Good Heads For My Setup
07-07-2008, 08:30 PM
#41
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
RE: Good Heads For My Setup
ORIGINAL: Joel5.0
Wouldn't a more aggressive camshaft be a "band-aid" for smaller heads? ..... isn't that "band-aid" you mention above what the OEM is currently doing, increasing performance while complying with emissions standards?
So I guess a street 306 with way too big 210cc Vic Jr.'s with a carb, A/C and all accessories, custom cam, making 20+ MPG and 11.31 ET's is a
then......... 
..... and how bigger would one be over the other?
Wouldn't a more aggressive camshaft be a "band-aid" for smaller heads? ..... isn't that "band-aid" you mention above what the OEM is currently doing, increasing performance while complying with emissions standards?
So I guess a street 306 with way too big 210cc Vic Jr.'s with a carb, A/C and all accessories, custom cam, making 20+ MPG and 11.31 ET's is a
then......... ..... and how bigger would one be over the other?Who said 210 cc Vic. Jr's are way to big?
Many compare runner volume and do not think about the length from port entrance to port exit in relation to the port volume, nor do they consider the MCSA.
What about the Ls1/Ls6 cylinder heads ("large heads"/OEM example) at ~ 200 cubic centimeters. Since the MCSA is around 2.00" (smaller than a TFS 170 head and not far from the AFR 165 either) and the runner length centerline is 1/4-1/2" longer than a typical 5.0L stock port location style head, suddenly the head is much smaller than many people realize, because, like you they judged head size by runner volume.
You know better than this!
E.T.'s...blah! Way to many factors there.
I would listen to Darin Morgan, before anyone here, no offense. I am sure you understand.
07-07-2008, 08:33 PM
#42
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 798
RE: Good Heads For My Setup
ORIGINAL: FullAuto
I've never heard of the camshaft being a "band-aid" for a large(r) induction system. My sympathy goes out to thosewho actually believe that crap.
The Canfield 195, AFR 185 and TFS TW 170 are all very close in size. You can't compare simply using runner cc.
I've never heard of the camshaft being a "band-aid" for a large(r) induction system. My sympathy goes out to thosewho actually believe that crap.
The Canfield 195, AFR 185 and TFS TW 170 are all very close in size. You can't compare simply using runner cc.
As for the bold, that could go for much of the chat in this thread.
Out of the thread now.
Good Luck guys!
07-07-2008, 11:32 PM
#43
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Puerto Rico
Posts: 3,926
RE: Good Heads For My Setup
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
Yes it could be as well, but I am not talking about GT-40's, ported E7's, or the like.
Who said 210 cc Vic. Jr's are way to big?
Many compare runner volume and do not think about the length from port entrance to port exit in relation to the port volume, nor do they consider the MCSA.
What about the Ls1/Ls6 cylinder heads ("large heads"/OEM example) at ~ 200 cubic centimeters. Since the MCSA is around 2.00" (smaller than a TFS 170 head and not far from the AFR 165 either) and the runner length centerline is 1/4-1/2" longer than a typical 5.0L stock port location style head, suddenly the head is much smaller than many people realize, because, like you they judged head size by runner volume.
You know better than this!
E.T.'s...blah! Way to many factors there.
I would listen to Darin Morgan, before anyone here, no offense. I am sure you understand.
Yes it could be as well, but I am not talking about GT-40's, ported E7's, or the like.
Who said 210 cc Vic. Jr's are way to big?
Many compare runner volume and do not think about the length from port entrance to port exit in relation to the port volume, nor do they consider the MCSA.
What about the Ls1/Ls6 cylinder heads ("large heads"/OEM example) at ~ 200 cubic centimeters. Since the MCSA is around 2.00" (smaller than a TFS 170 head and not far from the AFR 165 either) and the runner length centerline is 1/4-1/2" longer than a typical 5.0L stock port location style head, suddenly the head is much smaller than many people realize, because, like you they judged head size by runner volume.
You know better than this!
E.T.'s...blah! Way to many factors there.
I would listen to Darin Morgan, before anyone here, no offense. I am sure you understand.
ORIGINAL: 5spd GT
This all depends on the RPM range and goals wanted. They very well could be "too big." There is no need to band-aid a large induction system with a camshaft. Match it up and go have fun!
In the words of Darin Morgan, it is better to have a a cylinder head on the small size, than on the big size.
A TFS 185 cc is a larger cylinder head than most people are aware of. It is a good one as well...
I am an AFR guy, for a couple reasons that I have listed before.
ORIGINAL: Joel5.0
Canfield 195's or TFS 185's are not too big for a 302 however, if you're "stuck" with the B-303........they are. Any of the two heads mentioned would work great in a 302, but they need the correct valve events (= camshaft & valve train) to optimize their use in a 302... talking street use here as well.
Canfield 195's or TFS 185's are not too big for a 302 however, if you're "stuck" with the B-303........they are. Any of the two heads mentioned would work great in a 302, but they need the correct valve events (= camshaft & valve train) to optimize their use in a 302... talking street use here as well.
In the words of Darin Morgan, it is better to have a a cylinder head on the small size, than on the big size.
A TFS 185 cc is a larger cylinder head than most people are aware of. It is a good one as well...
I am an AFR guy, for a couple reasons that I have listed before.
Yep....way too many factors for ET's..... heads and correct cam included.
I am an open minded guy, for a couple of reasons.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Boostaddict
Lethal Performance
2
09-08-2015 09:56 PM
