Post A Reply
read DMs/my profile
login
|
join CAFords
|
search
|
faq
|
»
Northern California Ford Owners
»
Automotive
»
Tech Talk
»
article on AFR-165 as a bolt on...
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by shade-: [QB] that you guys probably would have missed... in this months' Ford Performance (Australia & New Zealand) [URL=http://www.perfordmag.com]www.perfordmag.com[/URL] carbed, AFR-165 + 1.7 rockers + stock cam made 400 HP (car craft), engine dyno [URL=http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford/index.html]clickie click[/URL] ok, on to the Aussie article baseline: (5.0L EFI Falcon, AODE, factory GT-40P heads and the picture looks like a left-right reversed explorer aka GT-40 intake) 132 KW=177 rwhp, 15.69 @ 87.92 mph added chip, cold air, pacemaker headers, full exhaust, and the 2600 stall and 3.90 gears 160 KW=214.5 rwhp, 14.92 @ 93.54 mph no changes but AFR-165s and dyno tuning (new custom chip), 58cc AFR-165s (vs 62-64 cc GT-40P's pulled) 174.8 KW = 234.41 rwhp added 1.72 rockers 180.8 KW = 242.46 rwhp 14.47 @ 96.34 mph So interesting stuff. If you want any other details, I have the article in front of me (page 72) Either the AFR-165 heads are worth 100 HP on a stock 302 HO shortblock with a carb and I think a Vic Jr. intake (Car Craft), or they're worth 20 rwhp and just under 3mph on a Aussie EFI that was previously equipped with the 'explorer' setup (GT-40P + GT-40 cast intake) by the way... OMG the typhoon kicks ass. Yeah GM pretty much already claimed the name but PUHLEEZE bring this car over here (yeah it's ugly, but so is the EVO) check it out: inline 6, 4.0L DOHC turbo 4-door sedan that sort of looks like a previous gen maxima (say 99-02), makes 270 NM= 362 HP @ 5250 and makes 550 NM (405 ft/lbs)--- the highest engine torque of any engine ever built in australia [/QB][/QUOTE]
(
how?
)
Instant Emojis
Instant UBB Code
What is UBB Code?
Options
Disable smilies in this post.
<table border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="99%" align="center"> <tr bgcolor="#000000"><td> <table border="0" width="100%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="0"> <tr bgcolor="#000099"> <td colspan="2" align="left"> <font size="2" color="#ffffff" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>T O P I C R E V I E W</b> </font></td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#dedfdf"> <td valign="top" width="18%"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>shade-</b> <br /><small>Member # 298</small> </font></td> <td width="82%"> <font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"> <img src="https://californiafords.com/ubb/posticon.gif" border="0" alt=" - " /> posted <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.writeln(timestamp(new Date(2004,3,20,23,29,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script><hr /> </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> that you guys probably would have missed...<br /><br />in this months'<br />Ford Performance (Australia & New Zealand)<br /><a href="http://www.perfordmag.com" target="_blank">www.perfordmag.com</a><br /><br />carbed, AFR-165 + 1.7 rockers + stock cam made 400 HP (car craft), engine dyno<br /><a href="http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford/index.html" target="_blank">clickie click</a><br />ok, on to the Aussie article<br /><br />baseline: (5.0L EFI Falcon, AODE, factory GT-40P heads and the picture looks like a left-right reversed explorer aka GT-40 intake)<br />132 KW=177 rwhp, 15.69 @ 87.92 mph<br /><br />added chip, cold air, pacemaker headers, full exhaust, and the 2600 stall and 3.90 gears<br />160 KW=214.5 rwhp, 14.92 @ 93.54 mph<br /><br />no changes but AFR-165s and dyno tuning (new custom chip), 58cc AFR-165s (vs 62-64 cc GT-40P's pulled)<br />174.8 KW = 234.41 rwhp<br /><br />added 1.72 rockers<br />180.8 KW = 242.46 rwhp<br />14.47 @ 96.34 mph<br /><br />So interesting stuff. If you want any other details, I have the article in front of me (page 72)<br /><br />Either the AFR-165 heads are worth 100 HP on a stock 302 HO shortblock with a carb and I think a Vic Jr. intake (Car Craft), or they're worth 20 rwhp and just under 3mph on a Aussie EFI that was previously equipped with the 'explorer' setup (GT-40P + GT-40 cast intake)<br /><br />by the way... OMG the typhoon kicks ass. Yeah GM pretty much already claimed the name but PUHLEEZE bring this car over here (yeah it's ugly, but so is the EVO)<br /><br />check it out:<br />inline 6, 4.0L DOHC turbo 4-door sedan that sort of looks like a previous gen maxima (say 99-02), makes 270 NM= 362 HP @ 5250 and makes 550 NM (405 ft/lbs)--- the highest engine torque of any engine ever built in australia <br /> </font> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#f7f7f7"> <td valign="top" width="18%"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>Black94 5.0</b> <br /><small>Member # 655</small> </font></td> <td width="82%"> <font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"> <img src="https://californiafords.com/ubb/posticon.gif" border="0" alt=" - " /> posted <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.writeln(timestamp(new Date(2004,3,21,0,54,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script><hr /> </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by shade-:<br /><strong> <br /><br />by the way... OMG the typhoon kicks ass. Yeah GM pretty much already claimed the name but PUHLEEZE bring this car over here (yeah it's ugly, but so is the EVO)<br /><br /></strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It's actually called the "F6-Typhoon" and I believe it's still a concept car...