Engine build. $7000 budget. What would you do?

fiveohwblow · Apr 13, 2012

Dave several guys around here are making just over 300 rwhp with trick flow top end kits. The drivability is AWESOME with these kits. That means if you just stroked your block to 331 and got a slightly more aggressive cam from someone like ed curtis, you'd be right there at your power goals. This car would still have great street manors and get ok fuel mileage.

Just my .02 for your power, 302 based block and budget

Rick 91GT · Apr 13, 2012

$7000 for a complete motor will be tough but above I see you mentioned long block, I posted up some nice round numbers below. Does this motor have to pass emissions???

Im not a BOSS block fan, if I have to recommend a block is will be a DART hands down.

DART SHP block, 363ci forged assembly with a lightweight I beam 10.5:1-10.8:1 comp ($4200)
AFR205 or TFS205 ($1800)
TFS R-Series intake ($600)
Custom Hyd Roller ($325)
Comp Ultra Pro Mag Rockers ($380)
Oil System, Canton or Moroso pan, pump and dipstick, etc ($450)
Billet Timing Chain, 1 pc pushrods, stock style lifters ($285)
Gasket kit ($130)
SFI balancer ($175)
SFI Flywheel ($250)
Inj and MAF ($650)
Throttle body 75mm-90mm ($300)

Or you could reach your goal with much, much less and make near 400rwhp or more with near equal torque. Perfect street car with a huge wide tq curve, get in turn the key and drive. Ive done quite a few 331's in this area and they run great!

Stock block with girdle, 331-347 ($2200) (Scat 9000 series crank, 4340 forged Scat rod, Mahle piston)
AFR 185 or TFS head ($1450/$1200)
Holley Systemax intake or TFS Track Heat ($600/$480)
Custom Hyd Roller ($325)
Comp Ultra Pro Mag Rockers ($380)
Oil System, Canton or Moroso pan, pump and dipstick, etc ($450)
Billet Timing Chain, 1 pc pushrods, stock style lifters ($285)
Gasket kit ($130)
SFI balancer ($175)
SFI Flywheel ($250)
Inj and MAF ($650)
Throttle body 75mm ($280)

rbonella · Apr 13, 2012

150 shot through a plate...put $6K in the bank

NIKwoaC · Apr 13, 2012

SSeater said:
I've yet to see any really hard evidence of this. I read a dozen different theories, and a dozen different conflictiong comparisons, but to be fair, I'd say they're pretty close if not equal.
I AM completely unbiased, I own neither product. I can add that Trick Flow does offer a host of matched accessory parts not available from AFR, making them more attractive to the lay consumer. But as for outflowing AFR, I'm going to call B.S.

Haha, wut? I didn't think it was ever in question. It's not terribly dramatic, but most flow results I see for the AFR 205s put them right around 300-310 CFM @ .600" lift, my TWs posted 319 @ .6, and that is about on par with other tests I have seen.

The "205" is REALLY misleading, they are completely different cylinder heads. The TW has a shorter port (thus the relocated valves) with a larger cross section and a smaller valve than the AFR. It is openly accepted by lots of people that the TW is a "bigger" head, some people claim it is the equivalent of an AFR 215-220.

Boosted92LX · Apr 13, 2012

NIKwoaC said:
Haha, wut? I didn't think it was ever in question. It's not terribly dramatic, but most flow results I see for the AFR 205s put them right around 300-310 CFM @ .600" lift, my TWs posted 319 @ .6, and that is about on par with other tests I have seen.

The "205" is REALLY misleading, they are completely different cylinder heads. The TW has a shorter port (thus the relocated valves) with a larger cross section and a smaller valve than the AFR. It is openly accepted by lots of people that the TW is a "bigger" head, some people claim it is the equivalent of an AFR 215-220.

Yeah, yeah... spit specs and numbers blah blah blah..

Notice I said CONFLICTING COMPARISONS.. I'm guessing you didn't personally take your heads to someone with a flow bench and get a third party's opinion?

