Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Guys,

Im buried today (first day back from Holiday break) but the long and short of this story here is the heads are used and more importantly have been modified after leaving our facility as well.

We can only be expected to stand behind the workmanship that we produce....not what others do to the heads after they leave our facility.

Most cylinder head shops know the value of a good valve job as well as the downsides of a bad one not conducive to flow. A valvejob that works great on one type of head might work horrible on another and some dont work well on any head but we are getting off topic.

Its obvious looking at the "before" pics these heads have had a different valvejob installed after they left AFR....the telltale sign being the valve job on the exhaust which in the first picture in post 19 above, clearly has an angle below the 45' seat.

ALL exhaust valvejob profiles that leave this facility have a radius (not an angle) directly under the 45' seat on the exhaust side of every head we manufacture and look like this picture below. This is a 23' SBC head but the VJ profile is very similar to our Gen III LS exhaust.



This thread should be more of a buyer beware thread than a thread attempting to make an argument our heads don't flow as advertised. We haven't produced an AFR 225 head in 2-3 years.....this is obviously a used head that has been modified in a very key area that effects flow (valvejob is KEY in this department).

Guys....we stand behind our advertised flow figures and guarantee our heads flow within 2% of advertised. If any of you have an issue related to flow with a new head unmolested and in the exact condition we shipped it to you I assure you we will stand behind the product in the event you really have an issue....all we ask is to have the opportunity to evaluate the head here at our facility. We will even pay the freight both ways as well if there turns out to be a legitimate issue.

We are an honest company that takes a tremendous amount of pride in the product we produce and anyone fortunate enough to own a set can vouch for that.....the quality is shining thru on immediate inspection as soon as you slide it out of the box. What the casual observer might not see is all the time that went into designing the perfect valvejob that is more concentric than most of our competitors, the time invested in the most optimal port and valve shape.....a guide that is honed precisely to size and held to plus or minus .0002.....etc. etc.

What company is going to stand behind a used product that has obviously been altered? When you save some dough by purchasing used there are risks associated with that savings.....and thats just the way it is.

Happy New Years everyone.....and we appreciate the time some of you spent to chime in on our behalf.



Cheers,
Tony

KnightEngines

That's great & all Tony, no doubt these heads were a lot better when they left the factory than they were when they got here - but do you think the bastard of a valve job was hurting them that much? - or is it testing on a 4" bore that has hurt them?
I doubt testing on a 4" bore would kill flow that much, especially at lower lift where shrouding is likely to be much the same on the larger & smaller bores.

Methinks it's a combination of both the nasty valve job & the 4" bore used for testing - but that doesn't explain why they lay over so hard above .500" lift even after sorting the valve job.
I'll try a couple of different seat profiles, but I can't try many as I'm already deeper on the seats than I'd like.
What is the original valve job?
What do these heads flow on your bench on a 4" bore?

Those 2 bits of info will go a long way to helping me figure out just how good/bad they are & what needs to be done to sort them.

To me the SSR seems a bit abrupt & the floor & roof of the ports too concave & too large on the corner radii - which is focussing the airflow too heavily on the centre of the turn rather than spreading it as much as possible over the width of the turn.
I'm going to widen the turn, widen the window, reduce the corner radii, raise the roof a little on the bore wall side of the bowl, soften the turn & lay it back a tad, reduce the corner radii on the runners, thin & shorten the guide boss, reshape behind the boss & increase the throat to 90% - most of which is done in those pics.

I'll let you know how I go with it - I'd like to see 330+cfm at .600" lift from them as I've achieved that with factory 243 castings on a 4" bore.

TransAmcoupe98

iTrader: (10)

Best thing is for you to go direct with Tony @ AFR via PM, email, and or phone call and I guarantee he will try and help in whatever way he can at this point. It might not have been your intention to bash AFR or their products, but it did come off that way. Take a look at some of the responses from the other members. It could potentially scare people away from their products in the future. Just be cogniscent of how you are putting things in the threads because ALOT of people bank their decisions on feedback from other members.

10sec_rx7

huh??

good for people to see what can happen when buying parts..

lucky for me i have a guy that knows what he is doing when fixing things like this...

