BeachBum wrote:

25 HP is very substantial if you are a racer.... it really and truly is. I do not chase et as hard as used to when I was younger, but I still do..... and if you can find 25 HP somewhere without spending any extra coin, you had a GREAT day. I think you'll understand this much better if you ever take up racing.

BeachBum wrote:

As per Wes's test results, AFR's answer appears to be in the form of "Horsepower"..... what is the others response ?

btw, I didn't have a pre-determined solution for this test, and unless you think Wes is a liar, neither did he.

BeachBum wrote:\

Jsup, I have no idea how AFR develops or manufactures their cylinder heads..... as far as I know they employ a dozen elves that develop the heads by dipping them in cheese whiz...... thus, you might want to re-consider the last paragraph.

btw, I'm not ridiculing WetFlow, I simply want to know why you like it, so far I've heard its elegant and harder when using a wet flow bench.... which apparently makes it better somehow. But, what is the benefit ? Is it HP ?

BeachBum wrote:
Just a few comments, you stated Wet Flow is better than dry flow..... again, right here in this thread. So back to my question. Whats the Benefit ? (Thats all I'm asking....)

I've put "Zero Words" in your mouth in this thread..... I can easily find quotes from you on everything I have stated..... you said them, I didn't make them up and everybody reading this thread knows it.... so I don't even have to link it, cuz they read them too.

BeachBum wrote:
Quote:

1989GTA wrote:
"The religious type ferver that I was met with being told about leaving power on the table and under the curve and all the other happy horseshit you push."

That is the whole thing in a nutshell regarding JSUP. There are always a certain percentage people who will rebel against a certain product because the majority of people believe that product to be the best in its category.

Let me say I'm currently running Dart Pro One 200cc heads on my motor and making good power. However I'm in the process of building up a new motor for more power and higher rpm and I'm going with the Dart SHP block and the AFR 195cc Competition port heads.

One of the reasons for the AFR selection besides the better combustion chamber design and flow numbers is the light weight valves and springs for higher rpm without valve float. I estimate my new shift points to be around 7000rpm.

I run Dart products and would buy them again but I feel at this point in time AFR has a better product. Simple as that.

I pretty much agree..... I ran Dart cylinder heads for over 7 years before switching to AFR's, I won most of the below trophies with the Dart's, those are not just bracket racing trophies, but also late model Heads-up shoot-out event wins as well. I never had a single problem with them.... I then did the same test that Wes did, except my test was on the dragstrip instead of the dyno.... I went over 2 tenths quicker with the AFR's without any other changes at all..... but that doesn't make me hate the Darts. I had a great time with them, but I do regret not switching earlier, might have been a few more wins if I had.

[IMG]http://i526.photobucket.com/albums/cc342/tldrane/IMG_0129.jpg[/IMG]

BeachBum wrote:

Jsup, you gotta admit, it’s a pretty good point ! You do realize that you, JSUP, is the person that brought wet flow testing to the attention of the corvette community…. Not me. You have “repeatedly” stated that wetflow is the good stuff, and that dry flow is meaningless. (that last part is actually an exact quote) My question to you, how does it help ? Power ? Maybe gas mileage or something ? I dunno…. I’m trying to figure out why you have hung your hat on wetflow testing for so long….. I really do not know. Maybe the word is just cool….. and you thought you would run with that ??? I dunno…. You tell me, its your marketing jingle, not mine. But, I do know without a doubt, that you felt it was an advantage and quite frankly the reason why one should purchase a cylinder head over another….. I think you had even gone on to the point of stating that “Dart had evolved beyond quoting flow numbers and instead talked about Wetflow”…..(That there is another one of those quotes that is just about word for word)

BeachBum wrote:
Quote:

jsup wrote:

So again. It's nice to see a comparison, you came up 25HP up using a CNC'd head vs. an as cast, with bigger valves, I thoguht it would be closer to 40, but ok, you won bragging rights on this one. Congrats.

Or we could look at it as an un-fair comparison because one of the cylinder heads was "Wet Flowed" and the other was not couldn't we ? Am I correct in saying you have been stating that "Wet Flow Testing" was the thing that makes power and that dry flow was old inferior technology ? Dart very, very clearly makes it known on their website that the Pro-1 Platinum 200 cc head in question receives the wetflow treatment in full..... and yet, the AFR received none !!..... thats really fair !!

