That would make for an interesting dyno test. With & without the vane, different direction vanes etc. Even epoxy vanes for testing purposes would work.
Nice video Eric. I think you are correct in calling this a flow separation issue. It seems to happen at 0.550-0.600 lift on many of the SBM heads that I have tested. I have heard others use the term 'hyper critical' in describing the condition of the port just after venturi convergence and just before the short side loses flow. The 'peak' of the flow curve can be moved around by changing top cut angles in the chamber, by shifting the head on the bench, by changing the throat size and angles, by changing the valve shape. When at this hyper critical point, any flow disruption will send the flow over the top of the valve and flow on the short side is greatly reduced. Flow will typically drop by 10 cfm but will gradually recover at about 0.900-0.950 lift when the valve is out of the way. Velocity in the center of the SSR is about 450 fps, so it's very sensitive to disruption. The PRP on these heads is very intrusive and creates a lot of the issues downstream.
You're on to something Eric, and thanks for sharing. This example has me thinking of an old idea I had. Flow test heads on an engine block to use as a "sudo spintron" like device to actuate a valve on the cyl being flow tested. Block all the unused cylinders airflow and pull vacuum through the empty crankcase with a big tube welded into an oil pan. It seems there would be some interesting data with the intake valve cycling at around 60 times per second with the cam that was going to be used in the engine, while flow testing. Much closer to representing a running engine than steady state flow testing, although still a great deal different without the real overlap cycle in place.
Have to wonder about the "wing" and direction of rotation of the vortex in the port? and how that is affected by the change in the flow based on the rapid stop/start of air movement?
Just a thought, I don’t think there’s any time on a running engine, that airflow is momentarily blocked while the valve stays open. If you popped the valve closed and back, that might be closer to what actually happens.
The wing creates a vortex with horizontal axis on at the bowl. This pulls more air to the port while the valve is closed and dissipates the valve pulse. When the valve opens, the air speed remains a bit higher on the wall side, creating "swirl", a vortex with vertical axis inside the chamber. This vortex fills up 2 valve chamber better than horizontal axis vortex, which in 4 valve chamber works better on higher revs, being faster fill, smaller radius vortex. "Swirl" has slightly uneven mix, there the center has less fuel then the sides. This can be beneficial for dish piston head, as the flame front pushes the piston with variable pressure. at 4K to 8K, creates more torque.
I've been thinking of the vane as a tailgate, creating a small low pressure bubble to speed up/redirect airflow. If thats correct here, (idk), then angling the vane towards the cylinder wall, like these trick flows or sbc afrs & promaxx sbc, would direct the air towards the center of the bore.
It is weird but you stated "they did a dyno test" and it made more power so that seems it either makes more power w/reduced flow or, more likely, the super fast (faster than our hands) valve closing where the suction begins doesn't cause the same effect. I'd imagine the only way to test that is to be able to rapidly close and then reopen the valve on the bench but not sure if that's feasible.
Have you noticed this more, or less, with different valve sizes vs port sizes? In other words, a larger port with smaller valves, or a smaller port with larger valves? What about at different lifts? Thank you for the video.
Ad the length of an intake runner and see if a longer column of air reacts differently . Also how long are you stopping the flow compared to a valve at 3 to 7 thousand RPM , not hating just asking
I think it adds turbulence to the air column enhancing homogenization of the intake charge. Think of the air charge as a slinky. Bulk of the mass oscillating back and forth like a wave, every intake valve cycle. When the valve closes the pressure builds up and reflects back in a different way causing turbulence and better mixing.
Is it possible that when you’re smacking the port it pulls the valve open a little bit farther a small amount from the vacuum the bench ? highly unlikely I realize this but I’m just curious
I'm tipping that your not about to run out of tests for your dyno mules any time soon... That would be an interesting test vane to the outside then straighten up, then you would know if it's a Dyno R&D or Superflow R&D🤔
Do the same thing and watch the swirl numbers. I believe the vein increases the swirl and directs the fuel pattern in the runner,combustion chamber and cylinder wall. I can seen why it made more power.
@@WeingartnerRacing Thanks. I know you are busy. I've seen alot of interesting things about swirl . I have swaped heads on my 2wd Blazer . I was surprised with the factory 193 tbi swirl port heads with a carburetor. 350 SBC. That got me really thinking about it.
