MAPerformance: Cylinder Head R&D | 7/6/15: Valvetrain Upgrade info posted!

Herr_Poopschitz · Jun 25, 2015

dragonacc said:
I don't want to take anything away from what MAP has done with the head because the average gains look impressive, but shouldn't we be more concerned with the change in flow in the .3 -.4 range since that's the lift of the stock and FR cams? I would imagine when more aggressive cams are available the peak numbers will be more important. Or am I thinking about it all wrong?

Not sure how much you've looked into flowbenches, but testing a head at 28" is a standard, but is far from telling the whole story. 28" is atmosphere, but the pressure differentials in a running engine vary greatly...esp when boost is added. Static flow on a bench is also very different from the pulses seen in the intake port as the valve moves up and down.

Imagine what will/would happen to these graphs if the testing were to be performed at 40 or 50", which is common for higher end competition heads in NA applications. If shooting for most area under the curve to a certain assigned lift at 28"...increasing to higher depressions will often make a port go turbulent, and flow takes a nose dive. Put that head on an engine, and the results will be disappointing to say the least.

The bench is a tool only, it doesn't simulate actual engine airflow dynamics. Unfortunately it takes a large dataset to get to the point of knowing how #s at 28" will translate into performance at a race track.

dragonacc · Jun 25, 2015

Herr_Poopschitz said:
Not sure how much you've looked into flowbenches, but testing a head at 28" is a standard, but is far from telling the whole story. 28" is atmosphere, but the pressure differentials in a running engine vary greatly...esp when boost is added. Static flow on a bench is also very different from the pulses seen in the intake port as the valve moves up and down.

Imagine what will/would happen to these graphs if the testing were to be performed at 40 or 50", which is common for higher end competition heads in NA applications. If shooting for most area under the curve to a certain assigned lift at 28"...increasing to higher depressions will often make a port go turbulent, and flow takes a nose dive. Put that head on an engine, and the results will be disappointing to say the least.

The bench is a tool only, it doesn't simulate actual engine airflow dynamics. Unfortunately it takes a large dataset to get to the point of knowing how #s at 28" will translate into performance at a race track.

Thanks for the explanation. Guess I'll read up on flow bench testing so I can better understand the data.

MAPerformance · Jun 25, 2015

Tamadrummer88 said:
It would be awesome if you can hit close to 390HP on stock turbo with ported head and cams.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Won't be a problem at all, I already have Jason's car (15SVO) at 380whp on stock head/cams. The turbo is working hard though, definitely a stressful scenario for that little guy.

Herr_Poopschitz said:
Not sure how much you've looked into flowbenches, but testing a head at 28" is a standard, but is far from telling the whole story. 28" is atmosphere, but the pressure differentials in a running engine vary greatly...esp when boost is added. Static flow on a bench is also very different from the pulses seen in the intake port as the valve moves up and down.

Imagine what will/would happen to these graphs if the testing were to be performed at 40 or 50", which is common for higher end competition heads in NA applications. If shooting for most area under the curve to a certain assigned lift at 28"...increasing to higher depressions will often make a port go turbulent, and flow takes a nose dive. Put that head on an engine, and the results will be disappointing to say the least.

The bench is a tool only, it doesn't simulate actual engine airflow dynamics. Unfortunately it takes a large dataset to get to the point of knowing how #s at 28" will translate into performance at a race track.

greg hazlett said:
Any power gain est on a stock block with the MAP 1.5 kit?

Not going to put a number on it until I actually get some numbers, then I can put an estimate on a P1.5 car. I'm sure Jason is going to have us do his head and cams this winter.

dragonacc · Jun 25, 2015

Ok, so I read a bit more but still have questions and maybe others do too.

I understand testing at 28" of water as the standard practice. On the x axis different levels of valve lift are listed. The stock cams are in the .3 range on the x axis and will never actually open the valves to .5 inches, so aren't the values in the .3 range most important to compare?

Maybe it's not an important factor long term when bigger cams are available... Anyway, just trying to learn.

