SS LS1

LOL! I did the same thing last week while watching TV on a Sunday afternoon. Makes digesting the data much easier. I also took the dyno numbers from the Stock LS engine, with the MS4 cam, MS4 Cam and LS6 Heads and then with the Cam,heads and 90/90 intake in Excel just to make the comparison much easier to see.

Greg

White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

Nice chart. I remember reading that article. It said that the TFS stuff was hand prepped race gear. Most of the rest of the stuff was just out of the box. The Livernois really held their own, too, being the only stock ported head in the bunch.

-Geoff

Greg Good

Posted by Brian Tooley @ https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...2&page=1&pp=20

"Take the TFS 215 head for example, if you sand the intake port surface smooth....it will flow less air, if you sand the seat area....it will flow less air. Pretty much anything you do to it, will make it flow less air."



From the GMHTP LS2 shootout results regarding the TFS heads sent for the flow & dyno comparison: http://www.gmhightechperformance.com...heads/tfs.html

"Are these good examples of what you’ll get when you open the box on your own set of LS2 heads by TFS? We really don’t know because it would appear that we got ourselves a hand-finished set of heads just for this comparison. These were clearly the most “worked” heads in the group. Mirror polishing, perfect ports, and a very racy look told us that these things were serious."

Mirror polishing? Hand finished? Is that what was really sent to GMHTP for that test?

pianoprodigy

iTrader: (1)

Definitely seems contradictory, huh?

Brian?

BlackScreaminMachine

iTrader: (17)

TFS seems to be the best, consistant and not peaky at all

Xtnct00WS6

iTrader: (8)

I agree with PianoProdigy. It's very contradictory. I believe comments at the top of this post are to defend that no "trickery" was involved. I also believe that there are areas in the intake port that do benefit from being hand finished. It's just not cost effective for a company to hand finish every intake port that goes out their door though.

Greg Good

As for the third thought, the "cnc like" grooves provide the slightly rough surface that helps in fuel flow. This is why they're optimal.


Now you're confusing me. You just said in another thread (the one I referenced) that a cnc finish, not hand finished, was best.

Xtnct00WS6

iTrader: (8)

Look at the pic I provided in the other thread. You'll see imperfections that hand porting will clean up. It'll just depened on the cnc program. I bet there are some that make the transition wonderfully and won't benifit from hand porting. It seems your thinking of it as an all or nothing scenario. CNC ridges (slightly rough and properly sized) are optimal if there are no imperfections. Handporting will correct these if necessary.

I'd be willing to bet that Brian is good enough to know exactly where he needs to do "clean up" work and that's one reason (in my opinion) why the Trick flow heads kicked so much ***.

Greg Good

Yes I do believe that the heads should have a consistent finish on them. No half cnc, half hand polished. The head you posted a pic of is not something I would present to a customer.

I'm positive that Brian is a good cylinder head guy. I was only curious about the inconsistency with what he posted here about port wall finishes and what he actually sent out for the GMHTP dyno test.

Xtnct00WS6

iTrader: (8)

I think you missed the whole point. Most likely, you'll have to do cleanup work. Think about it in broad terms....Isn't it a weird coincidence that the only hand finished heads are the ones that kicked so much ***?! That proves my point.

UGotBeaT

the hand finished heads probably had more work done to them then how they come to your doorstep and plus probably a better valve job/blending..

383LQ4SS

iTrader: (33)

Those hand finished Trick Flows where probably not an EXACT representation of what youll get when you order a set from Summit or TEA or whatever. However thats what they had to offer at the time. There is no gaurentee that those hand finished heads used in the test were any better or worse than what youll get now if you order a set. I personally do not belive they were "ringer" heads. I say that because lately the TFS heads have put down even more amazing numbers for many vendors in a very very consistant manor.

AFR is an excellent head for sure. But it appears the TFS offerings have stepped it up somewhat. I believe this comparison graph in this thread is a pretty close representation of the TFS head advantages. It has been corroborated since many times by various shops.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Hello....

Decided to quickly chime in here and thinking it would be helpful if I copied and pasted my former response from the original thread (concerning the test results) because I know most people won't bother to take the time to read it. Also, I have been dyno'ing and testing our product for a few years now and have never seen an actual dyno curve like the one represented in this test with a "blip up" in the middle like that. Why that was the case I certainly don't have a clue but it's the only curve in the test that looks like something was amiss. All of you have seen independent tests and results that also aren't representative of that curve, but none the less thats the way it goes.

I think I bring a few other points to the table in my initial response that also have some relevance here....

--------------------------------------------------------------
Guys...

Don't forget the AFR's had the distinct disadvantage of having the lowest CR of the bunch....it's all about cylinder pressure and more of it would have fattened the TQ and power curve at every RPM point, not to mention improved the BSFC #'s some of you made mention of earlier (this might have been one of the pulls with more fuel which made similar power to the pulls with less directly effecting those figures as well).

