Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Thats the good news....

The bad news is that anyone placing an order won't see them till early / mid December (shortage of LS1 castings which have effected the entire product line).

Lets get back to the good news....I think these heads will rock on a 346/383/395 aggressively cammed small bore set-up.

This is NOT the small chamber 225's BTW (which will still have the larger 4.100 chamber bore diameter), more of a marriage we have created by combining the 205 chamber design and the larger ports of the 225 cc heads we offer.

Here are the specs and flow information.

Chamber size out of the box, unmilled, is 65 cc's (more good news....I just flowtested one milled to 60 cc's and the flow was very much still intact....a loss of a CFM or two at a few lift points and the head still pulled clean at .650 where its maximum intake flow was achieved).


Intake Flow (28" on a 3.900 bore)

.200.....300.....400.....500.....550.....600.....6 50

142......206.....252.....290.....304.....312.....3 17


Exhaust Flow (28" on a 3.900 bore utilizing a curved 1.875 pipe)

.200.....300.....400.....500.....550.....600.....6 50

117......170.....205.....225.....231.....236.....2 40

All in all, excellent numbers and a beautiful flow curve for a medium sized head tested with the handicap of the smaller bore fixture. IMO, this head should work extremely well in some of the more aggressive, larger cammed applications that seem to be becoming more popular on this board. Sorry I can't provide you with dyno results at this time, but based on everything I have seen so far, I'm sure the results that start to rollout in the next few months will be very positive (this head would be perfect for my current 383 combo)....if I do get involved with some testing I will obviously share the results shortly thereafter, but I'm confident these heads will deliver. My guess is they will be stronger than our 205's at higher RPM's in larger displacement, and aggressive stock cube packages (obviously giving up some part throttle torque, fuel economy, and overall lower RPM grunt the 205's would have enhanced....which BTW are still a better choice for a true "dual purpose" car).

Feel free to call AFR and speak to myself or any one of our Sales Techs if you would like more information.

Thanks guys....

Tony M.
(818)890-0616 Ext. 109

AINT SKEERED

iTrader: (2)

What valve will be in this head?

gollum

iTrader: (1)

Titanium intakes and hollow sodium filled exhausts of course.

AINT SKEERED

iTrader: (2)

Ok let me reword this, what size valves will be in these heads.

DanO

So this would work well with a thunder racing TRak cam on a stock bottom end?

Ragtop 99

iTrader: (7)

Tony:
Would the use of the high lift LSK lobes influence your selection of heads (205 v. 225) for someone running a medium cam, say between 0 and 6* overalp at .05?

J&J Speed Shop

iTrader: (8)

Interesting question, my guess would be 2.08 & 1.60. Tony any plans on a larger CC head in the future. I have a few customers interested in big cube turbo engines

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

More great choices for the LS1 enthusiast. Competition sure is a great thing. The consumer wins!

uberLS-1

How's the P/V compared to the current 205/225's?

gollum

iTrader: (1)

Tony, Just guessing, how much more power would these heads make over the 205AFR 383ci you just finished testing.

SideStep

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Hey Guys...

Let me address Ragtop's question first. A small bore engine with LSK lobes would be more of a natural fit for this head because of the cleaner and higher flow this head provides at .550-.650 lift.

Regarding valve sizing they are no different than our 225's which would be 2.080 intake and 1.600 on the exhaust, and before anyone jumps on the bandwagon that a 2.080 valve "doesn't work" on a stock bore, the low and mid lift numbers don't lie and all things considered they are pretty good.

The new AFR PN for these heads are 1660....once again to reiterate, the stock chamber volume on these heads will come in at 65cc's.....Low 60's or even mid/high 50's can be achieved by simply performing the proper flatmill.

