Just Talked To Dart.....
09-20-2005 | 10:30 AM
#121
So you are saying I could get these springs to work? Safely? Well I plan on getting serious heads later on when I can get more serious with the car. I think then I will look into your stuff and I will have a plethora of parts to choose from since it uses SBC stuff.....
09-20-2005 | 11:24 AM
#123
Originally Posted by Moxie
We're using a LS1 type spring, and so are you. Either spring will work, you just have to adjust for the different valve stem diameters. You would need retainers and locks to match our valves. The 921's install at a different height, so you would need to use shims. That should do it.
Straight out, what choices do we have is we want to replace the dart springs with a dual spring? What would we have to get?
09-20-2005 | 11:42 AM
#124
Originally Posted by GuitsBoy
Okay, so if youre using LS1 springs on these heads, but a hybrid retainer, this makes it more difficult to find compatible springkits, no?
Straight out, what choices do we have is we want to replace the dart springs with a dual spring? What would we have to get?
Straight out, what choices do we have is we want to replace the dart springs with a dual spring? What would we have to get?
09-20-2005 | 12:10 PM
#126
My MTI T1 (221/221 .558/.558 112) cammed Trans Am is getting Darts too I believe. Just a matter of time. Hopefully by next summer I'll have it all together and hauling *** down the track. Going to do LS6 intake and Dart heads at the same time, should make for a nice seat of the pants increase in power and a good reduction in ET at the track. 
09-20-2005 | 12:25 PM
#128
Originally Posted by Moxie
SStrokerAce, you could special order w/o guides.
In regards to flow testing and engine testing we already know how these will work, and have spent many of a man hour porting the original samples to develop the best out of the box performing head available. Most everyone gets their kicks looking at flow numbers, however we spend most of our time testing in teh real world using our state of the art wet flow bench custom built my Superflow and Joe Mondello, this tool allows us to design a ports and chambers and then test them nto jsut with air but liquid with the same density as fuel. The advantage to this testing versus dry flow testing is pretty simple it allows us to see what happens in the port in the real world and we test at 55" not 28". This has allowed us to make a port that might not necessarily flow as well as others but will typically make more power. Most companies dont have this measure of equipment and can only test the old way. Some people who have seen the benefits of this equipment would be Reher Morrison specifically Darren Morgan who is their chief head guy there, and he couldnt believe the information and its accuracy. Darren frequents places like speedtalk.com and talks highly of this equipment. We use it for head developement everyday both for our customers and our Pro Stock engine program.
BTW guys... the 11/32 stem is not a issue in terms of Comp beehive springs either, they have a Ti retainer and steel retainer that will work for you no problem.
Bret
09-20-2005 | 12:30 PM
#129
TECH Resident
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 848
Likes: 1
From: Working in the shop 24/7
Originally Posted by JS
Shouldnt be problem getting the right retainer...
I'm sold,My old man cammed,shorty headered GTO is getting Darts
I'm sold,My old man cammed,shorty headered GTO is getting Darts
BTW...
Greg's a straight shooter and no BS. A blast on the Hardcore50.com site too.
Guess I'll have to wait for a set to show up here for evaluation though, huh Greg? *hint-hint*
Ed
09-20-2005 | 01:55 PM
#130
please elaborate
Originally Posted by Dart331Stroker
There still seems to be alot of questions regarding these heads and some confusion so I will attempt to clear that up! These heads are made to be direct replacements, and with the exception of the valve stem diameter that is the case. We chose the larger stem for a variety of reasons, strength, cost, availability of parts, ease of transition of new products. The 11/32 stem is 8.731mm not much larger than the 8mm stem used, and the 11/32 stem allows us to use the same valves, locks, seals, and guides that we have already made. It however made it so that we had to have Trick Titanium custom make the retainers for the beehive springs and the 11/32 stems. The weight difference on the intake valve is about 1-2 grams and the exhaust is 1 gram, negligable in a pro stock engine probably, in a severe street strip car it wont even matter. We have tested the springs and valves with the spin tron test equipment and the slighter larger and "heavier" valve makes zero difference. The heads will be able to use your stock rockers, stock pushrods, and anything else you may already have. We are using top shelf parts on our assemblies, like the back cut vavles we design and have built by Eaton who furbishes almost everyones valves, PSI springs who makes all the high end springs out there, Trick Titanium retainers who makes all the NHRA Top Fulers bellhousings, and bronzze guides we make in house. These parts we feel are second to none.
