Independent AFR 205 CNC Heads Results??
08-23-2004, 10:48 PM
#41
Tough Crowd...... Guys,
Don't have a lot of time right now...but what immediatly needs to be touched on is as follows:
How many of you have seen over an 87 HP improvement with just the addition of ANY camshaft less than 230 degrees and a set of ported factory castings?
Not that many....that's what I thought.
How many have been dissapointed and seen less than a 50 HP improvement with the same "Mods"?
Alot.....I see those kind of results posted all over this board and others with this face attached
DYNO's ARE BAROMETERS (As are flowbenches for that matter).....What's most pertinent is the before and after figures.
After speaking with the owner, it seemed what was most bothersome to him was the fact he thought our salestech "told him it would make 480".....not the fact he "only" picked up close to 90 HP with a heads/cam swap. I feel confident it was a mis-communication but in any event a small meeting was held afterhours at AFR instructing all of our tech people to "carefully" choose their words regarding expected or hopefull dyno results. (Our salestech was adamant that he told the customer that he had the "potential" to generate 480 HP but this is not the focus of this post....I just felt the need to clear up and explain both sides of that scenario)
The biggest thing that bothers me is all of you guys are missing the boat on the entire CONCEPT the 205's are based on. It was designed to be a great all around STREET head with the potential to improve fuel economy, reduce emissions, enhance throttle response and drivability, and still provide GREAT ALL AROUND POWER. Based on results we have compiled, I would be the first to admit that a 205 would probably show a 10-30 HP advantage over most "Stage II" ported castings, while still providing the other benefits noted above (in addition to the beefier casting quality). Documented in part of our emissions testing was the fact that the AFR equipped car produced 20+ additional RWHP, less emissions gases, and an increase in fuel efficiency of 1.5 MPG. This was over a bonestock Z06 with no other modifications whatsoever. Needless to say, we passed with flying colors...
As some others have pointed out....Is a swap to AFR 205's a "cost effective" move if you already have a good set of ported factory castings? NOOOOOO!!!
If you don't care about cost effectiveness will it help improve OVERALL PERFORMANCE....YEEEEES....In most cases I BELIEVE that to be true.
I have more to say but will save it for another day....the last thought I will leave you with is the engineering department is currently working on digitizing the new AFR 225.....In my opinion, the 225 will be the ultimate head for guys looking to make BIG power in a stock displacement shortblock (and of course you stroker guys as well) and put an even larger gap on most of the competition, our own 205's included. The 225 head will make a swap from ported fatcory castings a much more cost effective mod.
Now AFR will be on a level playing field as most ported factory castings are 230 cc's or greater.....NOW lets compare some notes, dyno sheets, and track times.....Is it next month yet?????
Till I have more to add or the next crisis arises....
Tony Mamo
Don't have a lot of time right now...but what immediatly needs to be touched on is as follows:
How many of you have seen over an 87 HP improvement with just the addition of ANY camshaft less than 230 degrees and a set of ported factory castings?
Not that many....that's what I thought.
How many have been dissapointed and seen less than a 50 HP improvement with the same "Mods"?
Alot.....I see those kind of results posted all over this board and others with this face attached
DYNO's ARE BAROMETERS (As are flowbenches for that matter).....What's most pertinent is the before and after figures.
After speaking with the owner, it seemed what was most bothersome to him was the fact he thought our salestech "told him it would make 480".....not the fact he "only" picked up close to 90 HP with a heads/cam swap. I feel confident it was a mis-communication but in any event a small meeting was held afterhours at AFR instructing all of our tech people to "carefully" choose their words regarding expected or hopefull dyno results. (Our salestech was adamant that he told the customer that he had the "potential" to generate 480 HP but this is not the focus of this post....I just felt the need to clear up and explain both sides of that scenario)
The biggest thing that bothers me is all of you guys are missing the boat on the entire CONCEPT the 205's are based on. It was designed to be a great all around STREET head with the potential to improve fuel economy, reduce emissions, enhance throttle response and drivability, and still provide GREAT ALL AROUND POWER. Based on results we have compiled, I would be the first to admit that a 205 would probably show a 10-30 HP advantage over most "Stage II" ported castings, while still providing the other benefits noted above (in addition to the beefier casting quality). Documented in part of our emissions testing was the fact that the AFR equipped car produced 20+ additional RWHP, less emissions gases, and an increase in fuel efficiency of 1.5 MPG. This was over a bonestock Z06 with no other modifications whatsoever. Needless to say, we passed with flying colors...
