afr head potential

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  68formalGT on December 28th 2016, 10:20 am

So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?
avatar
68formalGT

Posts : 706
Join date : 2012-02-13
Location : Pueblo West, Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Scott Foxwell on December 28th 2016, 10:40 am

68formalGT wrote:So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?
???

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 342
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  rmcomprandy on December 28th 2016, 10:43 am

68formalGT wrote:So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?

To most companies, that is strictly controlled by the bottom profit line.  They would not come out with a new product to replace one of their own unless they figured to make a good profit on BOTH.

What it usually will take is someone who has their own money to invest in something they have a personal tie emotionally and are willing to take that chance.  When other automotive parts suppliers and manufacturers see there is a market and THEY are not taking that chance, only then they will spend the money, jump-in and try to take advantage of someone else' forethought.
A few companies like DART, BRODIX, Bill Mitchel, and a some others actually started that way ... Kevin at RPM first offered an affordable FORGED steel crankshaft for a big block Ford and others only them followed suit AFTER they witnessed what happened in the marketplace. Kaase and AFR are now part of that rare breed of foreseers.

PROFIT didn't used to be the driving force in Hot Rodding but, it certainly is that way now.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 4695
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  Scott Foxwell on December 28th 2016, 10:48 am

rmcomprandy wrote:
68formalGT wrote:So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?

To most companies, that is strictly controlled by the bottom profit line.  They would not come out with a new product to replace one of their own unless they figured to make a good profit on BOTH.

What it usually will take is someone who has their own money to invest in something they have a personal tie emotionally and are willing to take that chance.  When other automotive parts suppliers and manufacturers see there is a market and THEY are not taking that chance, only then they will spend the money, jump-in and try to take advantage of someone else' forethought.
A few companies like DART, BRODIX, Bill Mitchel, and a some others actually started that way ... Kevin at RPM first offered an affordable FORGED steel crankshaft for a big block Ford and others only them followed suit AFTER they witnessed what happened in the marketplace. Kaase and AFR are now part of that rare breed of foreseers.

PROFIT didn't used to be the driving force in Hot Rodding but, it certainly is that way now.
Profit HAS to be the driving force in business. Lot of really smart people with good ideas have tried to start a business and unfortunately gone by the wayside because they didn't understand how to run a business and make a profit.
I have a lot of respect for Rich Maskin. He was a racer who realized the importance of a good business understanding and actually stopped racing and went to business school and got an education, then started Dart.


Last edited by Scott Foxwell on December 28th 2016, 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 342
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  rmcomprandy on December 28th 2016, 10:52 am

Scott Foxwell wrote:
rmcomprandy wrote:
68formalGT wrote:So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?

To most companies, that is strictly controlled by the bottom profit line.  They would not come out with a new product to replace one of their own unless they figured to make a good profit on BOTH.

What it usually will take is someone who has their own money to invest in something they have a personal tie emotionally and are willing to take that chance.  When other automotive parts suppliers and manufacturers see there is a market and THEY are not taking that chance, only then they will spend the money, jump-in and try to take advantage of someone else' forethought.
A few companies like DART, BRODIX, Bill Mitchel, and a some others actually started that way ... Kevin at RPM first offered an affordable FORGED steel crankshaft for a big block Ford and others only them followed suit AFTER they witnessed what happened in the marketplace. Kaase and AFR are now part of that rare breed of foreseers.

PROFIT didn't used to be the driving force in Hot Rodding but, it certainly is that way now.
Profit HAS to be the driving force in business. Lot of really smart people with good ideas have tried to start a business and unfortunately gone by the wayside because they didn't understand how to run a business and make a profit.

Almost GUARANTEED a profit is what I should have said ... believing in producing a good idea thinking the profit will follow is almost gone.
There just are almost no more Thomas Edison's or Alexander Bell's or Ben Franklin's out there anymore.

rmcomprandy

Posts : 4695
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  68formalGT on December 28th 2016, 11:10 am

Scott Foxwell wrote:
68formalGT wrote:So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?
???

Are the heads being built for the BBF being "held back" as to not be "better" then the GM counterpart? In the next thread down why would Edelbrock release the BV3 Ford head before the GM head when ROI would dictate you release to a bigger platform first unless they want the Ford head out there first so they can try to improve the GM head until it surpasses the Ford head?
avatar
68formalGT

Posts : 706
Join date : 2012-02-13
Location : Pueblo West, Colorado

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Scott Foxwell on December 28th 2016, 1:05 pm

68formalGT wrote:
Scott Foxwell wrote:
68formalGT wrote:So based on ROI would a company go all out on a platform to build a product that would out perform a product they build for a competitors platform?
???

Are the heads being built for the BBF being "held back" as to not be "better" then the GM counterpart? In the next thread down why would Edelbrock release the BV3 Ford head before the GM head when ROI would dictate you release to a bigger platform first unless they want the Ford head out there first so they can try to improve the GM head until it surpasses the Ford head?
I would say the GM head market is saturated. AFR even came out with their spread port GM head this year. Not sure what prompted them to do that. It looks like a nice head for sure, but I don't foresee it flying off the shelf.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 342
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 29th 2016, 9:02 pm

Gary Blair wrote:
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?

You said 'are you'...it's not my deal. Unlike most....'they' are not looking to get P R way out in front of the product.

Lem Evans

Posts : 6834
Join date : 2008-12-03
Location : Livermore , Ky

View user profile http://bfevansraceparts.com

Back to top Go down

Re: afr head potential

Post  Scott Foxwell on December 31st 2016, 10:56 am

I have a set in the shop now and will be on the flow bench here soon. I'll flow on 4.50 bore.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 342
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  Gary Blair on January 1st 2017, 9:08 am

Scott Foxwell wrote:I have a set in the shop now and will be on the flow bench here soon. I'll flow on 4.50 bore.

Maybe they were planning for the future with the 2.45 intake seat? Wink
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 January 1st 2017, 9:22 pm

Gary Blair wrote:
Scott Foxwell wrote:I have a set in the shop now and will be on the flow bench here soon. I'll flow on 4.50 bore.

Maybe they were planning for the future with the 2.45 intake seat? Wink  
It's the same seat they use in all their big block heads, even with a 2.25 valve. AFR uses as many of the same part as they can. It does make it nice for a bigger valve.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 342
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  Scott Foxwell on January 3rd 2017, 5:53 pm

Scott Foxwell wrote: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.
Flow numbers, SF600, 4.50 bore, 3/4" clay radius, 2.25" straight ex pipe
Int / ex

.2 167.3 / 118.0
.3 252.0 / 172.1
.4 314.2 / 229.8
.5 362.4 / 267.0
.6 401.8 / 288.6
.7 423.4 / 297.8
.8 392  / 302.4
.9 ... / 305.8
1.0 ... / 308.0

Numbers are a bit better than advertized. Port FELL ON ITS FACE at about .75" in a BIG way.
.5, .6, .7 were more than a little turbulent.
The ex from .3 through .7 was pissy and turbulent.
The intake port reminds me very much of a BB Chev left hand port.

Scott Foxwell

Posts : 342
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : N/E Tennessee

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

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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