Thanks in advance.
No data to prove it, but I’ve always preferred running a plenum that I could fully open up the plenum at the throttle body and run the mono-blade. Not just for the added CFM, but I always felt like that little extra length past the throttle blade (fully open) for the air to make the turn into number 1 was helpful.
For the sake of testing, i wonder what a 6-12" spacer behind the throttle body would do to help plenum volume and air turn into 1st runners
i know on one of the mustang cobra r engines it picked up several HP
No data to prove it, but I’ve always preferred running a plenum that I could fully open up the plenum at the throttle body and run the mono-blade. Not just for the added CFM, but I always felt like that little extra length past the throttle blade (fully open) for the air to make the run into number 1 was helpful.
I think an added benefit of the monoblade TB...I think the biggest benefit, is that the air speed entering the plenum should be a lot slower than through two 48, 52, or 58 mm holes. The TB bores are no different than a runner, with respect to creating a "hole" that consolidates all the flowing air, thus increasing velocity, and consequently, inertia. We can see that pretty clearly in Superzz4's Video. The air cruises right on past the front runner mouths, b/c it has speed/inertia. Chop that speed down and inertia, and you got something closer to the ideal situation; "atmosphere", sitting at the mouths of every runner....as compared to a "jet stream", running past them.
232-235cfm total from throttle body out of the valve at cylinder 1. We are also going to flow a couple more I think just to look at cylinder to cylinder flow differences but this is a pretty good representation of what it should do throughout. Comparing this to say, just swapping on an Edelbrock Performer RPM intake with a 750 carb, number wise the Edelbrock only does around 215-220cfm so, 232-235 aint bad.
Has to be a mistake on the RPM numbers unless the square bore and spreadbore RPMs flow drastically differently. The one I had tested was over 270 cfm attached to the 850cfm Q-Jet and the head port flowing just shy of 300 cfm @ 0.600. That was from the carb through the head. There have been numerous stock RPM manifolds make over 550 hp as well. Weingartner just tested an AFR Dual plane with a 1050 Dominator on a spacer and saw 600+ hp from the carb dual plane.
Regardless the dual plane and carb ot TBI will pickup ~50 hp compared to a TPI on the combination you are working with. It is not all in the CFM difference but rather the induction tuning waves in the manifold itself.
So @MrIROBZ can you provide a summary of where you're at? There's such a pile of information between you and Charlie that I've lost track. 7 pages and 325 posts! Plus the content from Servedio Porting.
Heads? Runners and base? Have you made a move on the plenum? What throttle body?
Is there a finish line and then a test toast anytime soon? (Seems to me I may have asked this before but a refresher is always handy).
Thanks in advance.
Hey guys, sorry but I have been busy getting the shop right and hadn’t been able to report in lately. The heads unfortunately have been getting tested with the wrong valve, a mistake that happens when your busy so I bought a set of Ferrea valves to send in for testing.
After thinking about it and some helpful suggestions from Charlie and a couple porters on ST, we decided that going 2.02/1.60 would be better. It was! Flow increased up to .500” or so now we’re in the 270 range with ok valves (not the Ferreas).
I will ask Charlie to do a complete rundown video later but for now just know our throats are too small. Currently they are 83 or so intake and 80 exhaust. They need to be 88-89% intake and 86% exhaust. The ports are still small and airspeeds are crazy fast.
Honestly, I liked the 1.94’s but I know the 2.02’s should do better.
The plenum has been ported, the runners have been textured some and the base is done.
The left is at 28” and the third column is at 35” testing separation.
Has to be a mistake on the RPM numbers unless the square bore and spreadbore RPMs flow drastically differently. The one I had tested was over 270 cfm attached to the 850cfm Q-Jet and the head port flowing just shy of 300 cfm @ 0.600. That was from the carb through the head. There have been numerous stock RPM manifolds make over 550 hp as well. Weingartner just tested an AFR Dual plane with a 1050 Dominator on a spacer and saw 600+ hp from the carb dual plane.
Regardless the dual plane and carb ot TBI will pickup ~50 hp compared to a TPI on the combination you are working with. It is not all in the CFM difference but rather the induction tuning waves in the manifold itself.
Don’t know what to tell you other than Charlie has no dog in the fight. He’s tested that intake more than once and those are the numbers. We didn’t expect the TPI to out flow it either but it does on the same bench on the same day and not by a little either. Pop up on his vids and ask him if you don’t agree.
