Flow numbers

[brad12oz]

I was wondering if anybody has flow numbers on the new pro 1 platinum 200 head? All i see is the .500 lift flow, i need the .100 to .500 flow. If anyone can help please let me know. thanx.

[Dart Vader]

We don't really use flow numbers much around here anymore, as we've found wet-flow testing to be superior in terms of results to real world performance translation.
In many cases we have tested heads with very similar flow numbers only to find that wet-flow numbers were quite different. Since a real engine will be flowing with fuel in the mixture, dry flow numbers are somewhat limited in their usefulness for us these days.
That being said, I think we do have some of the dry flow numbers around here somewhere, I'll try to dig them up and get them posted for you.

[guru]

I would be interested in wet flow numbers if you have them.

Some comparison propoganda would be awesome too!:D

[guru]

If the Dart Encyclopedia is correct the flow numbers for the new heads are virtually the same as the old heads, with radically more wet flow.

The jegs website is very informative on the old heads.
http://www.jegs.com/p/Dart/744642/10002/-1/10187

[Dart Vader]

Yes, the numbers given in the encyclopedia are accurate, the comparisons are very interesting. The new heads dry-flow only slightly better, wet-flow much better and produce significantly more horsepower than the old ones.

If you still would like some flow or wet-flow numbers I can probably go grab some from the guys in testing or from one of the techs, but there are really no comparison figures for the wet-flow numbers since no one else is doing it! (How's that for propaganda!) ;)

[guru]

I am of course still interested in wet flow numbers. :D

The only reason I asked about comparison is that you said:
In many cases we have tested heads with very similar flow numbers only to find that wet-flow numbers were quite different

[Trmnatr]

Yes, the numbers given in the encyclopedia are accurate, the comparisons are very interesting. The new heads dry-flow only slightly better, wet-flow much better and produce significantly more horsepower than the old ones.

If you still would like some flow or wet-flow numbers I can probably go grab some from the guys in testing or from one of the techs, but there are really no comparison figures for the wet-flow numbers since no one else is doing it! (How's that for propaganda!) ;)

How about wet flow numbers on the 200, 215 and 230 ? BTW, what was the old number Dart used to advertise on the Dart 215's {platinum} of 289 @.600" and 275 @.500" on the 200's ? 28" or Wet flow?

I dont look at flow numbers myself, ET and MPH will tell you what you need and Dart delivers out of the box - PERIOD

To the original poster, lets take a race engine that has .175" tappet lift @ TDC on a SB chevy = .280" valve lift with a 1.6 rocker, Why do we need alot more airflow before this point? A little yes, alot no, BTW, this is just my opinion and it seems to work, if you have alot of flow there you have a problem, Another reason i dont like Duration @ .050", How does this tell you what your RPM band is when you have .175" tappet lift @ TDC with this given example ? .050" tappet lift is some degrees before TDC, This is why i like a big duration number @ .200", Look how good Harold Brookshire's cams work, he used to operate off the same idea

I had a customer a few years back buy a set of "X" brand heads to replace his dart's on his engine i built, he was running 11.20's with Dart, went 11.60's with "X" head and we tuned on that car until we were blue in the face to get a 11.40 ET, put the Darts back on and 11.20's were back - Brand "X" was a very high flow aluminum head, Dart was just a cast iron head i bought bare and installed ferrea valves and H-11 springs

[Dart Vader]

I talked with some of the guys over in testing and they informed me that the wet-flow numbers are considered proprietary information right now.
Due to the fact that we use wet-flow testing heavily in our Pro-stock program, and plan to use current and future data gathered on the wet-flow equipment with regards to our product lines in the future, I can't release the numbers at this time.
(By the way Trmnatr, the old advertised numbers were dry-flow, for the very reasons listed above.)