Well. Thats an interesting topic. My 1020 bench acts exactly as you stated in those same circumstances. More than half the time ssr layback. Especially in the corners will fix it. But not always. The small block dodge head has a brutal hard over short side. So for me it is highly suspect in this case. If not, It can be a hunt to find what spot is aggrivating it. The only thing this makes me wonder if in this case it is the ssr to steep? Because I find trickflow often tries to keep that area as fast as possible. So I am curious if you stick a small flow ball over the ssr apex. If it re attatches and the flow recovers. Then you will know its in the ssr velocity / radius thats a problem. Not the vane. Good video. As a fello head porter. You hit a nerve. So to speak. Lol.
I'd be very interested to see the results when closing the valve opposed to creating a choke/restriction upstream. Putting your hand across the port isn't anywhere near what happens in a running engine
Thanks I own a Pair already, and since i bought, DO WONDER what if this was on a 4.15 bore not a 4.03 bore test. There has been tests on the W-2 that were available and Hughes 360-1 and for the money there is no comparison , Also Dyno tests with 360-1 cnc ported showed only Marginal gain and huge price difference. If anything I would if you world Take the 190 CNC TFS and further port thenm to see just how much more power/flow they can make
At around 5k rpm the engine is going so fast it's practically steady state. That is really interesting, have you taken any pitot speed readings from the roof?
id bet its different when the valve actually closes hits the seat and opens. that event alone, is going to change how much air, how fast the air moves when the valve is back to full lift. i have always included valve cycling into this event. velocity is going to be higher even though total flow will be lower as the valve is coming off the seat. id try cycling it, let the air recover in its direction through the port, around the vane, into the chamber. the hand is yes acting like the valve closing but it is not slowing, choking off the air supply and changing the air flow in the same manner as the valve closing is going to. fully open valve, hand smack choking it, vs surface area tween the valve and seat also getting smaller. larger. the resonance, swirl, turbulence etc etc is not being represented in a real life valve cycle event
The flow never stops and starts with the valve at max lift like you just caused to happen. Your example will never happen in a running engine. Port recovery works with the opening and closing of the valve. The shape and Venturi that happens when the valve is opening and closing as a variable cross-sectional change is what causes a port to have great pressure/port recovery. Having the valve at max lift and then blocking the intake tract is not the same thing as the valve closing. Of course the port does not recover back to what it had when you ramped the air on vs smacking the airflow with your hand. I know you understand this, I’m just bringing it to your attention. However this is a good eye for catching this and it would be good to test back to back on the dyno , with a straight vane and a sideways vane. Thanks for the info
@@WeingartnerRacing if the throttle is closed you are not under power, and thus the flow disruption is meaningless. By the time you are back on the throttle the valve has already opened and closed a few hundred times (depending on rpm of course) and thus recovered from the normal valve opening event without disruption like I mentioned before. For your theory to even play out, you would need to stop the flow of the air column and then reintroduce it back to the port in the short period of time while the valve is at max lift in a running engine which is physically impossible. Go figure up how long the valve is actually dwelling at peak lift in a engine at idle and see that this time is hardly comprehensible in regards of us being able to perform an act within this allotted time frame, then just image it at 4, 5, 6,000 rpm’s. If the throttle is closed it doesn’t matter if you lose 300cfm on your flow bench from smacking it, the cylinder no longer needs the volume of air (because the throttle is closed, it’s called deceleration for reason) and either way the port has already recovered its from the normal valve opening and closing events from the rotation of the engine. I stand with my first comment, this test is irrelevant and meaningless in regards to a running engine unless you have a engine that just holds the valve opening the whole time while it’s running but obviously it would no longer be running if that was the case. It’s kinda cool that you found this, but there is no effect on power. It’s no big secret that the engine slows down when you take your foot off the gas lol. You cannot disregard basic engine fundamentals and build an hypothesis from a scenario that will never occur.
@@WeingartnerRacing however I would like to see a dyno test with and without a proper developed vane. One straight, one left, one right. Their definitely is something to learn there, but it has nothing to do with our prior conversation.
