MYBLKSS

iTrader: (1)

I would like to know the size of tea's intake port?

HumpinSS

iTrader: (1)

If you allready have a set of ported LS1/LS6 heads Tony has said time and time agian you prolly wont gain too much by going with the 205's and you should be looking to get the 225's all things being equal. Pdd was having some of the same issues outlined in this thread and he is going back to re-do his setup paying attention to details such as quench height, flycutting, milling and some other minor details that were missed when he went from his patriots (IIRC) to his 205 afr's

CHRISPY

Couple of questions:

What springs? (Springs need to be much more aggressive for the XE-R lobes versus the lobe you used previously)

Why the super lean AF and fuel additive? Both are absolutely unnecessary imo. That car will run 14:1 plus on the street at WOT. (not good)

Were the heads milled and what exhaust is on the car?

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Hey Guys...

A few things come to mind reading this thread...

First and foremost, I have never compared two different products with the same "tune". They are two different products and it makes perfect sense that they would require two completely different tunes. That just looks like a "spin" on the results to make the TEA headed combination look better. Also, the title of your post seems a bit mis-leading and perhaps "biased" as well based on the actual finished results. I recently backed to back some "parts" on my own car about 6 months ago...(what they are is irrelevant), and initially with the same "tune" the original parts made more power on the chassis dyno....after tuning properly for the new parts, the end results were completely different. The fact the baseine of the new parts with the "old" tune initially showed lower results was absolutely meaningless.

I will touch back on the "tune" later.

I have a few questions....

The cam in the TEA headed combination had 1.8 rockers....What was the rocker ratio of the AFR headed combination?

Was the AFR cam degreed to check it's actual installed position or simply slid in the motor?

Also, I know this is splitting hairs, but I have good information confirming the 205 heads on the car in question were milled .025 which would normally have them arrive at 62 cc's finished volume. Were both chambers actually checked confirming there displacement?

Lastly, the fact that the AFR headed car liked a leaner A/F ratio to generate the most power (as most AFR 205 cars seem to like) is not a surprise to me. My car as well as others have exhibited the exact same results. The AFR 205 is an extremely high flowing efficient port design and requires less fuel to produce more energy. That is one of the factors which helps it knock down 2+ MPG better than even a stock untouched LS6 casting. While some of you out there could care less about their fuel economy, I think it is certainly a nice "perk" to have along with added power and better casting integrity.

One more thing....I would be VERY surprised if an "experienced" tuner of AFR headed cars coudn't find an additional 5-10 RWHP in this exact same combination. In fact, AFR would foot the bill of the tuning/dyno time if the car didn't exhibit at least 5 more RWHP than where it baselined when you rolled in the door. You would only foot the bill if you ended up leaving with 6 or more HP to the tire. I'm betting there's 10 hiding in there waiting to be unlocked. (By the way Don, that is my suggestion to you that can pick your car up a bit more without costing you "thousands" of dollars).

I think the jury is still out on this "comparison" and I'm fairly confident that the newer 205 headed combination has not been tapped to it's full potential.

Tony Mamo
AFR Sales / Product Design

PS Don, contact me at AFR if you are entertaining our offer on the dyno/tuning time. Also, even at current levels, how is the SOTP of both combinations?....just curious.

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

Hi Tony,
I hope you and everyone else reads this not as bashing. I did not start the thread and am sorry that it was written with the title that way. The SOTP is awsome. I expect good track times on the 4th. I also stated that I think there is more to be had in tuning. I was hoping for a little more but am not displeased. I would have had an Underdrive pulley installed, but the installation shop did not have one in stock when they did the cam. Tony is also VERY up front about the fact that we should not expect huge gains from a ported head to the 205. The old combo had 1.8's. The new combo currently has 1.7 stock rockers. I will be installing good 1.7's soon. Tony, what do you think about the Comp 1.75 Rockers? I really like those rockers from my 23 degree days, but the 1.75 I am not sure of. I will call in the next day or two and get some tuning ideas. I have done all of my own tuning in the past, but am quick to admit that I am no guru. If we can squeeze another 10 rwhp out of the combo with no water pump, under drive, or intake, I think a 440 rwhp out of a very smooth idling car (that the wife can drive now) and gets 27+ mpg is awsome! Lets all get off of the AFR bashing and get on the these cars are cool train. I posted before that anybody that has driven a 3100 lb car that makes 430 rwhp knows that it is a blast to drive.

