afr head potential

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 30th 2016, 11:30 pm

I'll just call Lem with all the rest of my legit tech questions.


Last edited by whatbumper on November 1st 2016, 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 31st 2016, 10:52 am

.


Last edited by whatbumper on November 1st 2016, 12:40 pm; edited 1 time in total

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  dfree383 on October 31st 2016, 11:54 am

I don't think you'd get that much on a real bench.

Might see 430's
avatar
dfree383
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 13415
Join date : 2009-07-09
Location : Home Wif Da Wife.....

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  IDT-572 on October 31st 2016, 2:55 pm

I don't think the port roof is high enough to get there.
avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4513
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 56
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 31st 2016, 4:25 pm

.


Last edited by whatbumper on November 1st 2016, 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  IDT-572 on October 31st 2016, 4:50 pm

Blame it on your Chevy biased rules committee. They let the so called "conventional" chevy heads in and only the SCJ style fords run. and in some bodys only the Dove style heads.

When they keep it stock valve angles and port height, the fords are competitive.
avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4513
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 56
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Scott Foxwell on October 31st 2016, 4:58 pm

Does anyone have a port length on these heads?
AFR quotes these ports as having a 3.44 min. cross section @ 300cc's ...it must be a very short port. Port entry doesn't seem to be any closer to the deck than a comparable BB Chev head. The port opening is about .25 shorter on top than the BB Chev, but I'd like to see the BB Chev port cross section at the same distance from the valve. They may be very close. If so, this "300cc" port is equivalent to the AFR357 BB Chev head (which has a 3.435 min. cross section) and out flows it a bit from .400 up. I know I can get over 450 out of a set of the AFR 335 BB Chev heads with a 2.35 valve, 45* valve job and less cross section. I think any decent head porter should be able to get upper-mid 400's out of these. Cross section is going to limit rpm, not necessarily HP. 3.44 sq. in. is a LOT of area for engines under 560-570ci that aren't turning much over 7000rpm.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 324
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  IDT-572 on October 31st 2016, 5:12 pm

Scott,

I have been curious if the AFR head can go on up, I think the P-51's are done @ in the high 430's.
avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4513
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 56
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  rmcomprandy on October 31st 2016, 5:16 pm

whatbumper wrote:Why can't we get anything for Ford's to compete with the plethora of bbc stuff?  

In the business world it is called "return on investment" which is a short way to say there isn't enough customers in the marketplace who will buy it in order to make money.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 4668
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 31st 2016, 5:17 pm

IDT-572 wrote:Blame it on your Chevy biased rules committee. They let the so called "conventional" chevy heads in and only the SCJ style fords run. and in some bodys only the Dove style heads.  

When they keep it stock valve angles and port height, the fords are competitive.

"A" heads are perfectly legal.

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  IDT-572 on October 31st 2016, 5:18 pm

If so there are several A heads out there above 500 cfm do you need more than that. Problem is I don't think they are 18 bolt for boost, but things may have changed.
avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4513
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 56
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 31st 2016, 5:19 pm

.


Last edited by whatbumper on November 1st 2016, 12:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 31st 2016, 5:20 pm

.


Last edited by whatbumper on November 1st 2016, 12:42 pm; edited 1 time in total

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  IDT-572 on October 31st 2016, 5:26 pm

Mike Bowery's Rotated valve Pro RVC head?

Probably over kill and not legal.
avatar
IDT-572
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 4513
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 56
Location : Shelbyville Tn.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  rmcomprandy on October 31st 2016, 6:09 pm

whatbumper wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
whatbumper wrote:Why can't we get anything for Ford's to compete with the plethora of bbc stuff?  

In the business world it is called "return on investment" which is a short way to say there isn't enough customers in the marketplace who will buy it in order to make money.

It's hard to sell something that doesn't exist though.  

It is plain to see that you simply don't understand "return on investment" or you are just being hard headed and don't want to understand it.