Guess what? AFR does the same thing. Read this: http://www.airflowresearch.com/articles/article107/A-P1.htm

This one says the afr 205's flow better. That's my point, they both lie about their numbers and when you put the heads to a dyno test they're so close hp/tq wise is tough to call.

This is why I said I'm unbiased. I don't think you can make that claim...
I'm going to buy what I get the best deal on..$$.

srtthis · Apr 13, 2012

there is a reason why NMRA requires extra weight to run a TW head over a AFR...

NIKwoaC · Apr 13, 2012

SSeater said:
Yeah, yeah... spit specs and numbers blah blah blah..

Notice I said CONFLICTING COMPARISONS.. I'm guessing you didn't personally take your heads to someone with a flow bench and get a third party's opinion?

Guess what? AFR does the same thing. Read this: http://www.airflowresearch.com/articles/article107/A-P1.htm

This one says the afr 205's flow better. That's my point, they both lie about their numbers and when you put the heads to a dyno test they're so close hp/tq wise is tough to call.

This is why I said I'm unbiased. I don't think you can make that claim...
I'm going to buy what I get the best deal on..$$.

Allen, ignoring the fact that article is 10 years old, it it talking about the TW-R, NOT the CNC TW 205. Don't confuse them, they are completely different heads, different castings. The 206 "R" is an as-cast head and is what they base the CNC 225 R on. The 205 outflows the 206 R.

My heads were flowed by TEA after they assembled them, that is where I got the 319 CFM number. Trick flow advertises them as 315, IIRC.

Boosted92LX · Apr 13, 2012

NIKwoaC said:
Allen, ignoring the fact that article is 10 years old, it it talking about the TW-R, NOT the CNC TW 205. Don't confuse them, they are

completely different heads, different castings. The 206 "R" is an as-cast head and is what they base the CNC 225 R on. The 205 outflows the 206 R.

My heads were flowed by TEA after they assembled them, that is where I got the 319 CFM number. Trick flow advertises them as 315, IIRC.

Ok it was the first article i grabbed...but my point was, again, the two companies are not honest about the numbers and there are literally ten years worth of conflicting claims out there from both companies...would you like to buy a bridge? I can write up a paper guaranteeing I own it...

Rick 91GT · Apr 13, 2012

Just get some port E6 heads and a B Cam

Comparing the TFS head to a inline AFR head is hard, way different heads, FWIW, I find the AFR heads advertised flow numbers to be pretty on par with the flow bench I use. Flow numbers are for bench racers, I care about the power they make.

NIKwoaC · Apr 13, 2012

SSeater said:
Ok it was the first article i grabbed...but my point was, again, the two companies are not honest about the numbers and there are literally ten years worth of conflicting claims out there from both companies...would you like to buy a bridge? I can write up a paper guaranteeing I own it...

I realize that cylinder head companies tend to inflate their flow numbers, but I am also basing this on data I have seen from 3rd party tests. There is a guy on this website, HotFox, who had his AFRs flowed, and they were at 297.4 CFM @ .600" lift. That is not the first time I have seen the AFR 205s fall short of the 300 mark at .600".

I want to EMPHASIZE that I am NOT saying the AFRs are junk. They are very good cylinder heads. I have seen them make ludicrous amounts of power. They just are NOT as big as the TW 205s, they have a smaller port cross section and they flow less air, simple as that. The "205" means jack , it is a completely different port and with different flow capabilities. Magazine tests and bench racers tend to focus on the "CC", but it really means absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a GOOD dyno comparison of the two heads. I remember reading one, but IMO the engine was not set up very well to truly analyze the capabilities of the two, and the results were pretty inconclusive.

Boosted92LX · Apr 13, 2012

NIKwoaC said:
I realize that cylinder head companies tend to inflate their flow numbers, but I am also basing this on data I have seen from 3rd party tests. There is a guy on this website, HotFox, who had his AFRs flowed, and they were at 297.4 CFM @ .600" lift. That is not the first time I have seen the AFR 205s fall short of the 300 mark at .600".