C4VetteLS1

Tony in relation to your reply. Which was completely expected, and we actually could name every point you were going to make about why it didnt perform better before you actually posted it...

1) The first paragraph of your post relates to the tuning. I think you misread the info, the car isnt on the same tune before and after. The car was tuned for the TEA's, then completely retuned for the AFR heads afterward. Im a very experienced tuner, and almost any car can be tuned to the ragged edge to make an additional 5-10 rwhp, but thats not an acceptable and reasonable tune in most instances for street driving. Tuning cars to 14:1 a/f's with a ton of timing in them makes dyno #'s but isnt the best idea for street driving. Noone in thier right mind would tune a car to a 14:1 a/f for 91 octane with 28 degrees of timing in it. On a 100+ degree day, the car is going to detontate its *** off. So yes, there is a few more HP in tuning, but mostly due to the fact that the Torco fuel additive in the car allowing a more aggressive tune without detonation. But i commonly see cars that dont ping on the dyno, but the moment you put them on the street and they have a real load on them, they ping like crazy on the street.

2) The cam was installed correctly and by professionals, no doubt here

3) The TEA heads will fully CC'ed and all compression and combustion chamber #'s are accurate

4) The bet on the dyno tuning bill is really not valid in any respects. You tune a car on my dyno here at our elevation etc, then take it to LAPD or A&A, your going to be able to retune it and pickup power. I'll bet you that same bill, you send me the cable to Dennis P's Z06 and tune the car at LAPD or A&A, then here in his hometown, let me retune the car here, I can pick up 6 rwhp here on my tune. So apples to apples. I can understand you making sure there was no small issues that could cause the car to be on power, but the answer is clear

AFR 205's are great heads, but a fully ported 220-230cc ls1 head can make as much or possibly more power. You havent dynoed a car before/after, we did. Im still a huge AFR fan, but its just a comparison with some results, dont take this like anyone is bashing anything.

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

Depends on which ones you get. There Judson Port has a 228cc runner on the 2.5's and the 3's are 238cc's.

John B

iTrader: (10)

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call BS on this comparison. Let's get serious here for a minute....how can you compare two cylinder heads against each other when the camshafts were changed at the same time? This is absolutely foolish to try and draw any conclusion here other than the fact that the "AFR combo" does in fact make more power than the "old TEA 1.5 combo". You've made absolutely zero case for convicing anyone that the TEA 1.5 head is holding it's own against the AFR 205 since you never compared them back to back under the same test conditons!

C4VetteLS1

The reply above is the typical response from someone who had no experience with this stuff whatsoever. You call BS based on nothing. Please dont misguide people to follow baseless comments like that. I love the new AFR stuff, its just very clear its about dead comparable. But all in all the bigger port TEA stg 1.5-2 head will make more power on a big cube motor. I cant wait to see the new AFR 225's though, they should be very badass.

At best your saying the AFR's should of make alot less HP cause it was given the benefit of the AFR recommended larger camshaft (224/228 XER vs the old 220/224 XE cam)

2nd before/after comparison, TEA Stg 2 Heads vs AFR 205's
TEA themselves did the head swap. They did nothing other than change heads, the difference was 2-3 hp and a couple lbs of torque after tuning.
Any questions or verification, call TEA, Brian T can verify

John B

iTrader: (10)

Really, I'm not going to get in a pissing contest here because you obviously are unaware of my credentials. My whole point, which you obviously missed, was that you cannot compare two sets of cylinder heads without doing a back to back test with all other variables being equal....camshaft, rocker ratio, head gasket thickness, dynoed within the same day on the same dyno, etc. Once these variables change, the test results are no longer valid and in this case they are apples and oranges.

