AFR vs. Trickflow cylinder heads

Well...I didn't want to be involved in this but I must throw my $.02...Grn92LX is right...it's not peak lift that determines piston to valve clearance...its actually the duration at a certain lift...

As in regards to the heads...well the AFR 165's are a smaller cc head that flows the specific numbers with smaller valves than the TW's...TW's have more potential since they do have more meat on them...I know that you can still port the AFR's even more than they are...not sure how much...before they actaully become the 185's...Out of the box the AFR's will out perform the TW's...but if you port the TW's it's a different story...
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Grn92LX said:
No, its ALL in the valve timing whether or not you'll have p to v issues. Peak lift means nothing as far as p to v goes. Thats what I meant.
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about... Peak lift happens when the piston is at or around the BOTTOM of the cylinder! Duration has more to due with P to V clearance issues... Meaning how long the valve is open, and at that point, if the piston swings up and hits the valve. You have too tight of a P to V clearance, and the first time you float a valve by over revving, and bye bye pistons/valves/heads... I'm gunna go with AFR 165s with a .550 ish intake 235-240 duration@ .050 and .560ish exhaust, 240-245 duration @ .050... And with 1.94 intake valves... I won't have to blink an eye to beable to fit that kind of cam.

Nick
 
AFR 165cc < TFS TW.The flow numbers i gave are for the standard TW and non emission AFR 165cc.The standard TW is emission legal and will make better average and peak power compared to the AFR 165cc.I know for a fact that some minor bowl work and polishing will pick up around 20cfm for the TFS TW without porting them, just cleaning them up.I would like to see how the AFR 185cc's flow with out CNC porting from the factory.Also the AFR 185cc that they used in the test had 58cc combustion camber compared to the TFS TW 61cc.Thats enouf to make a differance in compression for a few hp.
 
Stang8URMPRT said:
Listen to this man, he knows what he's talking about... Peak lift happens when the piston is at or around the BOTTOM of the cylinder! Duration has more to due with P to V clearance issues... Meaning how long the valve is open, and at that point, if the piston swings up and hits the valve. You have too tight of a P to V clearance, and the first time you float a valve by over revving, and bye bye pistons/valves/heads... I'm gunna go with AFR 165s with a .550 ish intake 235-240 duration@ .050 and .560ish exhaust, 240-245 duration @ .050... And with 1.94 intake valves... I won't have to blink an eye to beable to fit that kind of cam.

Nick

Not a cam grinder by any means...but with AFR's I would actually go with a smaller cam...no need for so much duration...the heads are ported already...too much will be an overkill...I woul also keep the 1.9 valve...why switch to a 1.94...thre is basically no difference...not worth it for the money...also you want a cam that has slightly more intake duration since it does have a smaller valve...since the exhaust is also already fully ported...I do like the lift though...but duration sould be something like 224/224 or 225/224 nothing really past 230* on both ends...that is just my opinion...
 
bluevenom867 said:
AFR 165cc < TFS TW.The flow numbers i gave are for the standard TW and non emission AFR 165cc.The standard TW is emission legal and will make better average and peak power compared to the AFR 165cc.I know for a fact that some minor bowl work and polishing will pick up around 20cfm for the TFS TW without porting them, just cleaning them up.I would like to see how the AFR 185cc's flow with out CNC porting from the factory.Also the AFR 185cc that they used in the test had 58cc combustion camber compared to the TFS TW 61cc.Thats enouf to make a differance in compression for a few hp.


I disagree with you...think about it...AFR 165's smaller in the cc volume department...also use smaller valves and yet still flow 245 on intake and 190 at .550 lift...yet the TW's are 170 cc and use bigger vavles to achieve what a smaller head did...so how can you say that TW's are better? NO WAY! this ones goes to the little guy...HOWEVER, TW's can be ported even more than the box stock already ported AFR 165's...eventhough there is still some meat left to port the 165's...Onother thing you faild to mention is that the TW's actully have a larger intake runners besides having larger intake valves...This would explain why AFR 165's flow so good at lower RPM's due to velocity and the smaller intake volume...ALSO the 165 non-emission legal difference is that they don't have the holes for the smog...no difference in power...POLISHING alone will not net you 20cfm...NO WAY...you need to dig deeper on the exhaust side to achieve 20cfm...but if you want to do that...you can...but lets compare the two heads how they are right out of the box...THE AFR 165's also come in the 61cc version for the pedistal mount rockers...so no argument there...AND PLEASE don't compare the 185's into thsi mix...cause the 185's flow much better than the TW's and more on the intake than the 165's...
 
