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

TFS twisted wedge V AFR 165 heads

  • Thread starter Thread starter stang302v8
  • Start date Start date Sep 21, 2005
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
1 of 3 Next Last

stang302v8

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
94
0
0
carlisle, pa
Sep 21, 2005
#1
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #1
anyone know which heads are best for a 5.0 with F303 cam? twisted wedge or afr 165? im kinda stuck here...
 

88GT17MA

Member
Nov 1, 2004
289
0
16
Sep 21, 2005
#2
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #2
tw!!!!!





no afr!!!!!





you probably wont find a direct answer to that question, they are both great sets of heads. I have TFS, they are very nice, but I wouldnt mind a set of AFR's, you wont go wrong with either.......
 

stang302v8

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
94
0
0
carlisle, pa
Sep 21, 2005
#3
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #3
yeah thats why im having trouble deciding
 
D

Daggar

New Member
Jul 19, 2004
3,902
5
0
Sep 21, 2005
#4
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #4
The TFS heads flow a bit better than the 165s (closer to 185s) but have a valve cover mating surface that's about 3/8s inch higher than the AFRs. The only time that little bit of extra height is of any concern is with a very few number of intakes. Something else that might play into your decision is that the TFS heads are VERY portable and down the road can turned from a good set of heads into an awesome set of heads. The AFRs can also be improved, just not to the same extent. In other words: There's more room to grow with the TFS heads over the AFR 165s.

Happy Hunting!
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 21, 2005
#5
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #5
Daggar said:
The TFS heads flow a bit better than the 165s (closer to 185s) but have a valve cover mating surface that's about 3/8s inch higher than the AFRs. The only time that little bit of extra height is of any concern is with a very few number of intakes. Something else that might play into your decision is that the TFS heads are VERY portable and down the road can turned from a good set of heads into an awesome set of heads. The AFRs can also be improved, just not to the same extent. In other words: There's more room to grow with the TFS heads over the AFR 165s.

Happy Hunting!
Click to expand...

I agree...

I'm happy with my AFR 165's...under the curve power is nice
 

stang302v8

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
94
0
0
carlisle, pa
Sep 21, 2005
#6
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #6
thanks for the info, but the tfs heads have 61cc and the afr 165 has 58cc...so im thinking i'd get better compression, not to mention the tfs heads flow their best at a higher lift than the afr's, so i'd get to peak power sooner. im jsut curious because i have no idea on which head actually flows better, how do you know that the tfs flows better anyhow?
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 21, 2005
#7
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #7
stang302v8 - Flow test show this...but I don't have numbers. The AFR's make some 61cc's but I have AFR 165 58cc's for more compression as well.
 
D

Daggar

New Member
Jul 19, 2004
3,902
5
0
Sep 21, 2005
#8
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #8
stang302v8 said:
thanks for the info, but the tfs heads have 61cc and the afr 165 has 58cc...so im thinking i'd get better compression, not to mention the tfs heads flow their best at a higher lift than the afr's, so i'd get to peak power sooner. im jsut curious because i have no idea on which head actually flows better, how do you know that the tfs flows better anyhow?
Click to expand...

Flow data from various head vs. head articles. You'd probably be able to find that flow data here on the forum through the search function. The TFS heads flow just about neck and neck with the AFR 185s out of the box. The 185s are just a hair better. Total, I think there was roughly a 3 to 5 HP difference across the RPM range between the two heads running the same cam.
 

CoupedUp

Banned
Aug 26, 2005
260
0
0
Gone Fishing
Sep 21, 2005
#9
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #9
That's what the issue is ... cam timing. With the F cam go AFR. But you wouldn't be disappointed with TF's either.
 

stang302v8

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
94
0
0
carlisle, pa
Sep 21, 2005
#10
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #10
i see. I was going for the tfs heads but they have complications, such as require certain pushrod length, longer than stock, and with the weird valve angle they cant handle a cam lift of more than 224 degree .52? somthing like that. so now i think im leaning towards the afr 165's
 
D

Daggar

New Member
Jul 19, 2004
3,902
5
0
Sep 21, 2005
#11
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #11
The rule of thumb is no more than 224* @ .050" dur, No less than 112* LSA,
You can go up to approximately .550" lift with stock pistons.

