What's the biggest size AFR heads that one could bolt to a "stock" 302?

crazypete · 06-15-2004, 08:50 AM

I've been seriously contemplating a 460 swap and doing much research on it but I stumbled across quite a few articles on 302 buildups and I was surprised at how easy it is to hit 500 hp/ 400 ftlbs on a stock cammed 302. Since the 460 is only about 500 hp/500-550ftlbs in the combos I also stumbled across, I'm seriously thinking keeping the 5.0 a 5.0. I have reached the conclusion that aluminum AFR heads and 1.7 roller rockers is the way to go to reach that mark.

Basically, this was the one article that inspired me:
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford/

So I looked at AFR and the 165 cc and the 205 and the 225 cc heads are all comparable in price (within a few hundred). What would I lose by simply bolting up a set of 225 cc heads to the car (to leave room for expansion: the flow on the 225's is astounding!)? What about 300+ cc heads (I saw them in their catalog)? Would I lose compression? Would the 225 flow as much as the 165 but not reach it's potential? I'm fine with that....like I said, room for expansion.

Thanks guys!

Keep up the good fight,

Pete

Dark_5.0 · 06-15-2004, 09:56 AM

Dont go too big. I have Canfield 192cc Heads on my car and there is no torque below 3500 rpms.

My car felt better to drive with ported E7's.

crazypete · 06-15-2004, 10:10 AM

Yeah... I've been reading around and apparently bigger is not always better. I'm gonna build it up to keep the stock powerband (0-5000 or so) for street duty and I have no aspirations for spray or poweradders, just nice, simple, easy to maintain, reliable NA power that yields a very clean enginebay.

Would the trickflows be better on a stock bottom end than afr 165s? I'm looking at the flow numbers and they are close. Actually, those "thumper heads" are very tempting but they are iron and dont add to my weight reduction scheme.

crazypete · 06-15-2004, 10:45 AM

Some guy is selling "1970 clevland 2v open chamber heads" from a 351 real cheap. I heard that this year is a good year for flow on these older heads. How about these for a low revving street application?

Rev · 06-15-2004, 05:51 PM

I think the TFTW and the AFR 165's are both a good choice for what you are after. The AFR's are CNC ported the whole length of the runners from the factory. No pocket porting needed, but they cost $200 more. I chose the TFTW heads and did have them pocket ported for another $150. I also put in TrickFlow 1.7 RR's and custom lenth push rods as well as ARP head bolts.. The whole deal with gaskets,etc. was about $1850 I think.

The main reason I ended up choosing the TFTW heads is because they come with 2.02/160 valves and they have a raised valve cover rims allowing me to keep stock height valve covers even with the RR's. (another $150 saved)

You really don't want too big runners for a street driven 302 as the engine needs a certain amount of velocity in the runners to perform well at moderate rpms. The TFTW heads do work well for me. I agonized for weeks deciding between th TFTW and the AFR 165's. I doubt that I could tell the difference in perfomance with either choice.

Rev

andy669 · 06-15-2004, 07:31 PM

They didnt say what carburetor they used to get the 'before' numbers. There can be as much as 50 horsepower in the right carburetor.

The flow numbers that AFR advertises are skewed. They flow them differently most of the rest of the industry.

This article claims they picked up 104 horsepower and 53 ft lbs of torque. It would have been more if they would have used the TFS TW's.

Andy

crazypete · 06-16-2004, 08:12 AM

Yeah, I've heard a lot of complaints saying that the AFR flow numbers are skewed. I found this article

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...r/index2.shtml

And it seems that the TF heads beat the AFR's in intake but lose to them in exhaust. I have not been able to find any other direct comparisons on near stock engines... though I am still leaning torwards the AFR's due to the fact that they pre-port their heads and that would be one less thing that I would have to worry about.

