Straight forward build

These AFR heads are proving to be a less costly build than the P-51. No head or manifold work needed with this basic build. Seems to have the potential for more growth as well. Bright future for the AFR stuff. Excellent business opportunity.

Not necessarily a better product, just an easier one to work with out of the box IMO

They are putting the head porter out of business and changing the market to a bolt together thing.

dfree383 wrote:Not necessarily a better product, just an easier one to work with out of the box IMO

They are putting the head porter out of business and changing the market to a bolt together thing.

Most stuff never makes it to the track anyway. Salesman's paradise.

The triple C approach works well. CCC, Carlisle, Columbus, and Craigslist.

Gary Blair wrote:

dfree383 wrote:Not necessarily a better product, just an easier one to work with out of the box IMO

They are putting the head porter out of business and changing the market to a bolt together thing.

Most stuff never makes it to the track anyway. Salesman's paradise.

The triple C approach works well. CCC, Carlisle, Columbus, and Craigslist.

????

dfree383 wrote:

Gary Blair wrote:

dfree383 wrote:Not necessarily a better product, just an easier one to work with out of the box IMO

They are putting the head porter out of business and changing the market to a bolt together thing.

Most stuff never makes it to the track anyway. Salesman's paradise.

The triple C approach works well. CCC, Carlisle, Columbus, and Craigslist.

????

I like putting together the unlikely combo from the swap meets.

The market is bolting together what is sold as such.

Most are new to the BBF and have never attempted to sort out something different or raced it to determine what goes down the track better.

For some guys this could be their first race engine. They have nothing to compare it to personally. Only what they read on the net.

Just because it flows better or has a nice dyno number doesn't always guarantee it will satisfy a racers expectations.

Ran across a guy that got a set of BBF AFR 280 as cast. Going to make his own design port. He is a racer. Been at it a long time. Knows his car's capability. Isn't taken in by charts and numbers just ET slip's.

I think the AFR manifold is a good design. Shorter end runners. Maybe wack those runner extensions off and see if it runs better.

Or leave it alone and run it on a 521 with 280 heads.

Lot of potential in all the BBF AFR heads. When it first arrived the P-51 was still available and sold well. The BBF community that you are familiar with werent ready to try them just yet.

Now that Lem and Oakley have put this out there that might change. Appealing package. Should sell well.

Not doubt it will sell well AFR is a master at marketing.

My opinion is not worth much but if I can buy a cylinder head that works well out of the box without the need for modification, voodoo, magic etc. to reach my goal then I may consider it to be a better product. Considering that I am aware that the heads may not perform to the highest degree that other heads can achieve with the extra modifications. I think that any thing that may make it easier for the average Joe to put together a fast FORD in his garage is better for the sport. Like it or not the Chevy guys have enjoyed this for years, go to any drag strip in the nation and see the results, 90+% Chevy power.
Hell if I am wrong then lets melt all of our aluminum heads and cast ex's and dig up every old factory iron head and get those head porters to work.

Did any of the p-51 combinations make as much horsepower or torque with out of the box or CNC only parts? If not then I'd say it's a better head. They also have the "smaller" heads to go with the smaller inch engines. The potential is definitely there for porters to find a few more numbers also. How long did it take builders to break a 1,000 horse with the p-51s from when they were first released?

68formalGT wrote:Did any of the p-51 combinations make as much horsepower or torque with out of the box or CNC only parts? If not then I'd say it's a better head. They also have the "smaller" heads to go with the smaller inch engines. The potential is definitely there for porters to find a few more numbers also. How long did it take builders to break a 1,000 horse with the p-51s from when they were first released?

They broke a 1000 within a year or two of release, Blake Cartwright was one of the first I know of on hear that did it on a slightly smaller engine and I’m sure with a few more tweaks their is more in them.

IMO if you already have good heads like P-51’s I wouldn’t be rushing to swap them for these, a little rubbing and lovin is cheaper and will get you the same results.

If your starting new you have a quick and easy alternative

dfree383 wrote:

68formalGT wrote:Did any of the p-51 combinations make as much horsepower or torque with out of the box or CNC only parts? If not then I'd say it's a better head. They also have the "smaller" heads to go with the smaller inch engines. The potential is definitely there for porters to find a few more numbers also. How long did it take builders to break a 1,000 horse with the p-51s from when they were first released?

They broke a 1000 within a year or two of release, Blake Cartwright was one of the first I know of on hear that did it on a slightly smaller engine and I’m sure with a few more tweaks their is more in them.

IMO if you already have good heads like P-51’s I wouldn’t be rushing to swap them for these, a little rubbing and lovin is cheaper and will get you the same results.

If your starting new you have a quick and easy alternative

LOL I used to say the same thing about the P-51 vs the old Cobra Jet stuff.

What if an as cast 280 runs well at the track? Lot of variables.

The Chevy aftermarket is the biggest. They have plenty of ready to bolt on stuff. We don't have much. AFR services us and them too. There is probably still a P-51 bias of some sorts. It has been marketed well on here. Time will tell. Not everything needs 430 CFM to get down the track if that's your thang.

One of the things that does make the AFRs better is the fact that you can actually get them. Sounds like the supply on the P-51s is still in question.

