Air Flow Research 195cc street head: DAN BURK L98 ANGLE PLUG
68 cc combustion chamber, 2.02/1.60 valve
195cc intake port volume, 64cc exhaust port volume

 

Test #1: BASELINE FLOW TEST BEFORE MODIFICATION The stock heads, as delivered, were nearly within 10 cfm at all measureable lifts. At .400" lift on-up, the heads are always within 6 cfm of advertised flow data.

TEST#1 INTAKE BASELINE flow test            
VALVE LIFT (inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ADVERTISED N/A 132 198 240 260 262
MEASURED(cfm @ 28" test pressure) 63 126 186 234 254 266
CFM difference N/A -6.0 -12.0 -6.0 -6.0 +4.0
%DIFFERENCE N/A -4.65% -6.25% -2.53% -2.33% 1.52%
%DIFFERENCE = 2*(MEASURED-ADVERTISED)/(MEASURED+ADVERTISED)*100%

TEST#1 EXHAUST BASELINE flow test

VALVE LIFT (inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ADVERTISED N/A 108 156 178 190 194
MEASURED(cfm @ 28" test pressure) 59 107 151 173 182 188
CFM difference N/A -1.0 -5.0 -5.0 -8.0 -6.0
%DIFFERENCE N/A -0.93% -3.26% -2.85% -4.30% -3.14%
             
BASELINE E/I FLOW RATIO 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
ADVERTISED N/A 81.82% 78.79% 74.17% 73.08% 74.05%
MEASURED 93.65% 84.92% 81.18% 73.93% 71.65% 70.68%
%DIFFERENCE N/A 3.72% 2.99% -0.32% -1.97% -4.66%
TEST 2: ADD A 30 DEGREE BACK CUT TO INTAKE VALVE. This improved low lift flow by a few percent. Less efficient heads probably benefit more than in our case.
INTAKE LIFT (in inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Before MOD (stock) (cfm@28" test pressure) 63 126 186 234 254 266
After MOD(30 degree backcut) (CFM @ 28" t.p.) 65 133 189 235 255 267
DIFFERENCE (CFM) 2.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
%DIFFERENCE +3.1% +5.4% +1.6% +0.4% +0.4% +0.4%
Test # 3: EXH MOD#1: RECONTOUR VALVE GUIDE IN EXHAUST PORT. This improved exhaust air flow by only a small percentage at lifts greater than .500", but may have sacrificed some low-lift air flow.

EXHAUST LIFT (in inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
BEFORE EXH. MOD1 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 59 107 151 173 182 188 192
AFTER EXH. MOD1 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 57.2 106.1 151.4 173 182.8 189.7 194.6
DIFFERENCE (CFM) 1.8 0.9 0.4 0 0.8 1.7 2.6
%DIFFERENCE -3.1% -0.8% +0.3% 0% +0.4% +0.9% +1.35%
Test # 4: EXH. MOD#2 Slightly modify port under seat, clean up around seat opening, add 30 degree back-cut to exhaust valve. At last, something that made a significant difference at useable valve lift. I also had the exhaust valve undercut at the same time and polished the port, but I doubt they had as much effect as the area around (and just under) the seat. One thing to note is that the air flow is now within two percent of AFR advertised street-port flow numbers.
EXHAUST LIFT (in inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
EXH. MOD1 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 57.2 106.1 151.4 173 182.8 189.7 194.6
AFTER EXH. MOD2 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 57.2 106.1 153 177 187 193 198
DIFFERENCE (CFM) 0.0 0.0 1.6 4.0 4.2 3.3 3.4
%difference, MOD2 versus MOD1. 0% 0% 1.9% 2.3% 2.3% 1.7% 1.7%
%difference, against advertised flow numbers.   -1.77% -1.94% -0.56% -1.59% -0.52%  

Test # 5: EXH. MOD#3 SQUARE UP THE "D" PORT & SLIGHT RECONTOUR UNDER VALVE SEAT (per test 4). Air Flow Research recommended making this change and it shows significant improvement at all valve lifts. However, some low lift flow improvement might be attributed to my recontour just under the valve seat. I removed a little more material (.025" or so). This will be my final change to the exhaust port. I've exceeded advertised "street-port" flow numbers at .400" on-up. Low lift is nearly the same as advertised flow numbers.

EXHAUST LIFT (in inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
EXH. MOD2 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 57.2 106.1 153 177 187 193 198
AFTER EXH. MOD3 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 57.2 107 155 184 196 203 209
DIFFERENCE (CFM) 0.0 0.9 2.0 7.0 9.0 10.0 11.0
DIFFERENCE VERSUS BASELINE FLOW (CFM) -1.8 0 +4.0 +11.0 +14.0 +15.0 +17.0
DIFFERENCE VERSUS ADVERTISED FLOW (CFM)   -1.0 -1.0 6.0 6.0 9.0  
%difference, MOD3 versus MOD2. 0% 0.84% 1.3% 3.9% 4.7% 5.1% 5.4%

Test # 6: INTAKE MOD #2: RECONTOUR VALVE GUIDE, CLEAN UP AROUND VALVE SEAT. I noted that the intake vale seat was recessed into the combustion chamber, leaving a small "step". I used a 1/8 inch sanding roll to grind off the step, leaving a smooth transition from the top of the valve seat into the combustion chamber. I also found a tiny sharp edge inside the valve seat, where the seat meets the aluminum. A few seconds with a sanding roll and it was gone. In addition, I removed the three prominent ridges that are figments of the CNC program. Interesting airflow improvements resulted across all lifts. Low-lift flow improved considerably. High lift improved by a percent or two. Mid-lift (0.2 through 0.5 inches) still needs some help. Could the short side radius need attention? We'll give the intake port another modification & flow test before applying what we learned to the remaining ports in the cylinder heads.

INTAKE LIFT (in inches) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
INT MOD1 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 65 133 189 235 255 267 272
AFTER INT. MOD2 (cfm @ 28" test pressure) 68 135 192 236 259 270 273
DIFFERENCE (CFM) 3.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 3.0 1.0
DIFFERENCE VERSUS ADVERTISED FLOW (CFM)   3.0 -6.0 -4.0 -1.0 8.0  
%difference, MOD2 versus MOD1. 4.5% 1.5% 1.6% 0.4% 1.6% 1.1%  

Last modified January 27, 2003