In regards to flow testing and engine testing we already know how these will work, and have spent many of a man hour porting the original samples to develop the best out of the box performing head available. Most everyone gets their kicks looking at flow numbers, however we spend most of our time testing in teh real world using our state of the art wet flow bench custom built my Superflow and Joe Mondello, this tool allows us to design a ports and chambers and then test them nto jsut with air but liquid with the same density as fuel. The advantage to this testing versus dry flow testing is pretty simple it allows us to see what happens in the port in the real world and we test at 55" not 28". This has allowed us to make a port that might not necessarily flow as well as others but will typically make more power. Most companies dont have this measure of equipment and can only test the old way. Some people who have seen the benefits of this equipment would be Reher Morrison specifically Darren Morgan who is their chief head guy there, and he couldnt believe the information and its accuracy. Darren frequents places like speedtalk.com and talks highly of this equipment. We use it for head developement everyday both for our customers and our Pro Stock engine program.
An example of a situation would be a Ford engine (no stone throwing please) we used a set of our as cast 195 heads versus AFR ported 205 heads and a set of Victor Jr heads that were as Edelbrock sells them. Roush took their crate engine with the AFR heads and dyno'd the engine then Edelbrock and tehn ours. We made 1.5 more horsepower than the AFR and 12 more than the other. Not too bad being ours flowed less on a dry flow bench but yet we were better on the wet flow bench. Now all of Roush's crate engines use Darts heads.
The reason for the example is to just state dont think about the flow numbers as a huge priority when deciding about what heads to buy, we never care here when we help people on the phones and on the computer, we match the heads to his combination not flow numbers.
Anyways back to the heads if you guys have or need any more information feel free to email us at darttech@dartheads.com Thanks
In regards to flow testing and engine testing we already know how these will work, and have spent many of a man hour porting the original samples to develop the best out of the box performing head available. Most everyone gets their kicks looking at flow numbers, however we spend most of our time testing in teh real world using our state of the art wet flow bench custom built my Superflow and Joe Mondello, this tool allows us to design a ports and chambers and then test them nto jsut with air but liquid with the same density as fuel. The advantage to this testing versus dry flow testing is pretty simple it allows us to see what happens in the port in the real world and we test at 55" not 28". This has allowed us to make a port that might not necessarily flow as well as others but will typically make more power. Most companies dont have this measure of equipment and can only test the old way. Some people who have seen the benefits of this equipment would be Reher Morrison specifically Darren Morgan who is their chief head guy there, and he couldnt believe the information and its accuracy. Darren frequents places like speedtalk.com and talks highly of this equipment. We use it for head developement everyday both for our customers and our Pro Stock engine program.
An example of a situation would be a Ford engine (no stone throwing please) we used a set of our as cast 195 heads versus AFR ported 205 heads and a set of Victor Jr heads that were as Edelbrock sells them. Roush took their crate engine with the AFR heads and dyno'd the engine then Edelbrock and tehn ours. We made 1.5 more horsepower than the AFR and 12 more than the other. Not too bad being ours flowed less on a dry flow bench but yet we were better on the wet flow bench. Now all of Roush's crate engines use Darts heads.
The reason for the example is to just state dont think about the flow numbers as a huge priority when deciding about what heads to buy, we never care here when we help people on the phones and on the computer, we match the heads to his combination not flow numbers.
Anyways back to the heads if you guys have or need any more information feel free to email us at darttech@dartheads.com Thanks
negligible??
I can understand from a production and cost standpoint using the 11/32 sbc valves. But don't mislead these guys that it is negligible, 1-2 grams betweem an 11/32 and a 8mm valve is not true. As far as it not being an issue, I strongly disagree. You need to check out the lobes these guys are using, the ramps are very similar to a prostock lobe. I like what you guys are doing with your product, But simple physics challenge your statement. I would hope that you guys would bite the bullett and use 8mm or 5/16 valves.The PSI valve spring is great, we've used them before, and not to mention, I think they run in their 1500 series, which is there top of the line process wire. Good Luck, welcome to the LS Market. Hope to see some castings here soom, hopefully before PRI.
09-20-2005 | 02:00 PM
#131
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
Sorry this is SStrokerAce on the old mans account.