@@WeingartnerRacing the only way anything useful could come from a test like this is possible on the spintron and a bunch more equipment added to it. You must have the valve events. The engine never sees one degree of rotation or change of airflow with the valve static at max lift. And the millisecond of time that does occur during peak lift is so short it becomes completely irrelevant to change. Part throttle is not a sudden door shut onto the intake port, and each intake port in most engines share a common plenum from which to draw a small amount of air from to keep the port from stalling completely. However, without having a dynamic valve event at operating speed, the test cannot simulate an authentic event inside the engine. Although you do not have the equipment to test it, the only way we could see if the vane caused a true flow decrease during transient throttle changes would be to have an actuator on the valve running it through a typical cam lobe profile at an actual operating speed, or rpm if you will, that a engine would see. If you could do this then you may have useable data. Otherwise the valve is static with 28 inch depression of constant flow that is being disrupted for a split second. Ports are not designed to recover like this and they never do in a running engine because the valve is always dynamic. I believe there is something to be learned about vane placement, however you may be looking in the wrong place with this test. It would be really cool to make a valve actuator that could simulate valve events while you flow the head. You would be surprised what you find happening, especially if you could replicate the 2nd or 3rd resonance wave going back and forth but I doubt that equipment will ever be developed. It would require an air supply that could ramp up and down simulating the piston stroke and rapidly change pressures almost instantaneously. Of course we have those, it’s called a running engine on a dyno lol. It’s all about time, and there isn’t enough time during peak lifts for an abrupt air change to make a difference. By the time the air stopped at the valve, the valve would have already ran through a few complete valve event cycles and leaving it once again impossible for this test to actually happen in a running engine. However without these types of discussions, innovation cannot happen and why it is healthy for our industry.
The issue with your "hand slap test" is that it doesn't simulate the valve opening and closing. It'd be more accurate of real world operations if you wacked the valve open and closed. The air isnt going around an opening valve, it's trying to make it's way past the stationary valve. Wack the valve open and closed. Put a stem lock or something so the valve only opens and closes so far and try that again. That would reveal something more relevant.
@@WeingartnerRacingWell, yeah, because the valve is what is starting and stopping the air flow in the cylinder. if you can lift and stomp the throttle quicker than the valve event, that is truly impressive LOL Run that test again, starting with a closed valve and pop it open to .800 and let it slam shut again which would be pretty simple to do and see what the flow is like then. It may require a little more spring to overcome the flow past the valve, but a pair of checker springs would probably be enough. The static valve position potential of the port gives you potential flow it lift X, but it really doesn't demonstrate the ports ability to fill the cylinder at a specific RPM. But, you know this.
Also I ordered your seriously wrong shirt then I say to people hey I have a shirt that is seriously wrong lol but it definitely a cool shirt can't wait to show people
Covering the port is not the same as the valve closing. The port is full of air and under some pressure when the valve closes. You are starving the port of air by blocking it off. Bet the effect changes if you close the valve then reopen it.
That's why everyone is boosting nowadays, Ekka, with turbos, because all this unpredictable stuff becomes totally irrelevant. And you can make massive horsepower, easily, without all this time, effort and expense wasted on head ports.
I think the biggest question I always have is what happens on the running engine? I have cheated airflow numbers around with wings and other vortex generation perturbences before, and it looks awesome on the flowbench, but does it work like that when the engine is running? Good question?
I've been told that Superflow benches don't show turbulence well because of the baffle and orifice plates being designed so compactly that it affects the flow and masks problems with the port, or whatever is being tested. Not discounting your motor theory because that is probably just as valid.
That would make for an interesting dyno test. With & without the vane, different direction vanes etc. Even epoxy vanes for testing purposes would work.
You wouldn't think that would make such a difference, thanks for sharing, all the best to you and your loved ones
Thanks for the time you share for Info.
Nice video Eric. I think you are correct in calling this a flow separation issue. It seems to happen at 0.550-0.600 lift on many of the SBM heads that I have tested. I have heard others use the term 'hyper critical' in describing the condition of the port just after venturi convergence and just before the short side loses flow. The 'peak' of the flow curve can be moved around by changing top cut angles in the chamber, by shifting the head on the bench, by changing the throat size and angles, by changing the valve shape. When at this hyper critical point, any flow disruption will send the flow over the top of the valve and flow on the short side is greatly reduced. Flow will typically drop by 10 cfm but will gradually recover at about 0.900-0.950 lift when the valve is out of the way. Velocity in the center of the SSR is about 450 fps, so it's very sensitive to disruption. The PRP on these heads is very intrusive and creates a lot of the issues downstream.
Interesting
You're on to something Eric, and thanks for sharing.
This example has me thinking of an old idea I had. Flow test heads on an engine block to use as a "sudo spintron" like device to actuate a valve on the cyl being flow tested.
