The flowchart in the sticky up top says the canfeilds flow better than the AFR? I dont get why so many ppl have AFR combos and not Canfield. I would imagine a 347 with canfield heads, vic jr manifold, and an FTI cam would be a pretty sweet combo. 400 hp mabey with all the little bolt ons?
Why are ppl using AFR's instead of Canfields?
- Thread starter red ink
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
why does the 94-95 forum have stickies and the fox tech doesnt?
anyway, maybe becasue the afrs are the hot name right now. how do they compaire price wise?
anyway, maybe becasue the afrs are the hot name right now. how do they compaire price wise?
I dunno how much canfield heads are. Neither jegs nor Summit sells them. 
http://www.canfieldheads.com/sbf.html
They got 414(bhp i would guess) from a 306. I bet they would do pretty good on a 347. The reason i bring up this topic is because after searching the threads, not many ppl can hit 400 with a 347 unless they use 205's and spin the **** outta it. there has to be another way
http://www.canfieldheads.com/sbf.html
They got 414(bhp i would guess) from a 306. I bet they would do pretty good on a 347. The reason i bring up this topic is because after searching the threads, not many ppl can hit 400 with a 347 unless they use 205's and spin the **** outta it. there has to be another way
N8Miller said:why does the 94-95 forum have stickies and the fox tech doesnt?
Because these 94/95 ask too many stupid questions.
anyway, maybe becasue the afrs are the hot name right now. how do they compaire price wise?
They are pretty much the same price.
AznStanger3v
Active Member
AFR has been a name that everyone and their dad can trust. a lot of us here arent stroking it ( 
), so canfields might actually be too much of a head for keeping it 302.
), so canfields might actually be too much of a head for keeping it 302.
I got my AFR's when just a few people on this forum like Paul were using them.
I saw enough from their results to research it more.
Several conversations with Ed Curtis at FTI gave me the thought that if they worked for so many others they would work for me.
Later
Grady
I saw enough from their results to research it more.
Several conversations with Ed Curtis at FTI gave me the thought that if they worked for so many others they would work for me.
Later
Grady
Didn't the AFR's win the head contest( ) that mm&ff did in every category. They out flowed every one that’s way people use them more. I do agree that a set of canfields on a strocker would be 
for that matter so would a set of brodix. I guess it all depends on what you plan to do with your car.
) that mm&ff did in every category. They out flowed every one that’s way people use them more. I do agree that a set of canfields on a strocker would be for that matter so would a set of brodix. I guess it all depends on what you plan to do with your car.IMHO, a street car with a mild combo, like mine, needs a head that is efficient and has good velocity. The AFR 165's do just that.
Big ports and high flow numbers are not a bad thing but I wanted good low end torque and I wanted that torque to extend on out to be wide & flat.
Ed told me that my thinking was sound about a big port head not being the best thing for a mild street combo.
Later
Grady
Big ports and high flow numbers are not a bad thing but I wanted good low end torque and I wanted that torque to extend on out to be wide & flat.
Ed told me that my thinking was sound about a big port head not being the best thing for a mild street combo.
Later
Grady
Rootus
Officially Addicted
You can answer your own question by asking it a different way -- why don't I run AFR 225's instead of AFR 165's? The AFR 225's flow better, after all.
Bigger is not always better. Matching the head to the combo is vastly more important. That's why the AFR 165 keeps coming out on top for a 302 cubic inch Windsor -- they're perfectly sized for it.
Dave
Bigger is not always better. Matching the head to the combo is vastly more important. That's why the AFR 165 keeps coming out on top for a 302 cubic inch Windsor -- they're perfectly sized for it.
Dave
Rootus
Officially Addicted
They are roughly comparable to AFR 185's. A little on the big side for a 302, but better if you have more cubes.cb18201 said:
Dave
canfields are BIG
they are too big for a mild na 302. if you are gonna spin it to 6500-7000 then they would work
and vic intake.... um NO no pcv and huge ports. again these are every day cars running under the stock limiter not cars turning 7k with 4.30s
canfields also have a raised intake port.
when comparing you shoudl compare canfields with 185s.
they are too big for a mild na 302. if you are gonna spin it to 6500-7000 then they would work
and vic intake.... um NO no pcv and huge ports. again these are every day cars running under the stock limiter not cars turning 7k with 4.30s
canfields also have a raised intake port.
when comparing you shoudl compare canfields with 185s.
Sleepy McNastee
New Member
AznStanger3v
Active Member
red ink said:
If you are staying with the 347 without the T for now, go with the 185s. If you want a blown 347, i think you could benefit from the 205s. I hope you have the right intake and cam to suit it though.
95snoozer said:
I agree with you about them working on a 302 but for a street/strip car, they will favor the strip more than the street.
Everybodys idea of a street car is different.
If your goal is good low to mid range torque (really fun on a street car) a general rule of thumb is that big ports on intake, heads, & exhaust favor the high end of the rpm range and the low end is usually soft.
I've had cars that would rip to 7k plus but things did not start to happen until about 3500 rpm but hey, IT WAS A STREET CAR.
To be fair I would have to say that the above example was old school with a carb and with fuel inj's & long runner intakes the low end torque is enhanced but the basic principles of moving air through a motor are still the same.
Later
Grady
mto502
Founding Member
I have Canfields. My numbers aren't what they should be but that's probably because I have the TFS Stage 1 cam. Considering I have that cam my numbers are probably respectable. SAE 293/311 STD 301/318
I may stroke it in the near future though.
I may stroke it in the near future though.
mto502 said:
just from moving your displacment to a 331 or 347, and maybe a TFS 2 cam (as an example), how much HP do you plain to see?
