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

afr engine combo

  • Thread starter Thread starter WantaGT
  • Start date Start date Dec 13, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Next
First Prev 6 of 7 Next Last

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Dec 20, 2004
#101
  • Dec 20, 2004
  • #101
WantaGT the crossover is an emmissions thing. You definitely want a post-header exhaust crossover, like a H or X pipe, but they have nothing to do with the head.
 

87gn2

New Member
Apr 17, 2004
101
0
0
Dec 20, 2004
#102
  • Dec 20, 2004
  • #102
D.Hearne said:
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
Click to expand...

So, now AFR and Canfield have the "same" numbers? I thought you said the Canfields outflowed the AFRs...

Canfields make 5 more CFM at the top..but are behind the AFRs in both peak and average power/tq numbers. With more .76 compression.




Why is it that every article shows the AFRs beating the Canfields? Perhaps because they're better?
 

Attachments

  • A-P3.webp
    184.7 KB · Views: 131
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 20, 2004
#103
  • Dec 20, 2004
  • #103
87gn2 said:
Why is it that every article shows the AFRs beating the Canfields? Perhaps because they're better?
Click to expand...
No, could be it's because they buy more advertising space in the mags? Seems the two go hand in hand. You hardly ever see ads for Canfields ( come to think of it, I can't recall ever seeing an ad) But AFR's are plastered all over the place. Seems they're as popular as Chevy's
 
H

hobbyhorse

New Member
Sep 14, 2003
29
0
1
Kinston,NC
Dec 21, 2004
#104
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #104
They never paid me for any advertising.
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Dec 21, 2004
#105
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #105
Route666 said:
WantaGT the crossover is an emmissions thing. You definitely want a post-header exhaust crossover, like a H or X pipe, but they have nothing to do with the head.
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it. When they told WanaGT that he needed an exhaust crossover they did not mean the manifold they meant the pipes, I feel better now.
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
St Paul
Dec 21, 2004
#106
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #106
The ultimate in bench racing. Airflow numbers.

Almost as misleading as numbers on your Pentium chip.

Boss 302 heads probably clean up on the whole lot of 'em, and they didn't work that well on the street. There is a lot more to an engine than airflow numbers from bench testing heads.
 
C

Cbarton

New Member
Feb 27, 2003
176
0
0
Santa Ana, CA
Dec 21, 2004
#107
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #107
While there is truth in what you say about advertising dollars making the mags favor certain parts, I don't believe they would alter dyno results to make a loser a winner because they spend more on ads. That is reaching a little. Hell, that's reaching a LOT. Come to think of it, I don't exactly remember seeing a slew of full page AFR ads either....

And while I am sure that canfields are great heads, the reason AFR has EXPLODED in the marketplace is not because of an advertising budget, (hell Trickflow spends at least as much as they do and has for almost 15 years and you can't even buy AFR in Summit or Jegs which are the largest sources for aftermaket heads in the country) It's because they are great heads.

My engine builder (Steve @ Powertrain Dynamics in H.B., CA) first told me about 5+ years ago how great the AFR's were. And he dynos cars EVERY SINGLE DAY. Almost exclusively Fords. I just saw him last week and you know what his hands down favorite head is? That's right. AFR. And no one is paying him to choose them. Cream rises to the top. This is no, "poor little best performing head can't get a break and gets passed over by lessor heads even tho it's better" story, gimme a break.

Chris Barton



D.Hearne said:
No, could be it's because they buy more advertising space in the mags? Seems the two go hand in hand. You hardly ever see ads for Canfields ( come to think of it, I can't recall ever seeing an ad) But AFR's are plastered all over the place. Seems they're as popular as Chevy's
Click to expand...
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Dec 21, 2004
#108
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #108
The Canfields get the best ratings, hands down anywhere I look... they even outperform TW-R heads at any streetable lift or rpm.
Until now, I have never seen them tested along with AFRs though.
Personally, I have planned to use the AFRs. I look at the port runners and just like what I see. The numbers can be misleading, but I plug them into my engine modeling program and it calculates 10% better flow characteristics on both sides of the head then any streetable brand. This is the 185 or 205s... I have not considered 165 or 225.
Dave
 
H

hobbyhorse

New Member
Sep 14, 2003
29
0
1
Kinston,NC
Dec 21, 2004
#109
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #109
Usually you can find the AFRs advertised in the back of the mags. They have the little black and white quarter page add. AFRs were a Chevy staple for years. They have always been on top of their game, even when they were porting factory heads in the late 60's.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 21, 2004
#110
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #110
Well, I'm sure AFR's are good heads, but the point I was trying to make is, they're not the only good heads. There's lots of others too. Y'all go ahead and blindly run em, I'll stick with my Canfields. As for dyno and flow numbers between the two, I've yet to see a dimes worth of difference between em certainly not after I factor in the purchase price I got mine for, which was way less than AFR's go for. As for dyno operators, I'm sure they're not all pure as the driven snow. And numbers being posted have been known to be doctored too, if you don't think that's not possible, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
 

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Dec 21, 2004
#111
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #111
Those numbers are basically the same in the article. I'm sure 5 HP / TQ / CFM could come down to random variations. Those numbers are close enough to be equal. Wasn't D.Hearne originally comparing them to 165s not 185s? Also don't you save a considerable amount of dosh for that 5 CFM / HP / TQ kick in the pants?
 

