Afr Ls7 Heads
06-24-2008, 05:58 PM
#21
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not saying it is over priced, just expensive for most. And its not just the head, if you have a combo that can benifit from a 6,000 dollar head you have a 20,000 dollar motor under your hood. Very few people can go that route. I never said it was out of line, just out of most peoples range.
Why would you use a head that can flow 401 cfm on a bench but can only go 360 through the manifold? the current manifolds cannot keep up with the airflow demand, unless you go with a sheetmetal and now we are talking race car build with a larger budget and a need for 400+ cfm.
06-24-2008, 06:01 PM
#22
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah you right there is nothing special about it, but it has more potential then what has been found out of cathedral ported LSx heads.
I have done a dozen or so sets of ETP heads, and have used the 215's-245's. In comparison the ETP LS7 4" bore head easily out flows the 245's and especially once the manifold is bolted on.
I thought the main point of this thread was if AFR was coming out with a LS7 style head, and assumed the thread started was asking for something similar to what ETP has. Also assumed he was sticking with a stock intake manifold. So when I made my post I was also taking into consideration a manifold on top of the head, and figured a ported Fast 92 vs. a stock GM LS7 or ported LS7 manifold. This is where the LS7 style head can make a lot more power because it flows much better through the manifold.
I have done a dozen or so sets of ETP heads, and have used the 215's-245's. In comparison the ETP LS7 4" bore head easily out flows the 245's and especially once the manifold is bolted on.
I thought the main point of this thread was if AFR was coming out with a LS7 style head, and assumed the thread started was asking for something similar to what ETP has. Also assumed he was sticking with a stock intake manifold. So when I made my post I was also taking into consideration a manifold on top of the head, and figured a ported Fast 92 vs. a stock GM LS7 or ported LS7 manifold. This is where the LS7 style head can make a lot more power because it flows much better through the manifold.
06-24-2008, 06:05 PM
#23
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just reread your posts in this thread. You are talking more about race app's, where I was stuck in street trim app's.
I am talking about heads that have to use plastic manifolds, not heads that are going to benefit from a manifold that costs almost as much as the head.
The reason the ford market have a successful line of high ports and other such heads is because there are more hard core races that race ford's. In our market it would be tough to sell a ton of canted valve or high port heads for a LSX because not as many people have taken their LSX power car and turned it into a race car. Plus just now are the costs of the F body’s coming down in price to where people don't mind buying one and turning it into a full trim race car. For a long time it was hard for people to spend 15K on a TA or Camaro only to tear it apart to compete with the ford market.
I am talking about heads that have to use plastic manifolds, not heads that are going to benefit from a manifold that costs almost as much as the head.
The reason the ford market have a successful line of high ports and other such heads is because there are more hard core races that race ford's. In our market it would be tough to sell a ton of canted valve or high port heads for a LSX because not as many people have taken their LSX power car and turned it into a race car. Plus just now are the costs of the F body’s coming down in price to where people don't mind buying one and turning it into a full trim race car. For a long time it was hard for people to spend 15K on a TA or Camaro only to tear it apart to compete with the ford market.
06-24-2008, 06:07 PM
#24
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the head is never meant to be for most people....
Why would you use a head that can flow 401 cfm on a bench but can only go 360 through the manifold? the current manifolds cannot keep up with the airflow demand, unless you go with a sheetmetal and now we are talking race car build with a larger budget and a need for 400+ cfm.
Why would you use a head that can flow 401 cfm on a bench but can only go 360 through the manifold? the current manifolds cannot keep up with the airflow demand, unless you go with a sheetmetal and now we are talking race car build with a larger budget and a need for 400+ cfm.
Thats what I was saying. Canted Valve heads are to expensive for 99% or our F body owners.
06-24-2008, 06:11 PM
#25
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM's head is build for a bigger bore.
OR, if you want to do a head that can take a **** ton of air through FI.
I would much rather have a ETP LS7 head on my motor with the thick deck then a stock GM LS7 head.
