Yet another "sobering" experience...
Yet another "sobering" experience... On the flowbench that is, and soon to be chassis dyno....
Here are some flow results from a customer who took his AFR castings to another "talented cylinder head porter".....(How many times did I see posts like "I cant wait till the talented head porters get their hands on the AFR castings"...yada, yada)
What the customer received was a big bill, a big intake port, and probably a significant loss of both torque and horsepower.
As always, in the interest of political correctness, all names will be withheld and we will refer to the heads in question as "Brand X".
By the way, the results were not horrible....in fact they were better than average, but the bottom line is that even with a larger 244 cc intake port, they fall short of an AFR 225 right out of the box and the customer (could be you) spent more money to have that "privilege"....
Here are the numbers:
Intake Flow @ 28"
LIFT....200....300....400....500....550....600
"X"......134....197....250....294....309....31 9
AFR.....150....220....268....306....313....320
Exhaust Flow @ 28" (with 1.875 pipe)
LIFT....200....300....400....500....600
"X"......126....167....207....231....242
AFR.....124....180....220....241....250
I would mention that the much larger intake port (and larger 2.100 valve) did peak at .650 lift (325 CFM's @ .650) where the smaller cross section and design of the 225 does in fact fall off a little at the same lift point (315 CFM), but no matter what the application and how much lift you decided to run, it would be impossible to cover all the losses everywhere else in the lift curve, not to mention the higher velocity and better overall exhaust numbers.
Guys....you might want to independently check the work you have done assuming you still feel the need to go this route...from what I have seen, the AFR 225's are pretty killer right out of the box AND provide great value.
Thanks,
Tony M.
Here are some flow results from a customer who took his AFR castings to another "talented cylinder head porter".....(How many times did I see posts like "I cant wait till the talented head porters get their hands on the AFR castings"...yada, yada)
What the customer received was a big bill, a big intake port, and probably a significant loss of both torque and horsepower.
As always, in the interest of political correctness, all names will be withheld and we will refer to the heads in question as "Brand X".
By the way, the results were not horrible....in fact they were better than average, but the bottom line is that even with a larger 244 cc intake port, they fall short of an AFR 225 right out of the box and the customer (could be you) spent more money to have that "privilege"....
Here are the numbers:
Intake Flow @ 28"
LIFT....200....300....400....500....550....600
"X"......134....197....250....294....309....31 9
AFR.....150....220....268....306....313....320
Exhaust Flow @ 28" (with 1.875 pipe)
LIFT....200....300....400....500....600
"X"......126....167....207....231....242
AFR.....124....180....220....241....250
I would mention that the much larger intake port (and larger 2.100 valve) did peak at .650 lift (325 CFM's @ .650) where the smaller cross section and design of the 225 does in fact fall off a little at the same lift point (315 CFM), but no matter what the application and how much lift you decided to run, it would be impossible to cover all the losses everywhere else in the lift curve, not to mention the higher velocity and better overall exhaust numbers.
Guys....you might want to independently check the work you have done assuming you still feel the need to go this route...from what I have seen, the AFR 225's are pretty killer right out of the box AND provide great value.
Thanks,
Tony M.
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; Feb 15, 2005 at 11:30 AM.
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
On the flowbench that is, and soon to be chassis dyno....
Here are some flow results from a customer who took his AFR castings to another "talented cylinder head porter".....(How many times did I see posts like "I cant wait till the talented head porters get their hands on the AFR castings"...yada, yada)
What the customer received was a big bill, a big intake port, and probably a significant loss of both torque and horsepower.
As always, in the interest of political correctness, all names will be withheld and we will refer to the heads in question as "Brand X".
By the way, the results were not horrible....in fact they were better than average, but the bottom line is that even with a larger 244 cc intake port, they fall short of an AFR 225 right out of the box and the customer (could be you) spent more money to have that "privilege"....
Here are the numbers:
Intake Flow @ 28"
LIFT....200....300....400....500....550....600
"X"......134....197....250....294....309....31 9
AFR.....150....220....268....306....313....320
Exhaust Flow @ 28" (with 1.875 pipe)
LIFT....200....300....400....500....600
"X"......126....167....207....231....242
AFR.....124....180....220....241....250
I would mention that the much larger intake port (and larger 2.100 valve) did peak at .650 lift (325 CFM's @ .650) where the smaller cross section and design of the 225 does in fact fall off a little at the same lift point (315 CFM), but no matter what the application and how much lift you decided to run, it would be impossible to cover all the losses everywhere else in the lift curve, not to mention the higher velocity and better overall exhaust numbers.
Guys....you might want to independently check the work you have done assuming you still feel the need to go this route...from what I have seen, the AFR 225's are pretty killer right out of the box AND provide great value.
Thanks,
Tony M.
Here are some flow results from a customer who took his AFR castings to another "talented cylinder head porter".....(How many times did I see posts like "I cant wait till the talented head porters get their hands on the AFR castings"...yada, yada)
What the customer received was a big bill, a big intake port, and probably a significant loss of both torque and horsepower.
As always, in the interest of political correctness, all names will be withheld and we will refer to the heads in question as "Brand X".
By the way, the results were not horrible....in fact they were better than average, but the bottom line is that even with a larger 244 cc intake port, they fall short of an AFR 225 right out of the box and the customer (could be you) spent more money to have that "privilege"....
Here are the numbers:
Intake Flow @ 28"
LIFT....200....300....400....500....550....600
"X"......134....197....250....294....309....31 9
AFR.....150....220....268....306....313....320
Exhaust Flow @ 28" (with 1.875 pipe)
LIFT....200....300....400....500....600
"X"......126....167....207....231....242
AFR.....124....180....220....241....250
I would mention that the much larger intake port (and larger 2.100 valve) did peak at .650 lift (325 CFM's @ .650) where the smaller cross section and design of the 225 does in fact fall off a little at the same lift point (315 CFM), but no matter what the application and how much lift you decided to run, it would be impossible to cover all the losses everywhere else in the lift curve, not to mention the higher velocity and better overall exhaust numbers.
Guys....you might want to independently check the work you have done assuming you still feel the need to go this route...from what I have seen, the AFR 225's are pretty killer right out of the box AND provide great value.
Thanks,
Tony M.
Please! 
Captain, we've lost velocity 
