View Poll Results: AFR or TEA
Spend the extra money on the better head
97
68.31%
Save a bit of money and put it toward another mod or tuning
45
31.69%
Voters: 142. You may not vote on this poll
AFR vs TEA
08-04-2005, 12:41 PM
#22
!LS1 11 Second Club
Originally Posted by xfactor_pitbulls
Thats kinda what I was thinking. BTW you arent the only one around this board. I have seen dyno numbers on here with the AFR heads that put down 480whp and 440whp. Its seems like the unfair advantage goes to the AFR, hp wise, because the people are going all out on the supporting mods, Fast 90/90, pulley, sometimes water pump, the best headers. I dont fly the flag for any of these companies and run my own work, so I am just trying to give an unbiased opinion.
Brandon
Brandon
But in truth, tuning and fine tuning alone (including degreeing the cam) was worth the extra 20rwhp, thanks to the car's new owner who has the time and facilities to do the fine tuning.
08-04-2005, 12:47 PM
#24
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The search helps, i use it too, but using words like TEA and AFR, you get overloaded with posts because it picks up on anything with the name in it, not a direct comparison so to speak. Not trying to be a dick, but you DONT have to reply simply because there is a post. And, often times when similar posts are near eachother, it is a result of a post. A guy posts a question, then searches and replys to an old thread, or the other way around. Sorry to get off the subject.
Check out the ET performance heads too.
Check out the ET performance heads too.
08-04-2005, 12:59 PM
#29
!LS1 11 Second Club
Originally Posted by JS
What does the 480RW car trap?
I trapped 125 with 430RW
I trapped 125 with 430RW
Last I ran the car was when it had 425rwhp (TEA 1.5's already on thru SLP LT's and LS6 intake). It went, under looming T-Storms and 95 degree heat, 11.8 @ 118, 1.7X, full weight, near stock suspension (LCA's only), broken 9" posi., daily driven form. I trapped 118 cam only in good weather, so the MPH was not a good indication of performance.
With the repaired rear end, 460rwhp setup, full rear suspension that I put on, I never got to run it, but hoped for mid/low 11's at mid/low 120's (all purely speculative of course).
Last edited by SouthFL.02.SS; 08-04-2005 at 01:05 PM.
08-04-2005, 01:36 PM
#30
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 576
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I personally do not think you can wrong with either set up.
But I am biased a little towards our 1.5 heads
I know our 1.5 heads flow very well and not just up top.
I think I have posted flow comparrisons on the same bench in the past.
Although it is not all about airflow. The small size AFR makes it a great head also.
I think the TEA advantage is that for under the price of the AFR205 heads you can buy our Brand new never ran Stage 1.5 5.3 heads, a custom spec'd camshaft, pushrods,GM MLS head gaskets and GM head bolts and a GM crank bolt and make the same or better power.
The AFR advantage is you get a better casting
Its a tough choice and in the end only you can make it. Like I said at the start I do not think you can go wrong with either set.
But I am biased a little towards our 1.5 heads
I know our 1.5 heads flow very well and not just up top.
I think I have posted flow comparrisons on the same bench in the past.
Although it is not all about airflow. The small size AFR makes it a great head also.
I think the TEA advantage is that for under the price of the AFR205 heads you can buy our Brand new never ran Stage 1.5 5.3 heads, a custom spec'd camshaft, pushrods,GM MLS head gaskets and GM head bolts and a GM crank bolt and make the same or better power.
The AFR advantage is you get a better casting
Its a tough choice and in the end only you can make it. Like I said at the start I do not think you can go wrong with either set.
Last edited by BrentB@TEA; 08-04-2005 at 02:47 PM.
08-04-2005, 01:46 PM
#31
Originally Posted by WS6FirebirdTA00
the afr head is a work of art, if you could afford it and dont have to think about the money just get them. if money is an issue you wont be disappointed with tea what-so-ever IMO, although i am biased lol
a $400 or so difference isnt worth arguing over if the pieces are that much better.
08-04-2005, 04:00 PM
#34
Staging Lane
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the same issue to deal with. I went with TEA when they had their sale. I compared the flow numbers of all of the competitors in the $1500 to $2000 price range and nobody could compare to the TEA heads. I am very happy with the TEA heads and do not regret not spending the extra $600 for the AFRs.
08-04-2005, 08:31 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Scoobie
... If i were attempting to out perform the AFR heads, id do the LS6 Stage 2.5's for a stock cube motor.
if i was in the market for TEA heads i'd just go with the 1.5's, especially on a stock cubed motor. they seem to be the better street/strip head offering from TEA.
FedZ- just a little FYI you cant really cross compare flow numbers from one vendor to TEA. most, if not all the data you see comes from a sf-600/1020 bech. TEA uses audie/flowdata bench.
99ssleeper - a good majority of sponsor shop cars or packages are using AFR heads. LGM, TTP, Rapid, ect have all put together some stout setups using both the 205 and 225. not to mention all the other regular joe blows who are readily making ~450rwhp.
any rate, i vote AFR, if nothing else your getting a better casting and efficency and more consistancy. just my 2 cents.
08-04-2005, 09:07 PM
#37
FormerVendor
iTrader: (32)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 3,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BrentB@TEA
I personally do not think you can wrong with either set up.
