Since posting data moderately scientific data is trolling, this thread is now the "Troll thread" I don't expect to see anything less than 1/4 mile drag times and trap speeds. This thread should be comprised of dynographs, flow data, port and chamber CC's, valve angles, valve sizes, weights, spring types and pressures, rocker are types and ratios ect.

Please do not post if you do not instend to back up your claims with scientific data. I barely consider 1/4 mile scientific as there are too many outside variables to it, thus, oval track, figure 8, autoX ect... results are definitely out.


Cliff notes:

stock 3100 and 3400 heads outflow race ported Iron heads by .350" lift, stock 3500 heads do it by .250" lift the data doesn't lie, and it's from multiple sources.

Race Ported "falconer" 2.8/3.4 heads:

code:

---

Lift      #1 Int    #2 Int
0.100     58.7      58.0
0.200     110.5     110.8
0.300     135.7     138.6
0.400     145.0     142.1
0.500     149.5     151.0
0.600     151.0     152.5

Lift      #1 Exh    #2 Exh
0.100     56.9      58.4
0.200     101.9     100.2
0.300     140.0     138.2
0.400     149.0     152.1
0.500     152.2     153.6
0.600     153.7     153.6

---

Falconer Vs Orief ports

code:

---

Intake
Lift    Falconer #1 Falconer #2 Ported  Stock
0.100   58.7        58.0
0.200   110.5       110.8       98.1    96.1
0.300   135.7       138.6       139.0   129.0
0.400   145.0       142.1       158.6   148.6
0.500   149.5       151.0       165.7   155.7
0.600   151.0       152.5       166.5   156.5
				
Exhaust
Lift				
0.100   56.9        58.4		
0.200   101.9       100.2       88.0    82.0
0.300   140.0       138.2       117.3   107.3
0.400   149.0       152.1       131.3   121.3
0.500   152.2       153.6       140.2   130.2
0.600   153.7       153.6       145.2   135.2

---

source:
http://www.thirdgen.org/tec...s-falconer-race.html

My 3500 heads.



more flow data here for 3100 and 3400 heads

http://wot-tech.com/shop/gm...ervices/cat_140.html

[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 02-26-2013).]

Thought I would bump this with a few dynographs



Stock 3500 through a manual in a Fiero



Stock 3400 in a Gen 2 sunbird



3400, MMS Stage 2 cam, mild porting, five speed cavalier

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought... Because bolt-ons don't.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

A stock iron head flows better than the Falconer ported head (intake)?

Intake
Lift Falconer #1 Falconer #2 Ported Stock
0.100 58.7 58.0
0.200 110.5 110.8 98.1 96.1
0.300 135.7 138.6 139.0 129.0
0.400 145.0 142.1 158.6 148.6
0.500 149.5 151.0 165.7 155.7
0.600 151.0 152.5 166.5 156.5

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: A stock iron head flows better than the Falconer ported head (intake)? Intake Lift Falconer #1 Falconer #2 Ported Stock 0.100 58.7 58.0 0.200 110.5 110.8 98.1 96.1 0.300 135.7 138.6 139.0 129.0 0.400 145.0 142.1 158.6 148.6 0.500 149.5 151.0 165.7 155.7 0.600 151.0 152.5 166.5 156.5

Both heads are ported by different people thus different results.

------------------
we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...

Built not bought... Because bolt-ons don't.

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/119122.html

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: A stock iron head flows better than the Falconer ported head (intake)? Intake Lift Falconer #1 Falconer #2 Ported Stock 0.100 58.7 58.0 0.200 110.5 110.8 98.1 96.1 0.300 135.7 138.6 139.0 129.0 0.400 145.0 142.1 158.6 148.6 0.500 149.5 151.0 165.7 155.7 0.600 151.0 152.5 166.5 156.5

Whose stock head?
What flow bench?
What test depression?
Etc...

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 02-28-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Will: Whose stock head? What flow bench? What test depression? Etc...

neither head was stock, both were ported, True that more data needs to be present, IIRC, you should be the best person to answer those questions though, didn't you flow them or have them flowed? my heads were flowed @28" on a 3.7 inch bore.

quote Originally posted by Will: Whose stock head?

I think the 'stock' column is the stock 3500 head? Perhaps that should be made more clear in the header, rather than just 'Stock' being the label.

quote Originally posted by dobey: I think the 'stock' column is the stock 3500 head? Perhaps that should be made more clear in the header, rather than just 'Stock' being the label.

