C4VetteLS1

Well after all the good things ive seen with AFR's on the dyno this last week. I was kinda disappointed at the results of a nice mild 01 Z06 of a customers.


Before: 01 Z06, Kooks Headers, Haltech Intake, HS 1.8 Rockers, Comp 220/224 XE (not XE-R) .530 @ 114 camshaft, ls1edit tuning, TEA 1.5 LS1 Heads, non-milled, tuned to 12.8-13.0 A/F 24-25 degrees timing

420 rwhp, 385 rwtq

After: 224/228 XE-R AFR Recommended "Package" camshaft, AFR 205CC same CC compression as the TEA heads, Torco Fuel additive, 27 degree timing, tuned to 13.8-14.0 A/F (At same timing and a/f 10 less rwhp and less tq)

426 rwhp, 391 rwtq. (At the same a/f and timing its less peak horsepower than the TEA's!

Im guessing with just a head swap we would have lost approx 10-15 (approx 405-410)

We had a 496 SAE AFR 205cc car on here earlier this week (check my other posts). And we can see the most of the difference must be in all the little boltons (definatly pricey)


Well when you go through everything and add up the possible horsepower gains you could have with more bolt ons, of course we could pick up more horsepower peak.

I personally think a full heads cam with every bolt on will make just as much if not more HP than AFR 205's...but the 205's are great heads with good potential..but anyone wanting to make real power above TEA, Absolute, ET Performance heads needs to goto the TEA 238cc AFR's or AFR's new 225cc head.

SlickVert

iTrader: (5)

That don't make sense. Big difference between 426hp and 496hp. I don't think that there is that many bolt-ons.
What compression is this car?
I agree with you that the AFR 225 should be the ticket with a 11.1 compression.

Phil99vette

iTrader: (11)

The 496 car had a forged bottom end. Did anyone do a leakdown or compression test to see the differences between the 2 cars? Cartek has done a few re-ring procedures and have picked up significant HP.
Phil

jimmyblue

iTrader: (11)

Why the combination of lean A/F and Torco, vs
just "good ole 13:1"? Would you have made more
power by staying at 13:1 and jacking the timing
to "whatever doesn't quite ping"?

How can you distinguish the head effects from
the cam profile, cam timing? I think that makes
any conclusion kind of "muddy".

VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Interesting...

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

That is a good question Phil and the answer is no. The car he is talking about is mine. It runs great with no problems. Anyone that has driven a 430 rwhp stick car knows that is is a riot to drive. I just expected more from the AFR heads and bigger cam. The TEA heads were 61 cc and the AFR's were milled to the same. With the tune in the car it made abou the same power. We leaned it down and it seemed to like it. My AF's are around 13.5 now. I also tried adding a little timing and it did not like that. I guess my observation would have to be that the out of the box AFR heads are about equal to the TEA 1.5 heads. I do like the 224/228 xer cam because it has nicer idle quality and power to 6800 were the old cam nosed over at 6500. Don't take this post as a Bash of the AFR head. I know the casting is a better quality than the stock head and for out of the box they are awsome. I will consult with Tony and see if he has any suggestions that don't include spending thousands of more dollars on bolt ons.

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

Jimmy, I intend to play with the AF's and timing still. I need to get the local shop to donate some dyno time for testing. I am hoping to squeeze out some more power from tuning. Even if I don't the thing runs like a raped ape with lots of power from 2000 to 6800.

Phil99vette

iTrader: (11)

I would be very interested in testing....
1) Cranking Compression on both cars
2) Leakdown test on both cars

Are the before heads 5.7 or 5.3? If they are non-milled what size combustion chamber? Seems like there is some info we're missing...

Is this car running the stock intake and TB? Stock Exhaust? Pulley?

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

I would think the fact of the matter would be that he swapped to what was reccomended, which happened to be bigger and more aggressive, and still didn't gain anything over his old "mild cam" set-up. I just don't see how the conclusion could be muddy. He went with a package that was supposed to be proven, and did not gain. Just adding the new cam to the old heads would have yielded better results than he got with the heads/cam.

Phil99vette

iTrader: (11)

Thinking deeper into this combo, the throttle body/intake and exhaust are definite bottlenecks compared to other setups...

How did you get 61cc's from non-milled heads?

JakeFusion

iTrader: (7)

Hmm, even if the peak was craptacular, how was the power under the curve? Did it gain down low or in the midrange on the TEAs, even with the bigger cam?

JakeFusion

iTrader: (7)

I'm guessing 5.3L heads...

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

Good observasion Beast. The fact is that the only thing that was changed was the heads and cam. No pulley before or after. TEA heads 61 cc AFR heads 61 CC. The cam specs at the beginning of the post. I gained basically 10 HP from the head/cam change. There may be a few more with tuning. Same stock Z06 intake on old and new package.

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

The TEA's were 5.3's at 61 cc. The AFR's are 61 cc. I know the AFR's were milled to get there but not sure if the TEA's were milled or not but I did have them CC'd to verify. The care has Kooks 1 3/4 headers with cats.

C4VetteLS1

None of this takes away from the fact a AFR 205cc car made 490+ rwhp...but i think the TEA 1.5 heads have a bit more power potential

Youd be suprised. If you throw another 8k bucks at it, you can make 490+ with the TEA 1.5's as well.

1) FAST 90MM & 90MM TB (approx 20rwhp)
2) Underdrive pulley (5-7 rwhp)
3) Elec WP (0-5 rwhp)
4) LG $2100+ longtubes for C5's (5-10 rwhp)
5) Aftermarket catback from factory Titanium Z06 (5 rwhp dyno proven but 20 lbs heavier)
6) 11.5:1 from 11:1 (5-10 rwhp?)
7) 235-245 duration 600+ lift cam on a 111 lsa (est 15-25 rwhp)
8) 496 rwhp was done on 17" wheels that made 10 more rwhp than the stock 18's from 5 lbs per wheel lighter)
9) Comp Shaft roller rockers (5-10?? rwhp), I believe they also changed from the factory valve in the 496 rwhp afr car and it has the lighter comp 921 springs instead of the springs that come with standard AFR's, also comp r lifters etc
10) Port matched FAST 90 intake



So yes id bet on the TEA 1.5 car being able to make 490 rwhp.

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

Ther is no significant change in the power curve. I dont have a way to post the graph but maby C4vettels1 can post the graph of old setup vs new setup. Both setups make great low end power and have awsome drivability.

C4VetteLS1

The power curve and torque curve gain very little. And it was pretty uniform compared to the before results. A no-torco pump gas tune with the AFR's with the bigger cam results in less power than the TEA's produced.

I think the AFR's are great heads...they are a great casting and make great power. It just takes a shop to do a badass port job to make more power. There arent many shops in the country that can do a better port job than AFR's stuff...

Phil99vette

iTrader: (11)

Malibu Vette,
Can you pull the #1 plug and do a compression test? I'd love to see the #s even if they are on only 1 cylinder.
Phil

C4VetteLS1

He will be out of town till the weekend..ill see if hes up for it next week or so.

I think id really like to do some dyno comparisons with AFR's on my TEA Stage 2 ls1 headed 408" in my personal car soon as i get these PCM problems worked out.

Grant B

C4Vette,

Have you noticed certain heads needing more timing than others? I have heard 5.3s need more timing than LS6s, and was wondering about the AFRs.

How far apart did these dynos take place? Does the car trap any differently with the AFRs?