• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

AFR 185's or 205's?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wickedmach1
  • Start date Start date Apr 19, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

87gn2

New Member
Apr 17, 2004
101
0
0
Apr 21, 2004
#21
  • Apr 21, 2004
  • #21
There are vacuum boosters you can buy to help you out with that, wickedmach1. I will tell you right off that my car doesn't have power anything, so my knowledge is not first-hand with vacuum. But I'd go with a cam that had duration of about 240 degrees at .050" and around the same lift that you have now. It's not much bigger, but it'll match up better with the AFR 185s, and also with the 393. If you went to 205s, you could go to a far bigger cam...but it's up to you.

Another thing to consider is idle quality. You may want it to idle like a stocker, like fastcoupe68's 408, and even with the 240ish duration cam I recommended, you won't be VERY lumpy at idle unless you go with a cam that has an LSA (lobe separation angle if you didn't know) of 110 or lower. My old cam was a 230/244 with a 108 and at anything below 1100 sounded outright nasty. It was also very loud even with the stock exhaust. Now I have a 226/226 with a 110 LSA and although it's currently idling at 1200, it's noticeably quieter at idle and throughout the RPM range.

Once you pass a certain duration in camshafts, I believe it's somewhere around 240, you stop making more torque, and you just move it farther up in the RPM range. Since you're going to be driving on the street, you want torque available at a lower RPM.

Intake/head/cam matching is very important... I just plain don't like Edelbrock, which is why I don't recommend the Victor Jr. If you want a single plane, get a weiand x-celerator. The victor jr. is set up for 3500-8000rpm operation, the cam you specified would go to 5500/6000 and still make power, but that's not very much overlap IMO. The weaind makes power from something like 1500 all the way to redline, pretty impressive to me.

another thing, with a 393 and a high numerical rear gear ratio, you're going to be lighting up the tires at will. I don't know how much it rains in Austin, but you might want to consider a 3.25 or so rear end. Your wallet will thank you, too. If you're not concerned with this, then have fun.

In the end, it's up to you. With nearly 400 cubic inches, you really can't go wrong. You'll make gobs of power.
 
W

wickedmach1

New Member
Apr 8, 2003
376
0
0
Austin, TX
Apr 23, 2004
#22
  • Apr 23, 2004
  • #22
You guys and this website is great. I always get the help that I need. Thanks to everyone for their time. Keep the information coming!
 
W

wickedmach1

New Member
Apr 8, 2003
376
0
0
Austin, TX
May 2, 2004
#23
  • May 2, 2004
  • #23
87gn2,

Should I go with the Weiand X-Celerator (single plane) or the Weiand Stealth (dual plane) intake manifold? Does the rear gear selection make any difference? I am using 3.89's. Why would a cam with 240 duration @ .050" be better than what I selected? What does the lobe seperation affect? Please school me. Thanks.
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
May 2, 2004
#24
  • May 2, 2004
  • #24
The added cubes lower the rpm range of h/c/i. If you ever want to grow, anything less than a vic jr will have to be replaced. The extra cubes will tame these "race parts" to nice "street parts". If you are buying rods for a 393, you might think about a 408. Using stock rods and pistons is the reason for a 393. Look into the price difference before you buy.
 
D

Denny Wiedman

Founding Member
May 19, 2002
110
0
0
nj
May 2, 2004
#25
  • May 2, 2004
  • #25
heads

