AFR Eliminator's vs Trickflow's vs 113's. - Third Generation F-Body Message Boards

88BlackZ-51 · 01-05-2008, 11:23 AM

I used to own a set of TFS heads. I bought them a few years back when they were a very decent head. I since sold them when the AFR Eliminator head came on the scene. I have had both heads flowed and I am posting the results. Just for one, I will post some results from my friend 113 (1989 C4) heads as well.

I will be bolting these on a 421 sbc, and hope to see excellent port velocity, and torque everywhere!!

.200 lift(intake/exhaust) Trickflow-138/98, AFR-143/113, L-98-122/102
.300 lift(intake/exhaust) Trickflow-190/130, AFR-199/161, L-98-161/131
.400 lift(intake/exhaust) Trickflow-230/156, AFR-246/195, L-98-188/150
.500 lift(intake/exhaust) Trickflow-253/174, AFR-276/214, L-98-197/169
.600 lift(intake/exhaust) Trickflow- 260/185, AFR-286/218, L-98-N/A

http://store.summitracing.com/partde...5&autoview=sku Trickflow head has a 2.02/1.60 valve, 195cc/62cc.

http://www.adperformance.com/index.p...roducts_id=208 AFR has a 2.05/1.60 valve, 195cc/65cc.

Anyways, Just some bit of information for you guys. The TFS head did rather well, but it seems like the AFR is the best bang for your buck head in today's market. I know its not the best head for my 421 build, but it will have to do. Hope you enjoyed the thread. Just so you know that is condensation on the aluminum on the heads. That's what happens when you go from -20 weather to plus 20.

If anyone else has had there heads flowed that are out of the box or ported, Let's see how they did! :thumbs:

AFR'S

TRICKFLOW'S

This ad is not displayed to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on ThirdGen!

Dyno Don · 01-05-2008, 11:54 AM

I had some flowed also, very close to your numbers on the AFR 195's
(281-221) but the trick lows were not that close (239-183).

You need a real good intake system to use the AFR's.

There are some fitment issues with the valve covers on the 195's, stock covers don't seal right, spacing between the rails is too narrow.
My $.02

88BlackZ-51 · 01-05-2008, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyno Don

I had some flowed also, very close to your numbers on the AFR 195's
(281-221) but the trick lows were not that close (239-183).

You need a real good intake system to use the AFR's.

There are some fitment issues with the valve covers on the 195's, stock covers don't seal right, spacing between the rails is too narrow.
My $.02

I am using a miniram 2, and a set of aftermarket covers. Your TFS flowed very weak.

The combo is going on a 421 with a bowtie big bore block. Will make massive torque!!

Dyno Don · 01-05-2008, 12:19 PM

Your combo sounds very good.

I did a little port work to the TFS heads and got them to 266-202

Keep us updated on your progress.

88BlackZ-51 · 01-05-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyno Don

Your combo sounds very good.

I did a little port work to the TFS heads and got them to 266-202

Keep us updated on your progress.

Thanks. We are looking at around 420-430rwhp, and 460-470rwtq and pass the sniffer.

Should be a hauler. Car weighs 3220.

Burnout91 · 01-05-2008, 12:40 PM

Also, when using the AFRs, check the distance (gap) between the china walls and the corresponding sealing surface of the intake. On my engine the gap measured .05 inch - .07 inch. I ended up using the cork gasket along with RTV sealant, to fix an oil leak. Bill

Steve Mack · 01-05-2008, 01:04 PM

What intake were you using?

Burnout91 · 01-05-2008, 04:40 PM

If you mean me, I have the Edelbrock Hi-Flow intake base. My heads were milled to achieve 62cc chambers. Not 100% sure, but I think AFR said .006 inch mill per 1cc removed; started with 65cc chambers, so I think the heads were milled .018 inch. Bill

shocker89bird · 01-07-2008, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyno Don

I had some flowed also, very close to your numbers on the AFR 195's
(281-221) but the trick lows were not that close (239-183).

You need a real good intake system to use the AFR's.

There are some fitment issues with the valve covers on the 195's, stock covers don't seal right, spacing between the rails is too narrow.
My $.02

I had to amchine my accesory brackets to clear my aluminum water pump afterwards, they are not a true 23 degree bolt on head lol but the power gains are worth it.

Burnout91 · 01-08-2008, 08:39 AM

+1.

Bill

88BlackZ-51 · 01-10-2008, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Mack

What intake were you using?

Miniram!

mattsv8_03 · 01-10-2008, 05:45 PM

afr all the way. i have the elem 210 awsome head and way more power than the edelbrock vr jr. wich was a 215

88BlackZ-51 · 01-10-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattsv8_03

afr all the way. i have the elem 210 awsome head and way more power than the edelbrock vr jr. wich was a 215

Actually my buddy has an older set of AFR 210cc, and these new 195cc heads outflowed the old 210's just by a tad.

mattsv8_03 · 01-10-2008, 06:04 PM

i know i have the elimator 210

88BlackZ-51 · 01-10-2008, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattsv8_03

i know i have the elimator 210

Did you flow them? After speaking to Tony at AFR, He mentioned that the 210cc head flowed really well, but it was the 195cc head that they are really proud of for the bang for your buck.

According to the AFR website, the 195 vs the 210's. There isnt much diff in cfm #'s all the way up to .600 lift. Obviously the 195's offer better port velocity.

Love to see what yours flowed?

mattsv8_03 · 01-10-2008, 07:00 PM

i dint do anything to them just bolted them on and wet 10 mph faster than a edelbrock vr jr.
they flow better than the old afr 210. remeber im shifting at 7800 so a 195 is out for shure. i could use a 227 but its a 350 and a 2.10 valve would be shrouded. truck went 9.993 at 134.98. as a bolt on from 10.35 at 124

88BlackZ-51 · 04-03-2009, 09:45 AM

10 mph is getting it done! Good work!

fastsspr · 04-12-2009, 10:35 PM

those heads are piece of art !!!