PTS Flowbench Forum

coulterracn wrote:

65mustang393 wrote:320+ cfm from a 195cc SBF Twisted Wedge head??? Really??? You have a company (TEA) dedicated to making the TFS TW head better and the best they can get is 315 cfm at 206 cc and 120 cfm/sq inch of area but someone can take a box stock TW head and make it move 128 cfm/sq inch of area???

Yep, that would be me! I flowed these heads when my bench was first built using the Dwyer Model 246 incline and Dwyer 36" vertical manometers. I thought it was way high but I had calibrated it with a sharp edged orifice that was docuemented at said CFM.

The heads are back in the shop and my bench is set up with the PTSDM and calibrated using Bruce's orifice plates. I flowed one of those same heads tonight; 288 cfm @ .650", falls off 10 cfm @ .700". Man, I was way off.

Gerald and Chad I was wrong with the flow numbers I had posted on the other forum. Ya'll should have called me out!

There is another set at the shop that flowed 296 @ .800" on my bench this past Saturday. I'm going to look these over real good and try to learn from them.

Ray

65mustang393 wrote:Bruce, I hope your efforts have paid off for you because you really have changed the game and for the better.

Brucepts wrote:

65mustang393 wrote:Bruce, I hope your efforts have paid off for you because you really have changed the game and for the better.

Well it's not so much the $$$ payoff as it is the fact of being helped and helping others realize the dream of a flowbench sitting in their shop for their own work or offering services to others.

I never started all of this to turn it into what it has become. My goal was to get myself a flowbench in my shop for my work, I think I have surpassed that goal! I no longer do engine/machining work for others, it's all flowbench parts now

Behind the scenes this thread has sparked a renewed quest for a "calibration standard" even if it does not meet the "Industry Standard" we will at least know what the PTS Flowbench design is capable of (pretty much already know this) and everyone can make their own choice . . . Rick and I have had some lengthy discussions along with Chad's input and we are charting a direction for undertaking some type of "calibration project" once my health gets back to allowing me to work longer in the shop.

65mustang393 wrote:

larrycavan wrote:

Chad Speier wrote:I'd love to see that debate. I'd like to sit back and take it all in. However, I just want to know what I'm seeing is right. I want to know what I'm doing is proper. Having two quality bench options and seeing different results puts a dark cloud over things.

I do know, and it sucks, is owning a big blue gives you instant credibility in some circles. That part I HATE. However, it is what it is..

What I would really like to see is software for the PTSDM much like how you use Performance Trends. Have a section you can enter already calibrated factors (not cd's), able to change the range with a click (range 1-6), and see how it compares to the PTS bench. I think the SF bench is inadequate to use one single orifice for flow testing.

I could make that happen with FSE. A drop list with your preset orifice specs could be added. It would be more than just their flow rate though because of the way the coding works to pull the config file to setup the formulas for flow. HOWEVER, I've decided to stop further development on FSE for two reasons.

1 - Zero feedback from end users
2 - I read that Rick has something in the works for an updated version of Flow Soft Basic.

With regard to the situation you've gotten yourself drug into with some of your customers........ That's just a bitch no matter how you look at it. People are people. I think you've addressed with situation with the purchase of the blue bench. If that's what they want to believe, then fine. You're covering that base for those particular people.

Don't misunderstand me Chad. I get where you're coming from. But also don't loose sight of the fact that what you're doing works!

Like I stated before. Each bench is telling you what the flow conditions are inside their own chamber. Neither duplicate the engine exactly. If it were me, I'd leave the blue bench as is and work the PTS unit for as much DP as you can make it pull. Believe what it's telling you and carry on with your porting development. What you need now is time to build more flow bench data along with more customer results data. Over time, armed with that information, you're going to go another mile down the road with your advancements.


