dan0617 wrote:
Cool! Glad to see you are making progress. I'm guessing you pick up 20 hp on these heads over the TFS. No need to guess for long though as you will be able to tell us all exactly what the difference is! Great to have some real world testing.

So, your order of business is:

1. Remove jack stands
2. Dyno
3. Order and install bigger nitrous jets
4. Order a pink majic marker to sign timeslip

haha. Had to keep it going!

dan0617 wrote:
Cool! Glad to see you are making progress. I'm guessing you pick up 20 hp on these heads over the TFS. No need to guess for long though as you will be able to tell us all exactly what the difference is! Great to have some real world testing.

So, your order of business is:

1. Remove jack stands
2. Dyno
3. Order and install bigger nitrous jets
4. Order a pink majic marker to sign timeslip

haha. Had to keep it going!

20hp sounds reasonable. The 195 AFRs have some pretty impressive flow numbers.

Lot of new heads available now with some impressive flow numbers. Patriot 220cc, RHS 220cc.

I really wish AFR could compete better in regards to pricing. That's why I'm torn. You can buy a head for 900-1000 that flows the same, and save yourself $500-600..
Velocity and chamber shape slightly different, but is 5-10 horsepower worth $600 ??
-- Joe

dan0617 wrote:
I have to agree with Tony that the AFR 195's have the market beat for the price......the 195 streets. That's why I went with them and I'm a happy customer. But....

For the 195 comp ports I have to agree with Joe. Even comparing the AFR streets to their own AFR comp ports, the price difference is crazy. Tony, I wish you could lower the price considerably on the comp ports. I mean, the street ports are already CNC'd. I think the additional CNCing and work to go up to the comp ports isn't worth the extra chunk of change for the performance gains. Last I checked, which was about 8 months ago, the comp ports were roughly $600 more. I can't see it possible that you have that much more money in making the comp ports than you do in making the street ports.

TonyMamo wrote:

Joe...

Do you really believe all that is true??

TonyMamo wrote:

I wont even get into the "advertised" number comparisons....that could take up pages.

TonyMamo wrote:

Not to mention I don't think when comparing cc's (similar port volumes), even if you were to base your statement on that I feel a comparison wouldn't bring up anything similar.

TonyMamo wrote:

Also, the quality of the few heads you mention aren't even
in the same playing field as the AFR's.


Then there's the lightweight 8mm valves, trick lightweight small diameter valve springs, heavy duty castings with 3/4 inch thick deck....I can go on and on but I wont bore the people that have already read most of my rants.

TonyMamo wrote:

To NOT spend the extra few hundred on the AFR's is a far bigger mistake....that few hundred you saved cost you twice the potential gains in power in some cases and Im not
exaggerating.

TonyMamo wrote:

Look at cost per pony and the AFR's will look like a Walmart blue light special....

Also, try to search out real world results of the various heads you might consider....independent results speak volumes. In Josh's test we are all following an out of the box AFR is going against a high quality aftermarket casting that additional handwork was also invested and I still think/hope the AFR's are going to shine....not to mention cost the same or less in this particular comparo.

TonyMamo wrote:

Do your homework....the more you do the better value you will perceive our product to be worth and the easier it will be to part with the extra money.

88BlackZ51 wrote:
Joe.


Both of my AFR's (street ports and comp ports) were flowed, and they flowed alot more then the #'s you are stating. Both flow #'s have been documented on the CF, and maybe even of Guru.

Even my street ports out flowed your RHS220cc head, and they measured 195cc.

88BlackZ51 wrote:


I paid less then $1300 for my street ports. I have a feeling there isn't a head out there that will beat it for the price.

88BlackZ51 wrote:

Buying quality stuff costs money! I have not seen anything from Patriot, Edelbrock, Dart or Brodix that competes with the street ports for the dollar.

TonyMamo wrote:
PS....OK...truth be told I may have slightly pointed Beach towards the Comp version of our 227 but I knew I would save him self torture down the road had he bought the street version!! And thats only because I had a much better "feel" of who my end user was in that particular case....he's the type of guy we cater the Comp product towards (much like myself I might add!)

dan0617 wrote:
Yes Rick, but for me, I was looking at $600 to pick up maybe 20 hp at best with a step up to the comp ports. Then they are 1206 ports and wouldn't work with my hsr so there is more money out. I also run a flat tappet cam, for $700 or so I could go to a retro roller and pick up 25 or so hp from the less friction and faster opening/closing rates. I was already spent, but would have done the cam before the comp ports.