Highbredcloud said:
Not a cam grinder by any means...but with AFR's I would actually go with a smaller cam...no need for so much duration...the heads are ported already...too much will be an overkill...I woul also keep the 1.9 valve...why switch to a 1.94...thre is basically no difference...not worth it for the money...also you want a cam that has slightly more intake duration since it does have a smaller valve...since the exhaust is also already fully ported...I do like the lift though...but duration sould be something like 224/224 or 225/224 nothing really past 230* on both ends...that is just my opinion...
Actually the AFR exhaust ports are NOT fully ported, because you can get the heads with a "nitrous exhaust port" inwhich they open the exhaust port even more to flow better. Most good 5.0 cams are split lift/duration favoring the exhaust because the exhaust is the weak point in any street style 302/5.0 head. I will always use a split cam favoring the exhaust on a 302, it works better. But yes, maybe it is a little overkill. I will contact someone when it comes that time for a custom cam. As far as the valve size, I forgot they came with 1.90 intakes and not 1.94s.. I mean 1.90s, as what comes with the heads.

Nick
 
Stang8URMPRT said:
Actually the AFR exhaust ports are NOT fully ported, because you can get the heads with a "nitrous exhaust port" inwhich they open the exhaust port even more to flow better. Most good 5.0 cams are split lift/duration favoring the exhaust because the exhaust is the weak point in any street style 302/5.0 head. I will always use a split cam favoring the exhaust on a 302, it works better. But yes, maybe it is a little overkill. I will contact someone when it comes that time for a custom cam. As far as the valve size, I forgot they came with 1.90 intakes and not 1.94s.. I mean 1.90s, as what comes with the heads.

Nick

The exhaust ports are fully ported...I have no clue what you're talking about when you say nitrous exhaust port...what does that mean...? Do you mean that they are ported even more on the exhaust side? Cause you can still focus more on the bowl area IMO but the ports themselves are huge...Not sure if you saw those heads up close like I did...but they are definately on the bigger side...could be the way they are shaped as well that allows them to flow the #'s they do...Again those heads were actually designed for a mild cam...I don't agree with you on the cam specs though...again I have a different view...partially because the reason why MOST cams are dual pattern duration is becasue MOST heads are stock...in which in that case a cam that favors more exhaust is ideal...Once you have the heads ported just like the AFR's there is no need for even more exhaust favor...In this particular head design with the smaller intake valve one would actually benefit more on the intake side since the exhaust flows almost too good...BTW even if you have a cam that has the same duration on both sides...that doesn't mean that they have the same lift... ;) AFR actually recomends the E-cam...BUT in my opinion that is a waste of the heads...
 
Both heads are great, both will make similar numbers through out. That whole smaller port increasing velocity crap is all BS. My TW heads make really good low end torque and by looking at the under 3000 power on afr and TW graphs mine has similar or more in some cases. Its ALL in the combination. My combo was NOT designed for maximum low end torque either. At the time my heads were about $400 less. Was this velocity theory worth an extra $400? Can I get a hell NO ;) IMO an afr 165, TW and an edelbrock performer head will all make similar numbers with the right cam/intake. Some people are just brand loyal and thats how they go about recommending parts. Not cool. My advice is pick one out of the 3 I listed and have the combo designed around that and I bet it'll run good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
The valves are the closest to the piston at 10 degrees ATDC.

Yes the AFR N2O exhaust ports are larger/ported then the out of the box units. N2O creates waste and exhaust ports and headers/exhaust are very important to get the waste out. The larger the ports the more it can expell out into the header. It needs to be as free flowing as possible. The FTI N2O exhaust ports I have on my 225's are very nice.

All of the above heads will make good power, it really depends on what you want to do with the car/combo in the end. They each have there good and bad points...

Mike you ready for that 331/347 yet ;)
 
Grn92LX said:
Thanks guys, I just looked at the article. Wow, the TW heads hung right with the 185's. The 185's made 10 more average hp/tq on the 333.

As I was looking through this thread, I had to wonder why the TFS were being compared to the AFR 165s. They've been in comparison to the 185's since AFR released them. Without fly cutting the pistons, you'd be hard pressed to get a better performing set of heads than the TFS.
 
