The "AFR thread" to end all others....
09-01-2008, 08:30 PM
#101
Race Director
Lots of info, but for me personally, I wont buy another set of heads unless I get a flow sheet that supports the head mfgr's claims before I hand over the $$$,, advertised numbers and reality have always been independent of each other in my past experience.
09-01-2008, 10:12 PM
#102
Melting Slicks
ok. i have been reading as much of these threads as i can make time for cause i am in the market and want the most for my money. now i here people carrying on about how x head flows this much cfm and the next only flows that much. then i here them go on about how well a head flows isn't the only thing to look at when choosing a head and that all that is is marketing. i have talked to AI on the phone and was really leaning towards their ported trick flow and since the only other LTX head in the market that has a equally large combustion chamber that i have found is AFR. while on the phone with AI they mentioned that flow isn't everything and that what is more important is the quality of flow at said cfm. now i have yet to hear tony even mention this at all in regards to his defending his product. which as a buyer makes me look harder at AI cause they bring up these points and have GREAT results to back their product. i have jumped on the bandwagon and have owned a set of AFR's. was i 100% satisfied with what i had. honestly no. but i can't blame all that on the heads but more inexperience in my part as an engine builder. i am no expert engine builder and i think that with more compression and a better choice of cams(at a time when custom cams weren't so within reach) that it might have been the motor of my dreams. but that was then and this is now and i am going to rely more heavily on the "experts" to help me design the car i have always wanted. so talk over my head and give me more to go off of than a claim of flow numbers. when i have asked similar questions about heads or read threads on camaroz28.com there is always this one a-hole that pops up everytime and will die hard defend AI to the death. will not hear of anything else. and his key phrase is that AI is a proven setup and that AFR's don't. i am not bashing AFR at all. i want you to talk me into getting them cause right now my money has AI written all over it. will i be as happy of a customer by jumping on the bandwagon or am i better off falling into ranks with dwyane(96capricemgr) and going with AI.
09-01-2008, 10:32 PM
#103
There are plenty of cars out there getting excellent results with AFRs as of late (476RWHP 370CI little 230/236HR cam for example) so you can't go wrong IMHO.
Loyd Elliot's grinding me a custom cam to take full advantage of my stroker AFR setup and I'll be posting my results in the next few weeks.
09-01-2008, 10:35 PM
#104
Le Mans Master
ok. i have been reading as much of these threads as i can make time for cause i am in the market and want the most for my money. now i here people carrying on about how x head flows this much cfm and the next only flows that much. then i here them go on about how well a head flows isn't the only thing to look at when choosing a head and that all that is is marketing. i have talked to AI on the phone and was really leaning towards their ported trick flow and since the only other LTX head in the market that has a equally large combustion chamber that i have found is AFR. while on the phone with AI they mentioned that flow isn't everything and that what is more important is the quality of flow at said cfm. now i have yet to hear tony even mention this at all in regards to his defending his product.
The KEY to an extremely effective cylinder head in any racing application (but especially in one driven on the street) is to design a very efficient cylinder head…..not just one that’s hogged out to 230 cc’s and might get close to 300 CFM’s of peak flow (obviously discussing applications you guys are interested in). In fact that’s the last type of head you would want in a street car. What you want is an efficient cylinder head.....a head that moves a lot of air but does so with a conservative cross section….a head that does all of that but in addition has better low and mid-lift flow and an overall superior flow curve (not just a peak number....peak numbers mean ****). If you can accomplish this with a superior port shape (moving lots of air thru a small hole) you will have an extremely fast moving column of air which packs the cylinder on the intake cycle and helps better evacuate the cylinder on the exhaust (which also aids in the beginning of the next intake cycle). A higher velocity intake charge will also better fill the cylinder in those last few nano-seconds prior to the intake valve closing (with the piston actually already on its way up the bore on the compression stroke) because of the same reasons....more velocity which has more inertia and the fact there is more air available due to the better low lift flow a superior designed head offers. A high velocity port design also reduces overlap/reversion issues due to the fact it's harder to change the direction of a higher speed column of air (it has more energy)....this helps to generate more low speed torque and cleans up some of the negatives associated with a performance cam.
