I'm looking for some real world feedback,I'm trying to make a choice between either a set of AFR or a set of Canfield heads for my small block build up.These are the top two flowing heads,and this is not a street daily driver engine,although I make take it out once or twice.I would just like some info from those that own either head what they think,and what advantage one may have over the other head.Please,no flames and going into shipping issues (I know AFR has a waiting list,maybe Canfields as well?) just let me know how they've worked for you,what you liked or disliked based on the heads alone. Thanks

 

Post you engine specs makes it easier to determine which heads you need. What size heads are looking at will also make a difference, when you say those two are the top flowing heads have looked at Brodix or Vic Jr. flow numbers ?

 

You might want to check this out while considering AFR heads:
http://smokemup.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1167
I know they make real nice flow #'s but read what problems some people are having. Other heads may have the same issues I don't know this is just another possible problem to consider.

 

I have heard plenty of good things from AFR and real world feedback with real numbers. Thats the main reason why i chose to go with the 195s. Others will flame, find problems, and say AFR is overpriced, etc. but bottomline...its all about horsepower.

 

Hey REDSHARk
If its all about horse power why didn't you buy more cubic inches, a set of 18deg., sb-2's, or canted valve heads, some real trick stuff? A 383 is just common stuff now days, about everybody with a hotrod small block chevy has one. I have no connection to AFR and have never owned a set (but might sometime) I just ran across the oiling problem some others had and brought it out for veiwing. I hope "you" and anyone else that have AFR's have "no" oiling problems with them. You mentioned in another post that you knew a HP street engine would use a quart or so of oil in a couple thousand miles, I happen to dissagree on that point, it doesn't have too. If I were planning on buying a set I would appreciate someone letting me know of potential issues, after that I would make my own decision with this in mind. I have no problems with anyone here just had to get this off my mind.

 

for the intended use I have for my car, which is mostly weekends...it was more than enough hp for me to go with a 383. I'm not the one "flaming" any particular brand of head, i just stated my opinion on why I chose to go with AFRs, because thats what FEDX asked in his thread and he was also going with the same use i have for my car. As for consuming oil on HP engines..it was just a speculation, that anyone could disagree, andthats cool..GrandsportC3 had that problem with his 383, of course he solved it by going with an crankcase ex. setup. I see your point with the problems with AFR from that other forum's thread, and it makes a valid point, I can't argue that. But hey, I'm satisfied with my non-tricked out 383 that EVERYONE has.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have said everybody has one, I don't. I assemble motors, gears and transmissions for round track race trucks, and cars so I'm around differant machine shops alot and see piles of 383 stuff coming and going. For what its worth I like brodix, dart, and chevy aluminum heads also. Sorry to hijack this thread, I like this forum.

 

I wouldn't eliminate AFR heads based on ONE post where TWO people had something bad to say about them.

AFR has one of the best reputations of off-the-shelf head companies for the weekend toy (I really don't know about all out race applications as I don't read up on that).

Seeing a thread with someone not happy with their AFR heads is very uncommon. I'm sure I could dig around enough to find some bad comments/experiences about ANY off-the-shelf head company.

Here are some of my comments regarding the other thread:
Then later:
So, he has determined that the seals did not fit well and the oil is leaking between the seal and guide.

Later:
Hmmm, could this have been the problem all along?

Later in the post:
OK, so the machine work did lower the level, but was that the real problem? I have AFR heads and the oil level in the heads is nowhere near what it would take to submerge the entire seal.

I will also admit that I've pulled my hair trying to find my oil consumption problem, to the point where I have just done a "budget" rebuild of re-ring and new bearings. I should be starting it up any day now and will know soon whether or not the rings were my problem.

Also, I was burning about 1 qt per 600 miles and I was not getting any smoke and I've read about others burning about the same with no smoke. This guy never stated his oil burn rate, but he was getting smoke, so I'm assuming he was burning more oil than me. If this was truely an AFR head problem, you would hear many AFR head buyers screaming about their oil consumption and that is simply not the case.

 

Dangit, I went off on my rant and forgot to give my opinion.

When I was shopping for heads, I didn't have Canfields on my list. Basically, I started with Vortecs, then TFS 23 degree, then on to AFRs. It also helped that I got my AFRs used, so they were less than the TFS heads.

Anyway, I used Dyno2000 with many different engine setups using the cam specs and head flow numbers to make my determination.

I've heard mostly good about both AFRs and Canfields, so I don't believe it matters that much which you go with.

