Are these heads too much for my combo? - Northern California Ford Owners

This is topic Are these heads too much for my combo? in forum Tech Talk at Northern California Ford Owners .

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002964

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

Was going to go with AFR 185's, but found these and they seem to be a killer deal. My question is, will they be too much head for my combo? I only looking to spin the motor to around 6500:)

New set of Canfields ported by Bennett racing. They flow 310/240 at 600. They have Ferrea valves, comp springs with 135#'s seat pressure and 340#'s open. Springs can handle up to a .625 lift cam. The heads have ARP rocker studs. The chamber is 61.5cc.

347
10.5/1
TFS Track heat
Hitech custom cam

Also, has anyone been able to get ahold of Brian at hitech in awhile? I ordered my cam almost 2 weeks ago, and have not been able to get ahold of him since then for an update. I have left several messages, emails etc:(

Posted by TRY2PAZ (Member # 97) on :

I would say no. I have only heard praise about those heads. You need to ask 93pony. I'm sure he will post soon. [Wink]

Posted by Quick 88LX (Member # 1950) on :

The amount of $ you would spend on the AFR heads to get them to flow like those canfield ones would probably be too much for most to dish out of their wallet. Shit, those heads will be VERY nice and if nothing else, they will accept a pretty big cam so you should be happy with 'em! I would be!!!

Posted by Chico Stang (Member # 801) on :

I didnt know you could have to good of heads. I guess its possible, just never heard of anyone saying "I need to put the old heads back on so i get more hp, cause these heads just flow way too much." The more cfm a head flows the better right? It just comes all down to the money, if you have the money, or come across a great deal. Get the heads that flow better.

Josh

Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on :

Chico Stang,

It all comes down to OVERALL COMBINATION. Those heads on a stock 5.0 is obviously not a good combo and would probably make less power compared to stock heads.

Posted by cobraman1994 (Member # 467) on :

if you go by more is better, then we would all have 90mm throttle bodys on our cars. [Wink]

too much air=bad [Frown]

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

By no means are those heads TOO large for a 347 that spins 6500rpm.
FYI, canfields are not drilled for smog.

If you go with those heads let Brian know ASAP. He'll need as much info on the heads as possible to grind a cam to take advantage.
Not being able to get ahold of him is pretty normal. He's a very busy man.

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :

If there isn't a power adder in the car other than N20 I doubt that AFR 185's would be much of a restriction.

I'm no expert but it *sounds* like those Canfields would want to scream way over 6500 rpms. You can go to big with a head, especially if you limit the rpms.

Posted by Black94 5.0 (Member # 655) on :

If you can get the Canfield's cheaper than the AFR's I would go with the Canfields...Those look like great flow numbers for a 347ci...

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

I have been trying to get ahold of Brian with no luck, I know he is probably busy but I have left several messages:(

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

quote:
Originally posted by boosted89Saleen:
I have been trying to get ahold of Brian with no luck, I know he is probably busy but I have left several messages:(

Yep, that happens. Trust me, he's getting the messages. You can send flagged e-mails to him if you want to make sure he's recieving them. Once he reads the e-mail, you'll get a notice that he's read it.

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

Oh well, gives me more time to spend on cleaning the engine compartment, lol. By the way, can I take the heads down to a machine shop and have them drilled for smog?

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

Probably not. There has to be enough material above the exhaust ports in order to drill. It would really suck to have a machine shop drill it out, only to find out that they broke into the water jacket.

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

These canfields sound familiar. Is a guy named Paul selling them? Came off of a carbed 347 solid roller combo?

I think the heads are great for a power adder application or a stout solid roller 347, but they may be a bit too much for a naturally asperated "street" 347.

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

I don't quite get why some of you guys say these heads would be great for a PA car, but too big for N/A.
IMO, PA motors don't need as much head as an N/A motor. Especially on the street.

Those heads on a 347 w/the proper supercharger or shot of N2O would put a 3200lb car deep into the 9's with ease.