09-01-2008, 10:49 PM
#105
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
ok. i have been reading as much of these threads as i can make time for cause i am in the market and want the most for my money. now i here people carrying on about how x head flows this much cfm and the next only flows that much. then i here them go on about how well a head flows isn't the only thing to look at when choosing a head and that all that is is marketing. i have talked to AI on the phone and was really leaning towards their ported trick flow and since the only other LTX head in the market that has a equally large combustion chamber that i have found is AFR. while on the phone with AI they mentioned that flow isn't everything and that what is more important is the quality of flow at said cfm. now i have yet to hear tony even mention this at all in regards to his defending his product. which as a buyer makes me look harder at AI cause they bring up these points and have GREAT results to back their product. i have jumped on the bandwagon and have owned a set of AFR's. was i 100% satisfied with what i had. honestly no. but i can't blame all that on the heads but more inexperience in my part as an engine builder. i am no expert engine builder and i think that with more compression and a better choice of cams(at a time when custom cams weren't so within reach) that it might have been the motor of my dreams. but that was then and this is now and i am going to rely more heavily on the "experts" to help me design the car i have always wanted. so talk over my head and give me more to go off of than a claim of flow numbers. when i have asked similar questions about heads or read threads on camaroz28.com there is always this one a-hole that pops up everytime and will die hard defend AI to the death. will not hear of anything else. and his key phrase is that AI is a proven setup and that AFR's don't. i am not bashing AFR at all. i want you to talk me into getting them cause right now my money has AI written all over it. will i be as happy of a customer by jumping on the bandwagon or am i better off falling into ranks with dwyane(96capricemgr) and going with AI.
And flow is everything.....what else is there??
A head that flows more, as long as we are discussing one that is still efficient, always makes more power. This also assumes the increased airflow is in the range the camshaft will obviously take advantage of and the head is sized properly for the application.
Quality of the flow is largely related to airspeed (and we have tons of it) and good low and midlift numbers to compliment a strong peak number (we focus on improving the entire curve).
Your in NY....Im from NY originally and know a fair amount of shops out that way that could potentially flow both heads while you were standing there. Get an AI head and I will send you a comparable or equivalent sized AFR to do a back to back test.
Guys....Im serious about taking the Pepsi challenge at some point to prove to you this isnt a bunch of BS and will do it more than once if necessary. I just need the right opportunity that gets handled professionally. We can work out all the details on the telephone.
By the way that LT engine build in the magazine (the 396) with our Comp 195's would have made more power with a lower rocker ratio. When I saw the graph (after the fact) I asked what they were running for valve gear and was immediatly disappointed when I heard about the 1.7 rockers. I sensed valve control problems looking at the curve....check out the abrupt dip in the torque curve close to the power peak (thats why it peaked early)....that's where valve control issues started creeping into the picture. I encouraged them to swap in a 1.6 ratio but the engine was already off the dyno when I got hold of them and they were super excited it made as much as it did (I wasnt upset about that...just disappointed we didnt have the chance to potentially see more). A clean dyno pull with perfect valve control has the torque curve looking like a smooth arc....sudden moves lower like that always indicate immediate losses of cylinder pressure due to the valves not following the cam profile properly and/or intake valves bouncing on the closing flank of the camshaft (in this case due to a quick cam lobe profile and too much rocker ratio pushing the valvetrain intensity too high).
Still a good showing but I know there was more in it.
Tony
09-01-2008, 11:09 PM
#106
Team Owner
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: Bergen County, NJ Democrats, doing for the country what they did for Michigan
Posts: 35,065
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.....
