AFR NEW HEADS

SAM's Popular Hot Rodding 532 P-51 used that cam for their "Off the shelf article". It had 11.5-1. It made 774 HP with ported heads and ported Victor on pump gas.

More testing needs to be done to be fair. Salesmanship goes both ways at times.

At this point I'm thinking AFR is late to the game is is just adding another choice, rather than providing any giant step up.

It's not good to need a dedicated intake and a 3rd valve location pistons either. The would have been better served sticking with the stock shape and location and producing a better intake on that platform.

It wouldn't be the first time a new BBF head needed a different valve relief.

Seems like the AFR intake could be used on other BBF heads as well. Offering it with a CJ port would be a plus.

dfree383 wrote:At this point I'm thinking AFR is late to the game is is just adding another choice, rather than providing any giant step up.

It's not good to need a dedicated intake and a 3rd valve location pistons either. The would have been better served sticking with the stock shape and location and producing a better intake on that platform.

I would kind of disagree. I think it's good to see people thinking outside the box on a street head. Until this point every street head has just copied the ford port dimensions and tried to work around it. I like the rectangle port as a new different option. The valve placement is only a bit of a nuisance for the time being. Having a dedicated intake is a good thing. As previously mentioned, even the Victor needed custom work to work well with an SCJ or P51 head.

All I see are positives with the valve layout being the only very minor hurdle until piston manufacturers catch up... Like they did when the SCJ first came out.

SLord82 wrote:

dfree383 wrote:At this point I'm thinking AFR is late to the game is is just adding another choice, rather than providing any giant step up.

It's not good to need a dedicated intake and a 3rd valve location pistons either. The would have been better served sticking with the stock shape and location and producing a better intake on that platform.

I would kind of disagree. I think it's good to see people thinking outside the box on a street head. Until this point every street head has just copied the ford port dimensions and tried to work around it. I like the rectangle port as a new different option. The valve placement is only a bit of a nuisance for the time being. Having a dedicated intake is a good thing. As previously mentioned, even the Victor needed custom work to work well with an SCJ or P51 head.

All I see are positives with the valve layout being the only very minor hurdle until piston manufacturers catch up... Like they did when the SCJ first came out.

I'm just not convinced the 3rd valve relocation is worth the effort on a broad range street type head it just adds to the confusion and frustration to lower budget street guys wanting to upgrade. Same goes with the intake port..... Nothing new here either the square vs round argument has new going on For years and I'd be willing to bet 99% of the application won't ever see a difference either. It just comes down to marketing and convincing the average joe it's a new mouse trap.......

Guys who need a race head are going to pass right over these and get A460 or up parts. I see these as targeting the street and street strip guys.

+1

Race oriented builds will still use A460 or better starting points.
It certainly looks like the AFR head and intake will be a very decent OTB set up. That being said, the P51 and mafia intake is also
a very decent OTB set up as well.
I am sure we will see (hopefully) a build comparing P51/mafia intake on a 557 with the new AFR offering.

It is nice to see lots of choices - Not that long ago there were very few.

I don't think anyone is pretending these are race orientated heads.

Whether they are better than all other street heads has yet to be seen, I just applaud the fact that AFR has created a completely clean sheet design for the 460. When was the last time this was done?

Yes, the valve location is a nuisance but I really doubt it will deter many from using a better option (if they turn out to be better). Was it really necessary to move the valves? Kaase thought so when he designed the SCJs and P51s and no one really questioned him. The intake manifold issue is a moot point. The heads WILL use CJ port intakes, but they also offer a dedicated intake. As for Rectangle vs Oval port, another moot point. They chose rectangle likely because thats what they know. They build tons and tons of BBC, LSx, SBC and SBF heads with RECTANGLE ports so why not stick with what works for them? Don't like it, don't use it.

Anyway you cut it, more options is always a plus and that's what I'm really excited about.

