Now, I´ve got a new 383 shortblock with hypereutectic pistons and i am looking for nice cylinder heads for a streetable stroker setup. I want to go with AFR.

The compression ratio with 64´chambers will be 10.4:1 with my head gaskets.

The cam datas are :

Duration Intake @0.05 224°
Duration Exhaust @0.05 226°

Lift Intake .502"
Lift Exhaust .498"

Separation 110°

My torque converter is a BossHog Nightstalker Level 2, 2200-2800 rpm stall

What do you think is the better choice ?? AFR 180 or AFR 195 ???

Which TBI-unit do you prefer ? 46mm or 2" ?

I want to have power from 0 to 5500 rpm.... :-)

 

You would be good with either but better off with the 195's IMO. For your application you would probably need a dyno to see the difference between them. I'm not a big AFR fan so personally I wouldn't use either of them.

Definitely go with the 454 TBI.

What intake manifold were you planning to use? Sounds like a fun build.

 

I want to go with my bored Edelbrock 3704 intake manifold. I think, it´s a good choice for a streetable stroker-engine ?!

 

Don't waste your money on 180's for a 383. Go 195's

 

110 is a little tight for both FI and AFR. Both those like 112-114.

My answer is neither, go Profiler, $950 $50 shipping $1000 to your door. That's my special this month.

You give up nothing and save $300.

Like doom, I'm not an AFR fan.

 

I gotta say those Pro-Filers sold me after doing about 30 mins of research on them. The Pro-Filer 195's are what I was going to suggest originally.

88´TransAM I've never used that intake but for the sake of discussion that intake seems to be a TBI version of the "performer" from what it flows. Though to be honest I don't think I've ever seen one tested with larger bores. A taller intake would help but hood clearance is a issue with TA's isn't it?

 

ive never heard of pro-filers. but on a 383 id deffinately go with 195cc heads. I would also run a performer rpm carburetor intake manifold with an adapter for throttle body if you wanted to stay with tbi

 

For a 0-5500 rpm 383ci nice street legal car that needs to pass sniff tests, 180 AFR, 112-114 LSA cam (play with this http://www.compcams.com/Company/CC/C...amHelpNew.aspx first) 50mm TB, #80 or #90 TBI injectors, VRFPR and EBL wich you already have.

The 8 "runners" of a 50mm bored 3704 flow around 200 CFM each, a little porting should get around 220 cfm.

Should be ok for something around 385hp@5200rpm and 550tq@2500rpm.

With this set up a 1600 rpm or lower stall may be better, even at this low rpm you should get crazy tire spin.

 

the throttle body is a waste of money. 180 CC runner does not have enough CSA to support that kind of volume. If you're going to be towing cars, or dumping dirt it will work, however, that is not a spec I'd be happy with. This is a dumptruck motor.

It will FEEL fast until it falls on its face at 4600 RPMs but it will not BE fast. Tire spin does not equate to a fast car.

 

What is CSA?

I am under the impression your shooting a little low, 5200rpm should be ok with 180 AFR? Mind sharing the equation?

Though 195cc AFR and Trickflow cylinderheads that are emission legal are also available.

My inclination towards a low rpm torque monster engine is also speed related.
Germany has wery long parts of highway with no speed limit, with the average of 100mph cruising speed 2.73 gears are ok (still could be lower), 3.23 feels doable the first 20-30 minutes.

 

Cross Section Area (port area)

 

Thanks Sir.

 

Cross Sectional Area is the "choke" of the port which is the measured narrowest section. On a 23 degree SBC head it's almost always going to be at the push rod pinch area.

(bore x bore x stroke x rpm x .00353)/614

That equation determines the minimum CSA needed for a given RPM.

Having too much creates low velocity.

Having too little creates turbulence.

 

The surface area of the port. If you have too little, you'll get a lot of torque, but you will kill the port by locking it up, as stated above. The cam plays a big role in this that is why you will never see an AFR head with a 106/108/110 separation. The ports just don't like them. AFR heads tend to work better with 112/114 area. The small ports don't have enough CSA although they have flow. There's an entire explanation about how the LSA causes the valves to open and exhaust scavaging the cylinders causing the port speed to kill a small port. I prefer not to go down that line as it is a long and interesting yet very technical discussion that I am STILL trying to wrap my head around.