I think you're aggravating yourself because you lost site of one simple fact.... YOU don't follow the crowd! You're strong on your opinions. Some people might not understand that type of personality. Oh Well.... It's people with those characteristics that break new ground!! Just keep doing what you're doing. It won't always make sense. It won't always be easy to justify to everyone you talk to. Some will roll their eyes..... Just let them and keep going forward..... It's dam frustrating sometimes when you're trying to figure out how something you cannot see is actually behaving.... I have wondered what a transparent front panel with some threads taped at various locations inside the benches top chamber might quickly show us.....

JMO

Larry C

Larry, here's the problem with that line of thinking if you sell port work.

If a foot is 12 inches but the Big Blue machine says a foot is 13 inches then everyone has to be get on board and say a foot is 13 inches!

Is Big Blue right. Hell no! But there's a problem... Big Blue beat everyone else to the market and set a foot at 13 inches.

So if you come out and port and get big time numbers that don't replicate on a Big Blue machine, what are you? A liar who inflates numbers.

Is this the truth? No. Big Blue is messed up, but it doesn't matter because they beat everyone else to the market (by about 5000 benches), so by default they are the "default". Right or wrong, this is reality. Prove to me I'm wrong. Ask 100 hot rod enthusiasts who might have port work done which bench they want their stuff flowed on. I bet the answer 99% of the time is SuperFlow.

It's a brand name. Like it or not, it's a brand name.

I don't sell port work (not more than 1 port job every six months) so I have no dog in this fight, so when you go to crush me just keep that in mind... but I think I have a good idea of what the customer wants because I used to be that customer.

I only bought a Big Blue bench (twice) because I wanted to see how my port work compares to other port work I've seen flowed on other Big Blues.

I will be the first to say that some of the numbers that I've seen on home made benches I could NEVER see on my bench with the same CSA and short turn work. Those number are so high that I could never achieve them with a Big Blue bench so I automatically discount them to a certain degree. And it's not beause I don't know how to shape the short turn or widen the area over the turn or use the pitot to make sure it's not too fast over the turn. It's because a foot is 12 inches on those machines and it's 13 inches on a SF machine.

It's the same for the AFR, TEA, and other heads on my SF machines. They flow close to what the advertised numbers are... but are no where close to what some of the home made benches say, so how can you compare?

I'm not saying the small company heads don't make more power. Quite the contrary, the work I've seen here is quite amazing and I hope the trickle down gets to the end user sooner rather than later but if you're comparing numbers to numbers it's no comparison.

320+ cfm from a 195cc SBF Twisted Wedge head??? Really??? You have a company (TEA) dedicated to making the TFS TW head better and the best they can get is 315 cfm at 206 cc and 120 cfm/sq inch of area but someone can take a box stock TW head and make it move 128 cfm/sq inch of area???

See the point I'm trying to make? If it's too good to be true, it's probably too good to be true.

Again, not trying to piss anyone off so please take the above with an open mindset.

65mustang393 wrote:

larrycavan wrote:

Chad Speier wrote:I'd love to see that debate. I'd like to sit back and take it all in. However, I just want to know what I'm seeing is right. I want to know what I'm doing is proper. Having two quality bench options and seeing different results puts a dark cloud over things.

I do know, and it sucks, is owning a big blue gives you instant credibility in some circles. That part I HATE. However, it is what it is..

What I would really like to see is software for the PTSDM much like how you use Performance Trends. Have a section you can enter already calibrated factors (not cd's), able to change the range with a click (range 1-6), and see how it compares to the PTS bench. I think the SF bench is inadequate to use one single orifice for flow testing.

I could make that happen with FSE. A drop list with your preset orifice specs could be added. It would be more than just their flow rate though because of the way the coding works to pull the config file to setup the formulas for flow. HOWEVER, I've decided to stop further development on FSE for two reasons.

1 - Zero feedback from end users
2 - I read that Rick has something in the works for an updated version of Flow Soft Basic.

With regard to the situation you've gotten yourself drug into with some of your customers........ That's just a bitch no matter how you look at it. People are people. I think you've addressed with situation with the purchase of the blue bench. If that's what they want to believe, then fine. You're covering that base for those particular people.