heres my combo on my 408w, sportsman block which i paid 800 bucks a few yrs ago remember those blocks from ford motorsports, CHP rotating assm, which includes cast steel crank, H-beam rods, probe pistons, 9.8.1, 7qt milodon oil pan, roush 200 heads that flow 250cfm@.500 lift, 180 on the .ex, 263 and 186@.600, 1.6 rollers, msd billet, edelbrock water pump, vic jr manifold, 750HP from Bigs, 1\3\4 supercomps, c-4 full manual from JPT with 10'' converter also JPT stalls from 2800 to where ever my peak torque comes in, now on the heads i might go alum next yr i have to see where im at with this combo when i chasis dyno it this summer, i still have the steath from this motor before i rebuilt it, last engine made 400hp with almost 400ft lbs@3000rpm's which i need for street car, so i think ill have my hands full with this new engine combo i hope, my engine builder and others say vic jr is needed for the big strokers, we will see soon, i need headers that will fit my 69mach1 engine compartment because these hookers are real close to things like my brake booster which has maybe 1\4 from hitting it, so you need to take that before going with raised ex ports which most of these heads have, good luck.
 
W

wickedmach1

New Member
Apr 8, 2003
376
0
0
Austin, TX
May 2, 2004
#26
  • May 2, 2004
  • #26
Won't the Vic Jr. hurt my bottom end for the street?
 

66 Racer

Founding Member
Aug 9, 2001
130
0
16
so cal
May 2, 2004
#27
  • May 2, 2004
  • #27
It depends on what cam your going to run, also dont forget the 205s have the raised exaust ports which may make the header clearance a pain in an early mustang since all the headers are made for stock location ports, the 185's have them located in the stock location.

This is a dyno run with a 393w with 9.7:1 compression, found in the jegs webpage, they were promoting their new jegs/kaase heads which also have stock location ports, here is part of the article:


"We started our testing with the Ford 392 out of the crate, installing a Holley 750. The engine already has a Comp Cams 232-240 hydraulic roller cam installed from Ford Motorsport. This configurations best test results were 446 HP, 450 FT/LBS of torque. The next configuration we changed to the AFR [185's] cylinder heads, the best test was 485 HP, 480 FT/LBS of torque. Then came the moment of truth, we changed to the JEG’S/KAASE designed heads with the canted valve layout and our results are 506 HP, 493 FT/LBS of torque"

the jegs/kaase heads can be found here:
http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=156886&prmenbr=361

The link to the whole article is here:
http://www.jegs.com/photos/jegskaase.html
 
F

fastcoupe68

Member
Mar 10, 2004
368
0
17
nj
May 2, 2004
#28
  • May 2, 2004
  • #28
I have to ask one question. Have you ever driven in a car that makes 400lb ft of torque at any rpm lower than 3500 rpms? I know I have and all the cars that I put together with a 400+ cubic inches engine had a vic jr on it, hurt street performance well if you call being able to incinerate your tires off idle with any type of radial poor street performance than dont use a victor jr. Listen to what brianj5600 said in his post and also some of mine. I have never had a customer come back to me and ask for me to remove the vic jr because they thought their car needed more power at the bottom, most of them just come back from their first run in the car and just simply reply holysh-t!! Do yourself a favor and just get the damn victor jr.
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
May 2, 2004
#29
  • May 2, 2004
  • #29
With about 12% more cubes to feed you will need the flow of a vic jr. They are sized for a 351ci motor. At any given rpm the motor will be trying to move 11% more air. This article says 375ft lbs right off idle using a vic jr. http://www.musclemustangfastfords.com/tech/0305_mmwicked/ If you size the intake for a 351 you will miss the target for a 393 or 408. My brothers car has a vic jr on a 347 and torque is great. The runners are sized for a 302, so feeding a 347 it does not kill bottom end. If you want to make power above 5000 you will need airflow.
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
May 2, 2004
#30
  • May 2, 2004
  • #30
"We started our testing with the Ford 392 out of the crate, installing a Holley 750. The engine already has a Comp Cams 232-240 hydraulic roller cam installed from Ford Motorsport. This configurations best test results were 446 HP, 450 FT/LBS of torque. The next configuration we changed to the AFR [185's] cylinder heads, the best test was 485 HP, 480 FT/LBS of torque. Then came the moment of truth, we changed to the JEG’S/KAASE designed heads with the canted valve layout and our results are 506 HP, 493 FT/LBS of torque"

Why do they compare it to 185 afr's. These heads are more comparable to the 225s. Not one of the best comparisons I've seen. $1650 + 200 for valve covers, no thanks.
 