As far as my 383 is concerned, I did feature the larger bore/chamber 225's milled down to 65 cc's (slightly more than we recommend) and they showed a slight improvement over the 205's on the dyno, but my thinking is that this head might have been better suited as it pulls cleaner with a little more airflow at the higher lifts, especially considering the fact I had a .650 ish solid roller set-up, but of course the head I tested (a milled 72 cc version) does have better low-lift flow, even on the small bore, so whether the gains on peak flow would have offset the losses in low and midlift flow is anybody's guess. I'm thinking it might have liked the new head slightly better though. Where the new head becomes a no brainer is when you are looking for something with all that flow, your running a small bore combination (stock or otherwise), and need a chamber volume close to 60 cc's or smaller. One of the better aspects of the results I have witnessed in the last few days is the fact the mill didnt seriously hurt the airflow potential of the cylinder head. Very bonus to say the least.

Catch up with you guys soon I'm sure...

Tony M.

The Juggernaut

iTrader: (7)

Hi..I am your rolling advertisement and promotion guy.

Derek98z

iTrader: (55)

very interesting

xfactor_pitbulls

iTrader: (16)

Isnt this what I said back in July?


07-25-2005, 10:47 AM #7
Tony Mamo @ AFR
LS1TECH Sponsor




Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 626
Trader Rating: (0) Quote:
Originally Posted by xfactor_pitbulls
Something I am curious about and never heard it addressed. The 205 and 225 both start out as the same casting. Well you have a small chamber program for the 205 and the larger runner program for the 225, you couldnt crank that combo out? Obviously the smaller chamber is for a smaller valve size, BUT the right seat cutter will deshrough the chamber for the larger valve and the rest can be hand blended. Is that too far off base?

Brandon


Wishful thinking but the results of that type of approach wouldn't come close to what we will ultimately release. A premium product won't produce premium results if we take shortcuts in it's execution. While it is painfully obvious we are losing sales by not having them complete already, more sales would be lost in the long run if we compromised the quality of the product in question just so we could release it early....

Hopefully soon guys....

Tony M.
__________________
Tony "Morpheus" Mamo invites you to take the Blue Pill...welcome to the "real world"

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Good catch Brandon. Are you looking for a royalty check now?

They say necessity is the mother of invention. The small bore 225s should outsell the 205s 2 to 1 in a short time I predict. The market is there...sounds like AFR has found a quicker way to give the public what they're looking for. If they got the idea from you, we should all extend a warm round of applause to you. Good job.

Patrick

xfactor_pitbulls

iTrader: (16)

Patrick, by no means am I looking for any manor of credit. Its just kinda funny that they ended up doing what Tony scoffed at.

Brandon

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

"Scoffed" seems a bit harsh....LOL

Admitidly, I probably could have worded my response a little better had I given it more thought at the time....didnt mean to offend you assuming I did.

Just to try and clarify things, the un-released as of yet larger bore 225's will have stronger low and midlift flow numbers (even on a small bore), but might (and probably won't) flow as much upstairs as the smaller bore version we are releasing now which better mates up with the engine's smaller bore diameter. The question is, and still remains, which is worth more (low lift gains or better peak numbers), and our guess is that an aggresive cam with a lot of lift and duration will probably take good advantage of the higher peak flow the new small chamber heads provide on a small bore engine combination.

BUT....(there's always a butt), this also assumes that the intake manifold isn't "lopping off" the extra peak flow, which might be a big assumption, and certainly enforces the need for a high flowing efficient intake manifold (FAST, single plane, sheet metal, etc.).

Regarding estimated power gains versus a current 205 it's once again anyone's guess. Factors such as the intake manifold for one might all but erase the extra flow, but we are hoping they prove to be worth around 10 HP better with an optimized set-up around that particular cylinder head. We have a few things in the works and we will all hopefully see dyno results from an A-B swap shortly after we release the new program.

Will keep you guys in the loop as we get a little closer to the results...should be interesting.

Thanks,
Tony

BLASTER

iTrader: (4)

Tony,

I apologize if you stated this in another thread but when will the 225 small chamber large bore heads be out? Good luck with these. If I didn't have future motor plans I would jump at them.

speedracer5532

iTrader: (8)

I saw these heads last Wednesday when I met with Tony, Tony's flow numbers don't lie. I feel this head might be better than the 225 large bore 62 cc, when used for a max effort 3.90 bore LS1. Keep up the great work Tony.