Most of us here either build on a fairly tight budget and run every year, or wait years and years to get the build done. You know which of the 2 I am. I know which of the 2 you are. Neither of us is wrong by any means. I just honestly think if the comp ports were around $1500 and the street ports were around $1200 that AFR would sell alot more heads than they are already selling, to us budget builders. I think many are walking away from the AFR's due to the price.

1989GTA wrote:
I don't think anyone covered it but is not the AFR 195 Competition head a different casting than the AFR 195 Eliminator? Maybe a part of the price difference?

Also the flow numbers published by AFR are on the conservative side. I have witnessed two that flowed more than advertised. I also have seen numerous reports of flow numbers higher than advertised.

BeachBum wrote:
Joe,

Actually, you did make a mistake that quite a few accidently make. Your flow numbers for the AFR Cylinder heads are the old style heads that were manufactured several years ago before the Eliminators.

BeachBum wrote:


The 195 "eliminators" street version flow cylinder heads flow:

.200.....137.....110
.300.....196.....158
.400.....243.....190
.500.....274.....207
.550.....280.....211

Now re-run your numbers above, and you might see some value.

BeachBum wrote:


On comparing them in price to some 220 cc RHS Iron heads.... I dunno, not sure why you would want to do that.... there are a lot of companies that manufacture a low dollar Iron head... it cost less to manufacture.

BeachBum wrote:


On iron vs aluminum, that can be debated, and I've seen tests on them.... its hard to do an apple to apples test on any thermal heat loss on the aluminum because the test heads always flow different thus skewering the test..... but, the test I have seen any power difference is maybe 5 HP.... and that is of course negated by the weight difference. But, who knows....

dan0617 wrote: For a customer like Joe, though, his decision to part with the extra cabbage is harder to make as he can go to a bigger port on a competitor to afr's head and maybe give up a little power but with that extra money he could afford a nitrous kit. So if its all about budget for someone, the extra .2 seconds on motor that you sacrifice from not going with the afr's just bought you a 150 shot and picked you up 1.3 seconds.

dan0617
So, I'm not comparing heads to heads here, Jsup already has about 10,000 posts on that and in the end we all know which heads are most desired, and why.
I'm comparing dollars to speed. Most of the guys I know do exactly that. It's hard to talk them into the AFR's when their minds are telling them that they can go with Patriot or RHS heads and buy a full blown nitrous kit with the money they saved from not going with AFR's.

dan0617 wrote:

Todd, I didn't suggest free heads or $600 comp ports.

anesthes wrote:

Exactly. It's not about which heads perform the best, we know that. It's about economics.

If you could show me some way that the AFR 195s pick up 100hp over a pair of RHS heads, for $600 more I'd be all over it. But in reality, I think we're looking at 20-30hp and that's probably me being generous.


-- Joe

dan0617 wrote:
Whew. I'm all typed out too. But anyway....Tony....which AFR head do you suggest for Joe's combo? His combo is mostly listed here. Would he be better, keeping budget in mind, to go with a 195 comp port or the next step up (didn't look it up, is it 205 or 210??) Street ported head? And how high would you push the dynamic CR? And how tight of a quench distance? I'm sure a tight quench helps loads with suppressing detonation. I know I'm happy at 9.2 on 93 octane pump gas. What do you suggest for Joe?

TonyMamo wrote:
Need to verify a few pieces of info...

CID
Comp Ratio (about 11.0 recommended...slightly more on 93 and perhaps slightly less on 91)
Cam type (hyd. roller, solid roller, etc.) and approx duration/lift
Application
Desired RPM and shiftpoints

tpi421vett wrote:
Hey Joe, I think I can help you with a good price on some heads.

TonyMamo wrote:
Joe...

You could go with our 210 street heads also....the major difference being the 210 street has a larger 1206 style entrance (similar to the 195 Comp)

The 195 street has a 1205 style entrance....

How much octane do you run?

-Tony

PS....Also, you could flat mill either head (195 or 210) to 60 cc's which only costs $150 I believe.

anesthes wrote:
Curiously, why would you flat mill rather than angle mill?

I'd be running 92-93 octane pump gas, 10% ethanol is what they sell around here.

Given the rest of my specs, whats your power estimate if I milled those suckers down to 60cc, which I think is 10.8 static / 9.1 dynamic?