Why do you insist on limiting your motor to 5200 rpm and please don't say "it's a street car"..... my CTS redlines at 6500 and that's a street car. RPM=HP why not spin it to 6000-6500. The equation is above.

I'd like closer to 200 like the Brodix IKs.

That makes no sense. That's a dumptruck. Dumptrucks aren't fast.

Even MORE reason to let the motor spin past 5200. 6500 isn't a bad place to put the red line, I'm not understanding why you want to limit it.

 

The AFR180s seem to work just fine on my 383. If you plan on making more N/A power later on, go ahead and get the 195s. My plan was always to boost my engine so the smaller head fit my needs better.

I like spinning the tires...it's fun. I don't race professionally nor do I want to or spend my days wondering when the next track visit will be. To each his own.

 

FWIW, forced air has little effect on head choice. It is the same head, same delivery, just has pressure behind it.

It's not about being a "professional racer" it's about putting together the right combination.

Your goals were to shred tires....then great, it worked. I just think that's a silly goal. looks cool for a bit, but gets old fast and doesn't accomplish much on an open highway. You can still spin the tires with the right head...just sayin'.

 

(bore x bore x stroke x rpm x .00353)/614 = 1.787 square in? and What is the CSA of a 180 AFR?

I have no experience with high $ built high rpm SBC's, what would you suggest for a regular reliable 383 6000-6500 rpm SBC.

These brodix? what cam would you suggest to make up for no EGR?
http://www.brodix.com/heads/ik.html could not find CSA for these either.

I was searching the CSA for the AFR's an Trickflow's http://www.airflowresearch.com/chevy_dyno.php http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=24_29 http://www.trickflow.com/partdetail....4&autoview=sku other then the intake gasket bore size, no CSA numbers.

 

I don't know, but given the runner size, there is no way the CSA is going to be enough

6500 is not high RPMs. 7500 and up, you're into high RPMs.

A basic roller cam engine will support 6500 easily. The old days when the valve train was inadequet to support the higher RPMs it was limited. Not such an issue today. Today, tolerances are better, materials are better, everything is better. So running a bit higher RPMs is not an issue. LOW REDLINES in today's production cars is 6500 in many cases.

This does not have to be a high dollar build. The price isn't going to change at all, actually, it is just a matter of choice of parts. A cam is a cam, a head is a head, and the prices of those will be the same regardless. I'm not talking about spending more money, I am tlaking about spending RIGHT money.

With current technology this can be done reliably.


CSAs are not published for a couple reasons:

1. They are harder to understand
2. They aren't as cool as flow numbers.

Companies publish flow numbers and it is strictly a marketing term It has been proven time and time again that the highest flow numbers do not produce the best results. IMO Getting the correct CSA to manage the port speed plays more of a role than flow numbers. (combined with port design of course)

It's just a matter of marketing. Flow numbers are simplistic and easy to understand, so companies publish them. If you talk to the engineers who design this stuff, and people who REALLY know about heads, they scoff at flow numbers. The owners of head companies for example, they will tell you the only reason they publish flow numbers is people EXPECT them.

Many of them were resistent for YEARS and did not publish them. Then at one point someone decided that the most important aspect of a head is a flow number and the ill informed started asking for flow flow flow flow so companies were forced to publish them.

Here's a good thread which discusses both.
http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/sh...highlight=mamo

 

Now, the "problem" is, there is a brand new cam in the new shortblock with this lobe separation. You think, i should´nt go with 195´heads ?? I don´t understand ! Why doesn´t it work together ? The duration and lift look nice on this cam. Why is the lobe separation too tight for these heads ??

 

Because AFR promotes a small port with big flow. You really have to look at it on paper. This is where the flow argument falls apart. Draw it out... on a tight LSA you will see when the valves are opening and closing the overlap pulls through the exhaust which in turn pulls through the intake during overlap bringing more air at a much higher speeds.

Although the head can handle the FLOW the lack of CSA will push the air speed to .6 mach causing the port to "lock". The air simply can't go any faster through that port and power falls off like a rock.