If you answer no other question ever again, please answer to me, is Wet Flow treatment a performance advantage or is it marketing hype ?

But, here is a review of the two cylinder heads in question on this test:

AFR 195 street port cylinder head: 195 cc runner, 65 cc chamber, receives light cnc port work. Published Price: $ 1485

Dart Pro-1 Platinum 200 cylinder head: 200 cc runner, 65 cc chamber, receives CNC bowl blending, recieves the full wetflow treatment. Published Price $ 1460.60


With the exception of the Darts unfairly receiving the wetflow treatment, it looks pretty fair to me.

But, don't let me interrupt your argument with common sense..... carry on !

pr0zac wrote:
to be honest i was going to send my heads out to be a stage 2. which for what i would need would have been about $1200 out the door. so whatever. i did pay more then i wanted to but oh well. and FOR THE RECORD bang for buck you paired them to a comp port smart guy. they aren't within a few dollars of the $1550 shipped i paid for my heads.. so unless you were looking to cut me a deal also, tell me another one.

TonyMamo wrote:
Quote:

jsup wrote:
Hey wes, on this link provided eariler in the thread:

http://www.speedtalk.com/forum/viewto ... =0&postorder=asc&start=30

You state, and I quote:
Quote:

I had no direct affiliation with any of the head manufactures at that point in time.

Now let me get this straight:

1. AFR paid for the dyno run.
2. Tony was at the dyno run, with the picture to document.
3. you were SELECTED by Tony to participate in this "experiment"
4. You got a significant discount on the product for your participation.
5. The heads were provided directly from the manufacturer directly for this test not off the shelf from some reseller.
6. AFR did all the flow numbers and testing on your Darts and cast iron heads, right? That's where you got all the numbers from isn't it?
7. Tony says we have "more" tests coming out soon. So I guess this was part of the AFR test cycle as it seems the reference to "more" would indicate as such.


How do you claim "no affiliation"? Or is the word "direct" some kind of out to make it seem different than it is? Or was the term "at this time" the out? Why feel the need to color the truth? Or do I have the truth wrong?

Was this or was this not totally coordinated with AFR and why not just say that? I don't understand why the wordsmithing? Just call it what it was, an AFR test with a donor motor from Wes for which Wes was compensated. I don't see the big deal of honest disclosure and why the attempt to color it as anything else.

Before you say no one wrote a check to Wes, let's look at that.

1. Three sets of heads flow benched for free. Compensation
2. Free dyno time to pick his combination. Compensation
3. Big discount on the AFR product. Compensation

Don't want to color the results with facts huh? Is there an NDA in play here? Seems clearly like affiliation to me, direct of otherwise.

That's the best you can do JSUP?

Starting to look very desperate....very sad.

For the record, I did not know Wes prior to posting about the AFR challenge (a situation that would require someone actually willing to TEST SOMETHING to prove his point which you casually dismiss because the results went against you).

After speaking with him for a little bit and hearing about his unique situation (having ported factory heads, Dart heads, and willing to take the time to PULL HIS ENGINE so we could test everything on much more reliable engine dyno), it became apparent to me all to quickly that this was a perfect situation. The fact he was close just made it a little more convenient and allowed us to meet at Westech which is a premier testing facility (two engine dyno's and a chassis dyno) to get this done. Have you ever even stepped foot in a dyno cell??

I would have done all the testing on the flowbench for anyone for free as I clearly laid that out in the CF thread about the original testing. Without that data the dyno results wouldnt have been nearly as complete or pertinent if you will (showing "dry flow" prevailing once again). We did pay for the dyno time as originally discussed and offered a moderate discount on the heads also as originally discussed (a few hundred dollars). I give you a guarantee in writing Wes spent more on this test than both of those figures combined....easily twice that factoring in his time. I told him his headers were too small to take advantage of all the heads....he manned up and spent the better part of a weekend installing larger headers to have a better more accurate baseline and to better maximize the AFR headed combo later assuming we came out on top.

He spent money on track fees, gas to get there, head gaskets, intake gaskets, new hydaulic roller cam and lifters.....I could go on and on.

I would drop this marketing ploy of yours like a hot potato....I assure you that it wont be received very well. When I mentioned to Wes it would be really nice to test this stuff on an engine dyno and make parts swapping much easier he didnt hesitate a minute to tell me he would pull the engine from his car and deliver it to Westech...this guy stepped up bigtime and you had better believe it.