For the moment.... I picked up that set of 351C heads for $100 last night! They need some serious wirebrushing cause they look like they have been sitting for quite a while. The intake ports are clean but the exhaust ports have flaky rust inside that seriously needs removal and there is carbon caked penny-thick in the combustion chambers. Other than that, there are no serious show-stoppers. I'm gonna get medival on these things while I contemplate the AFR's to come this winter.

jonnyk · 06-16-2004, 01:13 PM

The 165's are the only AFR head that will fit a stock 302 bottom end. Flycutting the stock pistons is risky business...you throw the whole engine out of balance if you try that to put a bigger head on it, and a 302 can't use the airflow of a 185 sized head unless it's spinning over about 7000 rpm.

I'd vote for the 165's or TW's. I love the Twisted Wedges myself.

crazypete · 06-16-2004, 01:24 PM

Good thing you wrote, Jonny. My next question would have been 165 or 185s? So I'm set on AFR's simply because all the really positive hype they have recieved. It seems head comparisons now use AFR's instead of TW's so they must be good. I'll amuse myself on these cleveland heads for now.

NoSlow5.0 · 06-18-2004, 12:08 AM

One more vote for 165's. The 185's would be too big for a stock 5.0.The 165's will make more average power than the TW's. We use either canfields or AFR's on all of our cars and have had great results with the AFR's. The canfields do great too, but need a lot of work to reach their full potential. Check out Brodix also. I will be switching to a set of their Neal heads on my new mill. I have 225's on my 408 and they make sick power, but on your 5.0 they will barely even run. Too much flow for such a small disp, small cam, and low rpm.

RoadWarrior · 06-18-2004, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by andy669
They didnt say what carburetor they used to get the 'before' numbers. There can be as much as 50 horsepower in the right carburetor.

The flow numbers that AFR advertises are skewed. They flow them differently most of the rest of the industry.

This article claims they picked up 104 horsepower and 53 ft lbs of torque. It would have been more if they would have used the TFS TW's.

Andy

Just to make sure. You know cleveland heads arent a direct bolt up. You have to do some work to get the water passages in the right place. But they are killer heads. My dad has a 72 mach 1 with the 351c 4bbl and those heads are kinda overkill even though they are stock.

crazypete · 06-18-2004, 08:15 AM

I went and started a thread on the cleveland subject:

http://forums.mustangworks.com/showt...threadid=43279

I felt it was a can of worms on it's own and outside the scope of AFR vs. TW!

Have a great weekend all!

Pete

06-15-2004, 08:50 AM	#1
crazypete Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 592	What's the biggest size AFR heads that one could bolt to a "stock" 302? I've been seriously contemplating a 460 swap and doing much research on it but I stumbled across quite a few articles on 302 buildups and I was surprised at how easy it is to hit 500 hp/ 400 ftlbs on a stock cammed 302. Since the 460 is only about 500 hp/500-550ftlbs in the combos I also stumbled across, I'm seriously thinking keeping the 5.0 a 5.0. I have reached the conclusion that aluminum AFR heads and 1.7 roller rockers is the way to go to reach that mark. Basically, this was the one article that inspired me: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford/ So I looked at AFR and the 165 cc and the 205 and the 225 cc heads are all comparable in price (within a few hundred). What would I lose by simply bolting up a set of 225 cc heads to the car (to leave room for expansion: the flow on the 225's is astounding!)? What about 300+ cc heads (I saw them in their catalog)? Would I lose compression? Would the 225 flow as much as the 165 but not reach it's potential? I'm fine with that....like I said, room for expansion. Thanks guys! Keep up the good fight, Pete __________________ 91 GT Carb conversion, holley 600 double pumper, edelbrock performer intake, FMS "C" drop springs, march 1000 underdrive pullies, crane 1.7 roller rockers, GT-40P headers, bassani x pipe, american thunder catback, FMS 4.56's, msd aL6, trunkmount battery, A/C eliminator kit, 3000 stall tci streetfighter, AOD with transgo kit, A+ servo, 300M hardened lockup shaft, kevlar bands and 28,000 gvw trans cooler, 3 core radiator, 300 lbs stripped with a full interior