But I am biased a little towards our 1.5 heads
I know our 1.5 heads flow very well and not just up top.
I think I have posted flow comparrisons on the same bench in the past.
Although it is not all about airflow. The small size AFR makes it a great head also.
I think the TEA advantage is that for under the price of the AFR205 heads you can buy our Brand new never ran Stage 1.5 5.3 heads, a custom spec'd camshaft, pushrods,GM MLS head gaskets and GM head bolts and a GM crank bolt and make the same or better power.
The AFR advantage is you get a better casting
Its a tough choice and in the end only you can make it. Like I said at the start I do not think you can go wrong with either set.
But I am biased a little towards our 1.5 heads
I know our 1.5 heads flow very well and not just up top.
I think I have posted flow comparrisons on the same bench in the past.
Although it is not all about airflow. The small size AFR makes it a great head also.
I think the TEA advantage is that for under the price of the AFR205 heads you can buy our Brand new never ran Stage 1.5 5.3 heads, a custom spec'd camshaft, pushrods,GM MLS head gaskets and GM head bolts and a GM crank bolt and make the same or better power.
The AFR advantage is you get a better casting
Its a tough choice and in the end only you can make it. Like I said at the start I do not think you can go wrong with either set.
Exactly - The AFR head is a better built, stronger casting. It also flows pretty damn good right out of the box.
If your going to compare prices, then it comes down to how many cubic inches you are trying to feed. I needed a set of AFRs, or GM 6.0L heads to meet my requirements for a 408, and TEA's stage 3 6.0L head was quite a bit cheaper than the AFRs with upgraded springs, plus TEA's 6.0L stage 3 heads outperform the AFR's in midrange and top end flow numbers. I saved over $1000 by going the TEA route in my scenario.
If staying stock displacement, you need to compare bang for the buck. AFRs are nice, but a little overpriced in my non-expert opinion. I say non-expert because I do not know their production costs or development costs. I just know they are pricey compared to TEA heads.
Be advised about this if you choose AFR heads: Prepare to upgrade those weak springs they fit them with. By todays LS1 cam selection on stock displacement engines, the AFRs lack the needed spring rating. This was a huge factor in my decision. The AFR springs are rated at about a .600 lift, which by all means is not drastically weak, but they are not sufficient for many of the popular cams out there - G5X series, Futral F series and so on. So, be prepared to pay for that upgrade if you are running a large cam, which you probably are if you're purchasing a nice set of heads. Prices can be deceiving sometimes.
Either way, you can't make a bad choice if you're looking for power. HP costs $$$, and you need to give a lot to gain a little. Both companies are proven and have great customer service. As stated earlier, Brent from TEA and Tony from AFR are always on this board answering questions and helping people make choices to best suit their needs. It all comes down to your choice. Don't listen to us - we're not the ones spending your money. All I can offer is advice on the products - not advice on which to buy.
Last edited by dragonZ28; 08-04-2005 at 09:22 PM.
08-04-2005, 09:25 PM
#39
FormerVendor
iTrader: (32)
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Lexington, KY
Posts: 3,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by WS6FirebirdTA00
um dont the afr heads come with the prc spring kit installed? ive got the same springs in there, not problems yet knock on wood
Note:
Hydraulic roller cams in "LS" Gen III engines typcially experience valve float at 6600-6800 RPM's. If you plan on running over .600 gross valve lift and/or 6600 RPM, AFR suggests you upgrade your springs to AFR part #8019. Our upgrade spring has higher seat and open pressures (145/390+) to better reduce the risk of valve float in more aggressive applications. AFR also recommends the use of Comp "R" lifters in conjunction with our 8019 spring upgrade.
Basic Package Components
100% CNC Ported Combustion Chambers
100% CNC Ported Exhaust Ports
100% CNC Ported Intake Ports
3-angle Raduised Valve Job
Intake Valve, 2.020” standard length #7207
Exhaust Valve, 1.600” standard length #7228
1.290” O.D. Dual Hydraulic Valve Spring, 135 lbs. on seat, .600” maximum lift #8017 (upgrades available)
7º 1.250 Titanium Retainers #8512
7º Valve Locks #9007
Valve Seals #6612
Spring Cups #8042
Intake Valve Seats #9059
Exhaust Valve Seats #9069
Bronze Valve Guides #9051
All Accessory Holes are Predrilled & Tapped!
Not saying they will break, but they say they are not the best thing themselves. As I said, you'll need to upgrade, but things may be different than what their website says.
08-04-2005, 09:28 PM
#40
im pretty sure the vavle float is from the single springs that are not a beehive shape, the harmonics in the valve train will cause a resonation in the springs. these are dual springs. the prcs are good for .650? lift i think. ive talked to may shops about this and they said what comes on it is perfectly fine, no need to blow any more money. but they know what they are talking about, but they also sell the heads and im sure would want to cover themselves, if it breaks, well hey it says it right there on the site to go better lol hell i dont nkow
just saw your edit, and that is the reason i asked about the springs, im running .598 lift so i was worried, but was told not to they are good for a bit more than that. maybe tony will come back and say something about that
just saw your edit, and that is the reason i asked about the springs, im running .598 lift so i was worried, but was told not to they are good for a bit more than that. maybe tony will come back and say something about that