What the hell, TFS TW is only 5cc big intake runner.Plus there as cast and most come out with a little smaller than 170cc (like 169/168cc).That really isnt much considering the AFR 185cc are 15cc bigger and have the same size valve, they flow more because there ported, but yet the TFS TW was only 10hp behind and with less compression.Highbredcloud, if you wanna talk BS about how your AFR heads are so great, then why didn't MM&FF compare the TFS TW to the AFR 165cc?They had to put it in the same group as the AFR 185cc, and I know for a fact that the AFR heads flow more (not the 165cc), but the TFS TW hav the special bowl desine.You forget to mention bowl work as one of the thing I said to "clean up" and that also mean removing casting flaws in the run and then going over it with 80 grid cartrage roll to smooth out the rough spots.The exhaust would get a gone over with a polishing head until there like glass smooth.And the AFR 165cc/AFR 185cc are only avaliable in 58cc and 64cc.Um, hate to say it but, the TFS TW flows 251cfm at .550 on the intake and was only a few cfm behind on the exhaust.I want to know what TFS test flow with.AFR flow benched there head on a 4.060 bore with a 1 3/4 header.How many of you out there run your motor .060 over?Not that many, so you lose some flow right there.AFR also shows that the AFR 165cc emission legal heads flow less, by about 5cfm on both sides, than non emission AFR 165cc, so there would be a differance in power.So, I still say

AFR 165cc<TFS TW
 
"What the hell, TFS TW is only 5cc big intake runner.Plus there as cast and most come out with a little smaller than 170cc (like 169/168cc).That really isnt much considering the AFR 185cc are 15cc bigger and have the same size valve, they flow more because there ported, but yet the TFS TW was only 10hp behind and with less compression."

To measure volume you need three measurements; height, width and length. The TWs length is shorter than the AFRs which makes the runner cc look closer to a 165cc head but when you compare hgt and width you'll see that the head is closer to a 185cc runner. Just like everyone said they'll both make decent power if the combo is right.

Here's something else to think about, a direct quote from Jay Allen:

"The TW design is a failed Pro Stock design that Pontiac tried in the late 1980's. It moves a ***** load of air, but the air is confused and twists and turns. ie, swirl. Swirl is for low piston speeds, emmission friendly applications. It does NOT make power. "
 
I've used them all and I have had the best results with the TFS. I'm not fond of the AFR's although they are a nice head. The shape of the TW combustion chamber is more efficient. Flow is not everything and neither is HP. Tq and port velocity are also important factors as well. For the type of cars most of us run, big valves and huge ports slow our cars down. Unless you are running a lot of boost or a lot of compression there is something as too much flow-too much port-too much valve. Its just like anything else- bigger is not always better. I mention this only because I keep hearing the comparison between the TW and AFR 185.

Both Anderson Ford and FTI seem to lean towards the TW. I know for sure Rick Anderson will outright tell you that he likes the TFS better. I'm not sure about FTI but based on what they sell I'm making the assumption. God forbid if I ever misquoted EDC. Just my .02. Let the flamming commence!
 
I have gone 1.74 60' 12.30s @ over 111 MPH on the stock shortblock, stock cam, AFR 165s Crane 1.7RRs, 9 yr old Edelbrock Performer intake, 65 mm T body, 24 lb injectors & Pro M 75mm MAM, 3.73s, 5 speed in a light notch.. 3050 w/ me in it. Gonna get some 4.10s, a 70mm TB, and new posi unit this winter and try for an 11.90 in the spring. I think it could have gone quicker on a good sticking track the way it sits probably..

No dyno numbers yet though.

I bet it would have run the same damn thing with the Trick Flow heads :shrug:
 
Yea, but for the price, which head would you pick?
TFS TW average are $1095
AFR 165cc average are $1300
AFR likes to compare there 185cc head to the TFS TW because they use the same size valves, but there heads have bigger runners.
 
It's funny actually...

The day I bought the AFRs. I went to a place abotu 45 mins from where I live callled Westside Performance. I forget what it was I was going there for now... but I remember researching heads all winter long, and had it nailed down to AFRs or TWs, and it had to be ones that used the stock valvetrain stuff [rockers/pushords etc...] as I wanted to keep it simple.

I walked in and they had AFR heads on the shelf... a bunch of sets. I asked if they had an 5.0L sets and he showed me mine... I asked if they used stock pedestal rockers, stock pushrods, and what not, "Yup" and I bought them. I guess I got em cause they were there, it was easy, and I knew AFR was a good head.

Had it been the TWs sitting there... for at that time a savings of $308 Canadian [back then your US dollar was $1.53 for us to buy] you bet I would have bought the TWs :nice:

It doesn't matter, if the engine is properly put together, and setup, and the car is driven hard and hooks [at least somewhat] either head is going to be about the same IMO.
 
I was about to get the TW heads when I found a guy selling brand new 165's at a price I couldn't pass up. I LOVE my AFR heads, but I'm sure If I would have gone with the TFS I would say that I LOVE my TFS heads.

If you can save money going one way, go that way.