[cblambert]

Ok Ed whatever man. I added to it sure...note it still says it, and what I said is not BS from a certain point of view- depends on the purpose. But since Im done with this & you for that matter...I will

 

[Bossxr8]

Engine Masters AFR 165, 195, 220 410W test. I believe this is somewhat valid whereas the O/P wants torque and drivability, thus a smaller cam is more likely than not (the cam they used is similar to his cam.)

410W
.500" lift cam 218*/224* 110* lobe separation
Holley XP 850 Carb
1 3/4" Longtubes
Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap

Tested 3 AFR Heads, 165cc, 195cc, & 220cc

165cc - Torque 515.3 @ 3900 rpm, HP 471.4 @ 5400 rpm
195cc - Torque 520.8 @ 3900 rpm, HP 484.4 @ 5500 rpm
220cc - Torque 512.5 @ 3900 rpm, HP 474.3 @ 5400 rpm

The test was flawed because the cam and other parts were suited to the smaller heads. If they had of changed the cam and other parts to suit the bigger heads they would have buried the 165's.

You can't just bang a set of bigger heads on with nothing else to support it and then expect better results. All you have done is mismatch the combo.

 

[Saleen414]

The biggest problem with the AFR 165 head on a 425 cid engine is that even with everything optimized to the max to take "advantage" of those small heads, you are then done. You can not improve the engine at all. Down the road you change your mind on how you want to use that engine, and all of the sudden you have to change the heads, the cam, and a lot of other stuff. Built that 425 with the AFR 220 heads, cam it right and it will blow the old combo away and give you room to grow later with out the huge outlay that a restricted 165 head imposes on you. Spend your money once, and spend it wisely.

 

[96pushrod]

Man you have a great set up there for low end torque...the 220s will be worse! If anything the port velocity of 165s would be better, but nothing wrong with 185s at your displacement. Cam looks good too, though who knows your compression Ration? Id rethink the R series intake a bit if were buying new- but maybe add a TB spacer- something to increase runner length. A 90mm wont do you any good- hell the bore in manifold is 75mm. Spend the money on the gears FIRST before messing with the mill any further...you may want to get a wide band to look at A/F ratios- maybe youre running lean (stock injectors?) and causing your disappointment? Either way give that Windsor some gear & get it tuned right- should have all the torque you need!

I’d be willing to bet he’d make more power everywhere with the 220cc over the 185cc. 185s are too small. Why put small block heads on big block cubes? With that method of thinking every bbc and bbf ford from the factory should have tiny ass heads instead of 260cc+

 

[Cougar5.O]

5000 RPM MAX. (JFC, look at all the data before you comment FFS people.)

Torque.

Everybody here is programmed like a robot.

Must. Power. Most. Make.

Is that what the O/P asked for? NO!

Let me repeat that.

NO!

Will he succumb to the pressure and dump more money into it? Probably. Happier than just changing gears (those are some tall ass tires), probably not. Will a certain person play into this idiocy here and sell some product. Probably.

Doesn't make it the right answer as asked.

 

[Kingfish999]

i mean idk, maybe i will push the engine up to 6k rpm, i jsut will spend most of the time in the idle to 3k range as i daily drive it. as it is now there no point because because there is no power in that range. if i have an engine that will be good up to 6k, then ill utilize it the best i can. like i said i do have a tuner i can adjust shift points. but i imagine a higher stall converter would probably be needed and i really dont want to change that. however the more i think about it, the more willing i am to get a higher stall converter. there many options for a high stall E4OD converters and the trans warrenty required me using their TC and the highest they offered me was a 2300-2500 stall. most E4OD converters are low stall for diesels

im currently running 4.10 gears and 33" tires. i ordered 5.13 and either 35-37" tires. so i will have more gear/tire ratio to increase rpms. i debated for a long time about going to 5.38 as thats the max ratio both my axles support. my rear axle being a 1-ton 10.25" would probably survive fine but the small pinion on my front axle would be a weakness being a Dana44. i usually go to Dana50 differential since its direct swap and a slightly stronger R&P and bearings but i scored a great deal on a D44 electronic locker. theres literally 1 locker and 1 LS carrier available for D50, they have almost no aftermarket support.

im perfectly fine using 205s. my 185 i bought used, had a local shop go through them. i htink there one of the older versions that dont flow as well as the current versions. it jsut means it will take me time to save up. kinda spent too much on black friday and got some bills to pay. but if i have to buy a TC now then im gonna be set back even more. plus im still building my axles, then still need to buy tires, still need to buy alot of engine compenents, still have 2 other project trucks, still have xmas shopping. im trying to put at least 100$ a week to the heads and then a couple hundred or so towards everything else. jsut have alot of projects going on at once.

i really dont care bout that engine masters episode. it shows a moderate cam and 165 heads can make power. but it doesnt mean 205 heads wont be a better choice with the correct cam. IIRC they said that the small cam really did affect the test. they also said how part throttle would be different than a WOT pull.

i trust Eds experience over mine anyday obviously. everybody else seems to trust Ed. he is the one who is going to be building my cam and has all the technical data. while he might not be posting data and numbers on here which is leading to the argument, that doesnt mean he has time to write long information filled posts that people will still argue about.