Don't misunderstand me Chad. I get where you're coming from. But also don't loose sight of the fact that what you're doing works!

Like I stated before. Each bench is telling you what the flow conditions are inside their own chamber. Neither duplicate the engine exactly. If it were me, I'd leave the blue bench as is and work the PTS unit for as much DP as you can make it pull. Believe what it's telling you and carry on with your porting development. What you need now is time to build more flow bench data along with more customer results data. Over time, armed with that information, you're going to go another mile down the road with your advancements.


I think you're aggravating yourself because you lost site of one simple fact.... YOU don't follow the crowd! You're strong on your opinions. Some people might not understand that type of personality. Oh Well.... It's people with those characteristics that break new ground!! Just keep doing what you're doing. It won't always make sense. It won't always be easy to justify to everyone you talk to. Some will roll their eyes..... Just let them and keep going forward..... It's dam frustrating sometimes when you're trying to figure out how something you cannot see is actually behaving.... I have wondered what a transparent front panel with some threads taped at various locations inside the benches top chamber might quickly show us.....

JMO

Larry C

Larry, here's the problem with that line of thinking if you sell port work.

If a foot is 12 inches but the Big Blue machine says a foot is 13 inches then everyone has to be get on board and say a foot is 13 inches!

Is Big Blue right. Hell no! But there's a problem... Big Blue beat everyone else to the market and set a foot at 13 inches.

So if you come out and port and get big time numbers that don't replicate on a Big Blue machine, what are you? A liar who inflates numbers.

Is this the truth? No. Big Blue is messed up, but it doesn't matter because they beat everyone else to the market (by about 5000 benches), so by default they are the "default". Right or wrong, this is reality. Prove to me I'm wrong. Ask 100 hot rod enthusiasts who might have port work done which bench they want their stuff flowed on. I bet the answer 99% of the time is SuperFlow.

It's a brand name. Like it or not, it's a brand name.

I don't sell port work (not more than 1 port job every six months) so I have no dog in this fight, so when you go to crush me just keep that in mind... but I think I have a good idea of what the customer wants because I used to be that customer.

I only bought a Big Blue bench (twice) because I wanted to see how my port work compares to other port work I've seen flowed on other Big Blues.

I will be the first to say that some of the numbers that I've seen on home made benches I could NEVER see on my bench with the same CSA and short turn work. Those number are so high that I could never achieve them with a Big Blue bench so I automatically discount them to a certain degree. And it's not beause I don't know how to shape the short turn or widen the area over the turn or use the pitot to make sure it's not too fast over the turn. It's because a foot is 12 inches on those machines and it's 13 inches on a SF machine.

It's the same for the AFR, TEA, and other heads on my SF machines. They flow close to what the advertised numbers are... but are no where close to what some of the home made benches say, so how can you compare?

I'm not saying the small company heads don't make more power. Quite the contrary, the work I've seen here is quite amazing and I hope the trickle down gets to the end user sooner rather than later but if you're comparing numbers to numbers it's no comparison.

320+ cfm from a 195cc SBF Twisted Wedge head??? Really??? You have a company (TEA) dedicated to making the TFS TW head better and the best they can get is 315 cfm at 206 cc and 120 cfm/sq inch of area but someone can take a box stock TW head and make it move 128 cfm/sq inch of area???

See the point I'm trying to make? If it's too good to be true, it's probably too good to be true.

Again, not trying to piss anyone off so please take the above with an open mindset.

larrycavan wrote: Now, since we have several significant differences that can affect the behavior of the measuring gauges results, it becomes somewhat tricky to nail down a specific contributor to the effects witnessed during testing. I have my theory on what's happening. Here's your opportunity to assess the situation and contribute to a solution.... Batter up!

Let's examine the .600 lift situation I pointed out before. Any time a head porter sees a reversal like that, it gets his attention. One bench says is backing up and the other says it's still increasing. Your thoughts on that would be what?

Why do you think the PTS bench measures an increase at the lift change?
Why do you think the SF bench measures a loss at the lift change?