ai trickflow or AFR
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,705
From: Kansas
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 353
From: Pittsburgh
I dont know what you guys are seeing, but AFR's 195 comp port heads are flowing abit better than TFS 200cc ported by AI.
The exhaust numbers dont show true potential on the AI's since they use no pipe like AFR but the AFR intakes have a slight advantage (20cfm at peak) but some of that could be the extra .030 bore size.
I'd probly go AFR's but you cant go wrong with either head. Both are very nice
The exhaust numbers dont show true potential on the AI's since they use no pipe like AFR but the AFR intakes have a slight advantage (20cfm at peak) but some of that could be the extra .030 bore size.
I'd probly go AFR's but you cant go wrong with either head. Both are very nice
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,800
I dont know what you guys are seeing, but AFR's 195 comp port heads are flowing abit better than TFS 200cc ported by AI.
The exhaust numbers dont show true potential on the AI's since they use no pipe like AFR but the AFR intakes have a slight advantage (20cfm at peak) but some of that could be the extra .030 bore size.
I'd probly go AFR's but you cant go wrong with either head. Both are very nice
The exhaust numbers dont show true potential on the AI's since they use no pipe like AFR but the AFR intakes have a slight advantage (20cfm at peak) but some of that could be the extra .030 bore size.
I'd probly go AFR's but you cant go wrong with either head. Both are very nice
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,193
From: San Diego, CA
I dont know what you guys are seeing, but AFR's 195 comp port heads are flowing abit better than TFS 200cc ported by AI.
The exhaust numbers dont show true potential on the AI's since they use no pipe like AFR but the AFR intakes have a slight advantage (20cfm at peak) but some of that could be the extra .030 bore size.
I'd probly go AFR's but you cant go wrong with either head. Both are very nice
The exhaust numbers dont show true potential on the AI's since they use no pipe like AFR but the AFR intakes have a slight advantage (20cfm at peak) but some of that could be the extra .030 bore size.
I'd probly go AFR's but you cant go wrong with either head. Both are very nice
Ai trickflows have gone almost into the 8s. Multiple people run them into the low/mid 10s NA. More stellar results are only a matter of time.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,542
From: Long Island, NY ; Norfolk, VA
if you are good with a die grinder and know about port velocities and what not u can make a cardboard box go 9's any competent porter can provide these results majority of them just have a personal preference as to what brand head they use the diff is the porter themself...
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,800
Not necessarily, if the port is already missing material where the porter would like there to still be material welding up whole runners is not an efficient means of making a port. Chambers can be the wrong shape again without rom to fix etc. More than preference comes into play. Have heard of some serious QC issues on some supposedly good aftermarket castings too, guides and VJ not quite in line, warped on delivery etc.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,542
From: Long Island, NY ; Norfolk, VA
as is the case with cnc'd ports.. Most as cast stuff is just basic shape which enable them to work the port anyway they desire.
I understand what u say about chamber work and what not but majority of the stuff is carbon copy.. But your not going to see 50rwhp diff from a tfs to a dart or even a afr if all given the same attention.. It's all a matter of preference the guys charging 1200 for a porter set of heads are not reshaping the chambers .. Lots of hp is lost in a **** poor valvejob.. That's what separates the good porters from the axe murderers with die grinders..
I understand what u say about chamber work and what not but majority of the stuff is carbon copy.. But your not going to see 50rwhp diff from a tfs to a dart or even a afr if all given the same attention.. It's all a matter of preference the guys charging 1200 for a porter set of heads are not reshaping the chambers .. Lots of hp is lost in a **** poor valvejob.. That's what separates the good porters from the axe murderers with die grinders..
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 353
From: Pittsburgh
A friend has ported AFRs, he wishes he could buy his old stock castings back since I sent them to AI and my heavier car with less displacement is a good bit faster. Flow numbers are not the whole story, not even close.
the port shape on AFR's head is one of the best made. its CNC ported but based off a hand ported head. CNC precision these days is pretty damn accurate
for a 196cc port flowing at if not over 300cfm out the box, thats pretty good velocity to go along with the flow. that rivals most heads i've seen out there. Not to mention the low lifts are impressive too
There is a 370inch LT4 with AFR comp 195's and a 230/236 cam making 475whp. thats the most i've seen from a n/a LT motor not using a solid roller
But results for AI heads do speak for themselves. not a bad head
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 27
That's one hell of an endorsement for AFR. Probably put them into backorder status.