Block all the unused cylinders airflow and pull vacuum through the empty crankcase with a big tube welded into an oil pan.
It seems there would be some interesting data with the intake valve cycling at around 60 times per second with the cam that was going to be used in the engine, while flow testing.
Much closer to representing a running engine than steady state flow testing, although still a great deal different without the real overlap cycle in place.
A flowbench cannot reach anywhere near the vacuum pulled by piston.
Or "vacuum" pulled by exhaust scavenging...isn't that more stronger?
I am seeing same exact set up wing on the Project X heads used in dyno test
Have to wonder about the "wing" and direction of rotation of the vortex in the port? and how that is affected by the change in the flow based on the rapid stop/start of air movement?
Could your hand blip be setting up a resonance in the port, like blowing into a bottle? Thanks for flowing a set of Mopar heads.
Just a thought, I don’t think there’s any time on a running engine, that airflow is momentarily blocked while the valve stays open. If you popped the valve closed and back, that might be closer to what actually happens.
What of you lift and then hit the gas again?
That's interesting on what it does on the flow bench and trick flow saying it makes more power well that's pretty cool
The wing creates a vortex with horizontal axis on at the bowl. This pulls more air to the port while the valve is closed and dissipates the valve pulse. When the valve opens, the air speed remains a bit higher on the wall side, creating "swirl", a vortex with vertical axis inside the chamber. This vortex fills up 2 valve chamber better than horizontal axis vortex, which in 4 valve chamber works better on higher revs, being faster fill, smaller radius vortex. "Swirl" has slightly uneven mix, there the center has less fuel then the sides. This can be beneficial for dish piston head, as the flame front pushes the piston with variable pressure. at 4K to 8K, creates more torque.
Wow. You described it the best.
Don’t forget the rest of the 1 million variables
I've been thinking of the vane as a tailgate, creating a small low pressure bubble to speed up/redirect airflow. If thats correct here, (idk), then angling the vane towards the cylinder wall, like these trick flows or sbc afrs & promaxx sbc, would direct the air towards the center of the bore.
It is weird but you stated "they did a dyno test" and it made more power so that seems it either makes more power w/reduced flow or, more likely, the super fast (faster than our hands) valve closing where the suction begins doesn't cause the same effect. I'd imagine the only way to test that is to be able to rapidly close and then reopen the valve on the bench but not sure if that's feasible.
Have you noticed this more, or less, with different valve sizes vs port sizes? In other words, a larger port with smaller valves, or a smaller port with larger valves? What about at different lifts?
Thank you for the video.
Ad the length of an intake runner and see if a longer column of air reacts differently . Also how long are you stopping the flow compared to a valve at 3 to 7 thousand RPM , not hating just asking
I think it adds turbulence to the air column enhancing homogenization of the intake charge. Think of the air charge as a slinky. Bulk of the mass oscillating back and forth like a wave, every intake valve cycle. When the valve closes the pressure builds up and reflects back in a different way causing turbulence and better mixing.
Does it do it with an intake installed?
I don’t know
Is it possible that when you’re smacking the port it pulls the valve open a little bit farther a small amount from the vacuum the bench ?
highly unlikely I realize this but I’m just curious
Do these heads actually make more power than the same head with vanes in line with flow?
They said they do. Eventually I will test that.
Interesting, does it change after another blockage?
I'm tipping that your not about to run out of tests for your dyno mules any time soon...
That would be an interesting test vane to the outside then straighten up, then you would know if it's a Dyno R&D or Superflow R&D🤔
I will test this eventually. Too much going on now.
Are you able to flow small block Mopar heads now? I thought you didn’t have the right plates to do that.
Any way you could snap the valve open with a solenoid?, that may yield a more "real word" result.
I think my hand on the port is the same as closing the throttle.
Is that a Ported SBF Project X on the Superflow😊
The SBF AFR 220 Renade would be interesting to see compared to your Ported Project X 😊
Yes
With the flow bench it's self, how does it control the flow pressure drop, automatic or do you manually change the restriction or blower speed??
It doesn’t it automatically with software that controls motor speed.
Do the same thing and watch the swirl numbers. I believe the vein increases the swirl and directs the fuel pattern in the runner,combustion chamber and cylinder wall. I can seen why it made more power.
I will do that but the swirl meter is on the superflow.