IMO these heads would be great for a 400RWHP 347 streetcar. You just have to make sure you have enough intake & exhaust to support the heads. IE, ported Edlebrock or Holley intake, 1 3/4 longtubes, off-road H or X, free flowing mufflers, roller cam with 10+ degrees of overlap @.050, etc.

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

Guy by the name of Jeremy Jensen is who I have been talking with about them, $1100 [Eek!]

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :

IMHO boost is a great crutch for heads that don't flow. It's also very easy to go to big with your heads. For example, an AFR 165 is great on a 302 till about 6500 rpms, much beyond that and the AFR 185 is a better choice. Still, from 3-5k the AFR 165 would be kicking the 185's ass.

On blown motors better flowing heads can give enormous gains relative to an NA combo, so sure E7TE heads can put out 400+ to the wheels with enough boost but put the right set of heads on there and you can crack the block with the same power adder [Wink]

A good example of 'too much head' would be outlaw-spec trick flow heads on a humble 302 shortblock. WAAAAAY too much flow for the puny motor to handle, probably almost as slow as stock.

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

HA!
I can't help but laugh.

If I were building a 306, I would have heads that flow 280+ intake at .550 lift. Use a mild cam, ported intake, free-flowing exhaust, etc.
I'd build it to pull 6500rpm, run on pump gas & have KILLER midrange torque.

Yes, you can go too large on heads, but IMO that has more to do with cross-section then flow.

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

Has anyone heard of any quality concerns with the canfield heads?

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

Woo hoo, got ahold of Brian today! He didn't have any news for me though:( Anyway, what do you guys think about these cam specs?

.571/236 @.050 on intake, and .544/230
@.050 on exhaust, 111 intake centerline with 109* lobe separation

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

Nice cam. It will NOT pass smog though.
With that cam & the canfield heads 400RWHP will come easy.

That cam has 15 degrees of overlap at .050 lift!
You'd better get some stiff valvesprings. In fact, have Brian send some matched springs with the cam.

Posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr. (Member # 1708) on :

shade-tree, why does everyone of your posts have something in it about factory crap?

how can a thread about a 347 and 300+cfm heads end up with crappy E7TE heads in it?

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr.:
shade-tree, why does everyone of your posts have something in it about factory crap?

how can a thread about a 347 and 300+cfm heads end up with crappy E7TE heads in it?

to make a point, you missed it?

Posted by boosted89Saleen (Member # 2243) on :

quote:
Originally posted by 93PONY:
Nice cam. It will NOT pass smog though.
With that cam & the canfield heads 400RWHP will come easy.

That cam has 15 degrees of overlap at .050 lift!
You'd better get some stiff valvesprings. In fact, have Brian send some matched springs with the cam.

This isn't the cam Brian specced for me, it's one someone got for their car and never installed, wish I could run it though:( If anyone is interested, the cam is brand new and the guy is asking I think $250 for it?

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

93PONY- When you stop laughing, why don't you go check out the runner volume of Bennet 300+ cfm Canfields and then come back and report your findings and then maybe recite a few passages from the testament Ed Curtis wrote with the help of God Almighty regarding flow vs port volume/cross section [Wink]

I could ruin the fun and give you the specs right now, but learning is half the fun [Wink]

Here's a hint: flow vs port volume ratio isn't too hot....compared to lets say TEA TFS Stage III's.

Paint Job- If you need it to be spelled out for you... shade-tree was pointing out how you can have a 'weak nuts' running car with the good stuff (like your donkey) just like you can have a stout combo with stock stuff like shade-tree's old combo.
In closing, I'd like to quote a wise man from corral.net

quote:
You're right Chris, you don't have to run race gas- because you feed that donkey, carrots!!!!!!

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

I'm talking about Cross-section not runner volume here Sawson. There IS a difference. Specifically velocity of the air charge.

TW heads have 15 & 17 degree valves, which makes the intake runner substantually shorter then a 20 degree ford head (about 1 inch shorter). Yet the runner volume is still high, indicating a larger cross-section with the TW's then any other similar flowing 20 degree head. What does this mean? Take a guess.

