Originally Posted by
Z28ricer
Oh, and chris, you of all people ? C'mon you should know better, sweet some peak numbers ? What happened with that spreadsheet of yours ? 5.7L 400 rwhp dyno sheet plugged into your little spreadsheet coming out faster than your 430 rwhp sr20det ?
Area under the curve, funny little thing it is.
You seriously have ADD, dude.
I say that your GM pushrod static flow numbers are garbage because engines aren't static. And that GM valvetrain technology is now 2 generations behind. Then...
Packaging!
Engine swaps!
Your Titan motor only makes 305 hp!
Racecars!
Look, I slide some supercharged LS9 numbers in!
Area under the curve!
Hey, didn't you e-race the car you had 2.5 years ago against some Corvette one time????
Seriously. You and I both know that comparing static flow is bullshit because the valve sweeps through the lift range which is determined by the cam. And that lift and duration of said cam (the easily quoted internet numbers) don't give you the area under the curve of the cam lobe. Plus starting there totally ignores the VE of the system, which takes into account cam phasing, manifolds, and filter/muffler restrictions. THAT is why having a pissing contest about static flow rates is bullshit. Now take those terms and rearrange them into a rebuttal without using any engine codes. ..and go!