Joel5.0

How do you know that the AFRs could have a better exhaust port than the Canfields or TFS or TW or Brodix?

What is the cross section of the AFR 205 heads?

Marketing?.... Canfield?..... where?......all I see is AFR everywhere....... mention anything different to AFR, and it's a marketing scheme? Besides if " Canfields are good"....... what's wrong with that alternative?

To the OP......any of the alternatives (Canfield 195 or AFR 205) should be yours to choose from, but don't make the error we all see everyday (I used to do it as well, but not anymore)....... flow benches cannot race or perform at the track.

5spd GT

I understand your feelings and am with you Overkill. Well worded...

However, I believe we need to put this in a more realistic perspective. If we all posted questions and waited on the .001% of experts to reply to our post, not to many of us would be going any faster or having fun that we are right now.

Then you have to see who the information is coming from, because in the world of speed and power, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

I have not ever ran a Canfield heads on my ride. Never had the dough to try out different heads, like 99% of us. I have however installed a set and looked them over. Sharp looking heads and the intake port shape lookeddecent as well. They were the older 192cc heads on a 347 build. I prefered the AFR quality cut in the ports personally and overall quality.

The fact of the matter is, if noone posted because of the lack of experience with EVERY head and had P.H.D's like Blair, Heywood, et al, forums would be extremely boring.

Forums tend to have a self-correcting factor now-a-days.

We all, including myself, all seem to sale products, ideas, and methods. That is the fun of it...

We are comparing some really good quality heads. It is more like splitting hairs...

By the way, I want to clear up that I never said that the Canfield company itself was marketing their heads. No need to call out anyone, but anyone with a little intuitiveness knows what we are talking about.

Are Canfield heads the only ones being marketed? Of course not, we see this from AFR guys, Trickflow guys, and the professionals that sale them as well.

Now I did use real world data. I compared cross section, and combining that with the flow per square inch. We all know the piston speed, and we can just estimate rpm and goals. He is not building a Pure Street engine, so us enthusiasts can give him some assistance that he otherwise would not get, if he did not ask.

All in all, he has got some good options out there, right? Just a matter of which one he chooses...

Heck, throw some E7's on there[8D]

5spd GT

Hi Joel,

The AFR head appears to have a good looking exhaust port shape, and some nice flowing ports per square inch. This is just based off some good readings and some side by side comparison in person.

AFR 205's are right at 2.501 square inches.

Canfield does not market, but a few that sell them do. Same with the other head guys.

They are all some good heads.

OVERK|LL

I was implying that COMPARATIVE data should be left to the experts. You are comparing cross section and flow per inch. There is lots of other data there as well that we are both clueless about.

I'm not saying we should stop posting up head recommendation threads. But I think that the comparison stuff should be left out of it unless you've actually had the opportunity to compare them and provide data based on that. Does that make sense?

It is possible for an individual to give their positive (or negative) experience with a certain cylinder head and recommend/not recommend them based on that without providing 3rd party rhetoric about other heads, with which their experience is non existent or extremely limited; Limited enough to not be able to provide LEGITIMATE data.........

If everybody listened to the Internet Experts, we'd all be running AFR 165's with E cams and Cobra intakes right now.

5spd GT

I believe what many run is largely based on budget.

There is no need to display negative attitudes to an enthusiast that could not afford $1200 heads, or that had an intake that they wanted to work around, or a camshaft they got for $20. It is only bad when they state that an E7 head is going to perform better than an AFR 165 head.

Let us take an example:

Aluminum GT-40's used for $300, E303 camshaft for $75, and a Cobra intake taken for $200.

We now have spent $575, and we have seen combinations trap 104-106 mph fairly typical for an average build detailer.

Now take some new Trickflows for $1300, Custom camshaft for $400, and a Systemax II for $550.

We now have spent $2,250, and we have seen combinations trap 108-110 mph fairly typical for an average build detailer.

So what are the differences between each?

5 miles per hour and $1,675.

Is the gain worth the price? Yep, to some...

I am not sure why you included the AFR 165 heads as a bad example, as they have been quite consistent in beating the competition in similarly matched heads.

Using cross section and flow per inch comparisons is better than flow on cubic feet per minute alone.

What do you think?

Thanks for keeping this cool and calm Overkill...

OVERK|LL

Who said they were a bad example? I quoted a simple "Internet Expert Combo". Doesn't mean they are bad heads. But is it possible they'd work better with a different intake and a better cam? You bet your *** they will.

There are people who push and love the 20 year old Alphabet cams for no apparent reason.

There are people who think that the Cobra intake will work better than anything out there for no apparent reason other than that is simply their opinion.

There is a reason these things are called "combos", and certain "combos" work a hell of a lot better than others.

FWIW, Red Death trapped something in the neighbour hood of 120Mph with stock GT40 irons..... Again, it's all in the "combo", and that combo isn't limited to just the engine......

My junk, with the TFS #1, and ported irons, with 3.08's out back and a broken T5, went out the end at 106 in 3rd on the limiter for the last 1/4 of the track. That was it's only "real" pass with that old combo. And of course that was with an intake that the "internet Experts" ALL said was too damn big, and a throttle body that would make the car "undriveable" because it was "too big".

This is the tripe I'm alluding to.

I'm using a Cobra "style" (Explorer) intake on my yacht (Town Car) because it's long-runner design lends itself to low-end torque production; To move a 4,500lb car, that's a good thing! Again, the COMBO dictates the parts to be used. The "cookie cutter" approach as to how many define these combos is what makes poor performers and results in lack-lustre results.

5spd GT

As long as we all consider budget, we can all have fun with all the different combinations out there

Nice chatting with you Overkill...

Joel5.0

5spd..... the problem with the example you post above ($575 vs. $2,250) based on trap speed results (12.8 vs. 12.3 seconds in the 1320 ft.), throw in a lot of details that are required for the real evaluation of why the more expensive alternative didn't perform. To read elsewhere, that a SC was removed to solve a "tires spinning" issue, is likewise too generic and wrong.....but real!.......as an example.

By the same token, real data......there is a case of a NA SN95 w/AFR 165, E-303 cam, 4.10 gears, upgraded AODE transmission, 24# injectors, 65mm TB.... running 14.9s...... on the other side, a 1992 fox, NA, GT40 Explorer untouched heads, upgraded valve springs only, stock cam, upgraded AOD transmission, 4.10 gears, 19# injectors, 70mm TB.... running 13.8s (the AOD upgrade, he paid for with the prize money from his winnings in bracket racing competition).

Would the above cause I start saying AFR 165 are junk and do not perform over GT40 iron heads?......no f-way. I know that SN95 combo and suspension is fubar..... but I will not use that against the AFR 165's. I know budget, and you don't know how...... but the areas to really spend the dough (aside suspension)..... are heads, valve train and cam.

5spd GT

Yep, there are lots of factors out there

I was hoping that the above example would be taken literally, with all else being equal.

The point was to make that budget can sometimes limit selection. I was not intending to talk about combination potential, but just budget. I just did not make it clear enough.

Getting off the topic of budget, opens up a whole 'nother can of worms...

Joel5.0

That is my point...... you can't take it literally, because all else is NOT equal....... or optimized to the setup..... you cannot set an engine combo, and just change one item to conclude that item is at fault..... or that it performs worse based on those results....... if the "supporting cast" is not compatible with the change, it is wrong to conclude that the part in the "variable" role is the one at fault...... it's the combo what is important.

Budget can limit selection, but if those limitations extend over the obvious..... (ie. not do a valve springs upgrade for a cam upgrade)..... it becomes an exercise in oxymora....as an example.