In fact if this board (and others) had more guys like Wesley on it, guys like you (keyboard jockeys that never actually test or swap parts to confirm or deny their own beliefs) would get run out of town much sooner. You still havent even tested your own combo....I know transmission issues....blah blah blah. And...."it doesnt matter and you dont care if you left power under the table". Then why should you even have a voice in conversations dealing with others who DO care about that extra power and strive to choose the best components in an effort to get there.

Your just starting to sound like a sore loser honestly and while some people are still amused, most are just rolling their eyes....

I was actually impressed that it seemed you decided to drop it....what was I thinking....LOL

-Tony

brut wrote:
Stock motor is already apart...getting ready to go to the machine shop. I am going to do a total rebuild regardless, just not sure if I want to shoot for more than I really need. I would be happy for 400-450HP if I can pull it.

I guess my point is, I don't need the do an exotic stroker, with fully forged internals, $2500 set of heads..and so on....

I had no direct affiliation with any of the head manufactures at that point in time.

do you want to reduce the CO2 emissions from your car?
then remove the cats. the pre cat CO2 reading are typically around 2~3 points lower than the post cat CO2 reading are.

Blade_1 wrote:
Quote:

sliding wrote:
Quote:

[B]"... balancing does not mean that there will be more destructive
internal engine loads present. What it does mean is that whatever
forces are generated at one journal may not be fully countered by
forces generated at another. The result is an out-of balance engine.
But the engine is no more likely to fail than if it were perfectly
balanced."[/B]

Well, the Vizard statement is made up of 4 negations, and a negation is exactly that - NOTHING.

"... balancing does NOT mean..." OK; I don't need to know what something is NOT, just tell me what it DOES mean.

"What is does mean ... whatever(?) forces ... may NOT be countered..." HUH? They may NOT? Or they MAY, I guess??? I should flip a coin? Cause that statement doesn't say anything definitive either.

"The result is an out-of-balance engine". HUH again? What if those forces WERE countered? THAT don't matter either, cause he says the result is something that is NOT [something].

"But the engine is [not] ...". See comment #1.

This Vizard guy sounds like a politician. 'See how many happy words you can say, and NOT be saying anything'.

He wouldn't want to listen to MY questions.

BeachBum wrote:
I am not aware of a single motor situation that the Dart Platinum 200 cc Pro-1 cylinder head would outperform the AFR 195's.

TonyMamo wrote:
Prozac...

What are you rambling about?....seriously

Picture this....two Corvettes of the same weight with the same combo's spend $1500 on aftermarket heads looking to improve their performance (One buys Brand "A"....the other buys Brand "D")

A month later they happen to meet on a lonely stretch of two lane blacktop so remote the radar guns call in sick. We all know what happens next....

In the end, one car walks the other car by approximately three car lengths at the end of a 1320 foot blast. Its not even a race...

Which car would you rather be in?

We are talking about sizable differences in performance here....dont even attempt to make it seem meaningless because it just looks worse for you...I will leave it at that.

Also, the gains in power are VERY significant when you consider both of them are leading competitor's products with the same price tag attached. The fact ours are fully CNC ported with very efficient port designs and high quality lightweight valvetrain components makes the purchase that much more of a no brainer for the end user. Which is exactly the point I have been trying to make for the better part of 18 months (concerning the new Eliminator product at least). You want to invest more money in the other brands in an attempt to even the bar, have at it but bigger isnt necessarily better and once you start carving on a 200 cc port in an effort to improve it, low and behold its 210 - 220 cc's before you have seen any notable gains in airflow worth mentioning (and have invested significantly more money point as well). At that point I offer you the new AFR 210 or AFR 227 head....perhaps our higher flowing Comp version of either (seeing as you were dumping a bunch more money in the other castings the price point would likely be less even purchasing our Comp ported package). See where I am going here...so now an apples to apples comparo pits the ported head of your choice to one of our larger much higher flowing pieces (assuming a bigger head is still right for the combination but thats a different argument completely).

Let me sum it up for you....cc for cc, the AFR heads deliver and are arguably the most efficient aftermarket 23' heads per their given size. Better yet they are mass produced, easily attainable, and reasonably affordable all things considered. Not to mention is backed by a 35 year old company that has stellar customer service and involves themselves heavily in these public forums to help out the end users.

When I get a chance I am going to calculate optimal average power curves for the three combo's we tested and look at actual average power gains (not a single peak figure) which is what will determine performance results (trap speeds and ET reductions).

