AFR flow numbers
12-27-2005, 02:27 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ajax ontario canada
Posts: 838
AFR flow numbers
I bought a set or AFR 210 comp ported LT4 heads.I know the flow numbers on the AFR website are inflated.I was wondering if anyone has any bench flow numbers from a set.
thanks
Dave
thanks
Dave
01-04-2006, 02:41 AM
#4
Banned
Join Date: May 2003
Location: LA (lower Alabama)
Posts: 6,661
Re: AFR flow numbers
Originally Posted by rock1501
I bought a set or AFR 210 comp ported LT4 heads.I know the flow numbers on the AFR website are inflated.I was wondering if anyone has any bench flow numbers from a set.
thanks
Dave
thanks
Dave
Other benches can be just as "happy" as AFR's. Ya got to realize that's the way they make their living-- Happy benches make big numbers= more head sales or porting jobs.
Get your heads flowed and see if the numbers are the same.
01-04-2006, 04:50 AM
#5
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,025
Re: AFR flow numbers
Originally Posted by rock1501
I bought a set or AFR 210 comp ported LT4 heads.I know the flow numbers on the AFR website are inflated.I was wondering if anyone has any bench flow numbers from a set.
thanks
Dave
thanks
Dave
From AFR's web site: (210cc Competition)
.200 138 / 112
.300 201 / 150
.400 247 / 190
.500 276 / 207
.550 282 / 213
.600 288 / 220
My head flow numbers; (Same heads)
.200 138.3 / 114.9
.300 192.9 / 164.2
.400 239.7 / 197.8
.500 263.4 / 212.5
.550 273.7 / 217.5
.600 282.7 / 219.7
01-04-2006, 09:15 AM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oklahoma where trees are made of wood.
Posts: 2,725
Re: AFR flow numbers
Thats well within the small percentage that AFR claims.
Mine were slightly less than AFRs numbers , but only by a high of 3 cfm. Like yours my exhaust actually flowed better than AFRs numbers.
CFM on a bench only tells about half the story anyway.
I bought these heads years ago when I was running a 355 in a 93 T/A , I had a set of stock casting ported, bigger valve LT1 heads on the car that flowed just under 260 @ 550 lift. I blew a head gasket and it really messed up the deck of one of the heads, so I bit the bullet and bought a set of AFR 190s to replace them. My best time before the AFRs was a 12.29 @ 111 mph. With no other changes but the heads (even went with a thicker gasket , Impalas with the stockers, Fel pros with the AFRs) I beat my best time IN WARMER WEATHER and gained 2 mph !!! Now When I took the heads off and put them on my 383 I had them freshened and flowed, like I said they flowed right along the lines of AFRs website numbers within a few CFM, and the exhaust flowing better. Later on I switched cams and also went to a thinner head gasket to gain some compression (fel pros to impalas now on the 383) While I had them out I unshrouded the valves, smoothed the chamber and had a better valvejob done (also blended the valvejob), I picked up several CFM from this alone to where I had the defecit of 3 cfm I now had a gain of 2.
Mine were slightly less than AFRs numbers , but only by a high of 3 cfm. Like yours my exhaust actually flowed better than AFRs numbers.
CFM on a bench only tells about half the story anyway.
I bought these heads years ago when I was running a 355 in a 93 T/A , I had a set of stock casting ported, bigger valve LT1 heads on the car that flowed just under 260 @ 550 lift. I blew a head gasket and it really messed up the deck of one of the heads, so I bit the bullet and bought a set of AFR 190s to replace them. My best time before the AFRs was a 12.29 @ 111 mph. With no other changes but the heads (even went with a thicker gasket , Impalas with the stockers, Fel pros with the AFRs) I beat my best time IN WARMER WEATHER and gained 2 mph !!! Now When I took the heads off and put them on my 383 I had them freshened and flowed, like I said they flowed right along the lines of AFRs website numbers within a few CFM, and the exhaust flowing better. Later on I switched cams and also went to a thinner head gasket to gain some compression (fel pros to impalas now on the 383) While I had them out I unshrouded the valves, smoothed the chamber and had a better valvejob done (also blended the valvejob), I picked up several CFM from this alone to where I had the defecit of 3 cfm I now had a gain of 2.
Last edited by WS Sick; 01-04-2006 at 09:18 AM.
01-04-2006, 12:22 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,025
Re: AFR flow numbers
Originally Posted by WS Sick
Thats well within the small percentage that AFR claims.
Mine were slightly less than AFRs numbers , but only by a high of 3 cfm. Like yours my exhaust actually flowed better than AFRs numbers.
CFM on a bench only tells about half the story anyway.