Now it's clear that on this board you guys have decided to look past the advice of professionals (not talking to local builders or professionals), and have waived your right to be educated and make informed choices. Now I'm not saying that you guys have to have a background in physics or fluid dynamics to choose a cylinder head (both are very important aspects but not fun to learn), but you should at least recognize that there are many very technical aspects as to how a cylinder head works when on a particular engine (and these can't be summed up by looking at the flow numbers, or these nifty little terms like "area under the cure"). Once you realize how in depth the math and engineering gets you will see why, for example, an offering from another manufacturer may have a larger intake port volume (due in part to a larger cross sectional area) with less flow at 28", (the volume doesn't affect the flow rate like many seem to think that it does) and may be the optimal choice for a particular application. There is in fact a very applicable reason that this is done; instead of asking someone who knows why, you simply allow someone who is trying to build a company (and I can't imagine why he would not do this; no offense implied Tony it’s part of being involved in a company) dismiss this as another selling point against said product. .
Now it's clear that on this board you guys have decided to look past the advice of professionals (not talking to local builders or professionals), and have waived your right to be educated and make informed choices. Now I'm not saying that you guys have to have a background in physics or fluid dynamics to choose a cylinder head (both are very important aspects but not fun to learn), but you should at least recognize that there are many very technical aspects as to how a cylinder head works when on a particular engine (and these can't be summed up by looking at the flow numbers, or these nifty little terms like "area under the cure"). Once you realize how in depth the math and engineering gets you will see why, for example, an offering from another manufacturer may have a larger intake port volume (due in part to a larger cross sectional area) with less flow at 28", (the volume doesn't affect the flow rate like many seem to think that it does) and may be the optimal choice for a particular application. There is in fact a very applicable reason that this is done; instead of asking someone who knows why, you simply allow someone who is trying to build a company (and I can't imagine why he would not do this; no offense implied Tony it’s part of being involved in a company) dismiss this as another selling point against said product. .
09-01-2008, 11:51 PM
#107
By the way that LT engine build in the magazine (the 396) with our Comp 195's would have made more power with a lower rocker ratio. When I saw the graph (after the fact) I asked what they were running for valve gear and was immediatly disappointed when I heard about the 1.7 rockers. I sensed valve control problems looking at the curve....check out the abrupt dip in the torque curve close to the power peak (thats why it peaked early)....that's where valve control issues started creeping into the picture. I encouraged them to swap in a 1.6 ratio but the engine was already off the dyno when I got hold of them and they were super excited it made as much as it did (I wasnt upset about that...just disappointed we didnt have the chance to potentially see more). A clean dyno pull with perfect valve control has the torque curve looking like a smooth arc....sudden moves lower like that always indicate immediate losses of cylinder pressure due to the valves not following the cam profile properly and/or intake valves bouncing on the closing flank of the camshaft (in this case due to a quick cam lobe profile and too much rocker ratio pushing the valvetrain intensity too high).
Still a good showing but I know there was more in it.
Tony
I ask because I have a 1.7/1.6 rocker combo so I'm not sure what the best way to resolve any potential issue I may have with my new cam. I believe I can buy just the intake rockers alone from T&D if need be.
09-02-2008, 01:13 AM
#108
Advanced
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Orlando Fl
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AI = Advanced Induction out of NC. Have some pretty fast LT1 combos running around.
Problem with most if not all aftermarket heads is that the combustion chamber is too large for the stock LT1 shortblock. 54cc stock.
Problem with most if not all aftermarket heads is that the combustion chamber is too large for the stock LT1 shortblock. 54cc stock.
09-02-2008, 01:48 AM
#109
Former Vendor
Thread Starter
Thanks on the AI info....assuming stock ported heads everything I have touched on previously in this thread still applies (in short anyone porting stock heads is already working with a handicap).
JSUP.....I know it pains you to have to be so quiet (and I knew you would be back)
BUT....in reference to what you highlighted in red a few posts up, confirming once again we are primarily discussing street/strip fairly heavy vehicles (with the 99% crowd mostly the first part of that equation) I couldn't disagree more.
A head that has more port volume but flows less will make more power and go down the racetrack faster?? (not to mention by obviously lazy driving around town with much less velocity charge). Where do I sign up for the dyno test and subsequent track testing?