 

Hey, I never said to eliminate them as a possibility ( on a flow bench they are fantastic) merely provided information I've read about. I hope your oil burning situation is resolved after your re-ring job. It would be interesting to me to know more about that situation. Did you do a leakdown before dissassembly? How much machine work was done on your rebuild? One other thing oil does not disappear, if it don't leak out it is burnt, if its burnt there is smoke. It just might not smoke so the driver can see it, if it goes into a firing combustion chamber it leaves there more or less as smoke.

 

Bracketshark, I was not calling you out at all. The two people I was referring to in my reply were the two in the other thread on the other forum.

I also recently read where someone here (best AFR price thread) decided NOT to go with AFRs because of the thread made on the other board.

I'll PM you on my situation as not to hijack this thread.

 

I have the 195's, and I can say I am happy with thier performance. The oil drainback thing is for real though.

I've been to the moon and back trying to get my valvecovers to seal properly, there is nearly no oil return rail, so the gasket gets that job. As far as consuming oil? I really couldn't tell you if its burning it, but it sure does find its way out under the valve covers! LOL

Maybe they were having problems when I ordered mine, but the seats were non-concentric, and half the valves failed a simple vacuum test, the seats had to be re-done.

I like mine, would I buy AFR again.? YES

 

I have AFR 195's on my 383....NO other head produces more HP ....Period!

 

From the AFR website ? That's a pretty bold statement but I will just leave that alone for now

 

I know more flow = more hp, but, has anyone calculated how much hp you gain, by say an increas of 10 cfm of flow @ .400 valve lift? AR's web sight says that the .400 lift is most important. So, if I am giving up 11 cfm @ .400 lift with my heads, how many hp am I giving up?

What I am saying is, which head is giving more bang per buck on a strictly street engine?

 

THis is where you match you cam to the heads, no point in buying heads with big flow numbers in the .600 to .700" range when your cam only open the valve to .470". The .400" for streeet motors is a good place to look for good flow numbers so if you have a head that flows well from .300" to .500" it is a good street head.

For example my old Sportsman II heads actually outflowed my Victor Jr. heads at .400" lift but the Vic. Jr's leave them in the dust after that. But the Sportsman II were a better head for my 355ci which had a .470" lift cam, now I have a 406ci with a cam that opens to over .600" and the Vic. Jr's are a much better head for this motor

 

I've had my AFR 195's for 3 years now,no head related problems what so ever. Bolted on straight out of the box,and are head and shoulders above a stock head. I can not compare to Canfield or Edelbrock,both being good heads. In my opinion,a smaller port that flows what the engine needs is the head to use. I hate soggy bottoms,which is what you will have with a too large port.

 

Glenn, I've run Dyno2000 with your cam for a basic 350 with 9:1 compression. I got the head flow #s from the Chevy High Performance database: http://chevyhiperformance.com/techar...98/index5.html . I will note that the difference of the .400 flow is much more than the 11 you state (244 vs. 226).

I know I'm going to get some flack for putting my faith in DD2000, but I've done many many DD2000 comparisons to CHP mag setups and found that DD2000 was with 5% everywhere in the curve (and 90% of the time was with 3%) compared to CHPs engine dynos. I've verified this for many different cams and heads.



Anyway, here is the DD2000 graph of AFR 190 vs TFS 195


Here are the head flow #s I used


And to keep it on topic, here is AFR vs Canfield

 

Maybe a whole new thread should be started about this. I don't necessarily disagree, but I do find it interesting that GM has been increasing the intake port in every new head put on the Corvette:

L98: 163cc intake
LT1: 170cc intake
LT4: 195cc intake
LS1: 205cc intake
LS6: ??
LS2: ??

No doubt, the power was increased with each as well, except for the LS6 & LS2.

 

This thread was asking about AFR 195's,and from all the flow tests I've seen,the 195 out flows heads with even larger ports that are concidered entry level race heads.The statement I was trying to make was if you have an engine that requires a certain amount of air to produce the hp numbers desired,and a smaller port will satisfy the requirements,it will be more responsive.This has to do with port velocity.A smaller port has to flow the SAME volume of air faster than a larger port,if the engine speed and displacement are the same.Simple physics.
All said,the 195's have proven to me to be able to feed my 406 to 6500 rpms.In fact while recurving my distributer I ran repeated 6500 rpm blasts in first and second,and discovered my Q-Jet was causing fuel starvation.Once the Holley 3310 was on I promptly blew my transmission.