Plan on getting theheaads with the upgraded springs if you think you might end up with forced induction.

TFS # 31400414 for just the springs.

TFS # 51400004 for the heads with the springs installed.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 21, 2005
#12
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #12
I have .560 lift on my cam with stock pistons (untouched) with AFR 165's (inline valves).
 
8

87GT 306

New Member
Oct 11, 2004
260
0
0
Springfield MA
Sep 21, 2005
#13
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #13
5spd GT said:
I have .560 lift on my cam with stock pistons (untouched) with AFR 165's (inline valves).
Click to expand...


Did u go with the spring upgrade on your AFR's? Im thinking about getting the upgrade springs because some people are telling me that Ill experience valve float. My cam is 544 int. 555 ex.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 21, 2005
#14
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #14
87GT 306 said:
Did u go with the spring upgrade on your AFR's? Im thinking about getting the upgrade springs because some people are telling me that Ill experience valve float. My cam is 544 int. 555 ex.
Click to expand...

Yeah man, I went with the upgraded valve springs (that is a must with your cam) and I with with ARP 7/16 studs and the viton seal upgrade from Ed.

Definetely get the spring upgrade for sure
 

aleborjas

New Member
Sep 11, 2005
610
0
0
Sep 21, 2005
#15
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #15
hello

i will go with AFR because they are complete CNC thy are 5cc smaller than TFS but it flows faster then TFS and has more exhaust CC than the TFS!
dont think more go with AFR!!!
 
I

IntenseBlue

Member
Jul 10, 2005
946
0
16
Sep 21, 2005
#16
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #16
331, 1 5/8" LTs, Comp xe264 cam, RPM air gap intake, and Speed Demon 650 carb, Twisted Wedge heads

Peak Airflow: TW, 248/182
Average Airflow: TW 305.88
Peak HP: TW 438
Peak TQ: TW 443
Average HP: TW 335
Average TQ: TW 408.2
Compression: TW 10.6

CHP 306, 1 5/8" LTs, Comp xe264 cam, Performer RPM air gap intake, Speed Demon 650 carb, AFR 165s

Peak Airflow: 240/200
Average Airflow: 293.97
Peak HP: 396
Peak TQ: 342
Average HP: 289
Average TQ: 354
Compression: 9.65
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 21, 2005
#17
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #17
Intense Blue - I'm sure the 331 vs. 306 change those flow number characteristics
 

stang302v8

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
94
0
0
carlisle, pa
Sep 21, 2005
#18
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #18
yeah thats what i was thinkin
 
D

Daggar

New Member
Jul 19, 2004
3,902
5
0
Sep 21, 2005
#19
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #19
Yeah... unfortunately, it's often tough to get a magazine to compare apples to apples. They're buttering both sides of their bread.

The one full point in compression doesn't help any either.
 

stang302v8

New Member
Aug 16, 2005
94
0
0
carlisle, pa
Sep 21, 2005
#20
  • Sep 21, 2005
  • #20
well i think im gonna butter my bread with the afr 165...58cc sounds better than 61cc
 
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
1 of 3 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
C
Dyno day! # guesses?
  • clayton seiders
  • Aug 15, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
15
Views
437
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 16, 2025
Scrapla347
9
Does anyone else have a combo close to this
  • 90Stanger302
  • Dec 10, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
261
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 25, 2025
Qtrhrse23
Q
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
Engine Head gasket port matching plus head/intake port alignment
  • PonyGTrider
  • Dec 10, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
500
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 12, 2024
PonyGTrider
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?