AFR is a great head when you put the right LSA with it, IMO from what I have seen that is 112-114. It's simply a functional relationship of the valves and overlap which causes a small port to die.

If you're running a tighter LSA you need more CSA and likely a lower flow number. A Dart style head for example, they play well with tighter LSAs. This is what makes AFR a decent FI head. FI likes 112-114 carbs seem to go tighter LSA. No reason you can't do a tighter LSA however with FI, it just will idle rougher.

If you're using that cam, I'd consider looking at Dart or Brodix. Just my .02. Of course, we haven't talked about the intake either.

I think that the cam will play nice with the converter, I also believe too small a head will kill the entire combination. It is my opinion that a larger runner head will work better. Something in the 200-215 range.

Here's another thought... the tighter LSA will move your power band UP the RPM range, and yet you started out saying you wanted to keep the RPMs sub 6000. That is in conflict with the cam. Another reason I think you need to consider a bigger head, to work with the cam to bring the power band in line with the cam. Think about it. You have a cam that likes mid range power band and a head that likes low, they are fighting each other.

 

i have a set of 2.41s and a g80 locker i will be selling, if you want to lower your rpms at speed.
i also have a set of 2.14s but they are really too low for anything.

 

thomas1976 & all I found that equation basically stalking a well renowned guy in the cylinder head business over the internet. Injectors Plus got me interested in CSA a couple months back and I do a lot of research on the matter, even still. I'm just saying this because I don't want you all to think I'm being a "know it all", that's annoying, just repeating what guys much smarter then all of us think on the matter.

Here is something else I found researching on the internets;
Gotta love the power of the internets

Since you always error on the short side AFR 180's Cross Section is perfect for a 5400RPM (5500 is 1.93) peak in a 383.

A 383 peaking at 6000RPM will need a 2.1 CSA.

Your motor will still "work" with out the correct CSA it just won't be as good as it could be, that's it really.

 

I'd like to see closer to 6000 peak with that converter and cam.

I wonder what they determined is the perfect port velocity for that calculation. Wonder if they are using 345 fps as the guideline.

Look what the chart tells you. The DART Heads 200-215 CC. (who said that three posts back second to last paragraph? ) Pretty much smack in the middle. I'd like to see the 200s based on the cam. It's SLIGHTLY large by .04 in, however, leaves a little room for growth and will allow just over 6000 rpm. I have a SBC 427 with 215 Dart heads, and I fall off about 6500. On a 383 should be similar with 200s. Give or take.

The intake needs to support it and I think with those Dart 200 or 215s he'd be dead on. There isn't enough CSA, IMO, with the AFRs for this specific application. Port speed can be too fast.

 

port velocity at a Cross Sectional Area is derived by;
(cfm/cross sec) x 2.4 = Feet Per Second

AFR 180 flows 260cfm @ .500

(260/1.93) x 2.4 = 323fps

AFR 195 flows 282cfm @ .600

(282/1.98) x 2.4 = 342fps

 

IF you ever reach .600 lift. OP states .502 lift and I'm ASSUMING (big assumption) that's with 1.5 rockers.

That needs to be applied to matching it to the cam.

 

If the 180 AFR would have 1.93 sq inches CSA, a matched cam with 112-114 LSA (wich should also be easier tu tune) 5500rpm could be ok right?
Or is AFR just brainwashing us with their published builds and #? http://www.airflowresearch.com/chevy_dyno.php

Wonder if this head could be considered http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=24_29 decent for this build.

I was under the impression a 6000-6500rpm SBC should have a forged crank and be built with preciser tollerances then a regular or stock build.

Makes me wonder how many race seasons this engines last that use standard aftermarked rotating assemblys for budged resons.

 

I think there's a lot of brainwashing when it comes to AFR and I am skeptical about everything they put out. Just my .02. They are a fine product and people have good luck with them, I just think the hype overwhelms the reality.

See my above comment. Now you're into a $3000 head and there's plenty of better options if you want to spend that money.

