Well, I say we take the avg of our two and go with that. That should be about as accurate as newtonian physics after crossing the event horizon.

How bout a beer instead?

Oh, what cam are you going to be running with any of these heads? I don't remember if you had said.

 

You can do it that way I guess, assuming your good with the formula's, but I believe just plugging it into the calculator is much easier and does the math for you. When using the calculator I posted, you have to enter the negative number so the calculator will know if your piston is above or below deck and make the appropriate adjustments. 99% of people aren't going to go through the trouble of finding all these volumes when you can just plug n play.

 

I went AFR, money is not a problem with me, both head sound great.

 

Well, I have them in an Excel Spreadsheet. Always good at doing what I'm too lazy to do. Math is the

 

I have the Futral F2-112 and the heads are GMPP ported LS6.

 

Jake and 99 sleeper.
Lets run a stock LS1 shortblock with a 59cc head, .040 gasket and see what you guys come up with.
I want to see how big the difference is between the 2 numbers.
Should be very close to the same.....

 

Beast again thanks for the link.
I went looking and found this post from myself from MAY 8th of 2004.

"You entered .060 when it would acturally be .052 This is what a stock head gasket is. With the same numbers you have and the different head gasket size the C/R comes out to 9.7:1, (this was with a .0008 deck height) still pretty close to where you were at. The only thing I could not do is add a negative .008 in the factor. The ross calculator dosen't allow a negative number in that spot. When using a .008 (instead of .0008) it come out to 9.55:1??????????????????????????"

And ever since then I have been adding my own little bit of compression as a guess because I couldn't find a good calculator.
Check out the new sig.
HAHA
thanks dude.

 

I'll do it tomorrow

 

I CAN FIGURE YOUR'S.
11.82, just want to see how close the other method is.

 

That's way too high...I'll do it by lunch time.

Hang on....

 

we do all of those things. AFR has the minimal cross section area we are limited by the stock casting being larger so that goes to AFR. Our heads will win a flow battle by large amount at .600 and by a minimal amount through the whole lift area .but our heads are larger so they should. AFR does not hand blend we do. AFR's do not come with flow sheets ...ours does. Bowl work we have, Valve job?? I would guess they are using the latest tech on this also (we use a Serdi and a Sunnen) All of the stuff mentioned above we do. We also flow each and every head that leaves out of here to make sure they all perform as advertised.
Quality and Flow are the best that we have ever had.

 

I've got a quick question...

How about a comparison of similar CNC ported OEM heads???

Forget "Stage this" or "Stage that"... Same port sizes, same valve sizes and same castings...

Say...
Casting #862
2.055 intake
1.570 exhaust
230 cc runner
Pick a chamber size....

I can get a set of ETP 5.3 heads and compare them to a TEA 5.3 set...

Wouldn't that be a better test???

You up for it Brent?

Ed

 

The beauty of the AFR's is the accuracy and execution of their machining...they don't need "hand blending". We have perfected and refined CNC cylinder head porting such that we can produce a true "out of the box" high flowing piece that is consistant from one casting to the next. The problem with hand blending is just that....it's blended by a human being by hand (and I'm sure it's not Brian Tooley standing over every one with the grinder). That means you have just introduced a variable into the picture (hopefully the guy blending is talented AND having a good day, not in a rush, etc.).

An AFR does not need to come with a flowsheet. They are repeatable from one to the next and our flow information is readily available on our website or in our catalog. AFR's are spot flowed for consistency and our QC department looks over every one...questionable heads are brought to my attention for flow and inspection. Independent reports on this board and others have verified that our posted information is accurate (sometimes even conservative). By the way, our valvejobs are completely state of the art and are done on 100K+ pieces of equipment. They are deadnuts when it comes to valve heights and concentricity.

I also tend to disagree with the larger port, "additional" flow situation. I think alot of that could be from flow bench disparity (different equipment), fixturing, etc. I don't even want to elaborate any more regarding this particular topic, especially in light of some recent BS, so I will leave it at that.

You guys put out a good product and would certainly get the nod for a guy on a budget, but much like your biased towards TEA, quite obviously I am biased towards the AFR piece. While we choose to only build a "no compromise" version of our cylinder head for the LS1 crowd (which inevidibly limits some of our customer base), the people that have purchased our product have been extremely pleased with their decision, and most are making better than average power (and extremely good results for the guys hitting all the details and choosing their combinations wisely).

The real decision is whether you want to spend the extra coin for AFR's or if you can still sleep peacefully at night knowing you might have (arguably) left a few under the table. Brian, for the most part, said that himself in a previous post on this thread...and while I feel things would have best been left alone there, you brought some issues to the table I felt I needed to clarify.

Tony M.

 

Ed, I do not see how that will answer this question but our current 5.3 head uses a 2.02 valve intake with a stock exhaust valve. I will compare it to anyone elses head using the same parts.

BTW ours is 225.
I am not oppossed to a cylinder head shootout. Find us an unbiased flow bench opperator and we can "git er done" Maybe some of the others might want into the mix.

BTW again who ever started the poll it is wrong. The poll is biased and inaccurate.

 

OK... I was just tossing componants and parameters out for examples.

Make a list!

I'll ask Cary for the same configuration.
Are you calling me a "biased" person???

A realist yes, but I'm far from biased.

You should hear the crap I get from Tony when I bring "other" people's stuff up!



Ed

 

11.52628074:1.

As a test, think about LG's AFR package. With 2cc slugs cut in the pistons, it is 11.2255112:1, which I think is far more accurate. I don't see a G5X3 running on 93 octane at 11.58:1 SCR, which gives an 8.53:1 DCR. Well, it could happen, but who'd want to run that close to detonation all the time in the texas summer heat?

Btw, Tony's configuration with 62cc heads yeilds: 11.0814811:1 according to my calculations.

 

No Ed. I don't think your too biased. However I know you use ET heads for your business and have not used us. So it would seem to some you had an alterior motive to showcase ET's heads vrs ours.

 

The thing is tho, if this test went down and your TEA head flows better than the ET put up against it, Ed would start carrying your cylinder head for some of his packages.

He can speak for himself however...

I'd really like to see the comparison. This is my main reason for posting.

 

If I can deal with Tony... I can deal with Brian..

 

????? i AM STILL NOT SEEING THE DAMN DIFFERENCE.
Wit the 11.82 I listed it was a 3.898 bore
3.622 sroke
.040 gasket
-.007 deck height
0 for flat top pistons
59cc for the heads.
Again I dont see where the difference is at?