Can you make great power in a 408 combo with a AFR 225 trick flow, ETP etc head? sure. But again you have the restriction of the 92mm fast still.
I would prefer to go with the ETP LS7 head and a stock ported LS7 intake manifold myself. More potential in that combo and for the same or nearly the same cost.
That is where the LS7 aftermarket head can work.
And yes I understand the LS7 manifold still can't keep up with the LS7 head, but it does a better job then a really nice set of LS1 heads and a ported Fast 92.
06-24-2008, 06:16 PM
#26
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but at the same time why would AFR, TFS, or any other company go through the trouble of designing a new casting only to have GM to some other shape that flows XX cfm and everyone else considers the old casting obsolete. that is what has happened, everyone is so caught up in the "ls7" hype that they think that a 330-340cfm catherdral port is crap. Alot of these guys dont know that a conventional 23* head is lucky to go high 280 unless you go with a raised runner or 18*/15* setup.
It makes more sense for them to stick to what is proven to work and sell than start from scratch, just look at how long it took afr to release ther first set of 205's and how long before anyone else got into the aftermarket casting.
To this day no one except for ET has stepped it up for the racers, and it's a great start. First company to copy a sb2.2, little chief, or Victor proport and present ti to the ls community will have plenty of customers.
Also the thing keeping hardcore racers from going LSX is that they cant compete with the old technology on the track. it's easier and you go faster running SBC and SBF stuff.
It makes more sense for them to stick to what is proven to work and sell than start from scratch, just look at how long it took afr to release ther first set of 205's and how long before anyone else got into the aftermarket casting.
To this day no one except for ET has stepped it up for the racers, and it's a great start. First company to copy a sb2.2, little chief, or Victor proport and present ti to the ls community will have plenty of customers.
Also the thing keeping hardcore racers from going LSX is that they cant compete with the old technology on the track. it's easier and you go faster running SBC and SBF stuff.
07-21-2008, 02:40 PM
#28
the head is never meant to be for most people....
Why would you use a head that can flow 401 cfm on a bench but can only go 360 through the manifold? the current manifolds cannot keep up with the airflow demand, unless you go with a sheetmetal and now we are talking race car build with a larger budget and a need for 400+ cfm.
Why would you use a head that can flow 401 cfm on a bench but can only go 360 through the manifold? the current manifolds cannot keep up with the airflow demand, unless you go with a sheetmetal and now we are talking race car build with a larger budget and a need for 400+ cfm.
Anytime you add length to the runner of a cylinder head flow will go down, that is essentially what an intake manifold is.
Besides, there is way more to how good a head is than f'in flow numbers.
The things that really matter are never discussed on this board.
07-21-2008, 03:06 PM
#29
not trying to come off as a dick, but would you care to enlighten us?
07-21-2008, 03:17 PM
#30
8 Second Club
iTrader: (40)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Raleigh,North Carolina
Posts: 1,861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EXACTLY!!!! People are so caught up in flow numbers. I guess that is an easy number to compare heads with, but people that actually know better, rarely do.
07-22-2008, 01:23 AM
#31
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but at the same time why would AFR, TFS, or any other company go through the trouble of designing a new casting only to have GM to some other shape that flows XX cfm and everyone else considers the old casting obsolete. that is what has happened, everyone is so caught up in the "ls7" hype that they think that a 330-340cfm catherdral port is crap. Alot of these guys dont know that a conventional 23* head is lucky to go high 280 unless you go with a raised runner or 18*/15* setup.
It makes more sense for them to stick to what is proven to work and sell than start from scratch, just look at how long it took afr to release ther first set of 205's and how long before anyone else got into the aftermarket casting.
To this day no one except for ET has stepped it up for the racers, and it's a great start. First company to copy a sb2.2, little chief, or Victor proport and present ti to the ls community will have plenty of customers.
Also the thing keeping hardcore racers from going LSX is that they cant compete with the old technology on the track. it's easier and you go faster running SBC and SBF stuff.
