afr head potential

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

.

I don't think the port roof is high enough to get there.

.

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.

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

.

.

Mike Bowery's Rotated valve Pro RVC head?

Probably over kill and not legal.

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 ...?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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?

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.