I think the header is actually "ported stock" not "ported" and "stock"

quote Originally posted by ericjon262: I think the header is actually "ported stock" not "ported" and "stock"

There are 4 columns. What masospaghetti posted was a copy/paste from your original post, where there are "falconer 1" "falconer 2" "ported" and "stock" columns.

It's a bit confusing. I guess it's the stock 2.8 heads then, and the "ported" column is the porting work Oreif did on his heads?

Were all those heads tested on the same flow bench using the same test methodology? If not, then the results do not compare against each other (ie apples to oranges).

I'm not trying to debate the fact that the Gen3 heads flow better then their Gen1 counterparts. I already know the Gen3 heads flow better. But if you aim to prove that fact with scientific data, then those data need to correlate with each other. Otherwise, your data can't be used to prove anything.

[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 02-28-2013).]

EricJohn, its pretty common knowledge that aluminum heads flow better, you've been trolled and by this thread, the one on 60degreev6, and your response to the other thread you're not just feeding the trolls, you're throwing them a feast. So quit thinking you have something to prove and carry on.

The argument, btw, was never about "which head is better". It's obvious that aluminum heads flow more than iron heads.

The argument was, if iron heads were the primary restriction in performance (which may or may not be the case - I am curious to see Lou's dyno with the better intake plenum).

I realize this thread has gone many places and isn’t about which head is better, flows more, is the restriction point, what a troll is and so on. But, as a new guy and spectator, I felt there was something missing from the debate.

One of the key factors in the aluminum vs iron head performance that I didn’t see (or missed) is the heat transfer coefficients of each material.
This is the rate at which combustion heat is dissipated from the chamber to the coolant. Aluminum has a coefficient of 237, cast iron is 55, and for a high and low reference- silver: 427, wood: 0.13.

This high rate of transfer in aluminum allows for much higher combustion chamber energy than cast iron through any method such as: higher compression, forced induction, lower octane fuel, timing…. Because heat not transferred between combustion cycles (hot spots) is carried over to the next compression stroke and will cause pre ignition.

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Re...os_HeatTransfer.html

Not that I’m trying to fuel the fire here or anything.

Zach

quote Originally posted by ZCR1: I realize this thread has gone many places and isn’t about which head is better, flows more, is the restriction point, what a troll is and so on. But, as a new guy and spectator, I felt there was something missing from the debate. One of the key factors in the aluminum vs iron head performance that I didn’t see (or missed) is the heat transfer coefficients of each material. This is the rate at which combustion heat is dissipated from the chamber to the coolant. Aluminum has a coefficient of 237, cast iron is 55, and for a high and low reference- silver: 427, wood: 0.13. This high rate of transfer in aluminum allows for much higher combustion chamber energy than cast iron through any method such as: higher compression, forced induction, lower octane fuel, timing…. Because heat not transferred between combustion cycles (hot spots) is carried over to the next compression stroke and will cause pre ignition. http://www.roymech.co.uk/Re...os_HeatTransfer.html Not that I’m trying to fuel the fire here or anything. Zach

Thanks for that link Newbie, physics is my favorite and the benefits aluminum heads along with the combustion technology included in them can't be stressed enough. My first brush with the significance was in comparing the spark table for the 2.8L with that of the 3.1L in the Grand Prix an seeing the significantly greater spark advance needed for the iron head 2.8L.

The fuel tables for the iron head engines (at least, the ones I've worked with) also call for more fueling throughout the RPM range. I'm guessing the aluminum heads allow the engine to run a bit more lean without detonation.

My dyno will be posted in due time. I gave the collision center a deadline of 4-1 to get my car back. Two big snow storms in 2 months set them back, my car isn't a priority since I have others. An acquaintance of mine runs the shop so he has been giving me free storage...so I can't complain too much. But like I said, I gave him a deadline and that's just so I have time to get it ready for my first race of the season in May.

...now back to my regularly scheduled vacation in Las Vegas...

quote Originally posted by lou_dias: My dyno will be posted in due time. I gave the collision center a deadline of 4-1 to get my car back. Two big snow storms in 2 months set them back, my car isn't a priority since I have others. An acquaintance of mine runs the shop so he has been giving me free storage...so I can't complain too much. But like I said, I gave him a deadline and that's just so I have time to get it ready for my first race of the season in May. ...now back to my regularly scheduled vacation in Las Vegas...

stop by the LV Fiero club yet?

quote Originally posted by sleevePAPA: stop by the LV Fiero club yet?

No. I fly here but if I had driven I definitely would have. I'll be dining at STK tonight at the Cosmo but if anyone wants to meet for drinks after that, I'm game.