I want to EMPHASIZE that I am NOT saying the AFRs are junk. They are very good cylinder heads. I have seen them make ludicrous amounts of power. They just are NOT as big as the TW 205s, they have a smaller port cross section and they flow less air, simple as that. The "205" means jack ****, it is a completely different port and with different flow capabilities. Magazine tests and bench racers tend to focus on the "CC", but it really means absolutely nothing. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a GOOD dyno comparison of the two heads. I remember reading one, but IMO the engine was not set up very well to truly analyze the capabilities of the two, and the results were pretty inconclusive.

I'm glad you can be at least, that objective. There are sooo many TW fanatics out there who can't bring themselves to even say afr's aren't junk. I certainly hope with your background you understand that cross section size lends itself to flow, but is not the final deciding factor... and you'll agree that port velocity is just as important...(which is AFR's edge, of course)
I sincerely have read numerous write ups on dyno tests done by third parties through the years, and they [test results] have gone both ways. This, again is the reason I refuse to dub one product as better than the other. Where are the articles? hell man, piled up in old stacks of magazines, and floating around in cyberspace, I don't know...I have seen them, and I wouldn't argue the point if I weren't so sure about it.

NIKwoaC · Apr 13, 2012

SSeater said:
I'm glad you can be at least, that objective. There are sooo many TW fanatics out there who can't bring themselves to even say afr's aren't junk. I certainly hope with your background you understand that cross section size lends itself to flow, but is not the final deciding factor... and you'll agree that port velocity is just as important...(which is AFR's edge, of course)
I sincerely have read numerous write ups on dyno tests done by third parties through the years, and they [test results] have gone both ways. This, again is the reason I refuse to dub one product as better than the other. Where are the articles? hell man, piled up in old stacks of magazines, and floating around in cyberspace, I don't know...I have seen them, and I wouldn't argue the point if I weren't so sure about it.

Port velocity is a voodoo that few people understand, yet EVERYONE blabs about it when talking cylinder heads. I have 205s on my little 302, and the common perception is that would lead to poor velocity and therefore, poor performance. All I know for sure is that it can putt along at 1500 RPM without bucking, rev to the limiter like a blind man running into a wall, and go 13.1 in the 1/4 slipping and sliding on street tires with my ty driving. SO what does velocity do? I have no idea.

I will also toss this into your lap: consider that the TW flows more than the AFR, while using a much smaller valve. Hmmm...

I'm a fan of the "Twisted Wedge" geometry, I think it's truly got something going for it, BUT I do recognize the AFRs as a very nice cylinder head. How couldn't I? They've been kicking ass for quite some time now.

Boosted92LX · Apr 13, 2012

NIKwoaC said:
I will also toss this into your lap: consider that the TW flows more than the AFR, while using a much smaller valve. Hmmm...

Allegedly...

See, we can do this all day..

FastDriver · Apr 14, 2012

srtthis said:
there is a reason why NMRA requires extra weight to run a TW head over a AFR...

This, to me, is the most telling argument I've seen. It still isn't conclusive, though, because I don't know if the rules allow the competitors to build optimum setups for each head. If so, and the AFR cars can't run with the TW cars without a weight break, then I think we've reached an answer. Still, the next question is should the TW205 be compared to the AFR225. I mean, if you're just trying to optimize the performance of say, a 363, is the AFR225 a better choice than a TW205?

Ultimately, the answer that we all want to know is, "what's the perfect head for my combination and goals?"

For street guys like me, when it comes down to just a few hp, I really don't care. I'll take the head that's most available or requires the least work/money. In my case, I had good personal experience with AFR165s on my old mustang, so I decided not to fix something that wasn't broke and went with the AFR205s w/ nitrous ports. There just happened to be a good deal available on them at the time because a guy had a nice used set for sale for $1500, and I snatched 'em up.