Here is real world results (not speculation) that back my theory and design philosophy which is pretty much the polar opposite of what you highlighted. I'm quoting from post 103 that Vette threat just posted a few posts above yours. Honestly, I bet the AFR heads flowed more anyway (in the usable range of the camshaft), and or flowed the same or slightly less with a port that was 30cc's smaller hence the airspeed and all the positive results of the new combination (more power....more torque....and the engine had so much more throttle response it felt 30 cubic inches larger).
So you dont have to look for it....
Once again....real world independent testimonial.
-Tony
PS....I will try and steal a few minutes at work tomorrow to breeze over some of the other issues that may have been brought up.
A 1.6 ratio and confirm that you have our upgrade 8019 valve springs....not the standard 8017 springs. Essentially exactly what you described....less ratio and more spring.
JSUP.....I know it pains you to have to be so quiet (and I knew you would be back)
BUT....in reference to what you highlighted in red a few posts up, confirming once again we are primarily discussing street/strip fairly heavy vehicles (with the 99% crowd mostly the first part of that equation) I couldn't disagree more.
A head that has more port volume but flows less will make more power and go down the racetrack faster?? (not to mention by obviously lazy driving around town with much less velocity charge). Where do I sign up for the dyno test and subsequent track testing?
Here is real world results (not speculation) that back my theory and design philosophy which is pretty much the polar opposite of what you highlighted. I'm quoting from post 103 that Vette threat just posted a few posts above yours. Honestly, I bet the AFR heads flowed more anyway (in the usable range of the camshaft), and or flowed the same or slightly less with a port that was 30cc's smaller hence the airspeed and all the positive results of the new combination (more power....more torque....and the engine had so much more throttle response it felt 30 cubic inches larger).
So you dont have to look for it....
The person who "heavily" ported my last set of heads (over 220cc) flowed them AND my new 195cc AFRs back to back and the results favoured his heads. Regardless of the numbers, even without the ported intake my previous set enjoyed, my new heads made over 20RWHP/TQ through out the RPM range and another 45RWHP between 6000 and 6500RPM not to mention the motor felt like it was 30 cubes bigger, with just a head swap as Tony said it would. Yeah, glad I had that flow sheet.
There are plenty of cars out there getting excellent results with AFRs as of late (476RWHP 370CI little 230/236HR cam for example) so you can't go wrong IMHO.
Loyd Elliot's grinding me a custom cam to take full advantage of my stroker AFR setup and I'll be posting my results in the next few weeks.
There are plenty of cars out there getting excellent results with AFRs as of late (476RWHP 370CI little 230/236HR cam for example) so you can't go wrong IMHO.
Loyd Elliot's grinding me a custom cam to take full advantage of my stroker AFR setup and I'll be posting my results in the next few weeks.
-Tony
PS....I will try and steal a few minutes at work tomorrow to breeze over some of the other issues that may have been brought up.
So what would have been the best way to fix that, 1.6 rockers, stiffer springs or both.
I ask because I have a 1.7/1.6 rocker combo so I'm not sure what the best way to resolve any potential issue I may have with my new cam. I believe I can buy just the intake rockers alone from T&D if need be.
I ask because I have a 1.7/1.6 rocker combo so I'm not sure what the best way to resolve any potential issue I may have with my new cam. I believe I can buy just the intake rockers alone from T&D if need be.
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 09-02-2008 at 01:52 AM.
09-02-2008, 03:17 AM
#110
Pro
AFR makes the best and most powerful small block Chevy 23* heads around ,no doubt about it .Most people that trash talk afr heads have never even tried them before .I screwed up when i ordered my new afr heads and tony helped me out big time .I bought afr heads because they are the best sbc heads around and its proven time after time in independent testing in many magazines and afr is always on top.I bought afr because they are the best but when i had a problem tony stepped up and saved the day and proved to me that afr's products and customer service is second to none!! You know i had a engine shop here in town trying to sell me some procomp heads and the guy swore up and down they are better then anything afr has lol.this is how most guys get there opinions about afr heads from a owner of a local speed shop that uses a ratchet and 3 foot pipe as a torque wrench ,he buys procomp or what ever heads for $600 and turns around and sells them for $1200 to a customer ,they are making more money then they can off afr heads .
check out this customer service http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=2120934
check out this customer service http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show....php?t=2120934
09-02-2008, 06:32 AM
#111
I sent Jsup a pm a while ago stating that "cfm", and "port velocity" are 2 major things to consider when choosing a cylinder head. I even called him to discuss his combination, but he sounded like somewhat of a "know it all" on the phone.
