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.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?
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.
Sponsored