W

wickedmach1

New Member
Apr 8, 2003
376
0
0
Austin, TX
May 2, 2004
#31
  • May 2, 2004
  • #31
So the combo to go with would be the AFR 185's, Vic Jr. intake, and the Comp Cams 224/232 - 555/565 camshaft. The car will have a G-Force T-% or the new Tremec 500 with 3.89 rear gears. I plan to use a SCAT 9000 series crankshaft with SCAT I-Beam rods and custom forged pistons to make around 10:0.1 compression. My only last questions would be what size Demon carb and what size of headers (1 5/8 or 1 3/4). Also, should I go with shorties or long tube? Thanks for the input.
 
F

fastcoupe68

Member
Mar 10, 2004
368
0
17
nj
May 2, 2004
#32
  • May 2, 2004
  • #32
750 with vac secondaries for the street. 1 3/4 inch headers all the way. Can you say 500hp+ hold on this could be fun!!
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
May 2, 2004
#33
  • May 2, 2004
  • #33
I would do a 408 unless you are trying to use stock rods and pistons.
 
W

wickedmach1

New Member
Apr 8, 2003
376
0
0
Austin, TX
May 3, 2004
#34
  • May 3, 2004
  • #34
I thought the 393 was safer than the 408. I know there is not much of a difference but I heard that rod ratio is better on the 393. Why the 408 over the 393? All parts will be new so I am not saving any money by using stock rods and 302 pistons on the build.

Shorty or longtube 1 3/4" headers????
 
F

fastcoupe68

Member
Mar 10, 2004
368
0
17
nj
May 3, 2004
#35
  • May 3, 2004
  • #35
You need to not worry about rod ratio. the 428cj is said to have a poor rod ratio and look how awesome that motor is. If your primarily going to use the car for street driving use the shorty headers it will allow for better ground clearance. Either choice 393 or 408 you really cant go wrong so stop beating yourself up over it.
 
W

wickedmach1

New Member
Apr 8, 2003
376
0
0
Austin, TX
May 5, 2004
#36
  • May 5, 2004
  • #36
I'm not beating myself up over it. I am just trying to learn from people that can help.
 
F

fastcoupe68

Member
Mar 10, 2004
368
0
17
nj
May 5, 2004
#37
  • May 5, 2004
  • #37
10-4
 
S

slapper

Founding Member
Mar 6, 2002
447
0
0
May 6, 2004
#38
  • May 6, 2004
  • #38
10secgoal said:
I think the AFR is the better head to go with in either case. The Victor does outflow the 185's, barely. And if you take out the valves, the CNC marks are very easy to remove for more flow. Also another thing to think about is a victor jr is a 210 cc head, and has a 2.05 intake valve. So it barely outflows afr's smaller 185 head, with a smaller intake valve. Which means it has better air velocity which is generally over looked in flow charts. That is very important for low end torque. Not cracking on edelbrock or anyone that has them. Just my observation. I just went through this with another guy in my town.
Click to expand...

Very well said. Regardless of valve size in most cases, you most certainly want that velocity
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1
Clearance
  • 1993mustang50
  • Apr 3, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
160
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 4, 2026
2000xp8
SBF Head Flow Table - Work in Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Sep 29, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
17
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 30, 2025
Noobz347
Engine Felpro 9333 pt1 (with 8psi boost)
  • JD1964
  • Jan 14, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
18
Views
771
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 1, 2026
Qtrhrse23
Q
Weber Carburetor tuning help
  • SchwarzStock
  • Jul 6, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
90
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jul 19, 2026
SchwarzStock
9
Will I feel a difference
  • 90Stanger302
  • Mar 12, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
263
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Apr 13, 2026
Noobz347
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?