Maybe this will kick trick flow or edelbrock in the butt to create a new offering. Or maybe Ford or Kaase will update theirs. Maybe AFR sees a high demand and follows these with bigger better options similar to their BBC stuff. Shoot, maybe this will get world or dart to build us an aftermarket block if they see AFR become successful in a new market.

Based on the magazine stuff I hope I have this info correct.

Question is...if you were sitting at a stop light in your 3,300# Fox Mustang and some gay LS Chevy guy was in the other lane and you had one block to get it done....3,200 stall converter...which engine would you use?

1] 727 Hp @ 6,400 rpm - 674 lbs. ft. @ 5,000 rpm

2] 652 Hp @ 6,500 rpm - 649 lbs. ft. @ 4,700 rpm

3] 707 Hp @ 6,000 rpm - 694 lbs. ft. @ 4,800 rpm

?

engine number 3 is the winner

butterbean wrote:engine number 3 is the winner

Being that it makes 603 @ 4,600...I suspect you may be right.

Lem Evans wrote:Based on the magazine stuff I hope I have this info correct.

Question is...if you were sitting at a stop light in your 3,300# Fox Mustang and some gay LS Chevy guy was in the other lane and you had one block to get it done....3,200 stall converter...which engine would you use?

1] 727 Hp @ 6,400 rpm - 674 lbs. ft. @ 5,000 rpm

2] 652 Hp @ 6,500 rpm - 649 lbs. ft. @ 4,700 rpm

3] 707 Hp @ 6,000 rpm - 694 lbs. ft. @ 4,800 rpm

?

Lol at gay LS chevy guy. Though I really like those LS engines shhhhhhhhh.

Lem Evans wrote:

butterbean wrote:engine number 3 is the winner

Being that it makes 603 @ 4,600...I suspect you may be right.

I also go with number 3. But I have 2 questions.
1. I recognize the 1 and 2 from the article but where did 3 come from?

2. Where did 603 @ 4600 come from?

[quote="SLord82"]

Lol at gay LS chevy guy. Though I really like those LS engines shhhhhhhhh.

How dare you on this forum people have been banned for less...... .......J/K

SLord82 wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:Based on the magazine stuff I hope I have this info correct.

Question is...if you were sitting at a stop light in your 3,300# Fox Mustang and some gay LS Chevy guy was in the other lane and you had one block to get it done....3,200 stall converter...which engine would you use?

1] 727 Hp @ 6,400 rpm - 674 lbs. ft. @ 5,000 rpm

2] 652 Hp @ 6,500 rpm - 649 lbs. ft. @ 4,700 rpm

3] 707 Hp @ 6,000 rpm - 694 lbs. ft. @ 4,800 rpm

?

Lol at gay LS chevy guy. Though I really like those LS engines shhhhhhhhh.

Lem Evans wrote:

butterbean wrote:engine number 3 is the winner

Being that it makes 603 @ 4,600...I suspect you may be right.

I also go with number 3. But I have 2 questions.
1. I recognize the 1 and 2 from the article but where did 3 come from?

2. Where did 603 @ 4600 come from?

#3

Lem Evans wrote:

SLord82 wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:Based on the magazine stuff I hope I have this info correct.

Question is...if you were sitting at a stop light in your 3,300# Fox Mustang and some gay LS Chevy guy was in the other lane and you had one block to get it done....3,200 stall converter...which engine would you use?

1] 727 Hp @ 6,400 rpm - 674 lbs. ft. @ 5,000 rpm

2] 652 Hp @ 6,500 rpm - 649 lbs. ft. @ 4,700 rpm

3] 707 Hp @ 6,000 rpm - 694 lbs. ft. @ 4,800 rpm

?

Lol at gay LS chevy guy. Though I really like those LS engines shhhhhhhhh.

Lem Evans wrote:

butterbean wrote:engine number 3 is the winner

Being that it makes 603 @ 4,600...I suspect you may be right.

