Joes95GT said:
I completely disagree. Who woulda thunk it?
Joes95GT said:Little perfomance, huh? They're just the best heads on the market....
I'll say it once and I'll say it again: AFR are THE BEST heads on the market, period - end of discussion. Not only are they the best, but they use the stock valve angles - something TFS and (I believe) Canfield don't do. They don't raise their ports for more efficiency like Canfield does, and they don't need special headers; something TFS does. Does Canfield? I'm not sure...
Quantify your reasoning. I'll bet you can't. I'll bet few can.
Joe
25thmustang said:I do have to say something, even though they dont touch a good aftermarket head, the stock E7s have a LOT of potential in them. Mine are unported (still have exhaust bumps and all) with a set of GT-40 (1.84/1.54) valves, and rockers. These heads on a stock bottem end, stock cam, and a unported Cobra intake made 272 rwhp/ 316 rwtq! I might be porting these heads this winter, and with a ported stock intake I am looking in the 285-290 rwhp range (might have to short belt it to get those numbers) all from stock castings. Now I am not one for dyno numbers, but it seems the only way to compare here.
As far as aftermarket heads go, I have never used a set in my life, but from what i know the AFRs are hard to beat, the TFSs have been proven over the years, and I have actually heard a bit of complaints from the E-brocks.
No, I meant quantify.I think you mean Qualify your reason.
I'm assuming the lightning was the stock 351 with GT40 heads on it? If so, then he did something wrong. What kind of heads did the Mustang have on it before the swap? You never mentioned how the MPHs were affected either.I know 2 guys that bought AFR 165s. One guy put them in a Lighting, and the truck ran 1/10th slower. The other put them on a stang, and it picked a whopping 2/10ths.
That's what you should have said the first time...They are decent heads, but not for the money.
Canfield heads have 18* valve angles. TFS has 15* (I think). Stock is 20*. Canfield heads have 170cc intake ports with 2.02" intake valves. AFR use a 165cc intake port with 1.90" intake valves. You know what that means? Velocity and airspeed. Velocity and airspeed = cylinder fill. Cylinder fill = horsepower. I hate using flow numbers, but I wish I had numbers off of the same bench, using the same bore size, to compare the two.TFS and Canfield heads change valve angles and exhaust ports to get more performance. That's what makes it a high performance head. A 17 degree head is limited. 21 degree heads just perform better.
Moot point. "Used to" means nothing. Brodix now dominates.If you want to see what head is the best look at the competitors in NMRA. Almost every single top ten runner was using either old TFS hiports or Canfields, until they took them off the approved cylinder head list.
I sincerely hope you're kidding. Big Jay just put down 700+ RWHP with 10 psi and a 205 headed 347. I'd love to see what would happen if he swapped to Canfields and dyno'ed the car, then put AFR 225's on and see what happened. Comparing the Canfield to the AFR 165 is hard enough. Comparing it to the 225 is ridiculous. The 225 is a RACE HEAD!AFR 220 heads make huge hp numbers, but they want more money for that than a Canfield, and it is no where near a Canfield in performance.
Mike, I never said they did.Trickflow TW do NOT have raised exhaust ports
I guess I should clarify myself, so I don't sound like an idiot next time. The R heads do require special headers, and that's what I was referring to....and do NOT require special headers.
Joes95GT said:No, I meant quantify. I'm assuming the lightning was the stock 351 with GT40 heads on it? If so, then he did something wrong.
How has this argument got ANYTHING to do with 99% of the people reading this forum? Please go install a set of Canfields on a 5.0L stock shortblock and see if it makes more peak or under-the-curve horsepower than a set of AFR's. THAT is a comparison that would be relevant to the readers in this forum.revhead347 said:Just flip through the list of winners in just about any class of NMRA, and count how many of them are running AFRs. It's just not a competitive head.
revhead347 said:The point is that a Canfield cylinder head is a better deal for the money. Edelbrock makes a better head for less money than the AFRs. You will make more power and spend less money. I think that is relevant to this forum.
Kurt
Prove it to me. At the very least, someone buy a set of Canfields and put them on a stock shortblock 5.0L. Then we'll see how they compare to a set of AFR 165's. Jake is putting down 325 rwhp and 341 rwtq on a fairly low mileage stock shortblock, so that seems like a good target to aim for.revhead347 said:The point is that a Canfield cylinder head is a better deal for the money. Edelbrock makes a better head for less money than the AFRs. You will make more power and spend less money. I think that is relevant to this forum.
GTJake said:Lots of ignorant statements right there. AFRs may not be the best bang for the buck, but whatever, it's all in what people want from their car. So maybe I should just rip my AFRs off and get a set of Edelbrocks or Canfields and make tons more power?
Jake
revhead347 said:I think you mean Qualify your reason. But anyone. I know 2 guys that bought AFR 165s. One guy put them in a Lighting, and the truck ran 1/10th slower.
The other put them on a stang, and it picked a whopping 2/10ths.
They are decent heads, but not for the money.
TFS and Canfield heads change valve angles and exhaust ports to get more performance. That's what makes it a high performance head.
A 17 degree head is limited.
21 degree heads just perform better.
Canfield advertises a high port design, but both TFS heads, and Canfields work with factory height headers.
If you want to see what head is the best look at the competitors in NMRA. Almost every single top ten runner was using either old TFS hiports or Canfields, until they took them off the approved cylinder head list.
AFR 220 heads make huge hp numbers, but they want more money for that than a Canfield, and it is no where near a Canfield in performance.
Kurt
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?