In my opinion based on experience with 3 sets of sbf AFR heads and various camshaft profiles, compression, bore and stroke combinations the AFR heads do a great job out of the box with making power.

On the other hand based off of what I have read about the Kaase heads and AFR heads they are close in hp and torque numbers . At the end of the day it comes down to preference, budget , intended use and hp goals .

I also have what I consider close friends running the Kaase heads one has some port work done to the heads and the other was as cast these engines made hp and torque that the chevy guys could not believe that a BBF was capable of making .

I am glad AFR has made another BBF head and Intake for the Big Block Ford bolt together or not! I also don't believe that these heads will hurt or put any head porter out of business. Just my two cents !

Going to change some opinions of what the bow tie boys think of what an easy engine build that makes some serious power is.

A few years ago just before I ever saw the AFR heads I took a set of tfs street heads that had lots of port work done to them previously. I reshaped the intake runners to a smaller rectangular shape using epoxy. The intake runners came out to 305cc's, the exhaust runners were ported only in the roof area. The intake runners were also filled to match the shape and size of the head. These changes alone picked up my car up from 5.70's to 5.50's. Just shows how "porting heads" can hurt or help performance depending on the knowledge of the person behind the die grinder and or flow bench. I can't wait to see how much they can be improved if any with port work.

This is the sheet from 2-1/2 years ago for a 588" P51 engine. It's up from the recent AFR test 6 HP @ peak but, 17 HP better @ 7,200 RPM. I suspect that it may be the intake manifold...maybe not. If things go right the 598" could get a shot at having it's manifold modified, a "mafia" or both....time will tell.

I see that it, in some people's mind, was an A vs B test to prove which head is the best...ain't no way. To much stuff other than the cyl. head castings that is not the same. What it does prove is that the AFR stuff is good....real good.

68formalGT wrote:One of the things that does make the AFRs better is the fact that you can actually get them. Sounds like the supply on the P-51s is still in question.

I got two sets of P51s a couple of weeks ago.....one set left....you want'em.

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:One of the things that does make the AFRs better is the fact that you can actually get them. Sounds like the supply on the P-51s is still in question.

I got two sets of P51s a couple of weeks ago.....one set left....you want'em.  

No thank you but if I hear of anyone wanting a set after seeing your AFR dyno sheet I'll send them your way.

Gary Blair wrote:These AFR heads are proving to be a less costly build than the P-51. No head or manifold work needed with this basic build. Seems to have the potential for more growth as well. Bright future for the AFR stuff. Excellent business opportunity.

They did it with the SBF heads years ago and it has worked well. Surprised it took them so long to jump on the BBF bus...

Lem Evans wrote:

This is the sheet from 2-1/2 years ago for a 588" P51 engine. It's up from the recent AFR test 6 HP @ peak but, 17 HP better @ 7,200 RPM. I suspect that it may be the intake manifold...maybe not. If things go right the 598" could get a shot at having it's manifold modified, a "mafia" or both....time will tell.

I see that it, in some people's mind, was an A vs B test to prove which head is the best...ain't no way. To much stuff other than the cyl. head castings that is not the same. What it does prove is that the AFR stuff is good....real good.

Same dyno as you tested the AFR stuff on?

Lem Evans wrote:

68formalGT wrote:One of the things that does make the AFRs better is the fact that you can actually get them. Sounds like the supply on the P-51s is still in question.

I got two sets of P51s a couple of weeks ago.....one set left....you want'em.  

You got those from Kaase? Does he have castings now?

Same dyno.

Sure I got the P51 from Jon. He's the only source. I don't know how many he has today....all I know is I bought four heads a couple of weeks ago, sold two and put two on the shelf.

Lem Evans wrote:Group? B F Evans Ford Inc is. I've not sold any AFR here to fore.

Are you getting the band back together!!!!!!!!!

Gary Blair wrote:Just because it flows better or has a nice dyno number doesn't always guarantee it will satisfy a racers expectations.

I picked up 3 mph in the 1/2 mile with 20 degrees less cam duration, and .100 less lift.  
Backed up the results at the Colorado Mile later in the year too.

http://www.460ford.com/forum/37-engine-tech/238585-afr-528-vs-a429-514-real-world-results.html


.

Carl wrote:

Gary Blair wrote:Just because it flows better or has a nice dyno number doesn't always guarantee it will satisfy a racers expectations.

I picked up 3 mph in the 1/2 mile with 20 degrees less cam duration, and .100 less lift.  
Backed up the results at the Colorado Mile later in the year too.

http://www.460ford.com/forum/37-engine-tech/238585-afr-528-vs-a429-514-real-world-results.html


.

What was the DA on those days? Had to be higher then 6,000'!

Carl wrote:

Gary Blair wrote:Just because it flows better or has a nice dyno number doesn't always guarantee it will satisfy a racers expectations.

I picked up 3 mph in the 1/2 mile with 20 degrees less cam duration, and .100 less lift.  
Backed up the results at the Colorado Mile later in the year too.

http://www.460ford.com/forum/37-engine-tech/238585-afr-528-vs-a429-514-real-world-results.html


.

Track tuning is always helpful.