Also, I mentioned earlier in this thread that an engine dyno is not the best tool to show the benefits of smaller high speed port designs, lighter rotating components, etc., etc., but both of which legitamately help a road race car come off a corner harder (showing they are genuinely beneficial to power/TQ output). Neither of these scenario's will show you their stuff on an engine dyno unless you test the engine at a more representative sweep in acceleration (much faster than the typical 300 RPM per second). An inertia style chassis dyno is a different story....much like your car it will accelerate at the rate the engine at WOT will allow it to....its not a fixed rate of acceleration determined by an engine dyno's water brake. To a point it's the same argument with big carbs, what works the best on an engine dyno wont necessarily perform the best in your actual vehicle.

A small runner head that will make the same or better numbers than a larger runner head will always be more "alive" and have more snap in the throttle driving around town, not to mention be more fuel efficient doing so. It simply makes for a better dual purpose vehicle which most of you guys reading this are probably running. Are these perks as well as the one most overlooked IMO which is their ability to consistantly deliver the goods worth the extra coin....to some yes, to other's maybe, but I have been on this board now for approaching three years and there are very few, if any, un-satisfied AFR customers. Hard to argue that....

As I also said earlier, you guys simply have more good choices to make pertaining to cylinder heads, and while this testing could have been done slightly differently (trying to equalize CR, perhaps on an inertia dyno, etc., etc.), it was clearly alot of work and very time consuming and also shows that the differences between the better heads on the market has certainly narrowed quite a bit. Considering that, other just as important factors (besides sheer peak power figures) need to be pondered....there is a cylinder head out there for everyone....the tough decision is figuring out which heads are best for YOU.

Good luck with that....LOL

Feel free to call or PM me in the event you are considering our product and have some questions....

Regards,
Tony M.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Xtnct00WS6

iTrader: (8)

AFR's 66cc vs. 65, 64, and 63 is a definite disadvantage. Compression is key to making power.

I wish I could see the intake ports of all the competitors so we could have more stuff to bicker over

cws T/A

iTrader: (3)

Yeah .. 547 hp , 495 lb-tq with stock castings and at 70cc

briannutter

I wish I could see the intake ports of all the competitors so we could have more stuff to bicker over [/QUOTE]


Good point. Why not? For anyone with ANY brand of head, post a pic of the bowl work directly as it came from the manufacturer.

Brian Tooley Racing

iTrader: (13)

LOL, you guys have figured out our secret

Atually, Mike had responded in the original post and explained that the casting did not "clean up" 100% and was sanded so it would be picture worthy. TFS had to redo the chamber tooling to add extra material so that it would have 100% cleanup.

I know it is hard to believe that a head can be perfected to the point that simply sanding it can make it flow less air, and the more I explain the more I educate my competition, and I have educated them enough already. So I guess the only thing I can do is challenge someone to make it flow more air without making it significantly larger. Greg Good worked with us on a project once before, would you like to take the challenge Greg? Better yet Greg, Paris is back in Texas, over at Raymac. He developed the port, and once the whole thing was finished he sanded a CNC casting and it lost airflow. You can also ask him about how many heads TFS has that flow more air then the original port that was digitized. He can also tell you about the TFS High Port head that if you sand the chamber on it will flow less air. That same High Port head will flow more air if the CNC leaves a step in the short turn. The TFS Twisted Wedge Ford head was supposed to flow 300 cfm but was 5 cfm short when it went to market and only flowed 295. Last year (2006) I tried some of these flow tricks with the CNC programming and picked the head up to 308 cfm, and it flowed more air everywhere. Once again, the average good head porter would look at it and say, "hey, there is a step here, I'm gonna sand it out" and then will be surprised when it flows less air everywhere.

I would like to put something about my learning curve into perspective. In 1996 I ported my first Ford head, by 2000 my customers were winning races, setting records and winning championships in the Ford heads up racing series, and yes, it was a TFS head. So my stuff was outpowering the guys that had been porting Ford heads for 20 years.

So I started CNC porting heads in 2001, and now I have 6 years experience with CNC porting, doing it pratically day and night. I do it at night on the couch with the very laptop I am typing on now. You also have to remember, when I bought a 5 axis CNC in 2001 I had never turned a CNC on, within weeks we were producing product on it, of course, I had great software and some good training.

I don't port Pro Stock heads and I don't port competition eliminator heads. I port what interests me most, street/strip heads, and I think we have done well in that class of head.

brad8266

iTrader: (23)

Thats some hardcore **** right there, CNC'in on the couch at home. CNC > Wife

Greg Good

I had already taken the challenge Brian. When I get a set I'll let you know what happens. Flowbench, dyno, and most important, e.t. & mph. You know I can't refuse when you say that you have a head that is impossible to improve with hand finishing.

BTW, you have earned yourself a big pat on the back with your achievements, and I agree with you 99% of the time, but not on this one.

Ksett

East Coast Supercharging hand finishes all their TFS heads and claim 4-5 rwhp with the hand finishing. They wouldn't bother if they weren't getting that on the dyno.