It makes more sense for them to stick to what is proven to work and sell than start from scratch, just look at how long it took afr to release ther first set of 205's and how long before anyone else got into the aftermarket casting.
To this day no one except for ET has stepped it up for the racers, and it's a great start. First company to copy a sb2.2, little chief, or Victor proport and present ti to the ls community will have plenty of customers.
Also the thing keeping hardcore racers from going LSX is that they cant compete with the old technology on the track. it's easier and you go faster running SBC and SBF stuff.
also stop crying about manifolds. theres no reason why you cant port a cast 4bbl manifold to help match the flow numbers. ive seen manifold port work that would spin your head
you have to remember that the lsx engine is still relatively new, 10 years and counting. in the last few years the market has picked up because companies are now finding out that this engine isnt a fluke like an lt1/lt4. not saying that those are bad engines but you really have to admit that it was a new approach to the small block and really is one of chevys bastard engines. if i were in the aftermarket head bizz id be a little hesitant to dump R&D funds into something that might not last. only time will tell the future of the LSX engine. you never know the aftermarket might outsell the traditional 23* sbc.
"Alot of these guys dont know that a conventional 23* head is lucky to go high 280 unless you go with a raised runner or 18*/15* setup."
AND i dont know about that one
.....seen regular old track ones flow way better then that!
07-22-2008, 09:57 AM
#32
CSA, localized velocities, Port Shape, VJ, etc. Some of these things you can't measure, and then you have the VJ. The top head guys would rather die than tell you their VJ secrets. It is entirely possible to go in and gain CFM on a flow bench and lose power on the dyno.
All this is stuff many people have said before, but yet most people refuse to see anything but cfm and port size. While these things do matter, they are down on the list in terms of priority.
All this is stuff many people have said before, but yet most people refuse to see anything but cfm and port size. While these things do matter, they are down on the list in terms of priority.
07-22-2008, 09:58 AM
#33
why you hating on the l92 ls7 port, whats the big deal, best bang for your buck. especially for bigger cubes. for about $1200 i can put heads on my 408 that will potentially out perform a $2500 set of heads.....GM started fresh again and redesigned the heads, just like they have done in the past. now that the casting has proven itself people are looking for an aftermarket alternative. with those heads will come intakes.....again its time....
also stop crying about manifolds. theres no reason why you cant port a cast 4bbl manifold to help match the flow numbers. ive seen manifold port work that would spin your head
you have to remember that the lsx engine is still relatively new, 10 years and counting. in the last few years the market has picked up because companies are now finding out that this engine isnt a fluke like an lt1/lt4. not saying that those are bad engines but you really have to admit that it was a new approach to the small block and really is one of chevys bastard engines. if i were in the aftermarket head bizz id be a little hesitant to dump R&D funds into something that might not last. only time will tell the future of the LSX engine. you never know the aftermarket might outsell the traditional 23* sbc.
"Alot of these guys dont know that a conventional 23* head is lucky to go high 280 unless you go with a raised runner or 18*/15* setup."
AND i dont know about that one.....seen regular old track ones flow way better then that!
also stop crying about manifolds. theres no reason why you cant port a cast 4bbl manifold to help match the flow numbers. ive seen manifold port work that would spin your head
you have to remember that the lsx engine is still relatively new, 10 years and counting. in the last few years the market has picked up because companies are now finding out that this engine isnt a fluke like an lt1/lt4. not saying that those are bad engines but you really have to admit that it was a new approach to the small block and really is one of chevys bastard engines. if i were in the aftermarket head bizz id be a little hesitant to dump R&D funds into something that might not last. only time will tell the future of the LSX engine. you never know the aftermarket might outsell the traditional 23* sbc.
"Alot of these guys dont know that a conventional 23* head is lucky to go high 280 unless you go with a raised runner or 18*/15* setup."
AND i dont know about that one
.....seen regular old track ones flow way better then that!More and more people are going to the LS series where the rules allow. As far as the future of the LS series, it will be around for a long time.....
