Those numbers are very "CNC AFR ish" , by that i mean, AFR tends to have very strong 400-650 advertised flow numbers. Then it nicely tapers off like that, but not fall off the earth. I think you producing this by hand is awesome and shows your experience. I think this engine will have incredible mid to high range TQ and pull like a train !
I've got a set of afr 210 spreadport heads I was thinking of getting similar work done on and use them on a 13.5:1 421, have a bullet .700 lift nitrous cam I plan on trying you think that head will support 700 NA? or is it a better idea to start with something else? I've also got .450 offset shaft rockers and .180 offset lifters? you do great work! thanks for all the time you put into these videos
Interesting looks like you have majority of the flow of the bigger head on a smaller port so velocity should be up. Being on the road race side of things great velocity should mean great for mid range and throttle response.
That's awesome! I'm in the process of building a 385 myself for my 3rd gen camaro turning about the same rpms. How much for a set of those heads ported that way?
Dang that first set of afrs is going to be bad mamajammers on a 383. Depends on his camshaft and goals but there's 700hp potential. Good work and thanks for sharing.
I had the Brodox heads on my 383, only made 500 hp ,did a set of afr 610hp, they where both bare castings,we fully cache runners I do not know the valve,or spring manufacturer, 625 lift roller, know our flow bench said afr fall on face, Brodox good to go, and the opposite happen.
I always find that offset vane in the intake bowl a curiosity: does it throw a little extra air/fuel mixture near that outer short side during lower lift where detonation is most likely to occur on an aggressive [but not all-out] build? Odd things are afoot in the cycle as chamber geometry takes prominence over the cylinder, regarding volume. On a 302 for example, if chamber is 68 cc then chamber vs cylinder volume is about 50/50 roughly 0.350" from tdc, and as that closes whatever swirl was going on changes near enough the initial pressure wave of combustion that flow considerations find themselves taking a proverbial backseat to keeping the pistons.
Great video love all the video I hope to get my small block built and let you go to town on a set of heads and see what I can get this small block to do Rick 427
Can we get a flow chart and possibly a velocity measurement from 200-800 lift, #s at normal increments on your afr head, against a bowl blended cnc same head from afr. I think that would give people an understanding of actual diffrence on paper. I would like to see you would do more stock ported ls heads, boath rec and cathedral port. Im currious what u could do with a set of 823s off an ls3. Keep up the videos, my drag race friends and i all watch your channel for fun and knowledge. Thanks a bunch eric from the NW!!
I agree there cheap ases. Mostly i think is because the ls aftermarket has lost there minds on pricing some of these pieces, thats why a bbc is still king period. On the heads i know you dont just blend, i was refering to afr not you. Meaning when u buy there cnc ported heads, they normally cnc port them and hand blend the bowls then send em out. So I wasn't referring to your work at all. I know if a guy sends eric a set of afr castings, and requests a competition port job theres a long list of proceedures you will do on top of proper cam selection, compression, use of engine, ect ect. My question was to do a dirrect comparison of flow #s and speed of air measurements @those flow#s so a guy could do a real world comparison. I dont think the advantages of a pro port shop is to get a guy a ton more air and speed, but to taylor a cylinder head for a specific task. That being said i was just currious what you could do with a set vs afr's cnc program out of the box. Just to see straight up, how much air is to be had over afr's cnc program, and whats that look like, ie cost, overall flow, and airspeed. Anyhow thanks man. Sorry for the long ask.
@@lollipop84858 Agree! Guys with truck heads rave about how wonderful they are which is laughable They read too many forums or hacks on yt giving them horrible advice
This is so awesome! i am think these heads on the engine with that 7,000 rpm limit is going to be phenominal. Now no jinxing now. i am building a 383 c.i. with only a 6800 max rpm limit for 4000 fps. i am trying to design and build a custom 10" deck block. This shall give me the 6.75" rod for 1.8:1 ratio, the correct bore and stroke ratio, and a solid 1.375" piston. This is the way it should have been built. it shall use the same available heads, with a custom intake manifold. For a 2:1 N/A engine the deck needs even taller. With say a 4" stroke ok, that is an 8" rod, 2" radius then whatever you want for piston. I would use 1.375 or 1.325" and that is your deck= 11.325" or 11.375" or 11.4" for 'short'. hahahhahahah get it? Now that is an 8" rod. 1.4" piston. And 4" stroke crank. That is the way it is supposed to be built according to the perfect ratio engine. Why not? Probably be just as good as any small block, and any big block of the same c.i. Add to this the perfect cam, and the perfect set of heads = you have the perfect engine no matter what size it is. The LSA for the 383 shall be 108* degrees. i am putting this in a gasser style 2nd gen camaro street machine. Not exactly 4.3" bore but closer. i suppose with 4.185" bore the stroke should be slightly less. Here is the scenario: 1.O75 times 3.89" stroke = 4.185" bore So there is the key. This is how it should be built. 3.89" stroke / 4.185" bore / 7.78" rod N/A and 7" rod for boosted engines and a honkin 2.055" piston hahahah!/ 1.275" piston on the 7.78" rod / 11" deck / Or say the deck favors the 1.8:1 setup= 7+1.945+1.275" = 10.22" deck. So you see deck hieght should not be so strict in mass production, why not have more molds of more deck heights? Any mold costs as much as another. Enter 3D printing. We want to be able to NANO print molecular iron for blocks. That should happen now.
When it was a head specifically for you I figured you would set it up with 800 lift springs. That's not what this is. These will rock for guys that still want a hydraulic roller with 650 lift and drive it on the street.
Hey eric i read somewhere some one claims the afr 220 actually does have the valve spacing moved over a very small amount. Considered stock spacing but indeed moved over just enough to fall with in the rocker roller barely. Youre input?
Beautiful work man so I have a question is the 50° intake seat because of the vein? Are you trying to get the port to hang on past .650 lift better while keeping that really good mid lift low? I imagine in combination with SSR shape and bias?
@@WeingartnerRacing i see, so is it steeper off the seat into the chamber? It’s hard to describe what im thinking but I think of a tapered cone coming off into the chamber from the valve
The bowl work looks opposite of how DV make his bowls. It looks like the swirl wouldn't be as good, but I bet there is more than one way to skin a cat. It would be interesting to see EW's numbers run through DV's IOP program.
