A huge thanks Brian! Awesome information.

 

Thanks Brian. Your results add some science to what I have thought for some time about the "head hype" There are so many stock headed motors putting out great power...and whenever anyone puts brand "whatever" on a project they never put just the heads on. Other mods are always done at the same time so it is hard to get an idea of what the aftermarket head actually adds. Your testing confirms that getting the air to the head and the exhaust away is where a lot of the power is.

 

Out of the box Fast, and the head was stock valves. The Stg 1 head has the EXACT same CNC program as the 5.3 Stg 1.5 without the chamber program, so it is a stout piece. It is 225cc and flows almost 300 cfm.


We are seeing 20 RWHP and 25 HP at the crank without any porting of the intake with these heads. I will port the Fast and check the power difference next time I get a chance.


Stock GM multi layer steel

Your welcome

Also, has anyone figured out this Stg 1 head at 61cc has more P to V then the 205 head at 66cc??

 

Also, has anyone figured out this Stg 1 head at 61cc has more P to V then the 205 head at 66cc??[/QUOTE]

Im your huckleberry!

 

Yeah, great read, thanks for sharing that with us, didn't know NA would make THAT big of a difference with the Fast vs LS6. This information could help an awful lot of people!

 

Thanks for this effort and report, I found it very interesting.

I am also a little surprised that the FAST 90/90 didn't scrifice any low end power either. Curious as to which throttle body was used for the test, since the LS2 throttle body seems to require some re-work to get it to not soften the low end?

 

I've been thinking, if you were to get a 'premium' head as opposed to a CNC factory casting (with an LS6 intake) you'd make similar power to a CNC & Fast 90/90. This would make it seem like preference would dictate which to go with, but months down the road when you want more power you could still add a 90/90 on a premium head and have the best of both worlds, more hp.

Ben T.

 

Probably the most meaningful and insightful thread produced. Thank you, something that needs to be done ALOT more. Too bad the ET's didn't get to yo in time, Iwould have liked to see the results of those in comparison.

 

good post, good info. would have been a great data point to see the aftermarket 205 castings milled down .030 to match the others. I know it wasn't a heads up test, but those castings are left at 66 cc to appeal to a broader market- don't know of many that would use them out of the box like that.

Thanks for posting though. Insightful.

 

“Leading competitor” here….LOL

There are certainly some good points brought up in this thread and I’m sure a fair amount of time and effort went into it, but at the risk of stating the obvious (and being “defensive”), this type of testing is better conducted at an independent facility if actual power numbers are going to be compared. Was the same amount of time invested into each product regarding tuning, optimization, etc.? Was this a test of true “production” pieces on everyone’s behalf?? Maybe, maybe not….that’s where an independent 3rd party comes into play. Real world results of all the heads in question (with average Joe installs) will always carry more weight IMO than any type of back to back testing….independent or otherwise, and that’s where this leading competitor’s product shines.

Also, I would like to mention that our 205 as delivered most certainly has an 84 cc exhaust port which is a far cry from 88 cc’s mentioned earlier in this thread (4 cc’s is a significant difference in an exhaust port this size.…easy to see by eye). Again, making the assumption we are “leading competitor” (which looks painfully obvious), I question that piece of information and how it was attained which naturally leads me to question some of the other information posted here as well.

Obviously with the CR situation on an even playing field the 205’s would have shown a sizable gain in both TQ and HP, which backs our own independent dyno testing of various budget oriented heads that showed our product consistently 8-15 HP better, while providing much better low speed and part throttle response due to the higher airspeed design….another benefit that is seldom spoken about or qualified.

Are the leading competitor’s heads twice as good as a decent low cost alternative in terms of power output??....Certainly no and we never claimed they were, but if you’re looking for all the money from you’re combination, a stronger, beefier casting, and all the low speed and drivability benefits our unique design offers, the extra money is well worth it…at least to some people. To others, saving the money and putting it towards an intake might be a better move….but then where do you go as you will inevitably be looking for more (And you WILL be looking for more….it’s just a matter of time).

In summary, I think there are some very good low cost alternatives on the market (and other’s not so good)….certainly the TEA stuff has always been solid and the bottom line is there is a cylinder head out there to fit everyone’s needs and budget….It wasn’t that long ago where I feel that wasn’t the case. The LS1 aftermarket is alive and well…hopefully GM won’t drop the ball and will continue to help us keep it that way.

Regards,
Tony Mamo

 

Just to add my .02, I get the feeling a lot of people might take some of this info at simply face value and think that these tests just prove that the higher CR is always the best bet. I like BUYAMERICAN's input in that it's not always the case, and that lower CR with a better matched setup can easily outperform/outlast a high CR app. That's a lot of great information though Brian and even though in may not be up to everyone's standards of measurement, it still sheds a lot of truth on the market for LS1 heads.

 

Brian: Great info, great stuff for the average guy to read over..... The worst part of most of these highly informative threads that are not bashing a competitors product is everytime one is done, you see a 1-2 page reply from a "competitor" pretending they need to step up and put in their two cents on how it is not a fair comparison and how great their stuff is.


I wish the "competitor" would stay out of threads and do their own comparisons and posts for info person. The #1 reason I will never purchase anything from the mentioned party is because of how he butts in like he is the be-all end-all of ls1 heads and throws his .02 in...


My friends recent swapped off a "competitors" $2200 205cc heads for Dart 225's...he picked up a good amount of horsepower. The "competitor" then had to unwantedly interject how it was an unfair comparison etc etc etc...when all it was was a head swap and we made more power and were reporting OUR results....









TEA: I commend you guys for putting so much work into doing all this engine dyno work. That is alot of cost and expense for you guys to openly share the results.. Most of what people will get from this is that there isnt a huge different between the best heads but the intake is essential to making great power on a budget. Youll find many guys going with cheaper heads and Fast intakes rather than the best TEA/ETP/AFR etc heads with LS6 intakes....

 

So your heads are not as good as the AFR's, but if you get a FAST 90/90, that makes up for it?

 

Of course, I don't think it would do much good to post bogus information, as the truth always comes out in the end.

Well, you've got me there. The TEA products were true production pieces. The TFS were early prototypes that have gone through 2 revisions since and have not been retested, the newest design is the best of course. An independent third party did test the TFS heads at the same facility you use, Westech. They made 52 HP at the crank, the single largest gain they have ever seen by simply switching from stock LS1 heads to any aftermarket LS1 head. And remember, those gains were with the stock unmilled TFS chamber, not milled to 59cc as is typically done with many other heads. Also don't forget our 5.3 heads were also tested at Westech in 2003 and made 540 at the crank, the most overall power they have seen to this day with a bolt-on stock shortblock, so there is no swaying of numbers in this test, it can be backed up anywhere.

Well, your chamber is advertised at 67cc, it measured 66cc. I will recheck the exhaust port, but last time we checked it, it measured 88cc

Granted, but we have both seen guys with unmilled heads with average power output and wonder why. They think their combo should be 30 RWHP better then a good ported head and it's simply not. The low speed throttle response is hard to qualify and we haven't seen the small ports make more torque down low at WOT.

Very well said Tony, I agree, and thanks.

 

I think you need to go back and re read the post and look at the dyno graphs. The first graph showed TEA Stg 1 heads vs the 205 heads BOTH with Fast intakes, the Stg 1 heads made more power everywhere.

 

Brian....just for the record, both our catalog and our website advertise our combustion chamber volume at 66 cc's (not 67). When you find the time I'm sure you will see our exhaust port is much closer to the 84 cc figure I mentioned earlier.

 

Hey....

Arent you the guy who's friend's cousins best buddy did the swap? I believe first it was an automatic....then it was a six speed (or perhaps the other way around). There were more holes in your story then you could shake a stick at and you got called out on it bigtime.

We could start another whole thread bringing that one back up again for all to see if you like....Lets not muddy up Brian's thread.

And regarding this thread we all know there was alot more going on here than comparing lower priced heads with a FAST intake versus higher priced heads with an OEM intake. I feel I brought up some valid points concerning the testing, the results, and our cylinder heads in general that anyone impartial with half a brain on their shoulder would have to agree with.

With that said I will now bow out of here and let it run it's course....Stang90GT...you might consider doing the same.

Tony M.

 

I went from 322rwhp to 356rwhp by just swaping out a stock auto with a stock stall to a 6-spd, so if thats the case that would cause a huge variation in the #'s.

 

OMG, I can't believe you're posting up this bogus garbage AGAIN. For anyone interested in a good laugh, check this thread out: https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/488317-swapped-afr-205-s-dart-225-s-gained-13-rwhp-same-torque-443-rwhp.html
stang90gt50 has made a nice history of bashing AFR every chance he got a few months ago. Sadly, he could not back up his claims with any dyno sheets, nor a story that held any water. Give it up man!

Kudos to Brian Tooley for actually posting up some real world results, then adding a commentary to summarize the findings. Well done!

Mr. stang90gt50, I will make sure this thread stays technical and clean so unless you have some valid tech to add (unsubstantiated claims are not tech), please keep your flames to yourself.

 

I hope teh mudslinging gets deleted from this thread, no need to have that poision one of the most informative threads out there.

I commend Brian for doing this test for everyone to see, and Tony's reply is onl y really aiming to point out a couple differences in teh testing to make a point, not every single aspect was exactly the same.

I commend tony for being professional with his replies in regards to the testing, it take a bigger man to do that then to bash a test that didn't let his product appear to be worlds above the rest. I've personally talked to tony about some option in a motor project, and even though I didn't end up going with his stuff, I still believe that his product is one of the best tested and designed prducts out there... using his heads during a benchmark testing like this not only sets a standard to compare all the others to, it also shows how well respected his product is.

Like I said, it would have been nice to have a set of the et's to compare to, and a few other porter's GM castings would have been nice too, not so much to bash anyone's product, but to see what the differnet styles of porting that's being done result in.

I'd like to see this test done again, but just leave the fast on there, and run them all with a single cam, and get every head porter that's willing to compete see who's got what., aftermarket casting, GM casting, whatever. What would be even better would be to do the test, with heads that are 225 or less set up for a stock bore, and then again with heads that are over 225 and set up for the common 4 or 4.030 bore... showing results for stock CI guys, and guys with big CI setups some info that's a real world test, not just a dyno or a flowbench sheet.