As some others have pointed out....Is a swap to AFR 205's a "cost effective" move if you already have a good set of ported factory castings? NOOOOOO!!!
If you don't care about cost effectiveness will it help improve OVERALL PERFORMANCE....YEEEEES....In most cases I BELIEVE that to be true.
I have more to say but will save it for another day....the last thought I will leave you with is the engineering department is currently working on digitizing the new AFR 225.....In my opinion, the 225 will be the ultimate head for guys looking to make BIG power in a stock displacement shortblock (and of course you stroker guys as well) and put an even larger gap on most of the competition, our own 205's included. The 225 head will make a swap from ported fatcory castings a much more cost effective mod.
Now AFR will be on a level playing field as most ported factory castings are 230 cc's or greater.....NOW lets compare some notes, dyno sheets, and track times.....Is it next month yet?????
Till I have more to add or the next crisis arises....
Tony Mamo
08-24-2004, 02:21 AM
#44
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
How many of you have seen over an 87 HP improvement with just the addition of ANY camshaft less than 230 degrees and a set of ported factory castings?
....LowNSlo also picked up similar gains as well with his TR 230 cam.That's just a few off the top of my head, but I know there's more.
08-24-2004, 02:59 AM
#45
TECH Fanatic
No bolt on comparison, but we did pick-up an additional 25rwtq vs. CNC'd LQ9 heads which is a great gain. Gains across the mid and low rpm's. vs the CNC LQ9's.
No top end rwhp data since I max'd out my blower at 6000rpm and need to upgrade to a T-Trim now.
No top end rwhp data since I max'd out my blower at 6000rpm and need to upgrade to a T-Trim now.
08-24-2004, 03:52 AM
#46
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: St Clairsville, Oh
Posts: 1,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
Guys,
Don't have a lot of time right now...but what immediatly needs to be touched on is as follows:
How many of you have seen over an 87 HP improvement with just the addition of ANY camshaft less than 230 degrees and a set of ported factory castings?
Not that many....that's what I thought.
Don't have a lot of time right now...but what immediatly needs to be touched on is as follows:
How many of you have seen over an 87 HP improvement with just the addition of ANY camshaft less than 230 degrees and a set of ported factory castings?
Not that many....that's what I thought.
I think what people dont unders stand is that you have to let the car breath. The more egresive you get with the cam the more you can take advantage of the heads. What happend is your salesman told the customers that he COULD make 480rwhp but he ended up 90RWHP off that is a lot of power but at the same time he sold him a small cam. If he had even broken the 430rwhp he most likely would have been happey. That is a lot of money to have spent to not have gotten what he paid for.
What i have to say to who ever buys AFR heads is to remember these are a set of head a great set of heads but they are not the key to every cam out there. You have to match your cam to your heads to get the power you want.
P.S. I know i cant spell worth a **** so dont say anything about it.
08-24-2004, 08:08 AM
#47
Hey Guys,
I talked with Tony Mamo last night for a bit and glad he came on here as kindly as he did. At least now the customer has made the numbers known and you all can see what his personal beef is. I still the the actual gains are very good, though the final numbers were not what he was supposedly told. That is between him and AFR. Like I mentioned previously, I just want to see if the 84RWHP gain is about right ot low itself, not the final numbers.
Also for what it is worth the cam is the same as what is in Tony Mamo's C5, a 224/228 XER I believe. Now whether or not this is a small cam is debateable here for sure. Personally a small cam to me is 212/216 or 216/220 on the lower lift lobes (.520-.535" lift). Medium cams are 220-224 duration XE lobes and large cams are 226 and up duration XE or 222 and up XER lobes. A lot of opinions on this since folks are now routinely using 228-232XER intaked cams and saying they are small when comparing them to 238-240XER intake duration cams. 228-240 and up XER cams are big no matter how you look at it.
There are a few things we are going to look at, but it does not include the heads at this time. We should also get a good idea on my dyno number status once we run her on another dyno before we do anything else. Later.
Mike Norris
I talked with Tony Mamo last night for a bit and glad he came on here as kindly as he did. At least now the customer has made the numbers known and you all can see what his personal beef is. I still the the actual gains are very good, though the final numbers were not what he was supposedly told. That is between him and AFR. Like I mentioned previously, I just want to see if the 84RWHP gain is about right ot low itself, not the final numbers.
Also for what it is worth the cam is the same as what is in Tony Mamo's C5, a 224/228 XER I believe. Now whether or not this is a small cam is debateable here for sure. Personally a small cam to me is 212/216 or 216/220 on the lower lift lobes (.520-.535" lift). Medium cams are 220-224 duration XE lobes and large cams are 226 and up duration XE or 222 and up XER lobes. A lot of opinions on this since folks are now routinely using 228-232XER intaked cams and saying they are small when comparing them to 238-240XER intake duration cams. 228-240 and up XER cams are big no matter how you look at it.
There are a few things we are going to look at, but it does not include the heads at this time. We should also get a good idea on my dyno number status once we run her on another dyno before we do anything else. Later.
Mike Norris
08-24-2004, 09:14 AM
#48
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Yarmouth, MA
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JS
Slowhawk I thought u dynoed a few Cartek cars that put down some wicked numbers?
Now your saying this guys AFR car made more?
Now your saying this guys AFR car made more?
but not positive. 
08-24-2004, 02:55 PM
#52
Everybody is talking that a 84 RWHP gain really isn't that bad. It might not be but remember prior to the mods it dynoed 309 RWHP with a 10.5 AFR. What would the baseline have been if the car had beeen tuned prior to the install? I mean a 10.5 AFR is pig rich stealing power. Would a 13 AFR have given another 10-15 RWHP? Then the gains look even worse.
08-24-2004, 03:29 PM
#53
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The point of no return...
Posts: 1,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by max's dad
I'm hoping to have another comparison within two weeks. I'm going from TEA 5.3s, from two years ago, and a TR 230 that made 420rwhp/389rwt. New set up will be AFRs milled .030, Cometic gasket to give 10.7:1 CR, and a 231/237 .616/.613 112 cam with 1.75 RR. Mikey at Rapid Motorsports will retune.
I'm afraid to ask, but any guesses at the numbers?
I'm afraid to ask, but any guesses at the numbers?
Hopefully at least 450 RWHP. Never know though. I would like to see those results when you get them because I have the same cam.
08-24-2004, 04:20 PM
#54
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Corona CA
Posts: 1,324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What it took for me to get 448rwhp (at TEA) using AFR's:
Kook's 1 7/8" through full stock mufflers.
ASP crank pulley.
Halltech TRAP (questionable gain)
78mm FAST
224/228 112 cam
205 AFR running ~11.5:1 compression
4.10's
However, on a Mustang Dyno, it barely made 400hp. But the 123.8 trap speed on a hot day at Bowling Green certainly proves that the power is there.
Pat
Kook's 1 7/8" through full stock mufflers.
ASP crank pulley.
Halltech TRAP (questionable gain)
78mm FAST
224/228 112 cam
205 AFR running ~11.5:1 compression
4.10's
However, on a Mustang Dyno, it barely made 400hp. But the 123.8 trap speed on a hot day at Bowling Green certainly proves that the power is there.
Pat
08-24-2004, 09:14 PM
#58
On The Tree
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony Mamo also brought up another important insight is the dyno/flowbench differences. You can have the same machine(dyno or flowbench) and have two people run the same car/head on the same day and get different #'s. I have seen many cars do head swaps(already have cams) from different companies and not run a half a 10th faster, talk about some upset fellas. Also the "selective hearing" some customers suffer from, I hang at a local speed shop a great deal (have a bud that works there) and see it a great deal. Some people just want to hear what they want to hear. I am not really saying thats what happened here but it happens. Also, the AFR ls1 head thing, all I know is that GM spent almost a year and a half on the head design and every head porter in the country will say they did a hell of a job, so there is not much room for improvement and Tony knows it. That is why he admited that when he touched on the "I already have ported heads, you think the AFR 205 will pick me up" thing. It would be like going from a Z28 to a SS, hey a little nicer car but is it really worth it were it counts. I think all of the "aftermarket" ls1 heads are good, just some are a little better than others. The days of aftermarket head manufacturers making a better head for a chevy is over, for now anyway, Because the "double humps" of today look like NASCAR heads that haven't been tweaked yet.
08-24-2004, 09:16 PM
#59
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a note here. The car only has 9000 miles on it. The car pulls hard from 3000 rpm to 6400 rpm, and climbs the whole time. I hoping the track will be open tomorrow night. Maybe that will help tell some of the store. I have a dyno run set up for Monday morning, on a different dyno. Got my toes crossed. I will let you know the results. Thanks again.
08-24-2004, 09:40 PM
#60
On The Tree
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Hysteria. There was no selective hearing here.I asked the sales rep 3 times, you mean at the flywheel, he said no at the rear wheels. I then called him back and asked him what AFR was going to do for me if my car didn't do these numbers.He said they would work with me, to help me get those numbers. So there was no selective hearing here. Nor was there at any time, the word potenial in our conversation.