 

[Ssp 363]

Keep in mind too that the afr220 head has a 2.100 intake valve and that needs alot of piston notch to make radial clearence.

 

[Cougar5.O]

he has time to write long information filled posts that people will still argue about

Lol - he has plenty of time. He doesn't because he never has and never will cuz he can't. This place is just a long con.

 

[LX1993]

There was an article in "On All Cylinders" a little while back. "Member of the Family" was the title of a dyno test on a Blueprint "408" they put in a '68 mustang. Oh boy, I can already hear the circle jerkers getting ready to have at it... Bring it on. Anyway, if you pull up the article and scroll down, (And you can somehow not be a knee jerk naysaying bitch about it) look at that dyno graph. Look at that table top flat ass torque curve on a stingy ass Dynomite. Those crappy heads actually flow less than an AFR 165, cam is 220 ish duration w/lift around 550. Way to small? For what? C'mon, it's not a track foxbody. Get it running right & see what you actually have.

 

[LX1993]

And I'll add, somebody smarter than me post up the difference in piston speed on a stroker that size with 5000-5200 rpm shift point vs 6200-6500. Tell me with a "low buck" rotating assembly as OP stated, which one is better for longevity or durability.

 

[Ed Curtis]

I’d be willing to bet he’d make more power everywhere with the 220cc over the 185cc. 185s are too small. Why put small block heads on big block cubes? With that method of thinking every bbc and bbf ford from the factory should have tiny ass heads instead of 260cc+

Stop making sense.

After all, those three ton Escalades, Suburbans, Yukon XL's and RAM trucks run tiny cylinder heads to make torque. You know, those LS3 heads, GEN 3 HEMI's and such use 165cc intake runners and 1.90 valves in their heads. Everyone get out the Splash Zone! E7 heads for all!

What's even more funny is the perpetual "doubting Thomas" actually proved the heads meant little to nothing on that "celebrity" video test as each combination made the same power, within the margin of error, with the three different heads. That showed anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense that the "heads" were not the limiting item on that engine.

 

[AL P]

Stop making sense.

After all, those three ton Escalades, Suburbans, Yukon XL's and RAM trucks run tiny cylinder heads to make torque. You know, those LS3 heads, GEN 3 HEMI's and such use 165cc intake runners and 1.90 valves in their heads. Everyone get out the Splash Zone! E7 heads for all!

What's even more funny is the perpetual "doubting Thomas" actually proved the heads meant little to nothing on that "celebrity" video test as each combination made the same power, within the margin of error, with the three different heads. That showed anyone with even a tiny bit of common sense that the "heads" were not the limiting item on that engine.

This is exactly correct. It would have been a far more interesting test if they had tested three sets of heads with three different cams. If I worked on that show I would have never aired that episode because with the peak torque being at the same rpm in all three tests it makes the whole thing quite obviously pointless.

 

[Cougar5.O]

The actual point is that you can make 515+ lb-ft of torque at 3900 RPM while still cruising comfortably from "idle to 3000 RPM" as the O/P wants. Or, yeah, you can use AFR220 heads and a larger cam in a 427w and make 570 lb-ft @ 5000 RPM - it's in my car right now. Guess how much more torque higher HP engines make at 3900 RPM? Maybe 20 lb-ft with the right cam, or likely less depending on the combo. I have a pile of dyno sheets that I've collected in the past few years to back up this statement. Look up the 408W testing done by CHP and posted here not long ago for an example. That's a 240 @ 0.050 duration cam and, as expected, the torque peak is above 5000 RPM. Sure, you can cam the larger parts to make better low RPM (0 to 5000RPM) torque as requested by the O/P, but that's kind of a waste of money if you ask me. Granted, that's what we do here - pour money into our cars, but doesn't mean he couldn't get similar performance with gears, a proper tune and perhaps an optimized cam.

 

[Laminar]

This is exactly correct. It would have been a far more interesting test if they had tested three sets of heads with three different cams. If I worked on that show I would have never aired that episode because with the peak torque being at the same rpm in all three tests it makes the whole thing quite obviously pointless.

1. Learning something is never pointless.
2. They addressed that in the wrap up.

 

[AL P]

1. Learning something is never pointless.
2. They addressed that in the wrap up.

My point precisely is that I don't think the majority of their audience was learning anything. It is a very basic point of engine building that they are illustrating in that episode. Maybe I'm giving the audience too much credit I don't know. Also, don't get me wrong, I love Engine Masters and most of the shows on MTOD.

 

[Laminar]

People "know" lots of things, and even basic tenants of engine building are often the result of conclusions drawn from outdated theories, old technology, or just misinformation. Just look at this or any other thread for examples of that. Engine Masters often sets out to demonstrate one thing, but ends up proving another. I'm with you on enjoying most MTOD originals - none of the fake drama of most "car" shows, and better pacing/production value than the YouTube car vloggers.

 

[toddturbo]

205.

220 is "flowed" on a 4.125" bore. On a 4.000" bore, they drop off a little. 205's are flowed on 4.000 bore; proven many many times on big SBF engines. They are popular "cookie-cutter" heads, why? Because they WORK. Didn't Ed say something about it a while back?