Depends on the HP of the final build, I don't see you approaching that limit. Why would tolerances be any better from one build or another? Tolerances are tolerances. period. You can build to .002 on the main bearings or .005 and there's some debate about which is better. But if you're going to slap it together all sloppy, anything is going to break.

Too many factors to consider. Are you building this to race? I didn't get that impression. The primary reason for the redline being where it is on the dash is the intake. The next reason is the valve train. Roller setups are only good to about 7000 and typically stop making power at 6500 or so. IMO may as well get everything you can on it. If it breaks, it wasn't built right. Stock parts on this HP motor shouldn't be a reliability issue.

 

Looks like I came out alright with my setup then. My cam is advertised to have a range of 1800-5800; and with the extra cubes some bring that max to ~5500. My original setup was using a LTR intake which wouldn't allow for a power curve much over 5000RPM anyway.

Funny that the AFR 180s have the same CSA as the TF 195s.

 

I picked 5400RPM because what I read is to always error short when in question and since I don't know what they rounded from to arrive at 1.93. 5500 is probably as high as you should go before you start thinking about a using a bigger head, porting, or shifting gears .

AFR heads are great don't get me wrong. Look at there own dynos they are building heads for 5500rpm motors(I only looked through the first 5 or so). If that is what you want out of your investment that's perfect. It just seems silly to spend that much on building a motor like this and not get the best of it.

I would think with the high speeds that you drive on the open highways that you would want a higher power band. A 6-speed would probably be great wouldn't it? 100mhp isn't bad for a 700r4 though, with stock tires and a 2.73 your top speed is still 222mph if you only want a 5500RPM max. No need to have all that extra gear if you aren't going to use it.

 

Personally, I'll be using 3.42s with 275/40/17 rear tires and a 200-4R tranny. Sounds right on time to me.

 

Why would the 50mm TB not be adequate for this 383ci SBC?
Would you suggest he keeps his 46mm TB or put the stock 43mm TB on it?

Ok so you still classifie this 383 engines with 180 AFR cylinderheads http://www.airflowresearch.com/chevy_dyno.php for "Dumptrucks" and "Slow".

Closer to 1500$ http://www.summitracing.com/parts/AFR-1041/ ready to bolt on. I had the cance to inspect a set of these that went on a 383, nothing has to be cleaned up, CNC at the factory already did.
How much is your suggested head wenn ready to bolt on?

For a 6000-6500rpm 500hp/500tq 383ci SBC, would the cast crank still be appropriate?

From my experience these stock SBC's do not like constant 3000-4500rpm operation.
Tricks and parts used for racing applications need to be used, to make them reliable.

 

What's the CFM on the 43MM. That will answer your question.

Now, how do I know how fast it is? C'mon be serious. How am I supposed to prove how fast a motor is by a dyno sheet, which is probably exaggerated. What do you want me to say...that's the bestest power I've ever seen from a 383, can't do that. It's average. I'm not into worship of a ringer motor on a manufacturer site. I won't bow down to it...

I call that a manufacturer's ringer motor. I call it a dyno that is loser than a $3 *****. I call it perfect conditions.

Here's a 350 with Brodix heads making more power:

http://brodix.com/heads/ikdyno.html

What did I just prove? Nothing other than Brodix can have a ringer too. Thanks for playing.



So now we know you are a proponent of AFR. That's fine. Coke/Pepsi it's all good. Nothing has to be cleaned up? REALLY? If you say so. If you're the kind of person that would take ANYTHING out of a box and just bolt it up without going over it and close inspection, put down the tools. Seriously.

For $1000 I'll send him a set of Profilers and he'll lose nothing. That's $500 cheaper, if you want to play the price game.

To the last point you make, "how much is your suggested head" when ready to bold on. I love this point because the reality is when you set up an AFR head the right way for a real performance application it is either the same price or more than the competition. That's the dirty little secret.

Look, if it makes you happy to have AFR, that's great. But don't get all pissy on me because I said I'm not a fan. I'm just not. I think they are over rated. Am I not entitled to my opinion without these attacks? Why are you taking it so personally? Do you have an interest in what he buys? What's your problem? Am I getting all pissy with you because you don't like a particular brand of something, that is just childish. Get over yourself. I guess perhaps the reality that you may not know to much or made bad decisions is setting in and you're shooting the messenger. The guy asked for an opinion and I gave one get over it.

