| Message |
Hello Jim,
I agree with the .125" being a rule of thumb, which is what I have become accustomed to over the last 29 years of experience. Some cylinder head porters use less, some use more, there are pros and cons to each side of the coin, however, pretty much everyone will agree that actual flow testing, as explained in the original post, will determine the actual extent of the condition.
More importantly, is that the cylinder head porter be aware of these conditions and actually test for it, rather than ignore or miss the condition (hense the "rule of thumb").
The processes explained in the topic post describe the initial analytical steps to be understood and taken prior to any modification is done on the head itself. These steps are aimed at through analysis, pre-determine what modifications are or need to be performed and verify (through physical testing) any performance shortfalls within the head (or manifold, etc). In order for the cylinder head porter to modify the head to correct a performance shortfall, he / she must be made aware of the condition first in order to address it. I take a methodical approach towards cylinder head porting, in which I admit is cautious (maybe even anal), disiplined and conservative, but most importantly, repeatable.
Thank-you for your comment, and allowing me the opportunity to clarify this subject.
Hopefully, you and other members of this forum, found the subject post to be interesting and informative. BTW: Nice website Jim, wish you good fortune and success with your business.
|
 |