Don’t know what to tell you other than Charlie has no dog in the fight. He’s tested that intake more than once and those are the numbers. We didn’t expect the TPI to out flow it either but it does on the same bench on the same day and not by a little either. Pop up on his vids and ask him if you don’t agree.
Something is definitely a miss in that test. Where mine was flow tested did not have a dog in the fight either, it was a new box stock RPM so no reason to fudge any numbers. We also tested a big block chevy 2" bore TBI with the injector pod on it and it was still flowing 250 cfm through the head. The RPM is a 500+ hp capable manifold with a Q-Jet and probably 450+ hp with GM TBI. So keep that in mind when it comes to comparison purposes. The 2912 2bbl single plane was 25 cfm stronger than the RPM with the 2" bore 454 TBI unit. Explains why it ran so much better when I ran it on my TBI combination years ago. If I had cut down the divider wall on the RPM and used a 1" spacer the RPM probably would have equaled the single plane in HP and made more low-speed torque. The single plane effectively allowed the flow limited TBI to flow more air as I theorized years ago.
You stated this tread was posted to promote discussion.
Hope that's true.
I like this air flow stuff and the TPI
Flow bench data is worse than chassis dynamometers ... the wild west.
You have to be really really careful using and comparing flow bench data.
How was the part mounted, inlet radius, was the bench powerful enough (math corrections?), alone or through the heads? calibration, etc. etc.
This dual plane data comes from an old Hot Rod (Steve Dulcich) article that's been quoted and republished a bunch of times over the years.
There is something to be learned here ... so
There are three cfm results for the Edelbrock RPM (AirGap) in the article if you dig around.
The first is the data being quoted (215 cfm average).
Problem is that Dr J. mounts and tests his intakes upside down, blow through, to save time.
Shouldn't matter, a pressure drop is a pressure drop, but he flow through a four hole radius plate that causes a pressure drop (flow loss).
That plate is also shrouded by the cylinder adapter he is using and can't breath from all around the openings, like a carburetor can.
Side note: Measuring the pressure drop across a sharp edge orifice plate is actually how a flow bench works.
As long as he tests this way before and after porting that's valid for him, but not us trying to get a relevant flow number.
The second data is when they flowed the manifolds through the cylinder head.
All the sudden a little higher 251 cfm.
But they are still flowing through a not so good radius plate.
The entry is so critical, this is the one I made and use.
The third way is math and always a good method to check internet hp and cfm claims.
In one of Harold Bettes air flow books he posts this chart.
It is just a repost of empirical data from SuperFlow relating bench cfm data to actual engine dyno results.
And it's really based on cylinder head data, but everyone expands that out.
For us:
Bench flow cfm@28 x 2.06 = potential dyno horsepower
or
Dyno horse power / 2.06 = flow bench cfm@28
So ... the article dyno results say max hp for the Air Gap RPM is 594.
594 / 2.06 = 288cfm
That's heads, intake, and carb on the running engine.
BTW ... always good to check that the heads aren't limiting cfm and hp.
In this case ... getting close.
I've tested the Edelbrock RPM with my more generous inlet radius spacer and with a 750 cfm Holley/Air Filter.
The Holley really rains on the parade.
Also mounted it on a mildly ported L98/ZZ4 head that flows 250 cfm.
That really hurts, but it doesn't mean the RPM dual plane only flows 208 cfm!
Charlie's tests are an entirely valid apples to apples test on his heads, his carb, his TPI as a system.
But it doesn't mean the Edelbrock RPM, by itself, only flows in the 216's
Thanks for the reply, and you are 100% correct, this thread is for debate. The intake test is public and anyone can watch. It was flowed correctly in my opinion, WITH a carb on the top of it. Thats the number that matters as the way my stuff was tested was from throttle body to chamber. The carb was a 750 if memory serves me correctly and I know Charlie goes above and beyond (how could anyone disagree, look at the insane amount of work he has done with TPI! ITS AMAZING!). What is he up to now? LIke 10 videos? Ive never seen any 10 part mini series of TPI testing in my life and I pay attention. He's even cut up his own stuff just for simple one test only tests that destroyed the parts! I honestly cant ask for much more and I am very happy to have met him and have him as my porter. He's welcome at my house anytime.
Maybe he will chime in and give specifics as I wasnt there and I can't give you the info you are asking for. I just can tell you for certain that there is not a 50cfm difference between a spread bore and square bore RPM intake. I don't even think theres more than 10 between a airgap and regular RPM.