Depends. Are you putting on big fat slicks with 4.55 gearing and running this binary to the floor day after day? That's a question that without further information can not be answered. But the general answer based on what the OP indicates or I assume he wants is yes.


Marine motors do not have forged bottom ends and run 4500 all day long. Why is that? They run a pretty steep torque load too... It's a single gear driveline, which is really hard on the engine. Try driving around in 3rd gear all day long.

note the RPM range: http://www.mercurymarine.com/engines...i350_specs.php

http://www.volvopenta.com/volvopenta...s/5.7GXiE.aspx


WOT is 5200. Should be able to run that thing 4800 all day long... It's nothing more than a SBC...

 

Why all this personal trash talk in here, on a tech forum?

 

I looked into same topic for a 383 TPI motor. Yes, velocity will be slightly higher with 180 than 195. However, both will still have higher velocity than 99% of stock heads out there with same chamber size. I like AFR's because their exhaust to intake ratio is so good. Exhaust ports really flow on these heads.

Good to see other people mention that head intake cross sectional area will limit effective RPM. This is what you should make your decision on. Member anethes shared cross sectional areas with me for AFR elminator heads. Below are their CSA's plus associated limiting RPM for a 383 engine per calculator on this page. http://www.wallaceracing.com/chokepoint.php

AFR 180, CSA = 1.92 in2, limiting rpm = 5,484
AFR 195, CSA = 2.18 in2, limiting rpm = 6,226

Nice car btw

 

Not personal. I'm just supporting my position with some examples.

You asked questions and I answered them. Pretty effectively too I may add.

 

exhaust/intake ratio is a myth and is no reason to consider a head.

 

Why is it a myth?

 

I'm in the airport leaving the country for a few days. Can't comment from my phone. Too much to write. That's why my answers are short However, I have addressed this extensively here on this forum if you search my posts its here.

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/tech...-question.html

Posts 12-20

 

That calculator you linked is dead on with the equation I posted. I had to check out of curiosity.

Didn't AFR re-design the 195cc head at some point? The CSA information I linked earlier in the thread could be dated, but some of the heads in the list aren't old enough for it to be too old. That CSA for the 195 seems a bit big, way big for AFR standards.

 

If there's one thing I've learned in life ,it's not to believe in everything you read. I have a friend who's been porting heads for 30 years and based on my own experiences,that higher exhaust to intake flow ratios play a vital roll in limiting pumping loses during the intake stroke by enhancing the initial draw on the intake during overlap and to increase the scavenging efficiency of the cylinder. With the trend of producing higher flowing intake ports,what good is being done by placing a band-aid on the cylinder preventing it from scavenging the burnt masses? In the end it's about how the engine best responds.

 

I agree. Watch...

I spoke to this earlier in the thread about how the LSA on a cam does exactly that and why some designs work better with a tight LSA and others with a wider one. HOWEVER to draw this conclusion across the board is a gross over simplification to apply to every single engine. Like all urban legends it has a grain of truth. However, you are connecting dots that do not exist.

the question is what CFM is required to get 100% scavaging. After that, it's all useless. Also, the statement ignores VE. Only the most sophisticated builds are getting very close to 100% VE and in rare cases, over 100%. Where does VE play into this theory as it relates to pulling air in during overlap?

See, so many factors effect scavaging such as exhaust design, compression, etc how can anyone determine the exact ratio between intake and exhaust that is across the board perfect. You mention the "scavenging efficiency" of the cyl, so you have to admit there are factors that effect it. (even though I have never seen the term used before) so the question that should end all this is at what number is the scavenging 100%?

Consider this, if there were such a theory in science, why isn't there a dead nuts number that people use to say "THIS IS THE RATIO YOU NEED".... because there isn't. The only question is how much is enough given the combination to get 100% scavaging of the cylinder. As I pointed out, there are very large HP motors having very small exhaust flow numbers by comparison.

