Head Recommendation For An Unusual Cam

84Ttop · Aug 6, 2014

barnett468 said:
hello;

i don't understand what your question is.

i told you that 165 afrs are slightly bigger than what you need but will work killer. if you want to loose bottom end performance and not gain any top end perf, then buy the huge 185's that are run on 360 hp or more engines.

hes a rep making minimum wage. i'm an engine builder.

@NIKwoaC I believe that you have a very different perspective on this same issue?

There are more than one way to skin a cat here, hence the varying opinion. My .02 cents leans towards the TFS Twisted wedge head, you will see the benefit of the 2.02 valve and are far less likely to have interference vs the AFR head with a 2.02 valve. In my own personal experience the TFS heads have performed better than the AFRs and at the end of the day you will be looking at similar costs

barnett468 · Aug 6, 2014

"are far less likely to have interference vs the AFR head with a 2.02 valve."

umm...the afr 165's have 1.9 intake, NOT 2.02.

http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=21_106

"In my own personal experience the TFS heads have performed better than the AFRs"

the afr intake flow is very similar the the tw across the board, but the afr stomps the bejesus out of the tw on ex flow.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . head flow

. . 200 . . . . . .300 . . . . . .400 . . . . . .500

135 . 122 . 200 . 163 . 240 . 192 . 251 . 208 . . . . afr 165
141 . 107 . 205 . 144 . 241 . 171 . 257 . 187 . . . . tfs tw 170

barnett468 · Aug 6, 2014

barnett468 said:
"are far less likely to have interference vs the AFR head with a 2.02 valve."

umm...the afr 165's have 1.9 intake, NOT 2.02.

http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=21_106

"In my own personal experience the TFS heads have performed better than the AFRs"

the afr intake flow is very similar the the tw across the board, but the afr stomps the bejesus out of the tw on ex flow.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . head flow

. . 200 . . . . . .300 . . . . . .400 . . . . . .500

135 . 122 . 200 . 163 . 240 . 192 . 251 . 208 . . . . afr 165
141 . 107 . 205 . 144 . 241 . 171 . 257 . 187 . . . . tfs tw 170

stock 165 afr heads produce 400 hp on a 302 with stock cam, a carburetor and no power adders.

http://www.airflowresearch.com/articles/article087/A-P1.htm

84Ttop · Aug 6, 2014

barnett468 said:
"are far less likely to have interference vs the AFR head with a 2.02 valve."

umm...the afr 165's have 1.9 intake, NOT 2.02.

http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=21_106

"In my own personal experience the TFS heads have performed better than the AFRs"

the afr intake flow is very similar the the tw across the board, but the afr stomps the bejesus out of the tw on ex flow.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . head flow

. . 200 . . . . . .300 . . . . . .400 . . . . . .500

135 . 122 . 200 . 163 . 240 . 192 . 251 . 208 . . . . afr 165
141 . 107 . 205 . 144 . 241 . 171 . 257 . 187 . . . . tfs tw 170

I am very aware of the valve size for the afr165 cylinder heads, but thanks for the link. My post was in reference to the afr185.
So long as we are racing flow benches now I guess you win... Have you used your own flow bench to measure those numbers from both heads as delivered brand new or are you regurgitating what a google search has netted you? There are large variations in flow bench numbers and it becomes highly contested all the time in the aftermarket cylinder head industry. Further more, flow numbers alone do not dictate horsepower output. As far as cylinder heads go, valve angle and combustion chamber design play a large roll in this puzzle too. Far too many people overlook these details in my opinion.

I have proven results at the track where the TFS 170's have consistently ran faster than the AFR 165's. The swap from the AFRs to the TFS heads in one particular case on the same car was worth .9 seconds in ET

When it comes down to it, the TFS 170 vs AFR 165 is really an apple to orange comparison.

barnett468 · Aug 6, 2014

84Ttop said:
I am very aware of the valve size for the afr165 cylinder heads, but thanks for the link. My post was in reference to the afr185.

well, since the afr 185 are massive overkill for his 262 cam which he posted the specs for in his very first post, I have no idea why you brought them up, irregardless, it would have been better to specify exactly what head you were referring to then since afr makes more than one.

Cam specs
http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/head-recommendation-for-an-unusual-cam.879384/

84Ttop said:
I have proven results at the track where the TFS 170's have consistently ran faster than the AFR 165's. The swap from the AFRs to the TFS heads in one particular case on the same car was worth .9 seconds in ET.

3000 lb car, 300 hp = 12.55 1/4 mile

3000 lb car 375 hp = 11.65 1/4 mile

So you are saying that you took heads that flow fairly similar and gained around a whopping 75 hp [25%] simply by removing the afrs and installing the tw’s…ok if you say so.
.

barnett468 · Aug 7, 2014

its also possible you had the old version of the afr heads. but still, a 75 hp gain is a bit much to believe.

84Ttop · Aug 7, 2014

I agree that the 185 AFR head is overkill... The op brought this up after talking with AFR directly.

Now, let me help you read into my post...

84Ttop said:
My .02 cents leans towards the TFS Twisted wedge head, you will see the benefit of the 2.02 valve and are far less likely to have interference vs the AFR head with a 2.02 valve.

I recommended the TFS head because of the 2.02 intake valve. The 2.02 intake in the AFR variety would require use of the 185 cylinder head. Due to the differing valve angles of the heads, the TFS has less of a chance for interference vs. an inline valve head using the same size valves. That is all that I am trying to say here. Don't read too far into it.

