5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang Technical discussions on 5.0 Liter Mustangs within. This does not include the 5.0 from the 2011 Mustang GT. That information is in the 2005-1011 section.

edelbrock

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-05-2007, 01:53 PM
  #21  
P Zero
5th Gear Member
 
P Zero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,986
Default RE: edelbrock

I know. The high ports are still a really nice head. Ive built a couple of cars using these and they were fu..in fast. Those are good heads for someone to just "slap" it together.
Personally,, my next build Im not using any of the commonly used heads - Edelbrock, AFR, TFS, RHS Canfield (not so common)... And I would NEVER run ANY letter cam... they just suck *** crack.

The ones Im going to use require some very special parts and intakes. My secret for now

And The AFR 185's are basically the same as High ports. But the high ports have 192cc runners.

-P.
P Zero is offline  
Old 07-05-2007, 01:55 PM
  #22  
AdderMk2
Banned
 
AdderMk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
Default RE: edelbrock

high ports are becoming a dated head... sure they are ... decent..

but you can do much better
AdderMk2 is offline  
Old 07-05-2007, 02:02 PM
  #23  
P Zero
5th Gear Member
 
P Zero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,986
Default RE: edelbrock

TFS-R FTW!


But seriously, look at flow charts between AFR 185's and the high ports..... the high ports, while being a "dated" head, still outflow them throughout the curve, the AFR start to flow more only .600+
So whats better???

P Zero is offline  
Old 07-05-2007, 02:07 PM
  #24  
AdderMk2
Banned
 
AdderMk2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
Default RE: edelbrock

you are comparing two completely different heads... 185 and 192cc...

RHS 180cc heads outflow AFR 185's...

saying that 192cc heads outflow a 185 is like saying afr 165's outflow E7.... DUH!!!!

but it doesnt have to do with flow at 28 in/hg, it has to do with port cross section, port velocity, fuel mixing.... many other factors
AdderMk2 is offline  
Old 07-05-2007, 02:13 PM
  #25  
P Zero
5th Gear Member
 
P Zero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,986
Default RE: edelbrock

Very true......Thats why Im not going to use them. I was thinkin at first of going with the 2.08 canfields.....But then I came to my senses and realized they wouldnt be so good for a mainly street car. Vacuum would be a big issue at low rpm's. Even with my ported GT-40's I have to have my idle at 1000 just so it wont die at lights and what not. And once I hit the brakes, it draws what little vacuum it had and it just dies[:@]. Still lov my carbs though
-P.
P Zero is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tramphardrocker
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
6
09-13-2015 08:56 PM
YoungStangsMan
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
15
09-05-2015 07:01 PM
dochawk
Classic Mustang General Discussion
7
08-25-2015 08:25 AM
Philhampton1
Classic Mustangs (Tech)
3
08-21-2015 12:04 PM
dfw692
5.0L (1979-1995) Mustang
4
08-07-2015 11:53 PM



Quick Reply: edelbrock



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 AM.