Pushing air out (scavaging) is a completely different process and has different fluid dynamic characteristics than sucking air in (flow bench) and given the all the variables which go along with that, there is no hard and fast "ratio" but can only be determined by what number is required to vacate the cyl given the rest of the build. Here's the thing, you can push air OUT of the cyl as fast as you want with zero concern for quality of delivery with no ill effect. You can't suck air in as fast as you want with no effect, and you are concerned about quality of delivery it has to be managed. So effectively, the size of the exhaust port can be just big enough given the compression of the motor, valve overlap, and all other factors because it can just "throw" exhaust out in as crappy of a matter as it wants at any speed it wants with no ill effects on the engine. Exhaust port design doesn't really matter. Period.

First of all, that is NOT the trend. The trend is to be going to bigger runner sizes. BIGGER IS BETTER is the trend. Maybe not on internet message boards where simplification and marketing over ride fact, but in building fast motors, it is bigger is better. That was a MARKETING trend a few years back, but it's not the technical trend. It's only a trend if you buy marketing. People are getting smarter about this.

The reason it's not a trend is people are seeing the fallacy in flow numbers. The goal is to maintain port velocity which is a relationship between flow and CSA and MCSA too for that matter. Even if manufacturers can get more flow from a similar size port, it does not address the condition of maintaining port velocity. In fact, I would submit, that you can have TOO MUCH flow from a small port, destroying port velocity and building what I have referred to as a dumptruck engine.

Sure, it FEELS good, but show me the timeslip. We don't spend money on performance mods not to go faster right? People I know, friends of mine, have thrown motors in cars that FEEEL a whole lot faster than they did before but at the track were PIGS. Now, I'm not saying you have to run a track, that isn't the point, the point is do you want to BE fast or FEEL fast in the street?

Would a VE of 50% on the intake require different exhaust characteristics than a VE of 90% on the exhaust? Answer NO! It wouldn't so there goes the ratio argument right out the door. The exhaust just needs to handle enough to blow out the cyl 100% all the time. And that's not very big, and there's no ratio to that. It is independent of intake.

And that right there is the difference between engineering and parts assembly.

You tell an engineer you want an engine that has 8 cylinders and makes 500 HP they can figure all that out by math and delivery exactly what you need. They will know how the engine will run BEFORE it is assembled, not after and they know not through trial and error, but through knowledge.

And at the end of the day, I'm hoping consumers can have an elementary understanding of that knowledge and process to make informed choices to get the desired results they want, given the budget they have to work in. And the reality is some manufacturer decided that they would UP their flow on exhaust and promote it as a benefit and too many suckers bought into it. Don't be a sucker.

 

Let me try this....

Ever play with one of these?



Now forget for a minute about QUALITY of delivery. Let's just talk about QUANTITY...

you stick this thing in the water, pull the handle back, and the cyl starts to fill.

There's a small hole so it fills very slowly.. If you make the hole bigger it will fill faster.

Now, you go to empty it (spray it at someone) and you just push the handle down and it blows out all the water.

Now, if you were doing it with a stop watch (cycles of the motor) and you had XXX time to fill it and XXX time to empty it...that would be the motor going from intake to exhaust.

Now, as long as that hole is big enough to blow the water out 100% in the time alloted, what's the difference how big it is or the volume it puts out? None

Now the fault in this example is that the "intake" and "exhaust" are the same hole.... but an engine, they are totally unrelated. the intake and exhaust track are separate.

Picture this. If you can fill that water pistol 50% in the time alloted but still had the same time to empty it 100%, the hole size would be XXX.

If you could fill it 100% and have the same time to empty it 100% the time would be exactly the same as above. NO DIFFERENT. So the ratio is not the same and is not dependent on how much you take in.

So once you reach 100% within the time to empty it, there is no reason to go bigger and if you did go bigger, SO WHAT? There is nothing to gain as long as it's empty by the next cycle. And there is no relationship to how much time it takes fill or empty. It's just a question of how full it gets. VE

 

From another board.....just sayin. If I were buying heads, this is what I'd want to hear, not dyno numbers, not flow numbers, etc...etc...etc... this is the bottom line.

 

Yep, it's called swirl & tumble and its part of the magic (science) of flame propagation.