The product to sell is not gotten that way for free; it takes an initial investment of considerable amount, (about $150,000.00 for the first 200 heads made then machined from temporary tooling), to produce a cylinder head. Now you HAVE TO sell all of them at about $800.00 each just to break even, (not counting the time spent), so, they will certainly set the cost at a lot more than that just for a bare head.

The cylinder head manufacturers are not willing to gamble that first $150,00.00 unless they figure there are enough customers to make enough money for profit but, they will certainly make that gamble if you put up your money.

Got some extra money you wish to put up ...?

rmcomprandy

Posts : 4668
Join date : 2008-12-02
Location : Roseville, Michigan

View user profile http://www.rmcompetition.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Lem Evans on October 31st 2016, 7:36 pm

whatbumper wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
whatbumper wrote:Why can't we get anything for Ford's to compete with the plethora of bbc stuff?  

In the business world it is called "return on investment" which is a short way to say there isn't enough customers in the marketplace who will buy it in order to make money.

It's hard to sell something that doesn't exist though.  

Sounds like some thing I heard 40 years ago....."can't sell from an empty wagon".

Big castings require a huge capital outlay.....but I've had to suffer b.s. about alternative firing order cams etc.

Lem Evans

Posts : 6826
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Lem Evans on October 31st 2016, 8:32 pm

Potential flow....I don't know.

Potential horse power....I hope to find out soon. AFR seen a set of heads and manifold several months ago & it's finally getting close to happing.

It's a full meal deal..... .043" AP steel 3mm thing with BIG compression....598".

Why so extreme.....AFR expressed that they wanted the engine to actually go down the track [good idea in my opinion]. Phillip Oakley will run this engine in his rear engine dragster.


Lem Evans

Posts : 6826
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  whatbumper on October 31st 2016, 9:00 pm

I completely understand ROI. Lem, I'll call you back tomorrow.

whatbumper

Posts : 3020
Join date : 2009-11-11
Age : 37

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Gary Blair on December 27th 2016, 2:45 am

Scott Foxwell wrote:Does anyone have a port length on these heads?
AFR quotes these ports as having a 3.44 min. cross section @ 300cc's ...it must be a very short port. Port entry doesn't seem to be any closer to the deck than a comparable BB Chev head. The port opening is about .25 shorter on top than the BB Chev, but I'd like to see the BB Chev port cross section at the same distance from the valve. They may be very close. If so, this "300cc" port is equivalent to the AFR357 BB Chev head (which has a 3.435 min. cross section) and out flows it a bit from .400 up. I know I can get over 450 out of a set of the AFR 335 BB Chev heads with a 2.35 valve, 45* valve job and less cross section. I think any decent head porter should be able to get upper-mid 400's out of these. Cross section is going to limit rpm, not necessarily HP. 3.44 sq. in. is a LOT of area for engines under 560-570ci that aren't turning much over 7000rpm.

I haven't had one in my hands, but the intake seat may be able to take a 2.35 OD valve. Might be interesting to try that. Put some more plenum in the manifold as well. Some numbers out there for the 300 CC head on a big capacity bench are close to 440.
avatar
Gary Blair

Posts : 183
Join date : 2009-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  BBFTorino on December 27th 2016, 3:29 am

Do we know yet if AFR plans to come out with a bigger head in the future??

BBFTorino

Posts : 313
Join date : 2015-12-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Scott Foxwell on December 27th 2016, 8:08 pm

Gary Blair wrote:
Scott Foxwell wrote:Does anyone have a port length on these heads?
AFR quotes these ports as having a 3.44 min. cross section @ 300cc's ...it must be a very short port. Port entry doesn't seem to be any closer to the deck than a comparable BB Chev head. The port opening is about .25 shorter on top than the BB Chev, but I'd like to see the BB Chev port cross section at the same distance from the valve. They may be very close. If so, this "300cc" port is equivalent to the AFR357 BB Chev head (which has a 3.435 min. cross section) and out flows it a bit from .400 up. I know I can get over 450 out of a set of the AFR 335 BB Chev heads with a 2.35 valve, 45* valve job and less cross section. I think any decent head porter should be able to get upper-mid 400's out of these. Cross section is going to limit rpm, not necessarily HP. 3.44 sq. in. is a LOT of area for engines under 560-570ci that aren't turning much over 7000rpm.