SoCalCruising

Founding Member
Jul 25, 2000
2,437
0
47
SoCal
Dec 21, 2004
#112
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #112
Just an observation: The Canfields were on their way to making more power in the MM&FF dyno pull, but power fell off rapidly, probably due to loss of valve control. Check out the spring rates on the Canfields and you'll see only 290 over the nose. That ain't gonna get it done using a HR cam like the XE274HR. Considering that the torque number was essentially the same as the AFR 185, the Canfield should have put out similar HP numbers if the springs had been right.

And yes, I know that the Canfields had a compression advantage, but they weren't CNC ported either. Canfields are good heads. I read on another board that the Z304 Ford head is supplied by Canfield. Can anybody confirm this?
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 21, 2004
#113
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #113
Route666 said:
Those numbers are basically the same in the article. I'm sure 5 HP / TQ / CFM could come down to random variations. Those numbers are close enough to be equal. Wasn't D.Hearne originally comparing them to 165s not 185s? ?
Click to expand...
Hell, even I can't recall, this thread's gone on so long now My Canfields are probably closer to the 165's with the 1.94 intakes. The flow charts posted show the 2.02 heads. Either way they stack up to the AFR's anyway you put it.
 

87gn2

New Member
Apr 17, 2004
101
0
0
Dec 21, 2004
#114
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #114
D.Hearne said:
Hell, even I can't recall, this thread's gone on so long now My Canfields are probably closer to the 165's with the 1.94 intakes. The flow charts posted show the 2.02 heads. Either way they stack up to the AFR's anyway you put it.
Click to expand...

5hp, OK, but how about 25hp? 165 vs Canfield.



 

Attachments

  • A-P6.webp
    181.2 KB · Views: 120
  • A-P10.webp
    173.3 KB · Views: 105

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Dec 21, 2004
#115
  • Dec 21, 2004
  • #115
Now 25 is something. 26 less torque for the AFRs is also something. The average shows 9 HP and TQ over the Canfields, not exactly worlds apart.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Dec 22, 2004
#116
  • Dec 22, 2004
  • #116
Wow, an 8hp gain for "only" $100 extra. What a bargain.
 

Route666

Active Member
Aug 16, 2003
1,652
6
39
Brisbane, Australia
Dec 22, 2004
#117
  • Dec 22, 2004
  • #117
AFRs are still my favourites though

 
H

hobbyhorse

New Member
Sep 14, 2003
29
0
1
Kinston,NC
Dec 22, 2004
#118
  • Dec 22, 2004
  • #118
Well, one thing is for sure...if I had canfields I sure wouldn't waste my time pulling them off just to put on AFRs. Even if I had Edelbrocks or Trickflows. On a mild street motor I don't think you would be dissatisfied with any of the above results. They will all make an easy, streetable 350hp on a 302.
 

SoCalCruising

Founding Member
Jul 25, 2000
2,437
0
47
SoCal
Dec 22, 2004
#119
  • Dec 22, 2004
  • #119
Those MM&FF results are full of typos. Check out the curves on the AFRs. No way torque is 342! Heck, average torque is 354! You really have to read those articles carefully and correct the mistakes as you go along. I suspect that the curves are correct, though.
 

87gn2

New Member
Apr 17, 2004
101
0
0
Dec 22, 2004
#120
  • Dec 22, 2004
  • #120
Route666 said:
Now 25 is something. 26 less torque for the AFRs is also something. The average shows 9 HP and TQ over the Canfields, not exactly worlds apart.
Click to expand...

Thats a typo, if you look in the paragraph below, it says 378lb-ft.



8hp for $100? I guess you never spent $300+ for a dual exhaust system on a stock V8 that might have netted you 10-15hp??? Or 600 for an intake manifold and carb that might have netted 25hp? 8hp/$100 sounds pretty good now doesn't it?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • …
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
Next
First Prev 6 of 7 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
684
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
I Thought I Knew How......
  • horseballz
  • Oct 6, 2021
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
6
Views
1K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Oct 7, 2021
7991LXnSHO
4
Engine Simulators
  • '46Ford
  • Sep 17, 2020
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
0
Views
978
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Sep 17, 2020
'46Ford
4
P
2018 Rims on 1965 Mustang
  • PsuedoCode
  • Nov 15, 2021
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
2K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Nov 15, 2021
PsuedoCode
P
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?