Cary,
You are going to find more difference in valve mass and control in the change from beehives to dual springs. There is more difference there in terms of valve control than there is between a 11/32 steel valve and a 7mm Ti valve of the same size and that's a ton of valve mass..... I do agree that the few grams might be a concern (obvious by my posts above) but I think there are more areas to look at before you look at the difference between 8mm (5/16) and 11/32 stems. Go take a Ti dual retainer and a dual spring and throw them on a gram scale, take about 1/2 the mass of the spring and the whole mass of the retainer, the do the same thing with a beehive with a steel retainer. It's probably more accurate to take 40-30% of the beehives spring mass in comparison to the dual but either way you will get my point.
BTW I had a pretty good head porter ask me about the ET heads today... he might be a good guy to get a hold of and send out a test set too.
Bret
Cary,
You are going to find more difference in valve mass and control in the change from beehives to dual springs. There is more difference there in terms of valve control than there is between a 11/32 steel valve and a 7mm Ti valve of the same size and that's a ton of valve mass..... I do agree that the few grams might be a concern (obvious by my posts above) but I think there are more areas to look at before you look at the difference between 8mm (5/16) and 11/32 stems. Go take a Ti dual retainer and a dual spring and throw them on a gram scale, take about 1/2 the mass of the spring and the whole mass of the retainer, the do the same thing with a beehive with a steel retainer. It's probably more accurate to take 40-30% of the beehives spring mass in comparison to the dual but either way you will get my point.
BTW I had a pretty good head porter ask me about the ET heads today... he might be a good guy to get a hold of and send out a test set too.
Bret
09-20-2005 | 04:14 PM
#132
stuff
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
Sorry this is SStrokerAce on the old mans account.
Cary,
You are going to find more difference in valve mass and control in the change from beehives to dual springs. There is more difference there in terms of valve control than there is between a 11/32 steel valve and a 7mm Ti valve of the same size and that's a ton of valve mass..... I do agree that the few grams might be a concern (obvious by my posts above) but I think there are more areas to look at before you look at the difference between 8mm (5/16) and 11/32 stems. Go take a Ti dual retainer and a dual spring and throw them on a gram scale, take about 1/2 the mass of the spring and the whole mass of the retainer, the do the same thing with a beehive with a steel retainer. It's probably more accurate to take 40-30% of the beehives spring mass in comparison to the dual but either way you will get my point.
BTW I had a pretty good head porter ask me about the ET heads today... he might be a good guy to get a hold of and send out a test set too.
Bret
Cary,
You are going to find more difference in valve mass and control in the change from beehives to dual springs. There is more difference there in terms of valve control than there is between a 11/32 steel valve and a 7mm Ti valve of the same size and that's a ton of valve mass..... I do agree that the few grams might be a concern (obvious by my posts above) but I think there are more areas to look at before you look at the difference between 8mm (5/16) and 11/32 stems. Go take a Ti dual retainer and a dual spring and throw them on a gram scale, take about 1/2 the mass of the spring and the whole mass of the retainer, the do the same thing with a beehive with a steel retainer. It's probably more accurate to take 40-30% of the beehives spring mass in comparison to the dual but either way you will get my point.
BTW I had a pretty good head porter ask me about the ET heads today... he might be a good guy to get a hold of and send out a test set too.
Bret
bret,
I do get your point, I am actually a firm believer in the beehive spring. we have done a lot of testing with that spring, PSI and the 918 comp. I actually like them better than the dual springs when the pressure is sufficient. By no means am I trying to dogg you guys at dart, don't take it that way. But the LS1 engines have been a really good test bed for valvetrain dynamics. There has been more springs broken on this forum than I have seen in my whole life. valve train weight has obviously become a major issue in the new century as the camshafts have become quite aggressive compared to the days of the 3/4 cams. Bret, send me a pm and let me know who, I talk to so many people in a day that I may miss a call here and there.
09-20-2005 | 05:27 PM
#133
Originally Posted by cary et performance
There has been more springs broken on this forum than I have seen in my whole life.
Originally Posted by cary et performance
Bret, send me a pm and let me know who, I talk to so many people in a day that I may miss a call here and there.
BTW I see a 8-10g difference from 8mm to 11/32 valves which is a ton.
Bret
09-20-2005 | 05:34 PM
#134
EDC,I can buy DART/EDLEBROCK DIRECT....Granted I change my mind like the wind but I guess its because I'm excited by all the possibilties.I'm sold on the Darts and this is the head thats PROBABLY going on my car.....Now if I find that the Edle or TEA are better then I'll run them.....