@@WeingartnerRacing Thanks. I know you are busy. I've seen alot of interesting things about swirl . I have swaped heads on my 2wd Blazer . I was surprised with the factory 193 tbi swirl port heads with a carburetor. 350 SBC. That got me really thinking about it.
Well. Thats an interesting topic. My 1020 bench acts exactly as you stated in those same circumstances. More than half the time ssr layback. Especially in the corners will fix it. But not always. The small block dodge head has a brutal hard over short side. So for me it is highly suspect in this case. If not, It can be a hunt to find what spot is aggrivating it. The only thing this makes me wonder if in this case it is the ssr to steep? Because I find trickflow often tries to keep that area as fast as possible. So I am curious if you stick a small flow ball over the ssr apex. If it re attatches and the flow recovers. Then you will know its in the ssr velocity / radius thats a problem. Not the vane. Good video. As a fello head porter. You hit a nerve. So to speak. Lol.
My guess is these heads are for use south of the equator. 😁 jk.
You can hear the port go quiet after you pop it.
I'd be very interested to see the results when closing the valve opposed to creating a choke/restriction upstream. Putting your hand across the port isn't anywhere near what happens in a running engine
You mean it’s not like closing the throttle.
Thanks I own a Pair already, and since i bought, DO WONDER what if this was on a 4.15 bore not a 4.03 bore test. There has been tests on the W-2 that were available and Hughes 360-1 and for the money there is no comparison , Also Dyno tests with 360-1 cnc ported showed only Marginal gain and huge price difference. If anything I would if you world Take the 190 CNC TFS and further port thenm to see just how much more power/flow they can make
At around 5k rpm the engine is going so fast it's practically steady state. That is really interesting, have you taken any pitot speed readings from the roof?
No
You should show this to TrickFlow and see what their Engineers think and if they have any answers
like the vane NASCAR teams added to their dump cans to induce a increase in flow rate?
I’m not familiar with that.
I can see this head making more torque vs with out a vein for sure.
Just goes to show, a flowbench is just tells part of the story
id bet its different when the valve actually closes hits the seat and opens. that event alone, is going to change how much air, how fast the air moves when the valve is back to full lift. i have always included valve cycling into this event. velocity is going to be higher even though total flow will be lower as the valve is coming off the seat. id try cycling it, let the air recover in its direction through the port, around the vane, into the chamber. the hand is yes acting like the valve closing but it is not slowing, choking off the air supply and changing the air flow in the same manner as the valve closing is going to. fully open valve, hand smack choking it, vs surface area tween the valve and seat also getting smaller. larger. the resonance, swirl, turbulence etc etc is not being represented in a real life valve cycle event
The flow never stops and starts with the valve at max lift like you just caused to happen. Your example will never happen in a running engine. Port recovery works with the opening and closing of the valve. The shape and Venturi that happens when the valve is opening and closing as a variable cross-sectional change is what causes a port to have great pressure/port recovery. Having the valve at max lift and then blocking the intake tract is not the same thing as the valve closing. Of course the port does not recover back to what it had when you ramped the air on vs smacking the airflow with your hand. I know you understand this, I’m just bringing it to your attention.
However this is a good eye for catching this and it would be good to test back to back on the dyno , with a straight vane and a sideways vane. Thanks for the info
So not the same as closing the throttle. Then opening it again.
@@WeingartnerRacing if the throttle is closed you are not under power, and thus the flow disruption is meaningless. By the time you are back on the throttle the valve has already opened and closed a few hundred times (depending on rpm of course) and thus recovered from the normal valve opening event without disruption like I mentioned before.
For your theory to even play out, you would need to stop the flow of the air column and then reintroduce it back to the port in the short period of time while the valve is at max lift in a running engine which is physically impossible. Go figure up how long the valve is actually dwelling at peak lift in a engine at idle and see that this time is hardly comprehensible in regards of us being able to perform an act within this allotted time frame, then just image it at 4, 5, 6,000 rpm’s.
If the throttle is closed it doesn’t matter if you lose 300cfm on your flow bench from smacking it, the cylinder no longer needs the volume of air (because the throttle is closed, it’s called deceleration for reason) and either way the port has already recovered its from the normal valve opening and closing events from the rotation of the engine.
I stand with my first comment, this test is irrelevant and meaningless in regards to a running engine unless you have a engine that just holds the valve opening the whole time while it’s running but obviously it would no longer be running if that was the case.
It’s kinda cool that you found this, but there is no effect on power. It’s no big secret that the engine slows down when you take your foot off the gas lol.