 

Why is it that guys with really fast cars, like in your avatar, tend to agree with me....

And the ones that get magazines and read forums tend to argue with me?

I don't know....just find it entertaining.

 

I dont know if I particularly agree with this part about AFR's not liking the tight LSA cams. I ran a 109 lsa cam on my 383 and that motor kicked ***. 400whp and ran mid 11's at 118-119mph in summer air quality at 3450lb raceweight and undergeared (nitrous setup so didnt need gear). I've seen some builds posted by Joe Sherman using solid rollers in the 110 lsa range. Mike Jones gave me a custom grind for my 383 that was on a 108lsa to peak at 6500 rpm. Most carb based builds are always on tighter LSA's anyway.

The 195's can support a high rpm 383... and 6500-7000 rpm is "high" in the sbc TPI based world. That is a good bit of rpm for a hydraulic roller street car.

TBI is not known for being a high rpm performance system. I dont see many fast builds. I seen one comparison when a guy took an EMC motor that was carbed and tried a TBI style injection system and it didnt run for crap no matter what they did. They couldnt pull the same rpms. They tried a port style EFI setup and it ran almost as good as the carb setup so the injection location and style made a difference. I'm not sure 180's would be a bad choice since it probably will be in the mid 5000 rpm range. I dont think it would give up too much compared to a 195 head in that rpm area. I also dont think the 195's will kill any low end throttle response since its a good port with a smaller CSA than other 195-200cc heads out there.

A 224 cam on that motor will be done by 6000 rpm anyway so you really arent getting into the potential of a 195 AFR head if you want to stick with AFR.

 

If you want AFR's I suggest the 195's, they will do better on your engine than the 180's, and allow some future growth.

AFR potential? They have their place...

I just know that if I were to spend that much money on a set of heads I would want some with a greater potential than the AFR can offer. They are street, not race heads, by any racers measure.

It's a street car, and a nice one I might add, & you get to spend your money as you please.

 

Whats the difference between a street head and a race head? I know plenty of "street" head guys in the 10's on motor with AFR stuff...near 500whp on motor.

I agree they are abit pricey but I think some guys are getting them for 1250+ shipping and shipping isnt that much. I know i paid 1440 I think shipped to my door. Other "comparable" heads are in that range, including profilers when you get similar springs as AFR 8019's/mild port cleanup from "as-cast". I am thinking about getting the 210's for my motor and talked to Mr. Chad Spier about it. 1495 I believe it was for the set which makes them comparable to AFR range in price and based on the numbers I've seen from AFR 210's and profiler 210's, I think they are a toss up. Cant go wrong with either head.

AFR's may not leave much room to be ported but out the box they are a pretty good head. Their bigger stuff, 220-235's are AWESOME heads for the serious big inch higher rpm motors.

Just my limited opinion.

 

Joe Sherman? Really? He posted on Speed Talk he cleans up every set of AFR heads around the pushrod pinch, yet that never makes it to the final spec does it? Additionally, it is accepted by many his dyno is about 50 HP loose....just sayin. I don't put a lot of stock in what he does, as I haven't seen his motors in many winners circles either. He's no Musi, Uratchko or Morrison.

I'm still sticking with tight LSAs are not AFR friendly. You go 112 or 114 they tend to react better.


Yep. Probably but I think that's the smallest I'd like to see.


I'll let xch3no2 deal with that one...

Yeah probably. I don't understand the hesitance on spinning motors up past 5500.

 

I hope to see what a real TBI car is capable of. I have never seen one in real life and I dont hang out on the TBI forums here, but in the drag racing thread I dont see the results of TBI motors so it seems TBI is handicapped. I heard you say before that its injector size limits and now that you make some big injectors more power may be made. I'd love to see it.

Yeah most of what he builds does have a touchup to it, but even out the box they arent bad heads. I dont know if 50hp loose is accurate but I havent heard either way. I just know you can make some power with the 195 head. One 383 was set to make 615hp with out the box heads, and thats in the 6500-6900 range I think it was. For the specs on that cam he used and peaking that high, I cant doubt it was between 550-575hp. 615 may be loose but 50 is a lot of power to be loose.