That was a mouthful... Sorry about that, I guess the graph and info in the encyclopedia Platinum entry and the Wet-Flow entry will have to do for now.
The other source I can recommend for wet-flow info is an article by David Vizard here:
http://www.gofastnews.com/board/technical-articles/189-evolution-revolution-darts-bb-chevy-heads.html

Mr. Vizard stopped by our shop and did some extensive research on it a while back. His article goes pretty in depth.

Let me know if you need anything else!

[Trmnatr]

I talked with some of the guys over in testing and they informed me that the wet-flow numbers are considered proprietary information right now.
Due to the fact that we use wet-flow testing heavily in our Pro-stock program, and plan to use current and future data gathered on the wet-flow equipment with regards to our product lines in the future, I can't release the numbers at this time.
(By the way Trmnatr, the old advertised numbers were dry-flow, for the very reasons listed above.)

That was a mouthful... Sorry about that, I guess the graph and info in the encyclopedia Platinum entry and the Wet-Flow entry will have to do for now.
The other source I can recommend for wet-flow info is an article by David Vizard here:
http://www.gofastnews.com/board/technical-articles/189-evolution-revolution-darts-bb-chevy-heads.html

Mr. Vizard stopped by our shop and did some extensive research on it a while back. His article goes pretty in depth.

Let me know if you need anything else!

The reason i askes is Dart had those cfm ratings when the platinum came out then a few months ago they lowered te rating to the idnetical ratings of the non platinum

One test revealed the 215 platinum's flow 273 @ .600" lift and the they were rated at 289 @ .700" {not .600" like i posted} at low 280's at .600" - Thats not that much difference, day to day and bench to bench - 10cfm loss

I will never forget something i heard Richard say one time, We want the ports just rough enough and the bowls smooth - 10 years later look how all heads are !!

Im in MD too, I see Richard is working with Jim Yates again and Justin drives the other car, Is there just something about Maryland drivers there in NHRA Pro Stock ??

I hope they dont part like they did before, people do part out but not the way they did some years back - Hope it goes much better this time around and they are a good combo

[Awesome Bill]

I have never seen anything run with as cast ports as good as a correctly ported smoothed out port. The intake runners and intake manifold do not mix up the fuel as people think. I have worked with some older Nascar stuff, older pro stock stuff, and even seen some new Mopar pro stock stuff and the ports are baby butt smooth.

If you believe the ruffer port works, that is only because your carb does not function properly and it is believed as the fuel tumbles down it breaks it up. The pulsations from the exhaust port contradict that theory as with some injection engines at low speeds, you can see fuel spitting back out in raw form and thats from the injector which is about 6-12 inches down from the top of the stacks.
So fuel does not tumble around, while it is lolly gaggling down the intake port, makes the gentle turn and then somehow gets mixed up enough to burn. Thats not what happens.

A good booster and proper signal will make almost a fog from the booster and break the fuel up properly and then mixing with the incoming air will be pulled into the cylinder at lightening speeds. It does not have time to break down any further once it leaves.

With that said, air flow #'s are still a base to go off of once we know what happens from that point. It either makes more power @ a usually higher rpm and the et will prove it.

Now with wet flow tech, we now have induced a mixture similar to the fuel into the port being more like an engine sees it and we now have more information to work with. So I would not get excited about flow #'s. If it flows less with more in the runner, this usually means more power.

I am not about flow #'s, I need size and smooth with no bumps and turns if possible. The DamBest Booster I have been working with the last year are the best booster I have ever seen and John is a pretty sharp chap. His carbs always make as much and usually more hp by far than anything we test. They are pricey but also very precise otbox for hp when ordered. On an average, the bsfc will fall .02 and make more hp with less fuel. Why? Because his booster signal and booster is much more efficient. So thats jmo.

Try taking a pro stock or Nascar engine and leave the ports with all those sharp edges untouched from the cutter like the production stuff is and see who does not even come close to qualifying!

[Dart Vader]

I hope they dont part like they did before, people do part out but not the way they did some years back - Hope it goes much better this time around and they are a good combo

Likewise!
Richard seems to be pretty pleased about the arrangement right now.