You cannot disregard basic engine fundamentals and build an hypothesis from a scenario that will never occur.
@@WeingartnerRacing however I would like to see a dyno test with and without a proper developed vane. One straight, one left, one right. Their definitely is something to learn there, but it has nothing to do with our prior conversation.
@@rtprecisionmachine6210circle track and road course are typically part throttled offten just as I said and the valve is cycle that whole time.
@@WeingartnerRacing the only way anything useful could come from a test like this is possible on the spintron and a bunch more equipment added to it. You must have the valve events. The engine never sees one degree of rotation or change of airflow with the valve static at max lift. And the millisecond of time that does occur during peak lift is so short it becomes completely irrelevant to change.
Part throttle is not a sudden door shut onto the intake port, and each intake port in most engines share a common plenum from which to draw a small amount of air from to keep the port from stalling completely.
However, without having a dynamic valve event at operating speed, the test cannot simulate an authentic event inside the engine.
Although you do not have the equipment to test it, the only way we could see if the vane caused a true flow decrease during transient throttle changes would be to have an actuator on the valve running it through a typical cam lobe profile at an actual operating speed, or rpm if you will, that a engine would see. If you could do this then you may have useable data. Otherwise the valve is static with 28 inch depression of constant flow that is being disrupted for a split second. Ports are not designed to recover like this and they never do in a running engine because the valve is always dynamic.
I believe there is something to be learned about vane placement, however you may be looking in the wrong place with this test.
It would be really cool to make a valve actuator that could simulate valve events while you flow the head. You would be surprised what you find happening, especially if you could replicate the 2nd or 3rd resonance wave going back and forth but I doubt that equipment will ever be developed. It would require an air supply that could ramp up and down simulating the piston stroke and rapidly change pressures almost instantaneously. Of course we have those, it’s called a running engine on a dyno lol.
It’s all about time, and there isn’t enough time during peak lifts for an abrupt air change to make a difference. By the time the air stopped at the valve, the valve would have already ran through a few complete valve event cycles and leaving it once again impossible for this test to actually happen in a running engine.
However without these types of discussions, innovation cannot happen and why it is healthy for our industry.
duplicating real world conditions is the best testing
The issue with your "hand slap test" is that it doesn't simulate the valve opening and closing. It'd be more accurate of real world operations if you wacked the valve open and closed. The air isnt going around an opening valve, it's trying to make it's way past the stationary valve.
Wack the valve open and closed. Put a stem lock or something so the valve only opens and closes so far and try that again. That would reveal something more relevant.
Are you sure it’s not the same as opening and closing the throttle.
@@WeingartnerRacingWell, yeah, because the valve is what is starting and stopping the air flow in the cylinder. if you can lift and stomp the throttle quicker than the valve event, that is truly impressive LOL Run that test again, starting with a closed valve and pop it open to .800 and let it slam shut again which would be pretty simple to do and see what the flow is like then. It may require a little more spring to overcome the flow past the valve, but a pair of checker springs would probably be enough. The static valve position potential of the port gives you potential flow it lift X, but it really doesn't demonstrate the ports ability to fill the cylinder at a specific RPM. But, you know this.
Also I ordered your seriously wrong shirt then I say to people hey I have a shirt that is seriously wrong lol but it definitely a cool shirt can't wait to show people
interesting
Covering the port is not the same as the valve closing. The port is full of air and under some pressure when the valve closes. You are starving the port of air by blocking it off. Bet the effect changes if you close the valve then reopen it.
I will test that but I’m sure it will do the same thing. Once the airflow is disrupted it doesn’t come back.
That's why everyone is boosting nowadays, Ekka, with turbos, because all this unpredictable stuff becomes totally irrelevant.
And you can make massive horsepower, easily, without all this time, effort and expense wasted on head ports.
It still matters with boost. That is the biggest misconception. If it makes less power na it also makes less power with boost.
Yup
what? P&P Makes a huge difference still in forced induction engines if not even more than N/A.
I think the biggest question I always have is what happens on the running engine? I have cheated airflow numbers around with wings and other vortex generation perturbences before, and it looks awesome on the flowbench, but does it work like that when the engine is running? Good question?
I've been told that Superflow benches don't show turbulence well because of the baffle and orifice plates being designed so compactly that it affects the flow and masks problems with the port, or whatever is being tested. Not discounting your motor theory because that is probably just as valid.