NIKwoaC · Apr 14, 2012

FastDriver said:
This, to me, is the most telling argument I've seen. It still isn't conclusive, though, because I don't know if the rules allow the competitors to build optimum setups for each head. If so, and the AFR cars can't run with the TW cars without a weight break, then I think we've reached an answer. Still, the next question is should the TW205 be compared to the AFR225. I mean, if you're just trying to optimize the performance of say, a 363, is the AFR225 a better choice than a TW205?

Ultimately, the answer that we all want to know is, "what's the perfect head for my combination and goals?"

For street guys like me, when it comes down to just a few hp, I really don't care. I'll take the head that's most available or requires the least work/money. In my case, I had good personal experience with AFR165s on my old mustang, so I decided not to fix something that wasn't broke and went with the AFR205s w/ nitrous ports. There just happened to be a good deal available on them at the time because a guy had a nice used set for sale for $1500, and I snatched 'em up.

I agree, and like you know, it's all about the combination. These cylinder heads are so close performance-wise, that either one can easily out perform the other, depending on how well the combo is optimized. The TW may arguably have some airflow advantages, and its unique valve arrangement allows you to flat mill the hell out of them, but then guys like you are making insane power on AFRs, so clearly they're not broken, haha. From the homework I've done, I just prefer the TW, but I'm not going to tell people they can't make power on AFRs, because that just isn't true!

srtthis · Apr 14, 2012

In a class like pure street you gotta add 50 lbs to the car to run a tw head over any inline head. And the tw head combos were the ones to have. Not sure if anythings changed in the last few years since I don't keep up with nmra anymore

Boosted92LX · Apr 14, 2012

Historically canted valves do equal better performance. As Nik touched on... I'd like to see a dyno test performed in a scientific manner to yield honest rock solid results so consumers could have the facts...As opposed to inflated numbers or biased fan based opinion. The problem here again, as Nik stated, it is all about the combination...It's not as easy to nail down as testing say, a trio of new muscle cars..

Oh, and I'm still NOT completely sold on the idea of port velocity being a "voodoo" as opposed to a science of fluid dynamics.. Not that I'm well versed in that, it's just that scientifically there really is an answer for every thing.... mostly.

NIKwoaC FastDriver

Bullitt347 · Apr 14, 2012

The narrow cross section cathedral port LS engine does a pretty good job of using port velocity to make power.

Boosted92LX · Apr 14, 2012

Bullitt347 said:
The narrow cross section cathedral port LS engine does a pretty good job of using port velocity to make power.

Exactly. The best aftermarkt SBF head can't keep up withthose damn chevy LS motors... They apparently employ some witch doctors!

Bullitt347 · Apr 14, 2012

SSeater said:
Exactly. The best aftermarkt SBF head can't keep up withthose damn chevy LS motors... They apparently employ some witch doctors!

No witch doctors, just architecture. The LS port is quit a bit taller, just narrow. Now when you widen the narrow port, you end up with a large CC port. The LS7 uses the height of the cathedral port but is a whole lot wider to get the flow to support the 7 liters of displacement. My friends 09 Z06 with just exhaust, a Lingenfelter cam and a K&N cold air inlet made 540 whp with a tune. Not to shabby at all.

edit: I am not a chevy fan, but I appreciate HP. The one thing the LS engine has going for it is some ease of modifying it. I installed the Lingenfelter cam in my friends 09 Z06 and I did not have to remove the intake manifold. Just the valve covers ( to get the rocker arms and pushrods out), and timing cover. Timing cover was a pain because the P/S rack sits about 1 inch directly in front of the damper. We now have the cylinder heads off to let Lingenfelter port them, and with just hand tools I had the heads off in only 2 hours.

Engine build. $7000 budget. What would you do?

Official Member

Mustang Master

Member

中國製造

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?

the guy doing it does every local racers rear end

中國製造

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?

Mustang Master

中國製造

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?

中國製造

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?

I was uncomfortably high & wearing a helmet

中國製造

the guy doing it does every local racers rear end

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?

I have been doing it wrong this whole time

It's only an inch or two. What's the big deal?

I have been doing it wrong this whole time

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency