| Re: Driving impressions with the AFR heads |
Subject: Re: Driving impressions with the AFR heads by anesthes on 2009/8/19 1:37:27 Quote:
First off, I think your starting to feel like I'm personally attacking AFR.. I'm not. I'd love your heads. I'd also love a new truck, but I don't have $46k to spend on a new F350, so my Dodge will have to do for another year. In regards to numbers and such, yes I think BeachBum did hit it on the head. And he's pretty much saying the exact thing I said, no? AFR probably has a 30 or so hp advantage over a head that's about $600 cheaper. Now I need to interrupt your huge technical post to point out a few things. First, we're not starting off with a "stocker" so let's not inflate our gains. And let's ignore the gaskets and tuning time and all that nonsense, because thats part of the overall project costs. Let's just compare heads and final result. What is the split between the final result. So rather than saying AFR is $32 per pony, vs el cheapo at $53 per pony lets look at it this way. AFR 195, roughly $1500 RHS 220, roughly $900 $600 for roughly 35 (I'll give you 35) hp gain. I'm taking TFS out of the equation, because the RHS 220 actually flow better than the TFS heads and are cheaper. Obviously to some of these guys, $600 is worth $35. It's a bit much for me to swallow. There were some other things I brought up to you before, which make matters worse. Your heads have 65cc chambers, which will reduce compression by a small amount. Not to mention it's hard to compare both heads since the thermal properties are different. I'd think to compare a 64cc iron head to an AFR, you would really have to mill the thing to 60cc to make up the loss. That adds another few hundred to the cost. I'd really LOVE to see a test between a 64cc RHS iron head, and a 65cc AFR elim.. I'd be curious to see if the slight drop in compression, and thermal loss makes up for the power gains of the better airflow/design. -- Joe |