Thanks for the reply, and you are 100% correct, this thread is for debate. The intake test is public and anyone can watch. It was flowed correctly in my opinion, WITH a carb on the top of it. Thats the number that matters as the way my stuff was tested was from throttle body to chamber. The carb was a 750 if memory serves me correctly and I know Charlie goes above and beyond (how could anyone disagree, look at the insane amount of work he has done with TPI! ITS AMAZING!). What is he up to now? LIke 10 videos? Ive never seen any 10 part mini series of TPI testing in my life and I pay attention. He's even cut up his own stuff just for simple one test only tests that destroyed the parts! I honestly cant ask for much more and I am very happy to have met him and have him as my porter. He's welcome at my house anytime.
Maybe he will chime in and give specifics as I wasnt there and I can't give you the info you are asking for. I just can tell you for certain that there is not a 50cfm difference between a spread bore and square bore RPM intake. I don't even think theres more than 10 between a airgap and regular RPM.
I feel like ribs tonight Rob! Yumm
Test was ported Dart 165 heads, my ported Performer Rpm quadrajet sleeper intake with custom plenum notch, my 770 cfm Holley truck avenger with K&N stub stack. Tested at 28 inches. Thanks
I feel like ribs tonight Rob! Yumm
Test was ported Dart 165 heads, my ported Performer Rpm quadrajet sleeper intake with custom plenum notch, my 770 cfm Holley truck avenger with K&N stub stack. Tested at 28 inches. Thanks
Charlie,
Hats off to you and anyone else that tries to teach (help) people learn
It's a thankless job sometimes
I think what is confusing the OP and maybe others is that just because your RPM dual plane flows 216-ish cfm paired with this head and carb ... that that's it for the RPM intake ... no more left.
Looking back at your video with your RPM intake and carb on the World 300 cfm head.
Flows 244 cfm with the carb and 260 cfm without worst cylinder.
Flows 265 cfm with the carb and 282 cfm without best cylinder.
If I heard the numbers right.
They don't say how big the carb is in that magazine article, but it's a magazine test, so I'm guessing bigger than 770 cfm?
Anyway ... your flow numbers with the World 300cfm heads are on pare with the cfm estimates from their dyno test, and my flow bench test.
Hoping you'll agree?
Standing alone, that any of these Edelbrock RPM dual planes flow way more than 216 cfm, more in the 275 -290 cfm range.
I love the TPI runner intakes and have spent a lot of time with them, but I don't think anyone has made 594 hp with one ... plenty have with different version of the RPM dual plane.
Hats off to you and anyone else that tries to teach (help) people learn
It's a thankless job sometimes
I think what is confusing the OP and maybe others is that just because your RPM dual plane flows 216-ish cfm paired with this head and carb ... that that's it for the RPM intake ... no more left.
Looking back at your video with your RPM intake and carb on the World 300 cfm head.
Flows 244 cfm with the carb and 260 cfm without worst cylinder.
Flows 265 cfm with the carb and 282 cfm without best cylinder.
If I heard the numbers right.
They don't say how big the carb is in that magazine article, but it's a magazine test, so I'm guessing bigger than 770 cfm?
Anyway ... your flow numbers with the World 300cfm heads are on pare with the cfm estimates from their dyno test, and my flow bench test.
Hoping you'll agree?
Standing alone, that any of these Edelbrock RPM dual planes flow way more than 216 cfm, more in the 275 -290 cfm range.
I love the TPI runner intakes and have spent a lot of time with them, but I don't think anyone has made 594 hp with one ... plenty have with different version of the RPM dual plane.
770 carb. This manifold flowed about 260 on #8 runner which is a lower flowing port on my Sportsman2's that flow about 300cfm. This manifold flows better than stock. Rpm tested by itself usually only flow 220-230 cfm stock. Vic jr. 240-250 cfm stock. I added my Vic jr. To this head with same carb in next video. My Vic jr. Flows 300+.Thanks
Hats off to you and anyone else that tries to teach (help) people learn
It's a thankless job sometimes
I think what is confusing the OP and maybe others is that just because your RPM dual plane flows 216-ish cfm paired with this head and carb ... that's it for the RPM intake ... no more left.
Looking back at your video with your RPM intake and carb on the World 300 cfm head.
Flows 244 cfm with the carb and 260 cfm without worst cylinder.
Flows 265 cfm with the carb and 282 cfm without best cylinder.
If I heard the numbers right.
They don't say how big the carb is in that magazine article, but it's a magazine test, so I'm guessing bigger than 770 cfm?