I am neither a TEA basher or an AFR promotor at this point so I'm not trying to make a case for either of these products....I just want people that read this post to come to the correct conlcusions about how to compare products.

Worm

iTrader: (2)

The TEA numbers were probably a while ago when the motor was alot fresher. JMO.

C4VetteLS1

The TEA rwhp results were one week previous on the same dyno.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

If I might add another couple of cents as well....

Your claims of a "smaller cam" are somewhat bogus. The 1.8 rocker ratio gives the smaller cam increased effective duration numbers across the entire spectrum, more lobe "intensity", and higher lift....when the smoke clears, all of these factors basically negate the whole small cam/big cam argument.

Secondly, I question the whole same compression argument as well we now know the AFR heads were 62 cc, not 61 cc as originally claimed, and for that matter we don't really know whether the original heads were "actually" 61 cc....maybe they were 59 or 60.

Also, you claim you degreed the cam....I'm curious as to the "ICL" as well as the piston to valve clearance on both intake and exhaust.

Lastly, with NO other tuning changes (yet) I heard thru the grapevine Don's car just put down 428 HP / 395 TQ further spreading the gap between his original combination.

I'm confident when the smoke clears, this car will easily be in the mid 430's and over 400 ft/lbs of torque....would that be enough of a gain over a set of already ported factory castings that actually warrants some recognition??

And yes, as someone conveniently pointed out for me earlier, if your looking for "sizable" peak power gains over a set of factory ported castings already on your car, you need to step into the AFR 225's which have the potential to step up the program even more. In most of our own independant dyno testing, the 205's have been worth 10-15 more HP over a decent set of "Stg II" ported factory castings (With the other added benefits always assiciated with the 205's....part throttle response, fuel economy gains, and all the benefits of the stronger, heavy duty castings).

Tony M.

Malibu Vette

iTrader: (1)

Tony,
I will be on my cell driving across the desert this afternoon. I believe Dennis gave you my cell number. Give me a call if you would like. If you look at all of my posts in this thread that I did not start I have stated that the car runs great and have also stated that I agree there is more left in tuning. Talk to you soon.

Don

C4VetteLS1

Tony: Posting any more on the topic is pointless..as we will just be refuting each other back and forth. Your claiming 10-15 hp gain over a TEA Stg 2 head, but have never dyno tested this exact combo. But when we dyno a before after and dont gain the HP then its not valid. Im sorry we couldnt fit all your conditions on what you consider a valid before/after test.


So at this point i consider this conversation not serving the LS1 community to benefit from these results. I conclude from my personal testing that the TEA Stg 2's are slightly better than the AFR 205. And I cant wait to see the AFR 225's as i think they will make great horsepower.

Worm

iTrader: (2)

I stand corrected, seems like its all about the combo not the heads

BrentB@TEA

Your right... The TEA head made as much power with less camshaft,a fatter fuel curve and less timing. (rocker arm difference noted) I will have some back to back same test conditions numbers as soon as our AFR heads come in.
I also agree it is not an apples to apples comparrison. I don't think it is fair to compare a 1550.00 dollar head to a 2200.00 head.
The advantage the AFR head offers is a thicker deck that should prove more durrable than a stock casting when power adders are used. The 5.3 advanatge is for the cost you can buy the 5.3s and almost get a fast 90 intake to go with them for the same price as just the AFR heads.
We have found the flow numbers to be pretty close untill around .550 lift when our 5.3 heads are still pulling hard and the AFR seems to be laying down.

matts22

iTrader: (2)

How do you think the newer 5.3L heads will compare to the AFR 62cc 225's throughout the power range and flow chart? Assuming they were both decked (and pistons flycut with AFRs) and had the SAME compression? PM me if you want, but I would really like to hear your thoughts on this. For N/A power, I don't know what to go with. Thanks.

SideStep