D.Hearne said:Get the one's you can afford, you'll never know the difference. And anyone who tells you that he knows, is full of it. I seriously doubt anyone here has bolted on AFR's and any other competing head, back to back and could honestly tell you the difference, in either dyno numbers ( not pulled from some magazine article) and real life, seat of the pants feel.
Sorry dude, I would almost always agree with this one. But, I did try it with the butt dyno and then backed it with the track numbers.
My edelbrock RPM's were decked .035 for compression and I did a slight casting clean up and bowl rounding on them. So even there they had an advantage out of the box. They were awesome heads, and I have no complaints. But there AFR are that damned good!! I did gasket match them to the intake(edelbrocks are done from the factory), and get rid of the CNC marks and really polished the chambers for nitrous.
I knew the difference on the first drive I took. I brought the car up to 3k and floored it. The tires came loose and didn't hook til the middle of third. Nothing had changed but the heads.
At the track I didn't have 12sec67 275/50/15 to borrow so I use my own 255/50/16's. Mind you nothing changed but the heads. I went from a 2.07 60 ft. to a 1.89 and the 1/8 went from an 8.5 to a 8.3 and I picked up 3 mph. I did also go a rod that was 92 grams heavier a piece when I got the AFR's, but I'm sure that didn't help. The motor makes 360 ft/lbs to the rear. That's enough to make a few strokers jealous. This is why I push and push for AFR's 185 or 165. It cost me a difference of 400 dollars to sell my heads and buy the AFR's and I will never look back.
afr engine combo
- Thread starter WantaGT
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
reenmachine
Dirt-Old 20+Year Member
Never mind. It's just a matter of semantics and terminology. Strength is not power, by definition, and so on and so forth. The point you are trying to make is correct in concept, so let's forget about it.ratio411 said:
66P51GT
New Member
will i be disappointed if i get the performers? they seem a little bit cheaper and they have decent flow but i'd need to have them milled a bit. Another option I see that seems decent is that panhandle performance has stage one roush 180 head that flow 230 on the intake and 185 on the exhaust for $1100. they have a little bit smaller chamber so no need to mill. what do you all think?
Max Power said:
The 185's and 165's are the same on the exhaust unless you specify otherwise to AFR.
I'm not sure those numbers are entirely correct. I called Total Engine Airflow when I bought the heads because I was looking at Canfields and AFR 185's and they told me even their stage 2 port work on canfields didn't out flow the 185's. The velocity of these heads are supposed to be the real key. The 185's out flow Victor jr's with a smaller valve and smaller intake runner. So that air must be movin'.Maybe you should call a company the stocks them both and uses them on builds in house to see what they think.
Ok, so you've done the back to back thing.10secgoal said:
One thing you've omitted is what AFR heads did you use? There is a difference between the 165's & 185's I'm sure you didn't try both AND the E'brock's before settling on what you posted those numbers with.One thing you're missing is WantaGT's finacial situation. He's young and doesn't have money to burn. That's the main reason why I've tried to steer him toward heads that he can afford, both in initial cost and what it's gonna take to feed them ( gas). Not everyone here can afford a motor that gets 10 mpg in their daily drivers. I think he'd be happier with heads that'll give him both bottom end ( for daily street driving) while still improving his motor's power over the stock heads. Having a motor with a power band in the 3000-7000 rpm range isn't what he needs, unless he's got money to burn or this is just his weekend cruiser.
ratio411
Founding Member
I disagree.fastcoupe68 said:
320 rwhp in 3400# F-bodys (including mine) is good for 12.9.
My 2800# Maverick with 320 at the rear wheels would be in the 11's with your math. Trust me, it's not there.
3400 lbs loses .2 second or 20 rwhp to a 3200# car. So...
320 in 3400 lbs = 300 in 3200 lbs = ~13 seconds.
245 is way too low for 13 in my experiences...
In your favor though, there are too many variables... perfect traction, perfect track, perfect temp, perfect world, perfect driver... 245 might do it if you hold your head just so.
Dave
hey d. hearne i found something that just fit the bill, i found a set of 165's slightly worked with 1.7 rockers for $1150 shipped. i think i may go with that or give your buddy a call about brodix, let me know what you think about that afr package deal...
ratio411
Founding Member
ratio411
Founding Member
Hissing Cobra
Founding Member
I've seen cars with ported factory iron heads making less than 300 rear wheel horsepower run in the mid 12's. My twin brother's naturally aspirated '85 GT is a perfect example. It has run a best of 12.53 @ 109 with a 1.78 '60 foot time, weighing in at 3,264 pounds with him in it. It peak dyno reading was 290 rear wheel horsepower.
Three hundred horsepower will definitely get you in the 12's, but you need to maximize your combo to the fullest (full drag suspension, 5-speed, steep gears (4.30's) and E.T. Streets.
Three hundred horsepower will definitely get you in the 12's, but you need to maximize your combo to the fullest (full drag suspension, 5-speed, steep gears (4.30's) and E.T. Streets.
Similar threads
