Found some more flow numbers on AFR 's new heads

These 300 cc head flow numbers at .700 are the highest I have seen.

http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/cylinder-heads/tech-deep-dive-air-flow-research-bullitt-cylinder-heads-for-bbf/

If Randy Malik was a true forum hero, he would buy a set and flow them and dyno them and then post all his findings and then get bashed and told his dyno and flow numbers were all wrong, and he didn't give a true comparison............

Uh wait, now I remember why he don't do it anymore.

RM FTW! Ha!

IDT-572 wrote:These 300 cc head flow numbers at .700 are the highest I have seen.

 http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/cylinder-heads/tech-deep-dive-air-flow-research-bullitt-cylinder-heads-for-bbf/

If Randy Malik was a true forum hero, he would buy a set and flow them and dyno them and then post all his findings and then get bashed and told his dyno and flow numbers were all wrong, and he didn't give a true comparison............

Uh wait, now I remember why he don't do it anymore.

IF I did that, (and I might), you and a few others who are interested in knowing actual facts would be given the information if you asked.
I certainly would not put any of it on here any more ...

Awh now comeon Mr. sensitivity,those guys were probably just messin with ya.

It was the micro aggressions I tell you, everyone's going to have to be a sweatie pie now.

In for a good read

It was a good read and a nice informative article that the Power Media people wrote. Unfortunately I'm going to say that the Power Media's flow bench calibration was off. At this point I need to mention that Lawes and I have a SuperFlow flow bench with the newest FlowCom computer just like the one pictured in the article, so I'm speaking from experience here.
Their flow bench calibration is off in varying terms of percentage on the low end of the lift scale. For example at .300" intake lift AFR says 241 cfm which is a very very good flow number, but still believeable. Whereas the Power Media bench says 268 cfm which is totally unbelievable and is a difference of +27 cfm. Now notice that at .600" intake lift AFR says 405 cfm and Power Media says 411 cfm. That's only a difference of 6 cfm and is certainly within an acceptable margin of error, from bench to bench. However, the huge difference between flow benches on the low end of the lift ranges points to a calibration problem with the Power Media FlowCom computer.
Now let's look at the exhaust flow numbers. Again at .300" lift we see AFR = 172 cfm and Power Media = 184 cfm, for a difference of 12 cfm at .300" lift which is a big difference. Go up to .600" lift and the flow numbers are nearly identical with 274 / 275 cfm. Again this points to Power Media's flow bench calibration, within the FlowCom computer being off. Those are "happy" numbers down there at the low lift points IMO.

Charlie

I don't see AFR taking any substantial market share from TFS, FRPP, Kaase, ect...

Hasn't anyone installed these on a car or on a motor that was dynoed? Are they not readily available yet? Wondering how they compare in the real world to a p51.

tfsbbf466 wrote:Hasn't anyone installed these on a car or on a motor that was dynoed? Are they not readily available yet? Wondering how they compare in the real world to a p51.

This has been going on for 3-4 years now........ If they where that good don't you think the advertising would be in bright neon ????

I am seeing them advertised in magazines now. It requires the matching intake. I wonder if its too little, too late type of thing.
Im sure they make good power, but like its been said, the market for that level of head is already covered.
But the more, the better!!

In my mind building a set of heads around a non standard intake manifold was a dumbass idea. Not only do you want me to buy your heads, now I have to purchase an intake to go with them when I probably already have one sitting on the shelf. If your building an all new combo it doesn't matter but for those of us that upgrade over time and when the budget allows its not practical.

wickettoby1 wrote:In my mind building a set of heads around a non standard intake manifold was a dumbass idea. Not only do you want me to buy your heads, now I have to purchase an intake to go with them when I probably already have one sitting on the shelf. If your building an all new combo it doesn't matter but for those of us that upgrade over time and when the budget allows its not practical.

aaaaaaaand .... that head is ugly!! esp the ex side..

torino501 wrote:

wickettoby1 wrote:In my mind building a set of heads around a non standard intake manifold was a dumbass idea. Not only do you want me to buy your heads, now I have to purchase an intake to go with them when I probably already have one sitting on the shelf. If your building an all new combo it doesn't matter but for those of us that upgrade over time and when the budget allows its not practical.

aaaaaaaand .... that head is ugly!! esp the ex side..

Ugly girls need love too!

Don't see how in any way is it possible these heads could be an entire 75 horsepower better than an SCJ unless something was really wrong (or I'm just ignant).

Well an out of the box scj certainly does have its issues > not really a fair comparison.
It is like comparing P51 otb to a SCJ otb. I am sure 75 horsepower there too (depending on application of course)

windsor wrote:Don't see how in any way is it possible these heads could be an entire 75 horsepower better than an SCJ unless something was really wrong (or I'm just ignant).

Easily at the peak; depending upon the camshaft used ... this game is NOT all about top RPM horsepower and maximum air flow numbers, though.

When someone wants to sell their SCJ's or TFS's to buy some AFR's just let me know, ill take them off of your hands for you.