• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

better flow right out of the box: trickflow or AFR ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fiveoho
  • Start date Start date Feb 26, 2006
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
I

IntenseBlue

Member
Jul 10, 2005
946
0
16
Feb 27, 2006
#21
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #21
The 185 heads are better heads than the 165s, but not for your combination. AFR 185s will do good on a 302/306, but they need more compression or boost. The 165s are fine and will prove to be about the same as Twisted Wedges. The AFR 165s should have better bottom-end numbers. I was talking to someone at Total Engine Airflow (don't know if you've heard of them or not) and he said that their testing showed on the same motor, I'm assuming a 302/306, that the Twisted Wedges peaked about 10 more horsepower. This was on an engine dyno. It'd probably be about 7-8 on a dyno. This is small enough to be due to the cam or another part of the combo and not just the heads. If it were me, and when the time comes, I'll be going AFR.
 
N

NcogNitto

New Member
Feb 27, 2006
22
0
0
Feb 27, 2006
#22
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #22
Great choice for a street 302-8 man
If way more airflow is needed in the future, you can always upgrade then.
If you have the money for a power adder or stroker you'll always find the extra funds for larger heads too.

My buddy's SN with 165's and an emissions cam makes my Fox feel like a rock on city streets
Not only is it responsive down low, but pulls hard up the tach as well.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Feb 27, 2006
#23
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #23
Keep the 165's...it has more pros than cons even for the future. Get a custom cam, it will beat the TFS cams in every way.
 
8

89white50

Member
Nov 16, 2004
440
1
18
43
central MA
Feb 27, 2006
#24
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #24
kepp the 165's the resale value will still be great when ur looking to upgrade down the road...and you will. haha
groverdill's #'s says enough.
 

vikingpower

New Member
Dec 6, 2004
656
0
0
CWU Ellensburg, WA
Feb 27, 2006
#25
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #25
I bought TW's and spent some time porting/polishing them before I put them on my car. So, for a lot less money and a little extra effort, my heads are at least as good as 185's (flow-wise) but still got the smaller port volume.
BTW, you should read MM&FF's head shootout on AFR's website parts 1-4. The TW's were only 10hp I think behind the 185's.
 

GroverDill

GoldMember
Founding Member
Aug 18, 1999
5,442
1,490
214
55
Demotte IN 46310
Feb 27, 2006
#26
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #26
vikingpower said:
I bought TW's and spent some time porting/polishing them before I put them on my car. So, for a lot less money and a little extra effort, my heads are at least as good as 185's (flow-wise) but still got the smaller port volume.
BTW, you should read MM&FF's head shootout on AFR's website parts 1-4. The TW's were only 10hp I think behind the 185's.
Click to expand...


post you flow numbers.

with no numbers, you are just guessing.
 

vikingpower

New Member
Dec 6, 2004
656
0
0
CWU Ellensburg, WA
Feb 27, 2006
#27
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #27
GroverDill said:
post you flow numbers.

with no numbers, you are just guessing.
Click to expand...

I never had them benched, but I know they'd close the 10hp gap with the 185's on the engine that MM&FF used. If you saw them, you'd agree with me.
 

2000xp8

SN Certified Technician
Aug 8, 2003
8,031
1,623
194
NJ
Feb 27, 2006
#28
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #28
Afr's just cost more, they are no better no worse. Personal preference is what this comes down to.
 

Curse

Member
Apr 8, 2004
791
2
16
El Paso, TX
Feb 27, 2006
#29
  • Feb 27, 2006
  • #29
I went with the Trick Flows not because they were cheaper (a whooping $200not much when your spending a grand plus), but because they compete well with a CNC ported head and they are as cast. To me, that speaks volumes. Plus if you need more flow down the road, a CNC port job and there you go.
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
Feb 28, 2006
#30
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #30
2000xp8 said:
Afr's just cost more, they are no better no worse. Personal preference is what this comes down to.
Click to expand...
Port sizing, length, design, and work, valve angle, valve placement, valve seat angle/cut, valve size, combustion chamber contour and shape (design type), combustion chamber size, spark plug angle and placement, ect.

There are a lot of variables that can make one cylinder head better over another, preference is only part of it. Most people have that preference because they know what works, people don't pick the worst of the products and swear by them "because". Too many variables can change how efficient or how well a cylinder head works.
 

2000xp8

SN Certified Technician
Aug 8, 2003
8,031
1,623
194
NJ
Feb 28, 2006
#31
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #31
87'GTstang said:
There are a lot of variables that can make one cylinder head better over another, preference is only part of it. Most people have that preference because they know what works, people don't pick the worst of the products and swear by them "because". Too many variables can change how efficient or how well a cylinder head works.
Click to expand...