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

It means that if you mill the TFS's to the same combustion chamber size as AFR 165's, you won't be able to tell the difference between the two heads because the small details you talk about don't make much of a difference when the car is going down the track [Big Grin]

runner_cross_section X port_runner_length = port volume, so you can't change one with out affecting the other.

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

What are you getting at?

The cross section on the TW heads is larger then any 20 degree head of similar flow....including these ported Canfields. 192cc intake runner is not bad for 300+cfm. However, on a TW head, a 192cc intake runner would mean a significantly larger cross-section then the Canfield heads... Which would mean slower velocity through the motor...which means less low-midrange torque....which ultimately means less AVG HP.

Posted by jayl (Member # 185) on :

so you think the trickflow's with 2.02 and a stage II port job would be ok for a stock bottom end 302?

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

I'm pointing out that cross section directly affects port volume. You also can't look at the runner length of the intake ports of the heads alone... you have to consider the runner length of the intake manifold as well since when the car is going down the track, they're one in the same.

I don't know where you get 192cc from.

I still think you nit pick about details that don't make much if any difference when the car is going down the track. (The whole looking at trees instead of forrests analogy.)

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jayl:
so you think the trickflow's with 2.02 and a stage II port job would be ok for a stock bottom end 302?

http://www.californiafords.com/fastest.htm The combo you mentioned is working great for the fastest NA 5.O in Northern California [patriot]

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

192cc is wrong....that's box-stock Canfields. The ported ones are in the 212-225cc range. Couldn't get in to edit it....the damn server was REALLY slow. 225cc's is on the large side for 310cfm, but the 347 will eat it up without problems. Canfield heads are VERY nice. (all those fast Texan's use'em!)

We're on the same page, but I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Forget about the intake manifold, I know all about total runner length & what it does.
2 heads, both with intake runner volumes of 200cc's. One head with an intake runner 1 inch longer then the other. This would mean the shorter intake runner would have a significantly larger cross-section. Cross-section KILLS velocity (obviously).

Idealy what you want is a head with the smallest cross-section VS CFM output.

Posted by jayl (Member # 185) on :

yeah but the weight is a little different, but jons car kicks ass........coupes are sick. My combo should do decent for now.

Trickflow heads
cam?
rpm intake
24lb , 73 mass air
equal lengths , off rd h
3.08's and mcurries or however they spell it

fun daily driver.......

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

93PONY- we're almost always on the same page, you just don't know it, like the HP/TQ thing [Big Grin]

Only a few times have we not been on the same page... like your 10psi turbo boost = 15 psi blower boost claim.

Excuse the server, its being dealt with.

As for your 1" shorter runner theory... lets do the math..... Lets assume the port is a perfect square "duct" in shape to keep the math simple.

200 cc = 12.2 cubic inches

Since the port shape a square "duct":

2 x port_hight x port_length=port volume

So one of our 12.2 cubic inch heads lets say has a port/runner lengh of 4 inches. Pluging this into the simple equation for a volume of a square duct above:

2 x port_hight x 4inches = 12.2 cubic inches

The port "cross section" of this head is 1.525"

Now lets do the same thing for our 200cc(12.2cubic inch) heads with a 1" shorter port:

2 x port_hight x 3inches = 12.2 cubic inches

The port "cross section" of this head is 2.03"

So the port is half an inch taller and wider in this example.

********************* scratch this example..... I'm just realized the model is flawed!!!!!!!!!

You have to include the intake manifold runner lenth and volume or the results will be taken out of proportion. 1" is large percentage of the intake ports runner length, but not a large percentage of the whole

Either way, I'm sure the difference won't be noticable on a timeslip... so give me the runner length, hight and width of your favorite aftermarket intake manifold and I'll do the math all over again with some real numbers instead of ones I pulled out of thin air.

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
93PONY- we're almost always on the same page, you just don't know it, like the HP/TQ thing Only a few times have we not been on the same page... like your 10psi turbo boost = 15 psi blower boost claim.