FYI.... The Trick Flows that I own done by Lloyd and Trevor flow:
Intake Exhaust (no pipe)
.300 204 151
.400 259 186
.500 291 209
.600 304 218
.700 308 224
This is with a 222 cc intake port, 2.08 intake valves and 1.625 exhaust flowed on a very conservative flow bench. Think it was with a 4.06 bore. The valves were backcut for enhanced low flow numbers vs higher lift flow numbers. Only have .635 lift....so why emphasize the top end except to post some big number?? Should also add this is with small chambers for higher compression as larger chambers yield a tad higher flow numbers.
These heads are two years old and if I were to do new ones, I'd look real strongly at Brodix or Dart and probably do titanium intake valves to make it easy on the springs.
FYI.... The Trick Flows that I own done by Lloyd and Trevor flow:
Intake Exhaust (no pipe)
.300 204 151
.400 259 186
.500 291 209
.600 304 218
.700 308 224
This is with a 222 cc intake port, 2.08 intake valves and 1.625 exhaust flowed on a very conservative flow bench. Think it was with a 4.06 bore. The valves were backcut for enhanced low flow numbers vs higher lift flow numbers. Only have .635 lift....so why emphasize the top end except to post some big number?? Should also add this is with small chambers for higher compression as larger chambers yield a tad higher flow numbers.
These heads are two years old and if I were to do new ones, I'd look real strongly at Brodix or Dart and probably do titanium intake valves to make it easy on the springs.
Pretty impressive
http://forums.corvetteforum.com/show...&postcount=102
Flow results are in!
Jason Norris 195 Comp Port Part 1095 AFR
28” test pressure
4.040" Bore
2.08 int 1.60 exh
Valve lift Int. C.F.M. @ 28” Ex. C.F.M @28"
.100 66 53
.200 150 116
.300 211 175
.400 255 208
.500 285 219
.550 298 219
.600 305 219
So it looks like Tony is redeemed. Special thanks to Tom Hemphill of Hemphill racing engines in Clarksburg, PA who flowed these for me tonight. Super nice guy. These figures are on a Superflow SF600 bench. The intake used a 1206 radiused inlet with a little clay in the corners to match the corners on the AFR port. The exhaust numbers posted are WITHOUT a pipe and Tom told me he thought they would pick up maybe 5-7 cfm. Tom is totally independent and does not sell AFR heads. In fact he sells Brodix and Dart heads.
He also analyzed the the port velocity and thought the heads would be killer if building a street car since the velocity was very high but would max out if building a big cube high winding motor because at .600 lift, the port velocity was 375 feet per second. I explained my goals and intentions and how I was looking for streetable power and not max power at 7000 and he agreed that these heads would be perfect for that.
I know the real proof is how they run on the motor and I'm hoping to have things back together for Summer. I'm happy with my purchase and love these heads. They have all the ingredients to perform as expected for the type of motor I'm building.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 353
From: Pittsburgh
i'm sure if you look around, you'll see some good numbers from them. My 383 isnt that impressive but with a stealth ram intake and AFR 195's regular eliminators, not the comp ported ones, and a 230 degree cam, i've made 400whp and run 11.47 at 118.5, with a best of 119.1 mph so far in the heat, at 2600-2800ft DA. Its very driveable and has great throttle response, still needs abit more tuning to be perfect. I'm happy with AFR so far
There are many others tho i've seen making pretty good power with those heads and some making better power with the old 195's that dont flow half as good as the eliminators. my buddy's 406 with a 242/242 cam ran 10.8's at 126 with auto and 11.0 at 127 with T56 stickshift still on stock 10bolt
There are many others tho i've seen making pretty good power with those heads and some making better power with the old 195's that dont flow half as good as the eliminators. my buddy's 406 with a 242/242 cam ran 10.8's at 126 with auto and 11.0 at 127 with T56 stickshift still on stock 10bolt
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 537
From: Lancaster, Pa
Not necessarily, if the port is already missing material where the porter would like there to still be material welding up whole runners is not an efficient means of making a port. Chambers can be the wrong shape again without rom to fix etc. More than preference comes into play. Have heard of some serious QC issues on some supposedly good aftermarket castings too, guides and VJ not quite in line, warped on delivery etc.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 198
From: Abingdon,VA
Are you converting those heads for reverse cool I belive the only out of the box LT1 heads arf has is the 195cc#1031 and 210cc #1057's. So those flow numbers really wouldn't be correct for the LT1 platform....