New Edelbrock head

Lem Evans wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true^^^
There are guys that'll fuck up the short side to get a big number @ .800"-1.00" and take the 'guts' right out of the engine.  

Those companies and people simply selling air flow numbers do that kind of thing all the time; Judging by the responses on many forums, selling peak flow numbers seems to be working with the general public and those who think they know more than they do. They just don't realize what they don't know.

I have quit trying to explain it all to customers and simply hope this fictional importance placed upon peak air flow numbers will run its course.
A sewer will flow more peak volume than a straw ... but...........................................

Peak flow numbers are cool but, what the average racer needs to know is what numbers are from .300"-.800".....if they gotta have a number. Numbers not number is the deal.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true^^^
There are guys that'll fuck up the short side to get a big number @ .800"-1.00" and take the 'guts' right out of the engine.  

Those companies and people simply selling air flow numbers do that kind of thing all the time;  Judging by the responses on many forums, selling peak flow numbers seems to be working with the general public and those who think they know more than they do. They just don't realize what they don't know.

I have quit trying to explain it all to customers and simply hope this fictional importance placed upon peak air flow numbers will run its course.
A sewer will flow more peak volume than a straw ... but...........................................

Selling is the key word. ET don't sell.

With the possibility of Eddy being sold I don't see any new products getting off the ground.

Gary Blair wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true^^^
There are guys that'll fuck up the short side to get a big number @ .800"-1.00" and take the 'guts' right out of the engine.  

Those companies and people simply selling air flow numbers do that kind of thing all the time;  Judging by the responses on many forums, selling peak flow numbers seems to be working with the general public and those who think they know more than they do. They just don't realize what they don't know.

I have quit trying to explain it all to customers and simply hope this fictional importance placed upon peak air flow numbers will run its course.
A sewer will flow more peak volume than a straw ... but...........................................

Selling is the key word. ET don't sell.

ET would sell if it was as easy as you make it out to be. "All other things being equal" is what gets in the way. Same track, same day, same car, same driver and air and track temps but, that's not practical  for any true sportsman racers budget. Same day, same dyno is a more practical & affordable approach but, I get the impression you do not believe what dynos either. What I have seen is that the bigger higher flowing heads make more power in the intended RPM range.

Lem Evans wrote:

Gary Blair wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true^^^
There are guys that'll fuck up the short side to get a big number @ .800"-1.00" and take the 'guts' right out of the engine.  

Those companies and people simply selling air flow numbers do that kind of thing all the time;  Judging by the responses on many forums, selling peak flow numbers seems to be working with the general public and those who think they know more than they do. They just don't realize what they don't know.

I have quit trying to explain it all to customers and simply hope this fictional importance placed upon peak air flow numbers will run its course.
A sewer will flow more peak volume than a straw ... but...........................................

Selling is the key word. ET don't sell.

ET would sell if it was as easy as you make it out to be. "All other things being equal" is what gets in the way. Same track, same day, same car, same driver and air and track temps but, that's not practical  for any true sportsman racers budget. Same day, same dyno is a more practical & affordable approach but, I get the impression you do not believe what dynos either. What I have seen is that the bigger higher flowing heads make more power in the intended RPM range.

No doubt about it. Sometimes bigger flowing heads do and sometimes they don't. It ain't that simple either.

Straubtech wrote:With the possibility of Eddy being sold I don't see any new products getting off the ground.

Wait, what? Eddy being sold? Details?

The consolidation taking place in this industry is really getting out of hand, never though Edelbrock would be sold. After getting the big middle finger from some manufacturers this year during black Friday (in regards to MAP pricing), I have to wonder if there's going to be a place for dealers with some of these companies five years from now.


.

Carl wrote:

Straubtech wrote:With the possibility of Eddy being sold I don't see any new products getting off the ground.

Wait, what?  Eddy being sold?  Details?

The consolidation taking place in this industry is really getting out of hand, never though Edelbrock would be sold.  After getting the big middle finger from some manufacturers this year during black Friday (in regards to MAP pricing), I have to wonder if there's going to be a place for dealers with some of these companies five years from now.
.

SURE there will ... as long as you sell $30,000.00 of their parts every year.

Edelbrock has been partially owned by a Chicago investment house for years now.
The only thing venture capitalists care about is THEIR money.

Carl wrote:

Straubtech wrote:With the possibility of Eddy being sold I don't see any new products getting off the ground.

Wait, what?  Eddy being sold?  Details?

Won't get deep into the details, but Edelbrock has been under the thumb of those from whom they borrowed capital, and thereby haven't had full control of their own business under the circumstances.

Paul Kane wrote:

Carl wrote:

Straubtech wrote:With the possibility of Eddy being sold I don't see any new products getting off the ground.

Wait, what?  Eddy being sold?  Details?

Won't get deep into the details, but Edelbrock has been under the thumb of those from whom they borrowed capital, and thereby haven't had full control of their own business under the circumstances.

A quick Google search revealed that Edelbrock bought back all their stock in 2004 because they wanted to retain control as a privately owned company. Guessing they borrowed the money to buy back their stock, and now they're feeling the pain of carrying that debt for 12 years?

Carl wrote:

Paul Kane wrote:

Carl wrote:

Straubtech wrote:With the possibility of Eddy being sold I don't see any new products getting off the ground.

Wait, what?  Eddy being sold?  Details?

Won't get deep into the details, but Edelbrock has been under the thumb of those from whom they borrowed capital, and thereby haven't had full control of their own business under the circumstances.

A quick Google search revealed that Edelbrock bought back all their stock in 2004 because they wanted to retain control as a privately owned company.  Guessing they borrowed the money to buy back their stock, and now they're feeling the pain of carrying that debt for 12 years?

Invested in big new foundry construction (I think that's what they borrowed for). Way more foundry than they need.  Help 'em out and get your casting done there, they'll gladly take your business (at the direction of the investors).

Seems like a good place for this.

"As betting at the race ring adds neither strength nor speed to the horse, so the exchange of shares in the stock market adds no capital to business, no increase in the production and no purchasing power to the market." Henry Ford

[quote="rmcomprandy"]

Carl wrote:SURE there will ... as long as you sell $30,000.00 of their parts every year.

Edelbrock has been partially owned by a Chicago investment house for years now.
The only thing venture capitalists care about is THEIR money.

Kind of hard to invest in that kind of inventory when the manufacturer is selling direct to the retail consumer at the same price we pay, or less.

Carl wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Carl wrote:SURE there will ... as long as you sell $30,000.00 of their parts every year.

Edelbrock has been partially owned by a Chicago investment house for years now.
The only thing venture capitalists care about is THEIR money.

Kind of hard to invest in that kind of inventory when the manufacturer is selling direct to the retail consumer at the same price we pay, or less.

It's always interesting when our supplier is our competition, which is the case most of the time.

Lem Evans wrote:

Carl wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Carl wrote:SURE there will ... as long as you sell $30,000.00 of their parts every year.

Edelbrock has been partially owned by a Chicago investment house for years now.
The only thing venture capitalists care about is THEIR money.

Kind of hard to invest in that kind of inventory when the manufacturer is selling direct to the retail consumer at the same price we pay, or less.

It's always interesting when our supplier is our competition, which is the case most of the time.

That's a pretty shitty deal. I had a FFL in the 90's and the wholesalers I delt with would never under cut the retailers on the stuff they could sell direct to the public.

Lem Evans wrote:

Carl wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Carl wrote:SURE there will ... as long as you sell $30,000.00 of their parts every year.

Edelbrock has been partially owned by a Chicago investment house for years now.
The only thing venture capitalists care about is THEIR money.

Kind of hard to invest in that kind of inventory when the manufacturer is selling direct to the retail consumer at the same price we pay, or less.

It's always interesting when our supplier is our competition, which is the case most of the time.