Anyway ... your flow numbers with the World 300cfm heads are on pare with the cfm estimates from their dyno test, and my flow bench test.
Hoping you'll agree?
Standing alone, that any of these Edelbrock RPM dual planes flow way more than 216 cfm, more in the 275 -290 cfm range.
I love the TPI runner intakes and have spent a lot of time with them, but I don't think anyone has made 594 hp with one ... plenty have with different version of the RPM dual plane.
Im not confused. He used the SAME exact head I am going to use for the test. Then he used MY TPI parts for a comparison. This is as apples to apples as you can get. It proves just what we said, the TPI is OUT FLOWING the RPM intake using that carb on those heads. I would have never guessed TPI would outflow an RPM with a 650cfm carb much less what he used but it is. Flow will change when you add more head on both or more port work on both.
Thanks for the reply, and you are 100% correct, this thread is for debate. The intake test is public and anyone can watch. It was flowed correctly in my opinion, WITH a carb on the top of it. Thats the number that matters as the way my stuff was tested was from throttle body to chamber. The carb was a 750 if memory serves me correctly and I know Charlie goes above and beyond (how could anyone disagree, look at the insane amount of work he has done with TPI! ITS AMAZING!). What is he up to now? LIke 10 videos? Ive never seen any 10 part mini series of TPI testing in my life and I pay attention. He's even cut up his own stuff just for simple one test only tests that destroyed the parts! I honestly cant ask for much more and I am very happy to have met him and have him as my porter. He's welcome at my house anytime.
Maybe he will chime in and give specifics as I wasnt there and I can't give you the info you are asking for. I just can tell you for certain that there is not a 50cfm difference between a spread bore and square bore RPM intake. I don't even think theres more than 10 between a airgap and regular RPM.
There are multiple videos even on Youtube about porting the TPI search Darin Dochterman or Blitz C&E Channel, porting the TPI intake was popular 30+ years ago there are many pics and write ups on these forums now most all have moved on to different engine families. Most professional porters don't have the time or are getting paid what your porter is getting to put extra effort in filming let alone working on one costumers intake and heads for 2+ months
There are multiple videos even on Youtube about porting the TPI search Darin Dochterman or Blitz C&E Channel, porting the TPI intake was popular 30+ years ago there are many pics and write ups on these forums now most all have moved on to different engine families. Most professional porters don't have the time or are getting paid what your porter is getting to put extra effort in filming let alone working on one costumers intake and heads for 2+ months
I’ve seen all those and if they had the info I was after I wouldn’t be paying Charlie. But I guess that should go without saying.
It’s still not finished either, but you’re proving my point. Nobody has answered the question so far, but that’s why we’re gonna find out. I know somebody knows but sometimes you just gotta go for it yourself and see what happens.
I've been watching the old Columbo shows on TV lately.
He always turns around and says "Just one more question"
It would be interesting to understand how a carb intake combo that flows about 265 cfm on a 300 cfm head losses 37 cfm (228 cfm) mounted on a 273 cfm head?
That 273 cfm head only flows 26 cfm less bare than the 300 cfm head, they aren't that much different.
Charlie has so many tests, I may not have the cfm's exactly right, but close.
Wonder what the gasket sizes are on both heads and the intake?
Is there a mismatch (oversized) between the RPM and the smaller head?
Not trying to be a $#@%^
Something to be learned by figuring that out
I know it's not directly related to the TPI intake results, just the comparison.
I’ve seen all those and if they had the info I was after I wouldn’t be paying Charlie. But I guess that should go without saying.
It’s still not finished either, but you’re proving my point. Nobody has answered the question so far, but that’s why we’re gonna find out. I know somebody knows but sometimes you just gotta go for it yourself and see what happens.
What question are you trying to figure an answer to?
I've been watching the old Columbo shows on TV lately.
He always turns around and says "Just one more question"
It would be interesting to understand how a carb intake combo that flows about 265 cfm on a 300 cfm head losses 37 cfm (228 cfm) mounted on a 273 cfm head?
That 273 cfm head only flows 26 cfm less bare than the 300 cfm head, they aren't that much different.
Charlie has so many tests, I may not have the cfm's exactly right, but close.
Wonder what the gasket sizes are on both heads and the intake?
Is there a mismatch (oversized) between the RPM and the smaller head?
Not trying to be a $#@%^
Something to be learned by figuring that out
I know it's not directly related to the TPI intake results, just the comparison.
05-17-2024, 03:06 PM