I also go with number 3. But I have 2 questions.
1. I recognize the 1 and 2 from the article but where did 3 come from?

2. Where did 603 @ 4600 come from?

#3

What setup is #3?

Lem Evans wrote:Based on the magazine stuff I hope I have this info correct.

Question is...if you were sitting at a stop light in your 3,300# Fox Mustang and some gay LS Chevy guy was in the other lane and you had one block to get it done....3,200 stall converter...which engine would you use?

1] 727 Hp @ 6,400 rpm - 674 lbs. ft. @ 5,000 rpm

2] 652 Hp @ 6,500 rpm - 649 lbs. ft. @ 4,700 rpm

3] 707 Hp @ 6,000 rpm - 694 lbs. ft. @ 4,800 rpm

?

I would try not to cry due to excessive laughing , realize he is beat with any of the above motors and not bother because the ticket is not worth it.

Well a street driven (alot) Zephyr with a LS engine up here in Edmonton is damn fast.
I don't think anyone is laughing at his LS build - Just sayin.



315DR/275DR TT/LS powered Zephyr STREET CAR - 7.54@191.15 "Cream Dream 2"

68galaxie wrote:Well a street driven (alot) Zephyr with a LS engine up here in Edmonton is damn fast.
I don't think anyone is laughing at his LS build - Just sayin.



315DR/275DR TT/LS powered Zephyr STREET CAR - 7.54@191.15 "Cream Dream 2"

Does he have a 3,200 rpm converter? That was the context of my statement.

Nothing wrong with solid FT cams. I like them a bunch. A good valve job and short turn work can be very rewarding on just about any head.

There is a nice pump gas 521 with early A-429's around hear with an Ultradyne SFT, 271/279 @ .050, 110, .642 gross. 10-1, Victor with a Holley 9377 1150. 345 CFM @ .600 lift on the intake

696 HP @ 6000

688 ft lbs @ 4800

Sometimes simple can be a lot of fun.

68galaxie wrote:Well a street driven (alot) Zephyr with a LS engine up here in Edmonton is damn fast.
I don't think anyone is laughing at his LS build - Just sayin.



315DR/275DR TT/LS powered Zephyr STREET CAR - 7.54@191.15 "Cream Dream 2"

Take the hair dryer or frosty off it and let's see it run.

All I can say is I am glad to see another offering and given time, I am sure there will be some dyno results posted here. And for the record, If AFR wants to send me a set of heads and intake, I'd be happy to bolt them on my 4.440x4.150 514 and dyno them out. Heck, I'd even get someone on this form to make a custom cam for the occasion..

dfree383 wrote:

68galaxie wrote:Well a street driven (alot) Zephyr with a LS engine up here in Edmonton is damn fast.
I don't think anyone is laughing at his LS build - Just sayin.



315DR/275DR TT/LS powered Zephyr STREET CAR - 7.54@191.15 "Cream Dream 2"

Take the hair dryer or frosty off it and let's see it run.

....and get it done in a city block.

Lets get back on track here.
I have a BBF and love them!
I didn't like the laughing at an LS engine posting.
Not sure many street driven BBF could handle this LS street driven car. That is all I was saying.

Why do Ford guys have to belittle LS engines? I certainly like them better than the Ford Mod motors.

Anyhow, I like my BBF.

Coyote > LS. Just sayin'

68galaxie wrote:Lets get back on track here.
I have a BBF and love them!  
I didn't like the laughing at an LS engine posting.
Not sure many street driven BBF could handle this LS street driven car. That is all I was saying.

Why do Ford guys have to belittle LS engines? I certainly like them better than the Ford Mod motors.

Anyhow, I like my BBF.

Last I checked the LS engine is produced by Government Motors....... We are Ford guys...... We don't like GM's as a rule when it's between domestic makes.... And we especially don't like GM engines being swapped into Ford cars.....Thats F'n wrong !