The companies I deal with direct aren't usually a problem....although one is getting the axe because they can't seem to get their business side right. Shame, because the product is really nice.  Specifically, there seems to be a tidal shift with Holley (who now owns Quick Fuel?).  When a guy calls me for a carb, and tells me Quick Fuel as well as a mega warehouse are selling it $100.00 below my cost, it kind of gets under my skin.  Makes me really happy about imparting all my experience and knowledge to the customer, just so somebody else can make the sale.  To be fair, I'm as disillusioned with the customer as I am the manufacturer.  Also to be fair....I've never had that problem with Edelbrock.  They've always seemed like a standup company, which is why a pending sale kind of surprises me.

68formalGT wrote:That's a pretty shitty deal. I had a FFL in the 90's and the wholesalers I delt with would never under cut the retailers on the stuff they could sell direct to the public.

An armed customer makes for a polite supplier....er something like that.

Lem Evans wrote:

Gary Blair wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true^^^
There are guys that'll fuck up the short side to get a big number @ .800"-1.00" and take the 'guts' right out of the engine.  

Those companies and people simply selling air flow numbers do that kind of thing all the time;  Judging by the responses on many forums, selling peak flow numbers seems to be working with the general public and those who think they know more than they do. They just don't realize what they don't know.

I have quit trying to explain it all to customers and simply hope this fictional importance placed upon peak air flow numbers will run its course.
A sewer will flow more peak volume than a straw ... but...........................................

Selling is the key word. ET don't sell.

ET would sell if it was as easy as you make it out to be. "All other things being equal" is what gets in the way. Same track, same day, same car, same driver and air and track temps but, that's not practical  for any true sportsman racers budget. Same day, same dyno is a more practical & affordable approach but, I get the impression you do not believe what dynos either. What I have seen is that the bigger higher flowing heads make more power in the intended RPM range.

Long term track testing would be more fair. I agree on your dyno testing parameters. I'm always interested in how an engine performs on the track and compare what the dyno says. Lot of variables though like you say. Strictly talking hard surface drag racing.

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

Absolutely.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true^^^
There are guys that'll fuck up the short side to get a big number @ .800"-1.00" and take the 'guts' right out of the engine.  

Those companies and people simply selling air flow numbers do that kind of thing all the time;  Judging by the responses on many forums, selling peak flow numbers seems to be working with the general public and those who think they know more than they do. They just don't realize what they don't know.

I have quit trying to explain it all to customers and simply hope this fictional importance placed upon peak air flow numbers will run its course.
A sewer will flow more peak volume than a straw ... but...........................................

We fight it all the time. "Bigger is better" still sells more products than what's right. It's an uphill battle every day and I don't really care to fight with customers. There are plenty who "get it".

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

The AFR 300 seems to have what you are stating. On their bench they quote an average of 406 CFM from .500-.750.

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

 I agree. What is generally left out of these discussions is air flow quality. Managing port airspeed along with raw airflow cfm is what matters.

Gary Blair wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

The AFR 300 seems to have what you are stating. On their bench they quote an average of 406 CFM from .500-.750.

I got to play with a customer's head on the flow bench, (couldn't modify anything but, used all kinds of flow balls, vanes and probes to map and outline it).

AFR has actually rearranged a lot of the directional airflow and localized air-speeds within the ports from how Ford designed that head.  If the mixture acts well when entering the chamber for good combustion; they may be on to something.

Edit: OOPS, wrong thread.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Gary Blair wrote:

IDT-572 wrote:I will give up 20 cfm at .900 lift for 20+ cfm gain at .400 .500 .600 &.700.

Its about the average air moved in the same lift curve.  Filling the cylinder the most in the amount of time you have to do it. And how it enters the cylinder.

The AFR 300 seems to have what you are stating. On their bench they quote an average of 406 CFM from .500-.750.

I got to play with a customer's head on the flow bench, (couldn't modify anything but, used all kinds of flow balls, vanes and probes to map and outline it).

AFR has actually rearranged a lot of the directional airflow and localized air-speeds within the ports from how Ford designed that head.  If the mixture acts well when entering the chamber for good combustion; they may be on to something.

Edit:  OOPS, wrong thread.

It's basically a BB Chevy left turn port. I've been doing something similar to the back of the Chevy bowls for a couple of years now. Not quite as drastic or pronounced, but same effect. It's all about fighting the way the air crosses the s/t right at the apex. Very counter intuitive.