I'm just happy that I have a chioce....
Now get back to being a legend in your own mind
I'm just happy that I have a chioce....
Now get back to being a legend in your own mind
Last edited by JS; 09-20-2005 at 09:18 PM.
09-20-2005 | 07:58 PM
#135
OK....I'm finally biting To post or not to post....
THAT is the question....
While it is understandably exciting for all the forum members that new products are emerging and about to hit the market (obviously with their cross hairs set on AFR), one must consider that much like our product was un-proven some 18 months ago, everyone else entering the market is in that very same situation. I know I've said this time and time again, but producing a high flowing, efficient cylinder head in a "production" environment is very difficult (even CNC ported)....and it's twice as difficult in an "as cast" situation for obvious reasons.
Quite frankly AFR welcomes the competition and competition will drive us to look for and find ways of possibly improving on our own product. Thats how all of you ultimately benefit from more companies entering the marketplace. This situation was very obvious from our perspective and we know it would only be a matter of time until more companies decided to enter the Gen III marketplace which in my opinion is one of the hottest markets in the performance industry, and justifyably so. Few motors respond as favorably to "mods" as the LS1 engine, and with GM producing the new LS7, it looks like the future of the Gen III couldn't be any brighter.
Regarding claims of Rousch using "only" Dart heads, I feel that statement was a bit un-necessary, and even more in-accurate. Due to our business relationship with that company that's all I would like to comment on. Regarding the dyno results (from the Ford testing) I would like to see all the detailed results from that testing as we would be very interested in that for obvious reasons. I could point to an independent article conducted by Richard Holdener in MM & FF some 18 months ago featuring seven different sets of heads including an AFR 205 and a DART 208 cc fully CNC ported Pro One.....The flow results, as well as the power results, were quite different in that testing showing the AFR to be worth 20 more HP than the Dart. Also, count me in as one who questions the whole 8mm / 11/32 valve stem debate....we also usually see an 8-10 gram difference between the two which is quite sizable at 6500 RPM's plus and one of the key factors in an LS1's ability to cleanly pull 7K with the right spring and rocker arm set-up (in a typical hyd. roller set-up).
As far as "wet flow" testing is concerned, it should also be noted that Ken Sperling who started this company, pioneered that concept back in the late 80s, it just wasn't quite as "refined" as the equipment that has received so much recognition and validation by top engine builders and cylinder head gurus today, almost 20 years later. Hats off to Mondello who has certainly done an excellent job in making this type of equipment available to the masses.
My reason for posting here is not to get into a debate or a pissing match with anyone and I bring up a few of the points in the paragraghs above to emphasize that as usual, there are two sides to every story. Bring on the Eddie's, the All-Pro's, the Dart's and whoever else I missed, but the proof in the pudding will ultimately be the end results and the ability to produce those hopefully favorable end results over and over again. And don't think for a minute that AFR is sitting on their hands waiting for the competition to catch up....we have a few projects in the works as well. We've been porting cylinder heads for 35 years, we look foward to and enjoy some good ole fashioned competition, and when tested against alot of our competitors, usually rise to the occassion and "place" somewhere in the top of the heap.
God bless America
Tony Mamo
AFR Sales & Product Design
(818)890-0616 Ext. 109
PS....383 LS1 205/225 dyno results coming soon....sorry for the delay.
THAT is the question....
While it is understandably exciting for all the forum members that new products are emerging and about to hit the market (obviously with their cross hairs set on AFR), one must consider that much like our product was un-proven some 18 months ago, everyone else entering the market is in that very same situation. I know I've said this time and time again, but producing a high flowing, efficient cylinder head in a "production" environment is very difficult (even CNC ported)....and it's twice as difficult in an "as cast" situation for obvious reasons.
Quite frankly AFR welcomes the competition and competition will drive us to look for and find ways of possibly improving on our own product. Thats how all of you ultimately benefit from more companies entering the marketplace. This situation was very obvious from our perspective and we know it would only be a matter of time until more companies decided to enter the Gen III marketplace which in my opinion is one of the hottest markets in the performance industry, and justifyably so. Few motors respond as favorably to "mods" as the LS1 engine, and with GM producing the new LS7, it looks like the future of the Gen III couldn't be any brighter.
Regarding claims of Rousch using "only" Dart heads, I feel that statement was a bit un-necessary, and even more in-accurate. Due to our business relationship with that company that's all I would like to comment on. Regarding the dyno results (from the Ford testing) I would like to see all the detailed results from that testing as we would be very interested in that for obvious reasons. I could point to an independent article conducted by Richard Holdener in MM & FF some 18 months ago featuring seven different sets of heads including an AFR 205 and a DART 208 cc fully CNC ported Pro One.....The flow results, as well as the power results, were quite different in that testing showing the AFR to be worth 20 more HP than the Dart. Also, count me in as one who questions the whole 8mm / 11/32 valve stem debate....we also usually see an 8-10 gram difference between the two which is quite sizable at 6500 RPM's plus and one of the key factors in an LS1's ability to cleanly pull 7K with the right spring and rocker arm set-up (in a typical hyd. roller set-up).
As far as "wet flow" testing is concerned, it should also be noted that Ken Sperling who started this company, pioneered that concept back in the late 80s, it just wasn't quite as "refined" as the equipment that has received so much recognition and validation by top engine builders and cylinder head gurus today, almost 20 years later. Hats off to Mondello who has certainly done an excellent job in making this type of equipment available to the masses.
My reason for posting here is not to get into a debate or a pissing match with anyone and I bring up a few of the points in the paragraghs above to emphasize that as usual, there are two sides to every story. Bring on the Eddie's, the All-Pro's, the Dart's and whoever else I missed, but the proof in the pudding will ultimately be the end results and the ability to produce those hopefully favorable end results over and over again. And don't think for a minute that AFR is sitting on their hands waiting for the competition to catch up....we have a few projects in the works as well. We've been porting cylinder heads for 35 years, we look foward to and enjoy some good ole fashioned competition, and when tested against alot of our competitors, usually rise to the occassion and "place" somewhere in the top of the heap.
God bless America
Tony Mamo
AFR Sales & Product Design
(818)890-0616 Ext. 109
PS....383 LS1 205/225 dyno results coming soon....sorry for the delay.
09-21-2005 | 02:40 AM
#138
mamogram
Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
To post or not to post....
THAT is the question....
While it is understandably exciting for all the forum members that new products are emerging and about to hit the market (obviously with their cross hairs set on AFR), one must consider that much like our product was un-proven some 18 months ago, everyone else entering the market is in that very same situation. I know I've said this time and time again, but producing a high flowing, efficient cylinder head in a "production" environment is very difficult (even CNC ported)....and it's twice as difficult in an "as cast" situation for obvious reasons.
Quite frankly AFR welcomes the competition and competition will drive us to look for and find ways of possibly improving on our own product. Thats how all of you ultimately benefit from more companies entering the marketplace. This situation was very obvious from our perspective and we know it would only be a matter of time until more companies decided to enter the Gen III marketplace which in my opinion is one of the hottest markets in the performance industry, and justifyably so. Few motors respond as favorably to "mods" as the LS1 engine, and with GM producing the new LS7, it looks like the future of the Gen III couldn't be any brighter.
Regarding claims of Rousch using "only" Dart heads, I feel that statement was a bit un-necessary, and even more in-accurate. Due to our business relationship with that company that's all I would like to comment on. Regarding the dyno results (from the Ford testing) I would like to see all the detailed results from that testing as we would be very interested in that for obvious reasons. I could point to an independent article conducted by Richard Holdener in MM & FF some 18 months ago featuring seven different sets of heads including an AFR 205 and a DART 208 cc fully CNC ported Pro One.....The flow results, as well as the power results, were quite different in that testing showing the AFR to be worth 20 more HP than the Dart. Also, count me in as one who questions the whole 8mm / 11/32 valve stem debate....we also usually see an 8-10 gram difference between the two which is quite sizable at 6500 RPM's plus and one of the key factors in an LS1's ability to cleanly pull 7K with the right spring and rocker arm set-up (in a typical hyd. roller set-up).
As far as "wet flow" testing is concerned, it should also be noted that Ken Sperling who started this company, pioneered that concept back in the late 80s, it just wasn't quite as "refined" as the equipment that has received so much recognition and validation by top engine builders and cylinder head gurus today, almost 20 years later. Hats off to Mondello who has certainly done an excellent job in making this type of equipment available to the masses.
My reason for posting here is not to get into a debate or a pissing match with anyone and I bring up a few of the points in the paragraghs above to emphasize that as usual, there are two sides to every story. Bring on the Eddie's, the All-Pro's, the Dart's and whoever else I missed, but the proof in the pudding will ultimately be the end results and the ability to produce those hopefully favorable end results over and over again. And don't think for a minute that AFR is sitting on their hands waiting for the competition to catch up....we have a few projects in the works as well. We've been porting cylinder heads for 35 years, we look foward to and enjoy some good ole fashioned competition, and when tested against alot of our competitors, usually rise to the occassion and "place" somewhere in the top of the heap.
God bless America
Tony Mamo
AFR Sales & Product Design
(818)890-0616 Ext. 109
PS....383 LS1 205/225 dyno results coming soon....sorry for the delay.
THAT is the question....
While it is understandably exciting for all the forum members that new products are emerging and about to hit the market (obviously with their cross hairs set on AFR), one must consider that much like our product was un-proven some 18 months ago, everyone else entering the market is in that very same situation. I know I've said this time and time again, but producing a high flowing, efficient cylinder head in a "production" environment is very difficult (even CNC ported)....and it's twice as difficult in an "as cast" situation for obvious reasons.
Quite frankly AFR welcomes the competition and competition will drive us to look for and find ways of possibly improving on our own product. Thats how all of you ultimately benefit from more companies entering the marketplace. This situation was very obvious from our perspective and we know it would only be a matter of time until more companies decided to enter the Gen III marketplace which in my opinion is one of the hottest markets in the performance industry, and justifyably so. Few motors respond as favorably to "mods" as the LS1 engine, and with GM producing the new LS7, it looks like the future of the Gen III couldn't be any brighter.
Regarding claims of Rousch using "only" Dart heads, I feel that statement was a bit un-necessary, and even more in-accurate. Due to our business relationship with that company that's all I would like to comment on. Regarding the dyno results (from the Ford testing) I would like to see all the detailed results from that testing as we would be very interested in that for obvious reasons. I could point to an independent article conducted by Richard Holdener in MM & FF some 18 months ago featuring seven different sets of heads including an AFR 205 and a DART 208 cc fully CNC ported Pro One.....The flow results, as well as the power results, were quite different in that testing showing the AFR to be worth 20 more HP than the Dart. Also, count me in as one who questions the whole 8mm / 11/32 valve stem debate....we also usually see an 8-10 gram difference between the two which is quite sizable at 6500 RPM's plus and one of the key factors in an LS1's ability to cleanly pull 7K with the right spring and rocker arm set-up (in a typical hyd. roller set-up).
As far as "wet flow" testing is concerned, it should also be noted that Ken Sperling who started this company, pioneered that concept back in the late 80s, it just wasn't quite as "refined" as the equipment that has received so much recognition and validation by top engine builders and cylinder head gurus today, almost 20 years later. Hats off to Mondello who has certainly done an excellent job in making this type of equipment available to the masses.
My reason for posting here is not to get into a debate or a pissing match with anyone and I bring up a few of the points in the paragraghs above to emphasize that as usual, there are two sides to every story. Bring on the Eddie's, the All-Pro's, the Dart's and whoever else I missed, but the proof in the pudding will ultimately be the end results and the ability to produce those hopefully favorable end results over and over again. And don't think for a minute that AFR is sitting on their hands waiting for the competition to catch up....we have a few projects in the works as well. We've been porting cylinder heads for 35 years, we look foward to and enjoy some good ole fashioned competition, and when tested against alot of our competitors, usually rise to the occassion and "place" somewhere in the top of the heap.
God bless America
Tony Mamo
AFR Sales & Product Design
(818)890-0616 Ext. 109
PS....383 LS1 205/225 dyno results coming soon....sorry for the delay.
Tony,
what do you expect, when your company is on a risen pedestal, and hats off to AFR, you guys have done an excellent job, people will use you and afr as a competitive baseline or icon. For as much time effort and thought as we put into our cylinder head, I feel that to date we have the most innovative cylinder head out there for the LS engines, and soon I'm sure that it will be looked at for other people to compare to. I don't think you will see anyone light years ahead in this market anymore, only keeping up with the Jones'
take it all as a compliment tony that all of us guys set our standards to try and beat you guys.
Last edited by Cary@Perf-Induction; 09-21-2005 at 02:57 AM. Reason: didn't sound right
you can have some of mine Jaberwalki