[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by White Thunder how come canfield heads are never thrown in this?

I often wonder the same thing. I also often wonder why nobody ever makes an apples to apples comparison with the Trick Flow Vs. AFR debate.

[White Thunder]

whats worse darrell? the TF vs AFR or 331 vs 347?

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by White Thunder whats worse darrell? the TF vs AFR or 331 vs 347?

I think its a toss up because both arguements are full of misinformation.

[95project]

no shit guys..when i get my car back i will post the dyno sheet and put my time slips from the track on here as well. hopefully i can make my goal numbers.....assuming my "mechanic" put it back together right....and i believe the head test was between the afr 165, (they also had the 185 in there) and the 160 standard tf track heat heads among others ie. FRPP,Edelbrock,holley etc.....

By the way...my deciding factor on the AFR heads was the crazy amount of people i talked to at the recent 45th annisversary of the mustang in birmingham AL..almost everyone i talked to liked either TF of the AFR...more so in my opnion towards the AFR...so thats what i went with...i knew what flow rates i was looking for and combustion/exhaust size etc, but was looking for a brand to trust. again, i would be happy with either, but prefer the afr's as of now....

[White Thunder]

upgrade the spring to match your cam specs....

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by 95project no shit guys..when i get my car back i will post the dyno sheet and put my time slips from the track on here as well. hopefully i can make my goal numbers.....assuming my "mechanic" put it back together right....and i believe the head test was between the afr 165, (they also had the 185 in there) and the 160 standard tf track heat heads among others ie. FRPP,Edelbrock,holley etc..... By the way...my deciding factor on the AFR heads was the crazy amount of people i talked to at the recent 45th annisversary of the mustang in birmingham AL..almost everyone i talked to liked either TF of the AFR...more so in my opnion towards the AFR...so thats what i went with...i knew what flow rates i was looking for and combustion/exhaust size etc, but was looking for a brand to trust. again, i would be happy with either, but prefer the afr's as of now....

I'm curious as to what they like better about the AFR heads and what details made you make the decision that AFR is a better head.

[baine21225]

well then how about this, what do you think of TW vs Canfield


i still think i'd lean toward TW

[88-gt-t-top]

Is BRODIX anywhere in the mix here? Just figured since it's pretty clear the original question was answered and we're throwing around other companies now...

[JBIGBOOTSY]

Side note. I have spent the past 2 days reading everything I can on heads, and everything that goes with them.

Every aspect except a few, like chamber size, leads to peak, and average flow. Cross section, average, and minimum, are directly related to flow. Valve location, and size, and angle is related to flow. Combustion chambers valve shrouding area, port location, are all related to flow. Velosity is another grey area, I have found no real numbers, or standards. Just things like "good velosity".

Port finish is not as important, as the wall of the ports allways have no flow.

It seems the standard "xxx. cc runners", should be replaced with "minimum cross section", as that is a better number to go off of.

Bit in short it all seems to add up to flow.

[coreyflipp]

If you haven't already, go to SBFtech.com. It's full of great info from peeps like jay allen. I read alot on there and feel like a complete dumbass when I do. Still kinda confused about cross section.

[JBIGBOOTSY]

Originally Posted by coreyflipp If you haven't already, go to SBFtech.com. It's full of great info from peeps like jay allen. I read alot on there and feel like a complete dumbass when I do. Still kinda confused about cross section.

its a 2d representation of the port area, measured in square inches.

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by baine21225 well then how about this, what do you think of TW vs Canfield i still think i'd lean toward TW

Canfield for sure....my opinion anyway. The Canfield is very similar to a High Port.

[1slo5.0]

Originally Posted by JBIGBOOTSY Side note. I have spent the past 2 days reading everything I can on heads, and everything that goes with them. Every aspect except a few, like chamber size, leads to peak, and average flow. Cross section, average, and minimum, are directly related to flow. Valve location, and size, and angle is related to flow. Combustion chambers valve shrouding area, port location, are all related to flow. Velosity is another grey area, I have found no real numbers, or standards. Just things like "good velosity". Port finish is not as important, as the wall of the ports allways have no flow. It seems the standard "xxx. cc runners", should be replaced with "minimum cross section", as that is a better number to go off of. Bit in short it all seems to add up to flow.

Finish is not important? Research "boundry layer".

Originally Posted by coreyflipp If you haven't already, go to SBFtech.com. It's full of great info from peeps like jay allen. I read alot on there and feel like a complete dumbass when I do. Still kinda confused about cross section.

+1

There is alot of good info there and alot of geniuses in the field.

[JBIGBOOTSY]

Originally Posted by 1slo5.0 Finish is not important? Research "boundry layer". +1 There is alot of good info there and alot of geniuses in the field.

No that was, " port finish is not AS important".

Sorry, I was refering to polishing, as the finish. ur r correct tho. a good casting will flow better than an extremely rough one.

The source I found, got less than 1% increase flow, from polishing the runners.