BTW, Im curious if you ever get your new combination to the chassis dyno?

-Tony

wesmigletz wrote:
Tony, here's the pic. I cropped the other guy out of the pic, because I'm not sure if he wants it going around the internet (at least not yet). I have the full pic available, if I have his blessing to post it...

BeachBum wrote:
Quote:

jsup wrote:
Quote:

BeachBum wrote:
Dart lists their price on the above cylinder heads as $ 730.30 per cylinder head for a total of $ 1460.60 for the set assembled with steel retainers.

AFR with steel retainers and assembled are $ 1485.00 as per their website.

Difference in price is $ 24.40 (for another 25 or so HP, thats an incredible deal in my opinion !!)

You could probably find both for a little cheaper from a dealer/ebay or wherever, but not sure.

not really. Don't go by list price, go by what you can really pay for them. Again, I paid $1400 with $200 of factory touch up in there. My suspicion is a couple hundred bucks in touch up porting, that 25 hp goes away.

What do you mean not really ? Do you need me to link the pricelists of these manufacturers ? Its easy, go to their websites !! btw, I can get the heads a little cheaper than advertised too......so what ??

The point is, these two cylinder heads are the same price..... end of story.

pr0zac wrote:
jsup, there is no sense in talking.. its not even a gain worth mentioning. what you said was right. and its the same as the thread i made about which would be a better motor. same fucking results. maybe 20 hp. but the 20hp cost $1000's. let them buy whatever the fuck they think is best.

BeachBum wrote:
Dart lists their price on the above cylinder heads as $ 730.30 per cylinder head for a total of $ 1460.60 for the set assembled with steel retainers.

AFR with steel retainers and assembled are $ 1485.00 as per their website.

Difference in price is $ 24.40 (for another 25 or so HP, thats an incredible deal in my opinion !!)

You could probably find both for a little cheaper from a dealer/ebay or wherever, but not sure.

CentralCoaster wrote:
Depends on what heads/cam package I'm running.

Right now I spin my motor to 4200rpm and shift. But you can bet your ass if my hp peaks at 6000rpm, I'm gonna spin my motor to 6200.

90% of the time my engine operates at 1500 rpm and 1/4 throttle and makes 20 hp. Perhaps I should optimize my motor for that.

So then what heads do you suggest jsup? These circa 1985 cast iron anvils with 150cfm are flowing way too much for my application.

PeteK wrote:
Quote:

jsup wrote:
Day to day use. Not talking occasional track days or someone who runs the track four times a month. I'm talking the sweet spot.

90% of the time your engine operates at what RPM?

2100 rpm cruise
5400 rpm shift light setting

cuisinartvette wrote:
Sounds like a test of 3 heads roughly the same size. Dont know what the irons are but still its neat to see something old school thrown in for comparison.
Stark did a great job on those, thats pretty decent.
Jsup AFR doesnt make any as cast, thats the way they come period, out of the box. No "porting"...thats the point.
How much are you goig to spend working over the Darts to get them to the same level and by that time how much bigger is the intake port going to be?

CentralCoaster wrote:
Here's what I'm seeing:

AFR Eliminator 195cc street heads (CNC'd)
490 hp @ 6000 rpm
480 tq @ 5000 rpm

Dart Pro 1 Platinum 200cc Heads

465 hp @ 5900 rpm
465 tq @ 4800 rpm

The power curves have the same shape, so I don't think anyone can argue the heads were mismatched to the application. Would be nice to see what difference the CNC work makes.

Nice that the heads made up for the low end losses of the larger cam.

Wes, you should clarify post 7 regarding the CNC work.

cuisinartvette wrote:
Excuses have already started and results havent been posted yet. lol. Whatever they are CNC/as cast whoopie, either one can be mfr'd to be good. Sounds like "out of the box" vs "out of the box"?

Lets hear it regardless.

cuisinartvette wrote:
The computer generated design is only as good as the person behind the keyboard. I know of at least one mfr that has that done and their heads are horrible. Perhaps some more talent there could change that.
Youd be surprised who still hand ports and manually changes their ports designs.

BeachBum wrote:

The value of this, is that the machine is much more accurate, smoother and faster...... To understand more about what is happening, you have to understand that a typical 5 axes VMC utilizes your XYZ linear axes and then via a trunion tilting 2 axes rotary table (A & B axes), you have 5 axes the CNC must control in an Interpolated simultenous method.... what this means is that all 5 axes "have" to be at a constantly changing position at an "exact" specific time. To just position an independant axes is as easy as typing G01 X5.0001 F50, but to get all 5 running a high speed program simultenously on an advanced 5 axes path is a completely different animal.

