Finally got #'s back from the flow bench testing of the 2 different heads being discussed. Both heads have the same amount of machining, porting, HI-FLOW lumps and valve sizes being 1.94/ 1.60. Both heads also had a cutter used to remove material in the chamber to give appr .150 clearance to the chamber wall.
1st head is the "194" head.
Lift Flow CFM
.100 59.4
.200 117.8
.300 161.9
.400 192
.500 213.9
.600 227.3
This is the open chamber head
Lift Flow
.100 60.9
.200 118.6
.300 176.5
.400 211
.500 231.8
.600 246.1
As can be seen here , the open chamber head clearly outflowed the closed chamber head with the same modifications done. If someone were to spend countless hours opening the chamber on the "194" head, then flow would certainly improve. This is not what the average Guy will want to do for a street engine.
When these exact same heads were tested on the dyno 292, the "194" head was down on power compared to the open chamber head. Even with the increase of compression help the "194" head, tq was down across the rpm range.
A 1.84 intake valve could be tried in the "194" head. From prior flow testing and dyno testing of the 1.84 valved open chamber head, also on the 292 mule, power was down and was nearly equal to the 1.94 "194" head.
Tom