<br /><br />I'm still trying to figure out how to convert kilowatts to horsepower... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="confused.gif" /> <br /> </font> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#dedfdf"> <td valign="top" width="18%"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>88DroptopGT</b> <br /><small>Member # 2535</small> </font></td> <td width="82%"> <font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"> <img src="https://californiafords.com/ubb/posticon.gif" border="0" alt=" - " /> posted <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.writeln(timestamp(new Date(2004,3,21,2,29,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script><hr /> </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> Wow, amazing results from those heads! <br /><br />Very informative testing, but what I would really like to see for comparison of a stock short-block AFR 165 dyno results vs. ISKY'd AFR 185 short block with same mods/headers. <br /><br /> I wouldn't believe there would be any <i>considerable</i> HP to be gained in higher flow numbers on the intake, but I would just like to see dyno results during higher RPMs to see if it's worth the bigger valves (2.02/1.60). After all, the 185's are only $50 more on then the 165s on AFR's prices sheet.<br /><br /> I'm just weird. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> <br /> </font> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#f7f7f7"> <td valign="top" width="18%"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>shade-</b> <br /><small>Member # 298</small> </font></td> <td width="82%"> <font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"> <img src="https://californiafords.com/ubb/posticon.gif" border="0" alt=" - " /> posted <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.writeln(timestamp(new Date(2004,3,21,9,21,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script><hr /> </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> I think the easy answer is the AFR-185 will carry to your 327/331/342/347/351/357 project much better than the AFR-165's <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />similar reasoning behind going to a TFS Hi-port...<br /><br />I see AFR-185's going for about $1k used with low miles on the corral a lot now... hopefully not needing a valve job though.<br /><br />I'm still surprised the AFR-185 with the in-line valves and 2.02 intake need fly-cut pistons whereas the TFS TW with the 2.02 intake typically do not for many street cams? weird.<br /><br />edit: 1KW =0.746 HP<br /> <br /> <small>[ April 21, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: shade- ]</small> <br /> </font> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#dedfdf"> <td valign="top" width="18%"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>Glenn</b> <br /><small>Member # 520</small> </font></td> <td width="82%"> <font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"> <img src="https://californiafords.com/ubb/posticon.gif" border="0" alt=" - " /> posted <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.writeln(timestamp(new Date(2004,3,21,10,54,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script><hr /> </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by shade-:<br /><strong> I'm still surprised the AFR-185 with the in-line valves and 2.02 intake need fly-cut pistons whereas the TFS TW with the 2.02 intake typically do not for many street cams? weird.<br /><br />edit: 1KW =0.746 HP </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Isn't that what the whole Twisted wedge design is??? <br /> </font> </td></tr> <tr bgcolor="#f7f7f7"> <td valign="top" width="18%"> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> <b>shade-</b> <br /><small>Member # 298</small> </font></td> <td width="82%"> <font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial"> <img src="https://californiafords.com/ubb/posticon.gif" border="0" alt=" - " /> posted <script language="JavaScript1.3" type="text/javascript"> document.writeln(timestamp(new Date(2004,3,21,11,10,0), dfrm, tfrm, 0, 0, 0, 0)); </script><hr /> </font> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> apples:apples, you can't run as aggressive a cam on stock pistons with the TFS head vs. an inline head.<br /><br />people jump up and say you must fly-cut the pistons w/AFR-185s on a stock shortblock though. I don't know, I've never seen it myself so I can't say. <br /> </font> </td></tr> </table></td></tr></table> <br /> <br />
Questions/Requests/Suggestions? email CAFords
Fueled by
Ford Mustang Owners
on CaliforniaFords.com
