afr engine combo
- Thread starter WantaGT
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
ratio411
Founding Member
3000 with me in it...fastcoupe68 said:
8.2 in the eighth, well over 2 second 60', radials and 3.00 gears.
Couldn't get the toploader out of second without losing et, best times came crossing the traps in second with the valves floating.
So the car was far from effiecient, it is undergoing changes nowadays.
Never ran it in the quarter, but in didn't feel much faster than my Z.
I admit I don't get to spend much time at the track or on the dyno, but it still doesn't set right with me...
I could be totally wrong after sleeping on it.
Dave
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.
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.
WantaGT said:
If waiting until you can do it all at once wont work then I say get the 185s and live with the bog and mismatched parts. Then when you get the right cam and intake/carb you wont STILL be mismatched. If you buy 165s now it will run better until you get the rest, but when you have the budget and desire for real power you'll need to replace the heads and wont be able to afford it
ratio411
Founding Member
I agree, heads are an aweful expensive part to use for a band-aid until you have a need for even better heads.
You are buying 2 sets of heads because you can't afford a cam and intake now.
You are buying 2 sets of heads because you can't afford a cam and intake now.
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:
That brings up another subject...
WantaGT, are you going to need to pass any emissions tests with this ride?
SoCalCruising
Founding Member
Someone mentioned the Competitiion version of the AFR 165s (model 1399C). Just FYI, those are only available in the non-emissions legal version and use a 2.02" intake valve. The were made to take advantage of certain class rules in NMRA competition (this according the Ed Curtis). If you aren't NMRA racing and are going to have a 2.02" intake valve, then it makes pretty good sense to just go with 185s, especially since they are cheaper than the 1399Cs.
SoCalCruising
Founding Member
It sounds like you're going to have your cake and eat it, too. Congrats. Does this mean that you will pop for a cam, now that you are getting heads "cheap"?
One difference in the 165cc and 185cc intake port voume is you must remove more material under the seat to fit the 2.02 valves. Between this and the blending into the runner accounts for alot of the difference in runner size. They have the same size port opening at the intake. More air you move with a smaller port volume increases velocity. Something carburated cars need, as well as small displacement engines. These heads are just that efficient. My best advice is buy what you can afford. Heads will probably be your biggest engine investment. A few hundred dollars more may sound like alot, but it is something that will bring you years of enjoyment. Baring a catostrophic engine failure, you will basically have them forever. All the top brands are "heads above" the factory pieces.
the afr's turned out to not be what i want they had them listed as #1402 but they called them "track" heads and that they have 7/16 studs, no emissions or exhaust crossover....not exactly what afr has listed for #1402 so my search continues, just kinda leary when stuff doesn't match up. if any know where to get some afrs, canfields, brodix or the like. anything like that let me know...
Nothing wrong with 7/16ths studs, that's what my Canfields have. Actually you're a step ahead with the bigger studs, they're much stronger.If you've already bought 3/8ths rockers, all you have to do is screw in a set of 3/8ths studs. And as for the missing exhaust X-over, that's a plus too, unless you like heating up the intake. Most good aftermarket intakes lack the X-over also. I always block it off if it's present, there's absolutely no need for it down here.
D.Hearne 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.
So I don't really see why you're glad you bought Canfields...because they ARE inferior to AFRs. What me to find more articles? MM&FF had one a few years ago that'll support what I'm saying.
You can quote me all the articles you want, I got the flow #'s straight off AFR's site. Same as the Canfield #'s. So tell me why AFR would "low ball" their flow #'s? I'd still match my Canfields anyday against AFR's. Max flow isn't always what makes an engine perform. And larger intake valves like 2.02's against 1.94's isn't always a good thing. You end up having the cylinder walls and the chamber walls shroud the valve
How do you figure that the 302 had a smaller cam ? Unless math has changed, "below .600" and .570 is basically the same thing.87gn2 said:
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.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.
I never said the AFR with the 570 was at a disadvantage, I just had a few dynos to choose from and that one fit the profile. Since Canfield didn't post full specs, I can't do a perfect comparison.
I'd prefer the single plane but that's just me, I'm not too happy with my Performer RPM. Part of that is due to horrible workmanship IMO.
edit: When I said smaller cam, I meant a 555
So I meant smaller than the 570 in the other AFR 302.WantaGT said:
Now, you really don't. The benefit from the crossover is it heats the manifold and causes beter drivability when the motor is cold. The intake will warm up quickly. But it will do it on it's own, without it constantly changing with the exhaust gases. The airgap woks to cool the intake, but you want to heat it up with the crossover. Besides, like Hearne said, you are going to have a hell of a time finding a performance intake with it.
Similar threads
