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.

pr0zac wrote:
jesus christ. i have used all kinds of different heads changed cams yada yada. did i dyno them, nope. i could tell a fucking difference and where in the power band it felt stronger or weaker. and i knew what it would and wouldn't beat. the point of my argument is that there is options. every build doesn't have to end with bolting any one certain brand of heads to a engine. period. its great afrs were that much more well designed that they could beat the darts by 25hp. but not everyone is looking to make 600hp. and i don't really give a dead rats ass what heads you use but i am not going to recommend afrs to someone that is looking to get 300-400hp out of their car. especially if there is a budget. there are plenty of cheaper, even stock heads that will be fine.

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

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.

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.

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.

jsup wrote:
Exactly. Compared to a Comp Port. See, these are the things that drive me nuts, it's always a rigged comparison. There's always more to the story.

Oh, and Tony, yeah, I was going to let it go and not respond, until I saw you were trying to pass off this test as something it wasn't. This was a manufactured sponsored test. Why try to pass it off any differently, it does not change the results.

Just another layer to pile on to why I find a lot of your claims dubious. Two examples right here.

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 !

jsup wrote:

You have to be joking with this point. Either you clearly don't understand the role of wet flow and have no desire to find out, or this is some kind of bait, well, I'm not biting.

1989GTA wrote:
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.

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:

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]

jsup wrote:
Quote:

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]

That's great BB. Worked for you. Does this now translate that no other head will ever produce better results on a given motor? And let's be fair, a 10 year old Dart design (assuming you didn't get the first head off the line) as cast vs. a current design and CNC porting. And you're surprised you got better results? I'm not. Dart claims 50ish HP over their older designed heads to their new Pro1s. Ya think you'd see a change with new Darts? You're basis on this is flawed for that reason. How can you even draw ANY conclusions based on those facts alone. Yet, on that faulty basis, you'll say AFR was better. It does not add up.

Are there guys running Brodix winning trophies?

It's great, you picked up time and credit AFR, as faulty as that was proven above. I'm happy for you. Does this mean you're going to brow beat someone and make insulting comments like "your engine will be a pig if you don't use AFR"?

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.

jsup wrote:

And see, BB, that right there is part of the problem. I point out the entire industry is spending billions of dollars and they are using wet flow. Because AFR doesn't use it it therefore has no value. As if Brodix, AllPro, Dart, etc.... are all stupid. If AFR isn't doing it, it doesn't count. With that obnoxious thread you started, I'd have to make the point you are suspect number one on this point. Ridicule a technology that every one is using because AFR doesn't. Pathetic and yes, that is leghumping.

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:

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:

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.

Posted by jsup:

OK, here's the question. I never want to run this car under 11.5 because I never want to do a roll cage, and lug nuts, and five point harness and all the other stuff. I'm looking for 11.5 and not a .1 more. I want a car that is fun on the street, and I'm breaking tires loose at 70MPH. Tell me again why I need that extra 25HP?

PeteK wrote:
Quote:

Posted by jsup:

OK, here's the question. I never want to run this car under 11.5 because I never want to do a roll cage, and lug nuts, and five point harness and all the other stuff. I'm looking for 11.5 and not a .1 more. I want a car that is fun on the street, and I'm breaking tires loose at 70MPH. Tell me again why I need that extra 25HP?

This question I may be able to answer, as I am in the same boat.
Simply put, it is more fun to build as much power as you can, and trim it down as needed. Certain tracks will "look the other way" when you break the 11.50 rule, assuming is on a test and tune, or street night.
I am occasionally asked by a track owner to spray the snot out of my car on a friday street car night. It allows him to whoop up some excitement for spectators. Track owners job is promoting, and they allow these things occasionally.

pr0zac wrote:
Quote:

PeteK wrote:
Quote:

Posted by jsup:

OK, here's the question. I never want to run this car under 11.5 because I never want to do a roll cage, and lug nuts, and five point harness and all the other stuff. I'm looking for 11.5 and not a .1 more. I want a car that is fun on the street, and I'm breaking tires loose at 70MPH. Tell me again why I need that extra 25HP?

This question I may be able to answer, as I am in the same boat.
Simply put, it is more fun to build as much power as you can, and trim it down as needed. Certain tracks will "look the other way" when you break the 11.50 rule, assuming is on a test and tune, or street night.
I am occasionally asked by a track owner to spray the snot out of my car on a friday street car night. It allows him to whoop up some excitement for spectators. Track owners job is promoting, and they allow these things occasionally.

how about a video of that..

dan0617 wrote:
I went on test and tune day and laid down an 11.43 in a vert. I am to have a cage at like 13.99. I don't have a single SFI approved part on the car right now. Nobody said a word. They just checked for nitrous blow down tube, no chitty looking clamp job on fuel lines, etc. I want quicker. I'm hoping for a 10.50 this year. I'd run in the 8's if I could afford it.

My question for this thread is this: Wes, post up the cam specs for each cam!

dan0617 wrote:
My question for this thread is this: Wes, post up the cam specs for each cam!

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.

TonyMamo wrote:

The original flat tappet solid was a single pattern 236/236 on a 112 LSA....the new hyraulic roller was basically a shelf XE grind (Comp Cams), that I instructed Comp to grind on a slighter wider LSA (112 also....shelf cam was 110') in an effort to tame the idle a bit, increase vacuum, and aid in drivability.

The engine had the highest vacuum readings with the AFR 195's btw, which was around 13" @ 1000 RPM. It would be better in the car at 875 or so and would likley drop to 11" at that RPM....maybe a tad more but still plenty for a street car with 400 CID of displacement (395 to be exact). It will drive perfectly smooth at practically any RPM with the right carb tune. Cant wait to get Wes's reaction to the new motor in the car....its going to act like a completely different powerplant.

-Tony

dan0617 wrote:
Thanks Tony!

The horsepower peak for both cams is a little higher than I expected it to be considering the int/exh. duration and the cubes. I would have guessed the peak to be around 5600. I'm guessing the intake and carb helped pull the peak up a few hundred rpms, but again, I'm guessing....

TonyMamo wrote:
Honestly a port mathced cleaned up RPM air gap would have made the same peak power figure and added 20 ft/lbs to the peak torque numbers and a ton of area under the curve....I wish Wes could have fit that intake but unfortunately he had to go with a lower profile manifold. Would have been cool to test both....probably one of my only regrets from the testing.

-Tony