Interesting you say that, how many mustang racers do you think swear by afr heads? Just about none. But there is plenty of guys using edelbrock and TFS heads.
AFR has a great internet rep, so i guess if the internet says they are the best, then they are.
What i'm saying in this particular case, is that you could do the same with either set. Even though the design is different doesn't mean the power output isn't the same.

The whole combo will tell the story, and as someone said earlier, why buy a $1300 set of heads, and use a $140 cam?
I'd rather have an $1100 set of heads and a $350 cam.

I'm by no means saying to not use afr's, just don't get them an expect more, just because you payed more.
 

fiveoho

15 Year Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,958
16
69
TN
Feb 28, 2006
#32
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #32
i sure am getting alot of replies...and i appreciate them all.

im still worried about what i got (165s) . its prob a 60 to 40 percent thing.....of all the people ive talked to and asked, 60% suggested the 165s for my setup. the other 40% or so said the 185s would be a better choice.

like i said, ive already ordered my 165s.

i guess my main question as this time is this: Had i ordered the 185s, how much Rwhp would have been gained (guessing)? any?

or would it have taken away from the bottom end a little compared to the 165s?

thanks guys
 
R

Redrooster

New Member
Jul 13, 2005
73
0
0
Feb 28, 2006
#33
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #33
You couldn't know unless you tried the two heads back to back on you combo. Kinda worrying over spilt milk. W/O a doubt the 185's would make more hp on a different larger CI engine. You ordered a great set of heads and they will run fine on your engine.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Feb 28, 2006
#34
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #34
fiveoh - Keep the 165's. You would lose some bottomend with the 185's. You also need to flycut the pistons which is troublesome for sure and weaken the stock pistons. It isn't much difference. The 165's flow quite a bit...you will be impressed. on a 302/306 they make very similar power numbers. The 165's have a more useable powerband. Keep the 165's...
 

fiveoho

15 Year Member
Apr 28, 2005
1,958
16
69
TN
Feb 28, 2006
#35
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #35
'preciate it guys.

you guys will definetly know if and when i hit that 300 mark!
 
I

IntenseBlue

Member
Jul 10, 2005
946
0
16
Feb 28, 2006
#36
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #36
.
 
I

IntenseBlue

Member
Jul 10, 2005
946
0
16
Feb 28, 2006
#37
  • Feb 28, 2006
  • #37
vikingpower said:
I bought TW's and spent some time porting/polishing them before I put them on my car. So, for a lot less money and a little extra effort, my heads are at least as good as 185's (flow-wise) but still got the smaller port volume.
BTW, you should read MM&FF's head shootout on AFR's website parts 1-4. The TW's were only 10hp I think behind the 185's.
Click to expand...

It's all in the combo. I can bring up an article where they're alot farther behind than that.
 
S

Sicarius428

Active Member
Jan 6, 2004
2,085
5
49
Mar 1, 2006
#38
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #38
They both flow about the same out of the box. Articles say one thing one month and another the next. The Trick Flows will have more potential because they can be ported with the 2.02 valves. Stick with the 165s so you don't have to modify your pistons is what I say. The 165s should be fine with the direction you are going. I would be lying if I said that the 185s won't net you more power with boost but if you are probably going to stay NA the 165s are ideal. Even with boost the 165s are a health breathing head too so it shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Kevin
 

vikingpower

New Member
Dec 6, 2004
656
0
0
CWU Ellensburg, WA
Mar 1, 2006
#39
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #39
IntenseBlue said:
It's all in the combo. I can bring up an article where they're alot farther behind than that.
Click to expand...

I'd like to read that article if you got it
 

vikingpower

New Member
Dec 6, 2004
656
0
0
CWU Ellensburg, WA
Mar 1, 2006
#40
  • Mar 1, 2006
  • #40
2000xp8 said:
AFR has a great internet rep, so i guess if the internet says they are the best, then they are.

The whole combo will tell the story, and as someone said earlier, why buy a $1300 set of heads, and use a $140 cam?
I'd rather have an $1100 set of heads and a $350 cam.

I'm by no means saying to not use afr's, just don't get them an expect more, just because you payed more.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Engine Head gasket port matching plus head/intake port alignment
  • PonyGTrider
  • Dec 10, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
504
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 12, 2024
PonyGTrider
M
Engine Unexplainable Exhaust Pop and Gurgle
  • Mrnissen122
  • Feb 14, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
12
Views
587
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 18, 2026
Noobz347
Fox Xtremely high fuel consumption
  • PonyGTrider
  • Apr 11, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 9 10 11
Replies
213
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 9, 2026
PonyGTrider
Engine Forged flat top pistons from 5.0 fit a 351 build?
  • PonyGTrider
  • May 22, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
17
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 1, 2026
PonyGTrider
5
Hello Everyone !
  • 5150K
  • Jul 3, 2026
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
0
Views
88
The Welcome Wagon Jul 3, 2026
5150K
5
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?