I bought these heads years ago when I was running a 355 in a 93 T/A , I had a set of stock casting ported, bigger valve LT1 heads on the car that flowed just under 260 @ 550 lift. I blew a head gasket and it really messed up the deck of one of the heads, so I bit the bullet and bought a set of AFR 190s to replace them. My best time before the AFRs was a 12.29 @ 111 mph. With no other changes but the heads (even went with a thicker gasket , Impalas with the stockers, Fel pros with the AFRs) I beat my best time IN WARMER WEATHER and gained 2 mph !!! Now When I took the heads off and put them on my 383 I had them freshened and flowed, like I said they flowed right along the lines of AFRs website numbers within a few CFM, and the exhaust flowing better. Later on I switched cams and also went to a thinner head gasket to gain some compression (fel pros to impalas now on the 383) While I had them out I unshrouded the valves, smoothed the chamber and had a better valvejob done (also blended the valvejob), I picked up several CFM from this alone to where I had the defecit of 3 cfm I now had a gain of 2.
Mine were slightly less than AFRs numbers , but only by a high of 3 cfm. Like yours my exhaust actually flowed better than AFRs numbers.
CFM on a bench only tells about half the story anyway.
I bought these heads years ago when I was running a 355 in a 93 T/A , I had a set of stock casting ported, bigger valve LT1 heads on the car that flowed just under 260 @ 550 lift. I blew a head gasket and it really messed up the deck of one of the heads, so I bit the bullet and bought a set of AFR 190s to replace them. My best time before the AFRs was a 12.29 @ 111 mph. With no other changes but the heads (even went with a thicker gasket , Impalas with the stockers, Fel pros with the AFRs) I beat my best time IN WARMER WEATHER and gained 2 mph !!! Now When I took the heads off and put them on my 383 I had them freshened and flowed, like I said they flowed right along the lines of AFRs website numbers within a few CFM, and the exhaust flowing better. Later on I switched cams and also went to a thinner head gasket to gain some compression (fel pros to impalas now on the 383) While I had them out I unshrouded the valves, smoothed the chamber and had a better valvejob done (also blended the valvejob), I picked up several CFM from this alone to where I had the defecit of 3 cfm I now had a gain of 2.
01-04-2006, 12:32 PM
#9
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,525
Re: AFR flow numbers
Originally Posted by JustNO
My engine isn't shipped yet. Its a 383cid with 240/246dur. 573/582lift 112.7lsa camshaft with flow numbers above. (97 Camaro T56 with 10 Bolt) What will be my HP or RWHP in your opinion??
01-04-2006, 12:59 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oklahoma where trees are made of wood.
Posts: 2,725
Re: AFR flow numbers
What compression (static ) are you starting with.
I know my car with just above 10:1 and the GM 847 traps from 117 to 118 mph car weights 3750 with me in it (I'm almost 240#).
I'll guess with your set-up and a static 11:1 compression that you'll easily make 410 to 430 RWHP, but what to look for will be the nice big fat torque curve , even with that big cam.
If you trap below 120 mph in the 1/4 I'll be surprised.
I know my car with just above 10:1 and the GM 847 traps from 117 to 118 mph car weights 3750 with me in it (I'm almost 240#).
I'll guess with your set-up and a static 11:1 compression that you'll easily make 410 to 430 RWHP, but what to look for will be the nice big fat torque curve , even with that big cam.
If you trap below 120 mph in the 1/4 I'll be surprised.
01-04-2006, 01:21 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,025
Re: AFR flow numbers
Originally Posted by WS Sick
What compression (static ) are you starting with.
I know my car with just above 10:1 and the GM 847 traps from 117 to 118 mph car weights 3750 with me in it (I'm almost 240#).
I'll guess with your set-up and a static 11:1 compression that you'll easily make 410 to 430 RWHP, but what to look for will be the nice big fat torque curve , even with that big cam.
If you trap below 120 mph in the 1/4 I'll be surprised.
I know my car with just above 10:1 and the GM 847 traps from 117 to 118 mph car weights 3750 with me in it (I'm almost 240#).
I'll guess with your set-up and a static 11:1 compression that you'll easily make 410 to 430 RWHP, but what to look for will be the nice big fat torque curve , even with that big cam.
If you trap below 120 mph in the 1/4 I'll be surprised.
01-04-2006, 03:03 PM
#14
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Oklahoma where trees are made of wood.
Posts: 2,725
Re: AFR flow numbers
On the 847 , I have no real issues with it except, it is ahog on gas down low.
I plan on adding some compression to help rectify all that, but until then I just hold my nose...lol
I plan on adding some compression to help rectify all that, but until then I just hold my nose...lol
01-04-2006, 03:17 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,025
Re: AFR flow numbers
haha 
If you add the cats and connect the air pump, could that work?
whats your gas mileage?
ps: These all out of subject, but I think you got what you want right rock1501?
If you add the cats and connect the air pump, could that work?whats your gas mileage?
ps: These all out of subject, but I think you got what you want right rock1501?
Last edited by JustNO; 01-04-2006 at 03:20 PM.