AFD alum heads for cleveland

[blykins]

AFD heads are good heads, but they won't hold a candle to the CHI cylinder heads. The CHI's aren't that much more expensive at all, and when you compare performance aspects, they're definitely worth the little extra that you have to pay.

[AusFordParts]

Originally Posted by blykins

AFD heads are good heads, but they won't hold a candle to the CHI cylinder heads. The CHI's aren't that much more expensive at all, and when you compare performance aspects, they're definitely worth the little extra that you have to pay.

Hi,

Would have to beg to differ with you.
At AFD all the design work is done by AFD's owner. A renowned porter of some 20 years experience and has a real passion for Ford cylinder heads. The overall expense of fitting them is always a major consideration in the design process. Things like keeping the exhaust port in a as close to stock location and being able to use pretty much everything from your existing Cleveland whilst producing never seen before performance results from a cylinder head that retains all of those factory type layouts. This all equates to less expense and more performance from an AFD product. I don't think any of their competitors can even think of laying claim to that.

The dyno results supplied on www.airflowdynamics.com.au stand as a testimonial to their capability of making top shelf HP figures.
I would also like to mention the recent Boss 340 series of articles by www.mustang50magazine.com culminating in an impressive Dyno proven result of 598hp for a low compression, small cube street engine using the older version of the AFD heads. A smaller cam would have also increased the low-end torque as well as lowering the HP curve to make this an even more impressive result.

On a personal note, our company could have chosen to sell any brand of head we like, we chose AFD after exhaustive research on the company and their products. AFD won not just because of their superior product but also the back up service, extensive knowledge base and the cost effective usability.

Video of the AFD, Boss 340 dyno run
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/mul...yno/index.html

Kindest Regards
Lawrence Ryan
www.AusFordParts.com

[blykins]

I think the advantage of the CHI heads is that the port velocity is so high. Sure, anyone can make 600hp with 340ci and a big cam, but making that much power and having the torque to back it up is a different scenario.

CHI has several dyno charts and magazine articles showing 408's Clevelands and Clevors that make 650hp up top, and are still making 500 lb-ft at 2500 rpm. The 3V port is an awesome middle ground.

I think that's the reason why CHI is the choice for all the Engine Masters Competitions....a broad torque curve is what it takes to win there, and that's what it takes to get a thrill in a street car.

[AusFordParts]

Originally Posted by blykins

I think the advantage of the CHI heads is that the port velocity is so high. Sure, anyone can make 600hp with 340ci and a big cam, but making that much power and having the torque to back it up is a different scenario.

CHI has several dyno charts and magazine articles showing 408's Clevelands and Clevors that make 650hp up top, and are still making 500 lb-ft at 2500 rpm. The 3V port is an awesome middle ground.

I think that's the reason why CHI is the choice for all the Engine Masters Competitions....a broad torque curve is what it takes to win there, and that's what it takes to get a thrill in a street car.

Funny, the Edelbrock heads fell short of the 600hp mark by about 130hp
The AFD 2v heads have seen +740HP@6800 & +600lbs from 5000 to 6100rpm, +500lbs@4100 where the chart begins. As seen on AFD's dyno section on their website
That was with only 393ci Cleveland built for a race 1/4 miles back to back in the real world as uposed to the dyno queens we see in EMC.
The aforementioned AFD 2v heads were the early series heads first produced by AFD. This engine was built by one of Australia's most reputable racer/engine builders & has made many passes in competition.

nuff said.

cheers
Lawrence

[blykins]

I'm very confused, because nowhere in this thread did I ever mention the word Edelbrock.

I'm referring to CHI, from Austrailia, the cylinder head that all the Cleveland and Clevor guys use to win the EMC's with. Dave Storlien, Jon Kaase, AD Performance, etc. They have to pick a head that makes the most power over a complete range, not at a very short peak, like a drag car. It's for that reason why I would pick them over anything else. I agree with you, an EMC engine is very much a dyno queen, but no other Cleveland head will produce that broad of a powerband, and that's what makes a street car feel strong.

600lb-ft is quite impressive, but I've seen CHI dyno sheets/graphs where that is available at a lower peak, and 500lb-ft is available at 2500 rpm. All of that was with a very, very mild solid roller cam, with .050" durations in the lower 240's. For a street car, I don't want a torque peak at 5000-5500, I want it down low where I can take advantage of it.

I realize that you're talking about a 393ci drag motor, and I'm talking about a 408ci engine built to make low/mid range power. However, I've viewed your website many times before and couldn't find any street/strip builds that reflected that kind of torque down low.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by blykins

I'm very confused, because nowhere in this thread did I ever mention the word Edelbrock.

I'm referring to CHI, from Austrailia, the cylinder head that all the Cleveland and Clevor guys use to win the EMC's with. Dave Storlien, Jon Kaase, AD Performance, etc. They have to pick a head that makes the most power over a complete range, not at a very short peak, like a drag car. It's for that reason why I would pick them over anything else. I agree with you, an EMC engine is very much a dyno queen, but no other Cleveland head will produce that broad of a powerband, and that's what makes a street car feel strong.