Haha!
I think you're just a little slow on the uptake sometimes. [Big Grin]

Forget the intake manifold. We're talking about the exact same intake runner volume on 2 heads. One with a 1" shorter runner length.
Do some research on the TW heads. You WILL find them to be nearly 1 inch shorter then standard 20 degree SBF heads. All I'm saying here is that TW heads have significantly larger cross-sections then any other similar sized SBF head.

Your example is not flawed.....you just don't like the results!

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

93PONY- I'm sure we all can agree that Mr. Paint Job doesn't run race gas because his donkey runs off of carrots down the track:

Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on :

St5150,

Your model isn't flawed at all it just proved his point. [Wink]

Regarding the 10psi turbo boost = 15psi supercharger boost. How do you explain that an incon twin turbo kit @ 10psi on a 100% stock unported HCI(with offroad exhuast) car makes 400+rwhp while the same combo with 10psi from an S-trim only makes 330rwhp? I sure hope you don't think it's the intercooler and especially not an intercooler on a dyno.

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

A) I'd have to measure with a ruler myself to believe that that TFS heads are shorter.

B) Give me real world data and I'll do the math. Cross section of your favorite intake, and its runner length. I used 4" in my example. Of couse 1" is 25% of 4" so the results are blown out of proportion. Come on, half an inch taller and wider ports? Thats A LOT of material. Lets crunch some real world numbers and not some "cyber internet combo" numbers and see what the results are [Big Grin]

Lets stop talking "smaller" and "larger" here and start talking centimeters and inches [Big Grin]

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

Jeff, that 400+ rwhp out of a stock 5.O motor with 10 psi of Incon boost is internet bullshit from 2-3 years ago [Smile]

Look at 93PONY's Incon turbo car. Are you saying that 30 more cubic inches, cleaned up GT40 heads, cleaned up Cobra intake and a "stock" 5.O cam is only worth 25-30 rwhp?

Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on :

If you guys don't think that model is flawed.... lets do the math again. I'm going to stick with these numbers until you guys provide real specs from real heads [Big Grin]

Head (A) had 1.5" intake runner lenght:

2 x port_hight x 1.5inches = 12.2 cubic inches

Our square port is now 4.07 inches tall and wide!

Head (B) has a 1" shorter runner lenght:

2 x port_hight x 0.5inches = 12.2 cubic inches

Our square port is now 12.2 inches tall and wide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Eek!]

If why my orginal models results doesn't make sense isn't clear... let me give you a very basic example of why:

You have $2 in your bank account.

You give me $1

Oh my me, you've lost 50% (HALF) of your life savings!!!!!!

Now lets say you have $200 in your bank account.

You give me $1

Oh my me, you've lost 0.5% (HALF A PERCENT) of your life savings, who cares!

In this example, the $200 in your bank is equvilant to total runner length and the $2 is the equivilant of just the head's intake port runner length [Smile]

Like I said before.... I race in the real world, give me real data from real heads and intakes and I'll crunch the numbers and give you real numbers.... or we can sit here and pull numbers out of thin air and do voodoo magic all night long [Whoo Whooooo!]

Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on :

st5150,

So basically any mustang that isn't local isn't real. Ok, makes sence now.

93pony's car has cats and 91 octane. Can you name anything else that kills power more efficiently on a turbo car?

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

Some other 'nit-pick' stuff about my car. It has 2&1/4 inch exhaust pipes between the X pipe & mufflers.
Oh, the car also made ALL it's power below 5000 rpm.

Sawson, I challange you to find any blower car that pulls 119mph in the 1/4 with a 3550lb race weight. Using 10lbs of boost, low flowing heads (145cc intake runner & less then 200cfm max flow....I didn't touch the intake side.), Any intake, & catted exhaust.....that makes all it's power below 5Krpm.