Herr_Poopschitz · Jun 25, 2015

dragonacc said:
Ok, so I read a bit more but still have questions and maybe others do too.

I understand testing at 28" of water as the standard practice. On the x axis different levels of valve lift are listed. The stock cams are in the .3 range on the x axis and will never actually open the valves to .5 inches, so aren't the values in the .3 range most important to compare?

Maybe it's not an important factor long term when bigger cams are available... Anyway, just trying to learn.

Not sure how to answer this one exactly. Yes, max cam lift and cfm at that lift is an important consideration. Seeing what happens beyond that point...at .500" and more if provided...tells quite a bit of the 'nature' of the port, however. Where it needs work, where the restriction is, if it may choke or go turbulent...etc. Airspeed is also very important, but not discussed or tested nearly as much.

Good rule of thumb, at 28" a well designed port will continue to increase flow w/ lift and will not plateau until unrealistically high values...1" or more.

Hope this helps. A lot of variables associated w/ this stuff...hell, even being direct injected should influence the design.

dragonacc · Jun 25, 2015

Herr_Poopschitz said:
Not sure how to answer this one exactly. Yes, max cam lift and cfm at that lift is an important consideration. Seeing what happens beyond that point...at .500" and more if provided...tells quite a bit of the 'nature' of the port, however. Where it needs work, where the restriction is, if it may choke or go turbulent...etc. Airspeed is also very important, but not discussed or tested nearly as much.

Good rule of thumb, at 28" a well designed port will continue to increase flow w/ lift and will not plateau until unrealistically high values...1" or more.

Hope this helps. A lot of variables associated w/ this stuff...hell, even being direct injected should influence the design.

That makes sense and in hindsight I realize it was probably a silly question.

Fast64ranchero · Jun 25, 2015

Herr_Poopschitz said:
Not sure how to answer this one exactly. Yes, max cam lift and cfm at that lift is an important consideration. Seeing what happens beyond that point...at .500" and more if provided...tells quite a bit of the 'nature' of the port, however. Where it needs work, where the restriction is, if it may choke or go turbulent...etc. Airspeed is also very important, but not discussed or tested nearly as much.

Good rule of thumb, at 28" a well designed port will continue to increase flow w/ lift and will not plateau until unrealistically high values...1" or more.

Hope this helps. A lot of variables associated w/ this stuff...hell, even being direct injected should influence the design.

It is very common for porters to focus on cam max lift. Heads like this one that flow low numbers are a good example. If you can get more flow and keep velocity up at low lift (stock cam is low lift coming in at 0.29/0.30)
My 2.0L EAO Pinto engine is a good example, I filled the intake runners and reshaped, flow went flat at 0.580, but flowed way better at .5 then without the Epoxy fill, in that case I had a cam ground with just a tad less lift then .580

I haven't seen the EBM head in person, so who knows what will be found when I have it in hand. Hoping it is better then the Speed 3 heads I have ported. I am concerned about cylinders 1 and 4 on the exh manifold side.

MAPerformance · Jun 25, 2015

Fast64ranchero said:
It is very common for porters to focus on cam max lift. Heads like this one that flow low numbers are a good example. If you can get more flow and keep velocity up at low lift (stock cam is low lift coming in at 0.29/0.30)
My 2.0L EAO Pinto engine is a good example, I filled the intake runners and reshaped, flow went flat at 0.580, but flowed way better at .5 then without the Epoxy fill, in that case I had a cam ground with just a tad less lift then .580

I haven't seen the EBM head in person, so who knows what will be found when I have it in hand. Hoping it is better then the Speed 3 heads I have ported. I am concerned about cylinders 1 and 4 on the exh manifold side.

They are definitely garbage (those ports). Wait until you see what we are doing with a junk head that is on the way to us ;).