600lb-ft is quite impressive, but I've seen CHI dyno sheets/graphs where that is available at a lower peak, and 500lb-ft is available at 2500 rpm. All of that was with a very, very mild solid roller cam, with .050" durations in the lower 240's. For a street car, I don't want a torque peak at 5000-5500, I want it down low where I can take advantage of it.

I realize that you're talking about a 393ci drag motor, and I'm talking about a 408ci engine built to make low/mid range power. However, I've viewed your website many times before and couldn't find any street/strip builds that reflected that kind of torque down low.

Speaking of the CHI Kasse heads, here is the latest build from Aus:

440ci, 15.1 comp and VP Q16 fuel.

The numbers say it all......




Oh and i believe this is the AFD car in question, something don't match up ?

http://www.carpoint.com.au/Tig/Minis...ointau&id=8101

[chris393W]

Originally Posted by AusFordParts

Funny, the Edelbrock heads fell short of the 600hp mark by about 130hp
The AFD 2v heads have seen +740HP@6800 & +600lbs from 5000 to 6100rpm, +500lbs@4100 where the chart begins. As seen on AFD's dyno section on their website
That was with only 393ci Cleveland built for a race 1/4 miles back to back in the real world as uposed to the dyno queens we see in EMC.
The aforementioned AFD 2v heads were the early series heads first produced by AFD. This engine was built by one of Australia's most reputable racer/engine builders & has made many passes in competition.

nuff said.

cheers
Lawrence

Interesting reading

Is it just me that noticed the Edelbrock heads were run with a mild hydraulic roller cam and not a monstrous .770 lift 270 .050 solid roller.

Any wonder they were down 130. I think your hand finished AFD heads may have been in for a rude shock if the Edelbrocks were put on the same engine

How about comparing apples with apples instead of trying to make one product look good, against one that was clearly not meant designed to make the same hp level

[blykins]

In his defense, the Edelbrock heads are turds. They are more for a 2V replacement, and instead of 300cfm flow numbers, they're down around 260. Even with a large cam, they still wouldn't make the power.

[Keithc8]

Just to make things clear we can make over 700HP with the Edelbrock heads but why mess with it when there are better heads out there. I have made close to 800HP with the stock cast iron 4V heads and a lot of work.
If you are going to get into this head deal and HP just go ahead and get some Blue Thunder 4.3 heads or some Ford D4 Cup heads and make 1000HP with a big inch small block. How big is ones pocket book and how much power do they want to make.
There are a bunch of heads out there and a lot of them will achieve the same thing in maybe a different way. Are you trying to use a stock intake? Are you trying to use a stock style exhaust? Are doing everything from scratch and money is no option.
You have to remember that the Engine Master deal will only let you use certain heads on certain engines. Some engines came from the factory with better heads. If they made you use a stock cast iron head the 351C would still be the way to go because it along with the BBC have the best head from the factory. Since they let you work on the head anyway that you want you can da all sorts of stuff. We were filling in the ports on the 351 4v heads 20 years ago and filling the floor on the exhaust and opening them up per NHRA Super Stock rules and getting 370cfm intake and 250cfm exhaust almost 20 years ago. The new Blue Thunder and D4 heads we have will go 440cfm intake and 300 cfm exhaust. It is just time and money and most people do not want to spend it. At least we have after market heads now for Fords, when I started we had to work on the cast iron stock stuff.

Good luck, Keith Craft

[AusFordParts]

[quote=blykins;904825]Sure, anyone can make 600hp with 340ci and a big cam, but making that much power and having the torque to back it up is a different scenario.
/QUOTE]

Well Edelbrock didnt have any luck when 5.0 magazine did the article.
I also reiterate that the 740 engine was on the small & now out of date series AFD 2v heads that use Cleveland parts
(not a hybrid head like the 3v with dedicated parts),
the engine was making plenty of torque down low but the dyno sheets only show from 4100 up. Im sorry but Id be stocked if I got a torque curve like that out of a big diesel let alone a small Cleveland.

As for Kaase & the EMC. I have a great respect for the man his history & accomplishments with Ford based products but if you think hes using a CHI head anyone can get off the shelf you need to (as we say in Oz) leave it alone. He would be using raw unmachined castings & working them from there as he does with his Pro Stock blocks & heads. I would shudder to think what a duplicate of sheriff Jon's EMC head would set you back

Anyway, wasted enough time back & fourth here. At the end of the day its up to the customer to decide, after all there are still people out there buying XXX XXXX

cheers
Lawrence

[blykins]

I can show many articles relating to the EMC where that amount of torque was made at that rpm by Windsors and Clevelands both.

From his post-EMC interview, Jon mentioned that he didn't do much to the CHI heads at all.

It isn't absolutely necessary to use 3V components with the 3V heads, others have adapted 2V manifolds to them. However, if the whole combination works, there's nothing wrong with paying less for the 3V intake than what it costs for a nice Funnel Web intake.

[AusFordParts]

Unless of course your on a budget & dont want or cant afford to go paying to "adapt". Unfortunately some manufactures dont take into account the vast majority who want good reliable bolt on HP without all of the BS
As I said before, the AFD are the most user friendly