How much power do you think my low-compression 331 would make N/A? It's no where near 300RWHP I can tell you that! Max power I'd expect out of it is 240RWHP peaking below 5K like it did with the stock GT cam. Hell, Joe's Cobra motor only made what...24X RWHP with off-road exhaust & better intake....& that was peaking well above 5K.

Show the flaw in your math Sawson. There is none. That 'other' example is not flawed either. I'd expect 3X the cross-section on a port with 1/3 the length. From memory, I can say that the intake runner length of the stock heads I've seen is easily 6 inches long on the short side radius & probably closer to 9 on the long side. (top)

Posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr. (Member # 1708) on :

so let me get this straight. twisted wedge heads have a 1 inch shorter runner than a head with 20 degree valve angles (stock angle) but they have the same ccs. only way that is possible is by having a wider port which kills velocity. so you keep making that point right?

Now why hasn't anyone pointed out that perhaps the much improved 15/17 degree valve angles on the twisted wedge head more than make up for this "lack of low lift velocity." By having a much straighter shot to the combustion chamber compaired to a 20 degree head it is far me efficient and that helps air flow.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
Here is a flow chart of a twisted wedge head that has been made even WIDER than a stock twisted wedge head (205cc) now tell me where I would find this "lack of low lift velocity" because I don't see it.

Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr.:

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
Here is a flow chart of a twisted wedge head that has been made even WIDER than a stock twisted wedge head (205cc) now tell me where I would find this "lack of low lift velocity" because I don't see it.

now, in spite of the fact that I agree that TFS and other canted valve heads do in fact have an advantage over the traditional style, perhaps we could look at some of your 'motor' timeslips for an answer to your question? [Razz]

(edit: sorry, some things never cease to be funny with me [Whoo Whooooo!]

)

[ February 05, 2003, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: shade-tree ]

Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on :

shade-tree,

But it was really humid that day. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

So many of you are stuck on flow #'s & runner volumes....

Yes, TW heads have superior valve angles which definately help flow through the motor. Too bad they didn't match the 15/17 degree angles with the placement of the rocker studs....
I'd be all over TW heads if they flowed what they do with less runner volume....but they don't. The need the extra cross-section to keep up with heads like the AFR's.

All a flow bench measures is airflow at a constant pressure. Well, when bolted on a motor, the pressure is not constant. It's directly related to headflow, cam, intake/exhaust, etc.
Simply put, a head with a smaller cross-section that flows the same amount of air is moving that air faster. Even though both heads will fill the same cylinder with the same amount of air in the same amount of time, there is inertia in the air/charge that helps push more into & out of the cylinders. Especially during the overlap cycle of the camshaft.

.....extreme analagy:
Take a straw & blow 10cfm of air through it. Now take a piece of garden hose with the exact same volume as the straw (yes, it'd be much shorter) & blow the same 10cfm through it. The air going through the straw would have significantly more force behind it. I'd rather have small heads with high velocity then large heads with low velocity. Especially on an N/A motor. Velocity is key in power output.

Posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr. (Member # 1708) on :

now take the straw and put a 20 degree bend at the very end, now take the straw and put a 15 degree bend at the very end.

best part is that none of this shit means anything if you have a 4" stroke because you're making way too much bottom end power anyway. Then slap on something to force the air in and poof, "problem" solved.

Shade-Tree, my heads don't flow for shit when they're on the rev limiter.

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr.:

best part is that none of this shit means anything if you have a 4" stroke because you're making way too much bottom end power anyway. Then slap on something to force the air in and poof, "problem" solved.

Ah yes, the S-trim 'band-aid'.

Posted by SIR Paint Job w/ '84 Tercel Sr. (Member # 1708) on :

loud annoying ass pieces of crap

Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on :

I love the sound of an S-trim with certain pully combos. Unfortunately mine wasn't very loud when I was running it on my 90LX. I'm hoping with a different pulley combo it will be loud as hell on the new project car so I can drive around your "hood" to intimidate you. [burnout]

[ February 07, 2003, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Jeff S ]

Fueled by Ford Mustang Owners
on CaliforniaFords.com