Herr_Poopschitz · Jun 25, 2015

Fast64ranchero said:
It is very common for porters to focus on cam max lift. Heads like this one that flow low numbers are a good example. If you can get more flow and keep velocity up at low lift (stock cam is low lift coming in at 0.29/0.30)
My 2.0L EAO Pinto engine is a good example, I filled the intake runners and reshaped, flow went flat at 0.580, but flowed way better at .5 then without the Epoxy fill, in that case I had a cam ground with just a tad less lift then .580

I haven't seen the EBM head in person, so who knows what will be found when I have it in hand. Hoping it is better then the Speed 3 heads I have ported. I am concerned about cylinders 1 and 4 on the exh manifold side.

The only time a head should be tailored to cam specs would be class racing where rules prohibit lift over 'x'. Usage, yes...road racing vs dirt modifieds vs drag racing etc all can use slightly different variants. In 99.99% of applications, the cam will be the last piece of the puzzle and is arguably the most vital, as it/they will make everything work together. Also, cam(s) are much cheaper and easier to replace if r & d is being performed than head(s).

It appears whoever ported your heads added material primarily to encourage flow around the ssr. Not sure the as cast port is "too big". What was the min cross section of the finalized port? You can PM me specifics if you wish. These are yours, no?

http://www.fordpinto.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=9674bf175a14252e3604338c1e35acc2&amp;topic=20310.0

Btw, from what I've read of Vizard's theories, the LS3/LS7 should not work nearly as well as they do.

Just some observations.

MAPerformance · Jul 6, 2015

Some more updates! Our full upgraded valvetrain and valves are ready and production has started! You will be able to purchase the upgrade kit by itself, or it will be included in our ported cylinder head package!

Cylinder head pricing, and valvetrain upgrade kit pricing have not been determined. Once pricing is finalized it will be posted here and the products will be added to our site!

Valvetrain Upgrade Kit will included the following:

1. MAP +1mm Hardened Stainless Steel Valves
2. MAP Bronze Valve Guides w/ step
3. MAP Viton Valve Seals
4. MAP Valvesprings
5. MAP Titanium Retainers
6. MAP Hardened Spring Seats

Here are the specs on the springs and information on the spring seats and guides.

Springs:
Installed Height - 1.375"
Installed Height Seat Pressure - 75lbs *Factory was 46lbs*
Open Height - .950"
Open Height Seat Pressure - 175lbs *Factory was 120lbs*
Coil Bind - .825"

We have some seats readily available but might not be necessary. We are waiting to see how the Ford Racing camshafts we have on the way perform. From there we will determine if the spring seats are going to be necessary to increase the pressure of the spring. So far for factory camshafts it is not going to be needed but we like to be ready for anything!

Guides have a built in step, this allows for quick and easy installation as you don't have to measure the installed height a thousand times. Knock out the old guides, press in the new ones and you are good to go!

bam88 · Jul 6, 2015

WOW! Looking forward to seeing complete product and what results you end up with.

Ron@cp-e · Jul 6, 2015

whew, that's awesome!

MAPerformance · Jul 6, 2015

The flow numbers on the previous page were done with factory valves, now with the +1mm valves with back cut the flow will be even more!

AngelOreo · Jul 7, 2015

Adam,

Will the head\cam gains be measures with 91 & 93 octane for of us who can not get E85 feul, nor afford RaceGas? Please?

AngelOreo · Jul 7, 2015

Sir... Inrealize you said the actual gains were not yet noted. I was just curious if it would infact provide gains or not until we increased the size of the turbo... My apologies for not being more clear.

MAPerformance: Cylinder Head R&D | 7/6/15: Valvetrain Upgrade info posted!

Herr_Poopschitz

Nullius in verba

dragonacc

Well-Known Member

MAPerformance

Well-Known Member

dragonacc

Well-Known Member

Herr_Poopschitz

Nullius in verba

dragonacc

Well-Known Member

Fast64ranchero

Well-Known Member

MAPerformance

Well-Known Member

Herr_Poopschitz

Nullius in verba

MAPerformance

Well-Known Member

bam88

Well-Known Member

Ron@cp-e

Well-Known Member

MAPerformance

Well-Known Member

AngelOreo

Well-Known Member

AngelOreo

Well-Known Member