KnightEngines

Honestly, I'm not bashing AFR, I've used quite a few sets of their heads in the past with good results, although I usually do give them a light touch up by hand before I use them - no mass produced head is going to be spot on, the AFR stuff is the best CNC'd heads I've seen (had some Brodix BBC heads with CNC chambers & bowls in before Xmas - they were woefull compared to the accuracy of the AFR CNC work).

But I'm not sold on the port design of this particular head, to me it seems to have a lot of the shortfalls of factory castings & it would seem an opportunity was missed to iron out those problems.
No doubt the newer heads have those issues sorted, but it's been left to me to sort out the issues with this particular set of heads.

I prefer transperancy, I'd rather post in the open than via PM, I'd really like to know what these heads 'should' flow on a 4" bore & seeing as these heads were aimed at engines with 4" bores I don't reckon that's to much to ask.

TransAmcoupe98

iTrader: (10)

Negative, you bought a USED part, that was ALTERED by the previous owner. Again, I've been on the boards for a few years and this is the FIRST time anything negative has been said about an AFR product. It would be an entirely different argument if they were straight out of the box from AFR but you bought them used dude. You took a risk and sounded like you probably got burned.

Look at it this way...what seems like a more probable answer?

A. Whoever you bought the "used" heads from he screwed up the port work, valves, etc

B. AFR did not use proper procedure for Quality Conrtol

No one really has to defend AFR because their reputation speaks louder than anyone on this board but I'll stick up for him because I know what Mamo stands for and how he helped me and thousands of others on the board. Bottom lines is man, you bought a used set of cylinder heads from xxx who also ported or had them ported by xxx.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Exactly....good for people to see what can happen when buying USED UNQUALIFIED parts.

Not at all.....I already discussed what they routinely flowed on a 4.125 - 4.155 bore. On a 4" bore a 225 would still normally flow 320 CFM....the biggest difference is some of the low and midlift flow would be off and if anything it actually helped the port hang on longer past .600.....it actually liked the valve shrouding a little between .600 and .650 where on the large bore the head would peak at .600 and back up a little approaching .650 (it stayed flat with the smaller more shrouded bore).

Also, some of what your critiquing may really boost low and midlift flow and there is a certain design philosophy built into every product we produce. Most LS engines dont see more than .600 lift (or should I say at the time they were designed that was the case).....laying back a short turn for more peak flow (past .600) at the expense of 10-15 CFM from .200 - .400 (hypothetically) is a move we would have steered away from.

In regards to you question concerning valvejob my answer would be valvejob and the proper throat percentage related to that valvejob are two of the most important aspects of port design/development and if either one is wrong it can hurt you a great deal.

As delivered from AFR the 225 heads work well (far too many independent results to argue otherwise) and the new V2 230's work even better which superseded that product 2+ years ago.....this isn't a witch hunt debating an unproven products effectiveness.

OP....I am truly sorry the AFR used heads you bought didn't work out as well as you hoped but it sounds like your in good hands and on the road to getting where you wanted to be.

The real lesson to be learned here is buying used speed parts come with its fair share of risk....the more informed you can be the less likely you will get burned.

-Tony

KnightEngines

Edit - posted this before I saw Tony's last post, was not aimed at Tony

Mate, the heads have not been touched with a grinder, just the seats were recut badly, nothing else was touched, all the porting is as it left the AFR factory.

Not sure why you're getting all worked up about this, no-one is saying the heads were crap from AFR, just that they are not right now & that AFR's advertised figures are based on a 4.125" bore rather than the 4" bore the heads were made for - which seems odd.
I know big numbers sell heads & that AFR's competitors probably advertise figures for 4.125" bores - which would look bad for AFR to the layman if they were to advertise 4" bore figures. Most guys will just look at the numbers & fail to notice the bore size, 4" bore figures should be readily available for heads designed to be used with 4" bores.

I just want to know what they should flow on a 4" bore, nothing more, I'll sort it from there.

KnightEngines

Thanks, my last post was before yours came up.
Good point on the .600" lift thing - a lot guys still stay under .600" lift to avoid P/V clearance issues, so I get what you're saying - they are optimised for lower/mid lift.
The work I'm doing will definately push up the high lift numbers at the expense of low lift, but we're not staying under .600" lift, so thats cool.
Seeing as heads this size are aimed more at higher power engines are the new ones set up to flow past .600" - as that's where most guys these days will be heading, heads this big are more suited to built engines where P/V clearance issues are sorted with aftermarket pistons.

Dale bought the heads new, but they fell in to the hands of a butcher due to a little misshap, no-ones fault other than the butcher (who should be strung up for those seats).

Can you dig up the 4" bore full figures when you get a spare 5 minutes? - I'd appreciate it, having somehting to compare to is a good thing.

10sec_rx7

i dont know where you got it from that i brought used heads? i never said they were used when i got them...

i brough these brand new in the box from a Australian supplier 4 years ago,

ran 8.2 a few times., burnt a valve from a dodgy fuel pump, thats when the seats were recut by a local guy and the reciever groves also machined in the face of the heads

heads were put back on can ran 8.2 again.. at exactly the same MPH as before the valves were redone,

then changed the camshaft and turbo etc and then a few problems came around so the heads were sent to KnightEngines to get checked out..

so i dont know where you are getting the idea that i brought second hand heads...

soop

Is it common for a cylinder head to be flow tested on a bigger bore size then its advertised to be used with?

TransAmcoupe98

iTrader: (10)

My mistake, I must have not read your post clearly. However, the argument you and KnightEngines were strying to make is that AFR was at fault for some sort of quality control on the "particular" set of heads. I don't suppose there were any pictures of the heads as they were out of the box years ago? I'm not being obtuse or getting "worked up".

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

These heads are meant from anything with a 3.900 bore to a 4.155 bore and were used alot years ago on 4.125 bore 427 engines (very common).

Back in the day (2005) the 225 AFR heads were on the larger side regarding port volume and were aimed at large bore engines. We typically flow the heads on bore sizes representative of what they might be used on but there will always be larger and smaller bore engines they can be used on.

Unless you increase or decrease the bore dramatically, the effect on the flow curve is very minor but it can change the numbers a bit.....some lifts more effected than others. If your comparing flow data its simply more ideal if the information is garnered on the same or similar sized flow fixtures.

Hope this clears up your question....

BTW, here is a quote direct from the largest manufacturer of popular flowbench equipment (Brzezinski Fixtures). While I feel he downplays it a little more than necessary, if you flow a head on a reasonable sized bore for the head/application in question, it wont change the flow a great deal.

Removable Cylinders for Aluminum Flow Stand

How much does the bore size matter when flow testing?

It would be in our best interest to say that you need several different bore sizes to accurately flow test, let’s say, small-block chevy heads because when going from 4.030” to 4.155” it will make a “measurable” difference in the flow numbers.

Yes, we wish this was true because we could sell more Aluminum Cylinders and Sliders. Well, the truth is the flow numbers do not change when going from 4.030 to 4.155” bores in back-to-back tests. We have performed back-to-back tests on several different types of cylinder heads and we have not found a measurable, repeatable difference when the bore size is changed.

People are incorrect when they state that to accurately flow test you need to “exactly” reproduce the bore size on the motor. Through our testing we have found this to be incorrect.

Our recommendations: Purchase the most popular bore size for the heads and motors that you are building. If a head come into your shop that is used on larger or smaller bore, go ahead and flow test on the 4.030” bore fixture. This approach will give you accurate, repeatable data and will save you both time and money.

-Tony

sepsis

iTrader: (7)

Tony, you're a class act and AFR is a great company.

10sec_rx7

yes here are the pics as they were delivered















[imghttps://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/6729_253751700190_96214405190_8655055_1076132_n.jp g[/img]

KnightEngines

4" bore figures? surely the full figures are around somewhere.

butler

So the op wants to know if anyone has ever flowed afr 225's cause basically his head porter flowed them and he claims they come up short. Yet in the same thread he isn't trying to tarnish afr's reputation. Wow. Hey send your afr's to Tony and let him flow them to see if your head porter knows his business.

butler

Get a set and flow them.

10sec_rx7

i wanted inderpendent flow figures, you know figures that are not from the people making or selling them

but it appears that everyone just takes there word,

you wouldnt think it would be hard to get figures but it appears it is..

SirNemesis

Interesting. So you think the OP is intentionally trying to tarnish AFR's reputation by asking a question. As far as I can see, reputation will only be tarnished if the requested information cannot be supplied, or does match the OP's findings. Is that not reason enough to ask the question, or should we go on blissfully ignorant of an apparent problem?

You need to keep in mind that these heads were pulled off and checked because they were not performing as they should be.