Don't get me wrong, Jsup is a good guy, but I think he should of researched it a little more. He forget's that our cars are street cars, and they dont run in the 8.50 index class. In saying that, if you eventually want to run a hopped up BBC in an older muscle car, then DART is the cylinder head for you!!!
However. I am glad he isnt going with AFR! It will be cool, when a 195-196cc head, keeps up to a MUCH larger 220-225cc head. When that happens, maybe then he will see the light..........
Don't get me wrong, Jsup is a good guy, but I think he should of researched it a little more. He forget's that our cars are street cars, and they dont run in the 8.50 index class. In saying that, if you eventually want to run a hopped up BBC in an older muscle car, then DART is the cylinder head for you!!!
However. I am glad he isnt going with AFR! It will be cool, when a 195-196cc head, keeps up to a MUCH larger 220-225cc head. When that happens, maybe then he will see the light..........
09-02-2008, 08:31 AM
#112
Race Director
[QUOTE=Vette Threat;1566935810] Yeah, glad I had that flow sheet.
QUOTE]
So whats your point, you are comparing 220CC to 195 CC, I would expect for the smaller port to perform better, it sounds like you had the wrong size heads for your cubes
Originally Posted by 88BlackZ-51
I sent Jsup a pm a while ago stating that "cfm", and "port velocity" are 2 major things to consider when choosing a cylinder head. I even called him to discuss his combination, but he sounded like somewhat of a "know it all" on the phone.
How many engines have you built so far?
QUOTE]
So whats your point, you are comparing 220CC to 195 CC, I would expect for the smaller port to perform better, it sounds like you had the wrong size heads for your cubes
Originally Posted by 88BlackZ-51
I sent Jsup a pm a while ago stating that "cfm", and "port velocity" are 2 major things to consider when choosing a cylinder head. I even called him to discuss his combination, but he sounded like somewhat of a "know it all" on the phone.
How many engines have you built so far?
Last edited by LD85; 09-02-2008 at 08:33 AM.
09-02-2008, 09:24 AM
#113
[QUOTE=LD85;1566938675]
I have built "zero" engines. I pretend to not know anything. However, I have many friends who have chosen AFR heads with postive results.
I have talked to many guys on this forum, and most suggest going with the AFR's. Alot speak from experience.
Why did you go with AFR's LD85?
Yeah, glad I had that flow sheet.
QUOTE]
So whats your point, you are comparing 220CC to 195 CC, I would expect for the smaller port to perform better, it sounds like you had the wrong size heads for your cubes
Originally Posted by 88BlackZ-51
I sent Jsup a pm a while ago stating that "cfm", and "port velocity" are 2 major things to consider when choosing a cylinder head. I even called him to discuss his combination, but he sounded like somewhat of a "know it all" on the phone.
How many engines have you built so far?
QUOTE]
So whats your point, you are comparing 220CC to 195 CC, I would expect for the smaller port to perform better, it sounds like you had the wrong size heads for your cubes
Originally Posted by 88BlackZ-51
I sent Jsup a pm a while ago stating that "cfm", and "port velocity" are 2 major things to consider when choosing a cylinder head. I even called him to discuss his combination, but he sounded like somewhat of a "know it all" on the phone.
How many engines have you built so far?
I have built "zero" engines. I pretend to not know anything. However, I have many friends who have chosen AFR heads with postive results.
I have talked to many guys on this forum, and most suggest going with the AFR's. Alot speak from experience.
Why did you go with AFR's LD85?