[QUOTE="barnett468, post: 8852450, member: 199876"]
Cam specs
[url]http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/head-recommendation-for-an-unusual-cam.879384/[/url]
.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for linking the thread that we are already discussing... I am not an idiot

[QUOTE="barnett468, post: 8852450, member: 199876"]

3000 lb car, 300 hp = 12.55 1/4 mile

3000 lb car 375 hp = 11.65 1/4 mile

So you are saying that you took heads that flow fairly similar and gained around a whopping 75 hp [25%] simply by removing the afrs and installing the tw’s…ok if you say so.
.[/QUOTE]
Did you find a HP or ET calculator in a google search too? I still would like to know if you have regurgitated the flow numbers you posted previously or if you are using your own comparison on the same flow bench?

The one instance that I referred to earlier was a nitrous car fwiw. The same car went a best of 11.10 with the AFR 165s and with no other changes than the heads, went 10.26 with the TFS 170s.
I consistently see combos that are ran at the track using the TFS heads run faster... That is all

Am I partial to Trickflow? Sure am, and that is due to the great results that I have ALWAYS had with them!
If you find AFR to work great for you then that is fine too. Not here to argue with you about brands, this that or whatever. Just stating my opinion based on what I've found to be facts

barnett468 · Aug 7, 2014

.

84Ttop said:
I recommended the TFS head because of the 2.02 intake valve.

Why would you do that with a tiny 262 cam in a 289?

84Ttop said:
The 2.02 intake in the AFR variety would require use of the 185 cylinder head. Due to the differing valve angles of the heads, the TFS has less of a chance for interference vs. an inline valve head using the same size valves. That is all that I am trying to say here. Don't read too far into it.

I tried not to read it at all.

84Ttop said:
Thank you for linking the thread that we are already discussing...

You’re welcome, however, it wasn’t the thread, it was the cam sheet.

84Ttop said:
I am not an idiot

Ok, thanks for letting me know.

84Ttop said:
Did you find a HP or ET calculator in a google search too?

Nope, the one I used is from Wallace racing.

84Ttop said:
I still would like to know if you have regurgitated the flow numbers you posted previously…

A question that has an abrasive tone such as this one does not deserve a reply.

84Ttop said:
The one instance that I referred to earlier was a nitrous car fwiw. The same car went a best of 11.10 with the AFR 165s and with no other changes than the heads, went 10.26 with the TFS 170s.

What does a 10 second car running nitrous have to do with the ops 5000 rpm 240 hp car running a tiny 262 cam?

84Ttop said:
I consistently see combos that are ran at the track using the TFS heads run faster.

How nice for you.

84Ttop said:
That is all

Thank goodness.
.

84Ttop · Aug 8, 2014

@barnett468 Not sure why someone having a differing opinion bothers you so much? I will not continue to banter on any farther with you, we disagree for different reasons and I find it better to put that aside and stay on track for the OP's sake.

To the OP, no matter where you look and who you ask you will find varying opinions. I'm sure some of these opinions can be substantiated making them valid in some aspect. Deciphering beyond that will be your job. You have a lot of choices out there: vanilla, chocolate, strawberry and more. Keep us posted as to what you decide on and ultimately how everything works out for you.

Best of luck!

barnett468 · Aug 8, 2014

84Ttop said:
@barnett468 Not sure why someone having a differing opinion bothers you so much?

you are making inaccurate assumptions. didn't you have adults that told you, you should never assume.

you also avoided answering my question regarding your suggestion for a 2.02 valve in a low hp small cube engine. his stock intake valve is 1.67 and the eddy is 1.90 which is already a massive .230" bigger. the 2.02 i valve is what ford uses in big block engines.

there is a difference between a difference in opinion and a facts. since you think going hugely bigger on the intake is such a good idea, perhaps he should just go for the gold and run a 2.25" 1969 boss 302 valve. after it is used in a small cube 302.
..

NIKwoaC · Aug 27, 2014

84Ttop said:
@NIKwoaC I believe that you have a very different perspective on this same issue?

There are more than one way to skin a cat here, hence the varying opinion. My .02 cents leans towards the TFS Twisted wedge head, you will see the benefit of the 2.02 valve and are far less likely to have interference vs the AFR head with a 2.02 valve. In my own personal experience the TFS heads have performed better than the AFRs and at the end of the day you will be looking at similar costs

Haha, sorry I'm late to the party. Waaaaaay late.

Threads like this are why I typically avoid tech boards anymore. Misinformation on the internet is like watching your neighbor's house burn. You just gotta keep your own house from catching on fire as you watch your neighbor's junk burn to the ground.

85rkyboby · Aug 27, 2014

I know who's junk burnt down.

Head Recommendation For An Unusual Cam

84Ttop

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

barnett468

Active Member

barnett468

Active Member

84Ttop

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

barnett468

Active Member

barnett468

Active Member

84Ttop

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

barnett468

Active Member

84Ttop

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

barnett468

Active Member

NIKwoaC

中國製造

85rkyboby

Active Member

Similar threads

Head Recommendation For An Unusual Cam

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

Active Member

Active Member

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

Active Member

Active Member

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

Active Member

They make new pistons every day, so why worry?

Active Member

中國製造

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency