Massive dyno testing session.....revealed
So you are saying it's better to get a basic head and a fast 90/90 as opposed to a GREAT set of heads?
Hmm, something to ponder for sure!
I'd also LOVE to see someone toss a set of MAC headers on a comparison test. MANY people run these and there is hardly any info out there on them.
Hmm, something to ponder for sure!
I'd also LOVE to see someone toss a set of MAC headers on a comparison test. MANY people run these and there is hardly any info out there on them.
Originally Posted by gillbot
So you are saying it's better to get a basic head and a fast 90/90 as opposed to a GREAT set of heads?
Hmm, something to ponder for sure!
I'd also LOVE to see someone toss a set of MAC headers on a comparison test. MANY people run these and there is hardly any info out there on them.
Hmm, something to ponder for sure!
I'd also LOVE to see someone toss a set of MAC headers on a comparison test. MANY people run these and there is hardly any info out there on them.
I think that this thread is reinforcing the fact that you should pick what is "better" for your wallet. As said, if you want that last bit of edge, you are going to pay for the premium. Isn't this true for anything you buy?
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 490
Likes: 1
From: Burlington, Ont. / North Van B.C.
Originally Posted by Brian Tooley
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.
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 have a Question for Brian.
In your statement about the Trick flow heads, and the third party testing,
If the cc is the same on the trick flow and ls1 head, and so is compression, How do they get 52 more hp? Bigger valves and porting ? I am referring to a article in GM Hightech performance, the heads they were using were Edelbrock that are designed by Lingenfelter.
thanks Warren
Last edited by wildta; Jun 22, 2006 at 06:55 AM.
good info brian, however this thread title is a little bit of a misnomer. you guys did all this massive testing that would have most guys salivating over and yet you only post two graphs of a been there done that TEA vs AFR.
i want to see the data of the other 5 heads, the 10 cams, the comparisons between the 1 3/4 hookers vs the 1 7/8 kooks, ect. this thread could of been a gold mine of information but im a bit disapointed considering the circumstances.
i want to see the data of the other 5 heads, the 10 cams, the comparisons between the 1 3/4 hookers vs the 1 7/8 kooks, ect. this thread could of been a gold mine of information but im a bit disapointed considering the circumstances.
Last edited by jrp; Jun 21, 2006 at 09:28 PM.
Another thing to think about is that 01 and 02's already come with an LS6 intake. Now compare the cost of a good set of heads and 90/90 set-up to a great set of heads. You're going to get similar results at a similar price, just two different ways to get there.
Great test though, and tons of valuable information for sure. I think Tony made some great points as well, especially with the "average Joe" point. Numerous cases of real world evidence is the best way to test these various combos, especially considering the insane amount of variables involved in each individual set-up. Anyone who visits the dyno section frequently knows why AFR's are the leading competitor.
Great test though, and tons of valuable information for sure. I think Tony made some great points as well, especially with the "average Joe" point. Numerous cases of real world evidence is the best way to test these various combos, especially considering the insane amount of variables involved in each individual set-up. Anyone who visits the dyno section frequently knows why AFR's are the leading competitor.
Originally Posted by Patrick G
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!
please keep your flames to yourself.
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!
please keep your flames to yourself.
Damn, you beat me to it.
Nice test Brian.
Is anyone else confused as all hell? That would describe me. Of all the thousands of words I've read about intakes, heads, & exhausts, the thing that has made the most sense to me is in the stickeys where the author stated that in his comparison of intakes, the most (not the only) restricting factor always seemed to be the inlet size or the mouth of the intake. Head/cam/header combo information always seems to be cloudy.
Originally Posted by BUYAMERICAN
My 427 N/A made 500 rwhp/500 rwtorque at only 6,000,
The best heads are still limited by the MAF, TB, intake and exhaust which is why I just kept my well ported LQ9's that flow well across the board and I just ran some turbo's.
My sincerest apologies for hi jacking:
When did your 427 make 500/500 Brent........ (I'm actually looking at your dyno graph as I type: care for me to scan it
) ............. and WHEN did a set of ported LQ9's that don't even flow as good as a patriot head be considered a good head? (I've seen the "great" numbers that came from WCCH, as well as the numbers from when they we're flowed locally )Back to the topic at hand..... Thanks TEA for the R&D
Originally Posted by BUYAMERICAN
I saw one local test where a low dollar brand did just as well as high dollar brand as well.
.
Brent- what test was this..... would you care to share specific details or is that " proprietory information" also
11 Second Club
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
From: Norcal
Good info!
I have both TEA(girlfriends car) and AFR products and I am very happy with both!
From left to right, sig pic, TEA 5.7's milled .030, 3 years old, TEA 5.3 1.5's, , AFR 205's box stock, and Stock, lol.
I have both TEA(girlfriends car) and AFR products and I am very happy with both!
From left to right, sig pic, TEA 5.7's milled .030, 3 years old, TEA 5.3 1.5's, , AFR 205's box stock, and Stock, lol.
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
I've owned 2 sets of TEA heads and they're great. But I think unless we see all the results (in smaller format please I have a laptop) then the only meaningful things I got out of this thread is that a 216/220 cam makes 20 less HP than a 232/236 cam and a small exhaust valve works better with a bigger header.
It's not a heads up test but then you post superimposed dyno graphs between the TEA and 205 head. All the TEA dynos end 200-300 rpm sooner than the 205 dynos.
So which was the best head? I see it mentioned as the best head but I'm not clear which one it is.
Were the Dart heads tested?
It's not a heads up test but then you post superimposed dyno graphs between the TEA and 205 head. All the TEA dynos end 200-300 rpm sooner than the 205 dynos.
So which was the best head? I see it mentioned as the best head but I'm not clear which one it is.
Were the Dart heads tested?
Really great info and worth while read!!!!!! Thanks Brian for all your R&D time, makes me think my future goals are closer ($$$ wise) than i previously thought!! 
Originally Posted by Brian Tooley
The headers were a set of Hooker 1 3/4" and a set of Kooks 1 7/8", the intakes were a LS6 and a Fast 90/90
The TEA heads with the smaller 1.55 exhaust valves liked the bigger headers and made more power everywhere, the TFS heads with their 1.57 exhaust valves didn't care and the 205 head with the 1.60 valves did not like the big headers, which also carried the biggest exhaust port volume at 88cc.
Originally Posted by JL ws-6
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.
J rod if this happened almost nobody could compete. You would have ET 215's, ET 225's, AFR 205's, AFR 225's, Dart 205's, Dart 225's, Elderbrock 215's, TSF 215's, TSF 225's, and about 2 or 3 ported GM heads.
It would end up being a aftermarket test because damn near every CnC GM casting head is easily over 225 cc's.
Maybe if we did 235 cc's it would work but even still quite a few vendors would be left out because of their larger CnC program. Hell TSP stage 1 LS6 is like 237cc's but I feel they should be tested against the rest.
Anyways this will more then likely never happen but just figured I would add something to your post.
JZ
Just thought I would mention. Chevy High Performance magazine August issue dynos 8 different first generation small block Chevy cylinder heads. All 8 where very close to sub $1000.00 price range. Very interesting read.
This would be easy to do using the LSx engine if you could get enough venders to volunteer their heads for the test. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !!!
This would be easy to do using the LSx engine if you could get enough venders to volunteer their heads for the test. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN !!!