I haven't had one in my hands, but the intake seat may be able to take a 2.35 OD valve. Might be interesting to try that. Put some more plenum in the manifold as well. Some numbers out there for the 300 CC head on a big capacity bench are close to 440.
Well the port has enough cross section to support a nice big valve. I can see that kind of airflow or more in the right hands.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 324
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Lem Evans on December 27th 2016, 9:27 pm

Gary Blair wrote:
Scott Foxwell wrote:Does anyone have a port length on these heads?
AFR quotes these ports as having a 3.44 min. cross section @ 300cc's ...it must be a very short port. Port entry doesn't seem to be any closer to the deck than a comparable BB Chev head. The port opening is about .25 shorter on top than the BB Chev, but I'd like to see the BB Chev port cross section at the same distance from the valve. They may be very close. If so, this "300cc" port is equivalent to the AFR357 BB Chev head (which has a 3.435 min. cross section) and out flows it a bit from .400 up. I know I can get over 450 out of a set of the AFR 335 BB Chev heads with a 2.35 valve, 45* valve job and less cross section. I think any decent head porter should be able to get upper-mid 400's out of these. Cross section is going to limit rpm, not necessarily HP. 3.44 sq. in. is a LOT of area for engines under 560-570ci that aren't turning much over 7000rpm.

I haven't had one in my hands, but the intake seat may be able to take a 2.35 OD valve. Might be interesting to try that. Put some more plenum in the manifold as well. Some numbers out there for the 300 CC head on a big capacity bench are close to 440.

It'd be interesting if you tried 'that'.

Seems there may be a SCJ style head coming down the pike that would be happy with a 2.350" intake valve.

Lem Evans

Posts : 6826
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  windsor on December 28th 2016, 1:53 am

Lem Evans wrote:Seems there may be a SCJ style head coming down the pike that would be happy with a 2.350" intake valve.

Say whaaat? Exclamation Question
avatar
windsor

Posts : 1059
Join date : 2009-08-09
Location : St. Pete/Northern Va.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Gary Blair on December 28th 2016, 9:18 am

Lem Evans wrote:
Gary Blair wrote:
Scott Foxwell wrote:Does anyone have a port length on these heads?
AFR quotes these ports as having a 3.44 min. cross section @ 300cc's ...it must be a very short port. Port entry doesn't seem to be any closer to the deck than a comparable BB Chev head. The port opening is about .25 shorter on top than the BB Chev, but I'd like to see the BB Chev port cross section at the same distance from the valve. They may be very close. If so, this "300cc" port is equivalent to the AFR357 BB Chev head (which has a 3.435 min. cross section) and out flows it a bit from .400 up. I know I can get over 450 out of a set of the AFR 335 BB Chev heads with a 2.35 valve, 45* valve job and less cross section. I think any decent head porter should be able to get upper-mid 400's out of these. Cross section is going to limit rpm, not necessarily HP. 3.44 sq. in. is a LOT of area for engines under 560-570ci that aren't turning much over 7000rpm.

I haven't had one in my hands, but the intake seat may be able to take a 2.35 OD valve. Might be interesting to try that. Put some more plenum in the manifold as well. Some numbers out there for the 300 CC head on a big capacity bench are close to 440.

It'd be interesting if you tried 'that'.

Seems there may be a SCJ style head coming down the pike that would be happy with a 2.350" intake valve.

Will it need a seat replacement for that? Are you going to keep the short turn prominent?
avatar
Gary Blair

Posts : 183
Join date : 2009-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Scott Foxwell on December 28th 2016, 10:59 am

Looks like we'll have a set of the 300's here in the shop soon. I'm going to have to take some measurements. They use a 2.45 seat so a 2.35 valve is no problem.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 324
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

View user profile http://www.straubtechnologies.com

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum