View Single Post
Old 12-05-08, 02:16AM   #7
Bruce Wilkie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Murfreesboro TN
Posts: 614
Default

EC honest flow numbers rank for potential. HP is dependent on the builder. A new head has to be proven and tested to find the potential that was put into it. Look what Kaase did to his Pontiac to get the result he was looking for. Heck just a difference in valve jobs on a base E head makes a huge difference in performance compared to the flow numbers.(and that is builder dependant) I think the stack ranking summary should be by factual flow numbers and other important data(see my other post). After the summary in the details section we can add a note of best known power to date with that head if you want as long as it mentions if it was as delivered out of box or after massaging. This gives room for the newcomers like cv1 or whatever is rumored coming from KRE. This may give incentive to head companies like Edelbrock to get off their tail and make changes. It may also influence other head builders to offer a Pontiac head in their lineup as well. The best ones and the worst ones get to try to keep their status of best for x application and we benefit.


For example, on the 460 ford site the p51 was ranked #20 overall of all heads ever built for it, but #1 in its application pecking order. It listed from most current pro stock head to worst production cast iron.

We should approach it the same way. We should avoid biasing it with subjective data that can be end user/builder influenced whether its rules, fuel, displacement, valve job, compression, cam selection, or just plain biased opinion.(or all the above and more)
Bruce Wilkie is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.04369 seconds with 13 queries