My software simulators say 484 @ 6k, though I don't think the simulate how much bite cubic inches take out of a cam. I think the peak will be closer to 5500-5800 rpm.

cam is 106 lsa, 106 ica. 57 degrees of overlap.

TonyMamo wrote:

Flatmill is less expensive but the max flatmill is 60 cc's....anything less dictates an angle mill is required.

TonyMamo wrote:

Also, I would have encouraged you to go alot wider on the LSA.....110 or so would have been better IMO for a street car at least. IMO, 106 would be more ideal for a roadrace application.

TonyMamo wrote:


EDIT....Just saw your cam....our duration numbers are close BUT, your discussing a solid flat tappet which will act smaller due to the lash. I was thinking hydraulic roller which would make more power than the cam you quoted specs on.

TonyMamo wrote:
Joe,

Speak to ten different engine builders and you will get seven different opinions at least. A 106 LSA is great for a small motor in an effort to boost its torque output....a 350 or smaller yet can only produce "X" amount of torque and a tight LSA helps to fatten it up some but it also adds a fair amount of overlap which effects low RPM part throttle, idle quality, and fuel economy....everything a street car would have concern with. Its great for a road race application where economy, part throttle, and idle quality has no concern and helps a car come off a corner much harder but there is no free lunch because it does effect the other aspects I mentioned as well as falling off alot faster than a wider LSA cam.

With your displacement, you will have more midrange torque than you can probably hook well on street tires anyway....I would cam it with a wider LSA to reduce overlap some and improve the aspects of street performance I mentioned above.

Take the same 400 CID combo and run a 230/236 cam on a 106 LSA....if you installed a 234/240 cam and ran it on a 110, the larger cam would actually have better idle quality and better low RPM part throttle driving manners, and it would destroy it in peak and after peak power with the added duration and the wider LSA positioning the intake closing point later in the cycle. The 106 LSA cam would make 20 ft lbs more torque in the 3500-4000 range but I would rather have better driving manners and 20 more HP (peak) with 35+ more HP past peak at your shift point. The average power in the range you would likely run WOT would be improved (say from 4000 - 6500) and it would actually be cleaner around town (less surging and those types of issues). The fact I lose a little torque in the middle of the curve (especially with a big motor that has more than enough) is a trade-off I'm willing to have for better driving manners and a stronger top end charge.

Regarding your flat tappet solid making more power than a modern fast ramp hydraulic roller I really have to beg to differ there. The ramp rates are faster and the modern hydraulic roller will lift the valve more tapping into the meat of the AFR 195's flow curve (.550 + is more ideal). At the very least spending a bunch more time in crank degrees at 280+ CFM).

The only advantage a flat tappet solid has is clean higher RPM capability but the reality is our new Eliminator stuff is so good now with all the lightweight components and lightweight hyd. roller springs, you can buzz it cleanly to 6700 or so and with the cam size you are considering thats more RPM than you will likely be able to use anyway so the fact you could spin your flat tappet mechanical to 7000 is a waste....it will have nosed over hard many RPM's before that. Once again....besides the added power a hyd. roller has zero maintenance and your not biting your nails for 25 mins hoping it breaks in properly either (I don't miss that!).

Flat tappet stuff is old school honestly....the only reasons to consider running it are cost and class rules that sometimes say a flat tappet style cam is all you can run.

Wes Migletz tested his AFR headed 392 on the engine dyno (when we compared the Dart/AFR/and ported GM heads) and with the exact same heads and just swapping to a modern hyd. roller I believe picked up something like 25 HP....it was a huge gain over his solid flat tappet grind.

In short, building extremely capable pump gas street combinations is an area I spend (and have spent) alot of time developing. Some of this related to my own projects over the last 25 years as my primary source of fun has been more the street than all out track oriented applications (although I know how to make them run hard as well).




Just ask Cusinart Vette who got a ride in my C5.....perfect driving manners around town....slight burble at an idle, and all hell breaks loose at WOT. Car traps 130 MPH with a 91 octane 383 combo....with a 114 LSA cam btw :thumbleft:

Also, one last thing with LSA....I have noticed the EFI engines with good heads dont respond the same to narrow LSA gains like carbed applications generally would...alot of people that are in the narrow LSA camp are looking at data surrounding carb'ed applications. With a good cylinder head and EFI you want to spread those lobes. Look at the latest trends from the OEM's as well.....117 and higher and these engines are producing great power for their given displacement and mild nature of the package.

-Tony