09-02-2008, 09:38 AM
#114
My old heads outflowed my 195s yet they made 25RWHP/TQ less through the entire RPM band. That may not sound like much but wow, you could really feel it, especially at part throttle.
-Who else makes a 300CFM head in a 195cc?
-Anyone have ported LT4s that are 195cc AND flow 300CFM?
My heads started off as 210cc by the way. These were ported 3 years ago. Oh and I forgot, my engine runs 10* cooler now too.
09-02-2008, 09:49 AM
#115
How many cars have you owned where you swapped a 307CFM ported head for the new 195cc Eliminator head with no other changes and compared Dyno numbers, drivability and MPH to really appreciate all of the OTHER advantages other than CFM?
09-02-2008, 10:29 AM
#116
Racer
There we go again...
...an abundance of testosterone-ladened posts in the classic young/dumb/full of c_m mode of "mine's bigger than yours."
If you insist on making those types of posts in this thread at least try & be a little more entertaining.
Plenty of dumb-a$$ mo/fos post on other car forums.
let's limit that stuff here on the CF.
If you insist on making those types of posts in this thread at least try & be a little more entertaining.
Plenty of dumb-a$$ mo/fos post on other car forums.
let's limit that stuff here on the CF.
Last edited by 89FX3; 09-02-2008 at 10:34 AM. Reason: etimology poop
09-02-2008, 11:15 AM
#117
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Mar 2002
Location: Castro Valley Calif.
Posts: 5,884
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
St. Jude Donor '03-'04-'05-'06-'07-'08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18-'19-'20-'21-'22
'23-'24
I'm a big fan of smallish heads on a torque motor. I've got an older set of AFR 195s on a 421 CID motor & the throttle response is nothing short of amazing!
The heads flow 292 at .600 BTW...........my cam only lifts to .590 so I'm guessing I run at 285 CFM mas o menos. The midlift numbers are the key & they're pretty strong too
The heads flow 292 at .600 BTW...........my cam only lifts to .590 so I'm guessing I run at 285 CFM mas o menos. The midlift numbers are the key & they're pretty strong too
09-02-2008, 11:35 AM
#118
Race Director
I never mentioned anything about max CFM, my post stated this;
"I wont buy another set of heads unless I get a flow sheet that supports the head mfgr's claims"
Which means the flow sheet should meet the "advertised" numbers at every lift as indicated.
You however seem to be more concerned with "max CFM, and thats Ok if thats what you think is important.
Ques:
How many cars have you owned where you swapped a 307CFM ported head for the new 195cc Eliminator head with no other changes and compared Dyno numbers, drivability and MPH to really appreciate all of the OTHER advantages other than CFM?
Answ: thankfully none, but I am happy that you got your problem squared away.
09-02-2008, 12:22 PM
#119
Le Mans Master
Tony,
What about this?
What about this?
Tony,
Do the 195 Comps flow as well or better than your popular 205 LS heads?
Why did you go with 195's for the LTx heads, but 205 for LSx?
Looks like you would recommend the 195's for a LTx396 6 speed for the street, and not the 210's? At what point would you switch to the 210's? Do you think it is possible to make 500rwhp with the 195's NA w a 396 6 speed for the street, or would you need the 210's?
Do the 195 Comps flow as well or better than your popular 205 LS heads?
Why did you go with 195's for the LTx heads, but 205 for LSx?
Looks like you would recommend the 195's for a LTx396 6 speed for the street, and not the 210's? At what point would you switch to the 210's? Do you think it is possible to make 500rwhp with the 195's NA w a 396 6 speed for the street, or would you need the 210's?
09-02-2008, 01:16 PM
#120
Vette Threat, you took my original post and twisted it so you could make a sacarastic remark and it had nothing to do with what I posted.
I never mentioned anything about max CFM, my post stated this;
"I wont buy another set of heads unless I get a flow sheet that supports the head mfgr's claims"
I never mentioned anything about max CFM, my post stated this;
"I wont buy another set of heads unless I get a flow sheet that supports the head mfgr's claims"