There is much, much more, but I don't feel like typing all morning, but you do have to understand there is a huge difference between VMC's of just 2 years ago and the VMC's of today.... just like the desktop/laptop PC market, the technology is changing and advancing so fast its alarming. Which is a big problem with the machine they have, it is a Fadal VMC with a Fadal CNC.... the problem with this is that Fadal really isn't a CNC developer, they are a machine builder who originally developed a PC based CNC on a DOS platform, but they just haven't really been able to keep pace with the dedicated CNC manufacturers. Hence, why as of just a few years ago, now offer Fanuc and/or Siemens CNC controls on their machines..... Fanuc & Siemens are the world leaders in sales and probably technology...... thus the Fadal has improved dramatically with this new change. But, that Brodix has an old Fadal CNC on it.....


Don't get me wrong, I am not insulting the Brodix 5 axes VMC.... at least they have one and it apparently works, which is more than many can say. I also know the manufactuer well, have been to their manufacturing plant in socal many times as well as their primary competitors (Haas) and watched the battle between those two that has been dubbed the "Alley War" considering what seperated the two HUGE manufactures of CNC machines was only an alley for many years. But thats another story.

BeachBum wrote:

The hack & guess method ? How do you think a manufacturer got the original CAD file ? Then, after they get the CAD file, they will massage the tool path via a good cad/cam program.... Ie, the cam part being necessary unless you just want a useless cad file. (you could print it, but you can't machine it) Specifically, they are typically rounding the massive series of linear points they have to create a smooth path, this can be done in a variety of ways such as NURBS or simple G-code commands that instruct the CNC to automatically corner round each axes command transition. They can also shift it and massage the path, thus raising or lowering the roof for example or shifting the port enough to allow for a water jacket. But, I think I previously mentioned they massage the port design to get a casting.

Spintron ??? Spintron is most commonly utilized for valvetrain issues.... when did they become involved in "creating" a tool path file for a cylinder head?.... thats new to me. I don't have any clue how that would work, can you elborate on how Spintron (the high speed cameras) would create a tool path ?

btw, with a wetflow tested port, what happens to it after a porter modifies with his own cnc program from a wetflow perspective?

BeachBum wrote:
Only thing I'll say about the Brodix video is that the CNC technology in that video is outdated..... Thats a Fadal 5 axes VMC utilizing the Fadal propetiary PC based CNC.... they now offer some modern technology CNC controls, but that isn't one of them.

CentralCoaster wrote:
What is the consensus on the surface finish of the intake ports?

I understand that castings are naturally going to be vary CCs and flow more between ports, vs CNC work, but...

Does the slick surface become "sticky" at some point? Can't some surface roughness be a good thing for breaking up the boundary layer at the surface?

Does it change for wet flow in the head vs. dry flow in the intake?

What sort of air velocity are we getting in the intake ports?

pr0zac wrote:
Quote:

88BlackZ51 wrote:
I certainly hope so Kevin.

is there anyway to turn this guy off. god i love how he can put his unwanted two cents in everywhere without anyone saying anything.

CentralCoaster wrote:
Does this mean you'll stop posting about it then?

mseven wrote:
so what are trying to say ?...........leg humper capital..LOL

cuisinartvette wrote:
They are coming out with some CNCed wiz bang head, havent looked into them just yet; supposed to be pretty decent.

I agree. Well said. If I ever say "I bought the best part I could buy" what I meant was "I bought the best part for my particular combo and car and intended uses that my budget would allow." I'll never be able to afford "the best." Hell, I am very lucky just to own a vette. To be running low 11's and maybe touch the 10's at the track with the new mill in a vette that looks good and takes the wifey and I out for dinner and dance and doesn't learch and buck around, I'm estatic. Truly beside myself. I just shop for the best parts within my financial reach and they make me happy. If they don't make me happy then they will be for sale next week.

dan0617 wrote:
The AFR street port heads are CNC'd also. I wonder if the CNC'd Track 1's are similar to the comp ports or the street ports? $2500 is too high (for me anyway) but I'll bet they will come down some over time. At least I hope they do, I love to see affordable options for those of us on a fairly tight budget.