3000 with me in it...fastcoupe68 said:2800 # 320hp 11 seconds all day long in a car that is efficient, disagree all you want.
I agree in the direction pointing of the young guy. But I'm also trying steer him clear of making the same mistake I and others have made too many times by buying a part and upgrading later. It gets expensive that way. I did have the 185's, but I also plan to build a bigger motor to really use those heads. I suggested the 185's so he would never have to look back to the heads for more power. But I did say earlier that I had seen the 165's in 11 sec 302 N/A. But my 185's are still a great street head. I have lost no bottom end for the street. Either selection is a kick ass head. I would definetly get thos 165 and rockers fot that price ! Have the exhaust ports coiled before you put them on though. That is my only gripe about these heads.D.Hearne said:Ok, so you've done the back to back thing. 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.
WantaGT said:hey sorry if i offended you, i didn't mean too. what i meant to say is i'll eventually get the rpm and bigger cam but I have the heads off any ways and that's all I can afford right now. I WILL put the better parts on later but I just can't right now. sorry if that came out offensive.
pretty much superimposed on the TFS head. I wonder why they were excluded myself, and the Performer 5.0 is a smog-legal head, the standard performer should work better than the 5.0.Max Power said:Wonder where Performaer RPMs would go?
D.Hearne said:Why would you need to replace the 165's? My 1.94 valved Canfields out flow the out of the box AFR's ( 185's) and they work splendidly on the 331 stroker motor they're on. After looking at the flow #'s on AFR's site, I'm sure glad I went with Canfields.
How do you figure that the 302 had a smaller cam ? Unless math has changed, "below .600" and .570 is basically the same thing. As for the Vic vs the dual plane, that's no suprise, I'd prefer a dual plane over a Vic on a 302-306 anyday. I've done the Vic jr thing on a 306, with it, the motor had a noticeable lack of power below 3 grand.87gn2 said:The only place that Canfield SBF heads outflow the AFR 185s is on the exhaust side above .5" of valve lift...and those are the Canfields with 2.02 intake valves!
Looking at the dyno numbers, though, because flow does not tell the whole story, Canfield says their heads on a 306 with a roller cam with "below 600 lift" and a ported Vic Jr made 414hp. AFR says that a 302 with 165s and a cam with lift in the 570 range and a DUAL PLANE made 421hp. And that's not even talking about the 302 that has a smaller cam, a Vic Jr, and AFR 185s that made 455hp
D.Hearne said:How do you figure that the 302 had a smaller cam ? Unless math has changed, "below .600" and .570 is basically the same thing. As for the Vic vs the dual plane, that's no suprise, I'd prefer a dual plane over a Vic on a 302-306 anyday. I've done the Vic jr thing on a 306, with it, the motor had a noticeable lack of power below 3 grand.
WantaGT said:i just got it from a good source that i needed and exhaust crossover