The camshaft is where your power curve is. A set of 205's with a mild camshaft will make more torque than most would imagine. Ask Ed about a "kit". He will NOT steer you wrong. Well many on this site (and farse book groups) may not agree with him but he knows his stuff.

There are many who are GOOD at this stuff. I worked alongside a well-known shop somewhat locally to screw together a 393 to replace a 460, in a 3/4 ton HAY TRUCK. The 460 was too heavy, got stuck all the time out in the fields. It was worn out, guy asked me to do something with it. We chose a 393 because it's dirt cheap and a LOT lighter than the old 460. Granted there was a ton of work involved (mounts, bellhousing, etc) but it makes more power from idle to 4500 than the 460 did and with a set of used AFR205's that we picked up for $900/set (and had to put a little into them). Old Performer RPM intake (not an air gap). Edelbrock 600 CFM, lot of stuff was bought on the used markets locally. Idles perfectly smooth, runs smooth at part throttle, fuel economy is better than the 460, it's obviously a lot lighter over the nose, and pulls that hay trailer quite a bit better than the 460 did (but again it was tired). He is tickled with it!

 

[petmotel]

There is a point here that Ed made about modern engine designs that would be good to pay attention to. What is it that the OEM engineers did that make the LS line so efficient/powerful within the confines of a compact, inline, two valve headed, relatively conventional design? They optimized known design parameters based on a ton of engineering data. Among those design criteria, are quite large and efficiently flowing intake tracts and exhaust paths. When the intake tract flows really well, these engines work efficiently with fairly conservative valve timing events, there is no reason to crutch the cam design to compensate for poor flow in, or out of the engine. Of course it doesn't hurt that with modern roller cam design one can use very fast opening rates to jack those large valves open quickly, and hold more lift longer than was possible "back in the day". Embrace the knowledge, OEMs have way more resources than we can ever hope to.

Jay

 

[Cougar5.O]

I still stick with my thoughts from page one that the 205's are fine with the 'R' intake (either would be fine, I figured the longer runner might work better for your RPM range, but whatever.) Obviously you'll need a cam to compliment whatever you choose - so you basically had the right idea in your original post (us going around in circles for 3 pages aside.) I just want to describe what I've done in a heavier than typical Ford as it might be helpful.

I have a 3630lb '87 Cougar with 3.55 gears. Your truck with 4.10's and 33" tires is about equivalent to my car with 3.23's, tho your truck may be up to 800 lb heavier from what I've read.

For about 10 years I had a 306 with AFR165 heads and a Kenne Bell blower and it was absolutely the kind of engine you'd like to have in your truck right now. Yeah, it only made 450HP, but from idle to 5k RPM it was an animal. I remember looking down and to the left when I launched (drag radials @ strip) because the frame was twisting. After subframes I was told I was wheels up on every launch even though I launched conservatively after breaking my (very expensive) E-Locker. I also broke things - pistons at first, then a rod bearing whereby I finally thought it would be nice to have torque and power, without the heat (meth/H2O injection), weight and hassle of a supercharger. The new 427w is cool, though it has a few drawbacks.

It's a Dart based 427w, 11:1 compression AFR 220 heads, SV intake, custom streetable premium gas cam that has been dyno'd at 630HP @ 6300 RPM, 570 lb-ft of torque @ 5000 RPM. No replacement for displacement. The engine weighs the same as the 306 w/KB, so no gain or loss there. The first notable drawback is that even with an aftermarket tuner and enriching the off-idle mixture to keep cam surge to a minimum, it still has no operating point between 1000 and 1500 RPMs. Probably fine for an auto with a higher stall converter, but a little annoying when tipping in while cruising with a 5-speed, though I've got it 99% there so long as RPMs don't drop much below 1500. The other issue is low RPM/cruising torque. Compared to the KB 306, it's kind of a dog. The cam doesn't really start to hit until about 3500 RPM, which is expected based on the RPM range it's designed to make power at. Now down shift and bury it and you'll be clenching your butthole, it gets too violent for the street. My reason for hedging in the posts above is because of this - if you want smooth idle - 3000 RPM cruising performance, you will be giving up some of the power potential of the heads - possibly making the added potential of the larger heads mostly unused. The thing I probably need is gears to get the engine into the torque producing RPM band sooner, but like you I don't like cruising at high engine RPMs. We'll see if I can get it off the line at the dragstrip next season.

 

[petmotel]

I've got a road course specific 363 with a very similar intake to the Super Vic (TFS single plane EFI) which exhibits much the same characteristics. That car doesn't need much in the way of idle to 2500 RPM torque, but it can be a PITA driving her to an event, depending on how much time I'm caught up in traffic. I am considering trying one of the new Holley manifolds, I think it might be a nice match for the application.

Again, comparing with modern tech, a short runner single plane manifold just gives up too much area under the curve when compared to a well designed long runner design, when operated at typical street engine speeds. This might be one of the weaker links when designing a big inch 351 based stroker, not much available with the length and runner area to fill the cylinders of a big Windsor street motor.

Jay