06-15-2004, 09:56 AM	#2
Dark_5.0 Registered Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Staging lane Posts: 4,337	Dont go too big. I have Canfield 192cc Heads on my car and there is no torque below 3500 rpms. My car felt better to drive with ported E7's. __________________ 92' LX-Big brakes, Lots and lots of suspension, GT40X heads, Ported cobra intake, stock cam, Vortech SC trim. 00' Lightning-Stock 88'CRX-13 second ego killer

06-15-2004, 10:10 AM	#3
crazypete Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 592	Yeah... I've been reading around and apparently bigger is not always better. I'm gonna build it up to keep the stock powerband (0-5000 or so) for street duty and I have no aspirations for spray or poweradders, just nice, simple, easy to maintain, reliable NA power that yields a very clean enginebay. Would the trickflows be better on a stock bottom end than afr 165s? I'm looking at the flow numbers and they are close. Actually, those "thumper heads" are very tempting but they are iron and dont add to my weight reduction scheme. __________________ 91 GT Carb conversion, holley 600 double pumper, edelbrock performer intake, FMS "C" drop springs, march 1000 underdrive pullies, crane 1.7 roller rockers, GT-40P headers, bassani x pipe, american thunder catback, FMS 4.56's, msd aL6, trunkmount battery, A/C eliminator kit, 3000 stall tci streetfighter, AOD with transgo kit, A+ servo, 300M hardened lockup shaft, kevlar bands and 28,000 gvw trans cooler, 3 core radiator, 300 lbs stripped with a full interior

06-15-2004, 10:45 AM	#4
crazypete Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 592	Some guy is selling "1970 clevland 2v open chamber heads" from a 351 real cheap. I heard that this year is a good year for flow on these older heads. How about these for a low revving street application? __________________ 91 GT Carb conversion, holley 600 double pumper, edelbrock performer intake, FMS "C" drop springs, march 1000 underdrive pullies, crane 1.7 roller rockers, GT-40P headers, bassani x pipe, american thunder catback, FMS 4.56's, msd aL6, trunkmount battery, A/C eliminator kit, 3000 stall tci streetfighter, AOD with transgo kit, A+ servo, 300M hardened lockup shaft, kevlar bands and 28,000 gvw trans cooler, 3 core radiator, 300 lbs stripped with a full interior

06-15-2004, 05:51 PM	#5
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Heads I think the TFTW and the AFR 165's are both a good choice for what you are after. The AFR's are CNC ported the whole length of the runners from the factory. No pocket porting needed, but they cost $200 more. I chose the TFTW heads and did have them pocket ported for another $150. I also put in TrickFlow 1.7 RR's and custom lenth push rods as well as ARP head bolts.. The whole deal with gaskets,etc. was about $1850 I think. The main reason I ended up choosing the TFTW heads is because they come with 2.02/160 valves and they have a raised valve cover rims allowing me to keep stock height valve covers even with the RR's. (another $150 saved) You really don't want too big runners for a street driven 302 as the engine needs a certain amount of velocity in the runners to perform well at moderate rpms. The TFTW heads do work well for me. I agonized for weeks deciding between th TFTW and the AFR 165's. I doubt that I could tell the difference in perfomance with either choice. Rev __________________ '66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi. O.B.C. #2 '66 coupe

06-15-2004, 07:31 PM	#6
andy669 Registered Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Moline Il Posts: 901	They didnt say what carburetor they used to get the 'before' numbers. There can be as much as 50 horsepower in the right carburetor. The flow numbers that AFR advertises are skewed. They flow them differently most of the rest of the industry. This article claims they picked up 104 horsepower and 53 ft lbs of torque. It would have been more if they would have used the TFS TW's. Andy __________________ 88 coupe 91 LX NMRA Pure Street 5120

06-16-2004, 08:12 AM	#7
crazypete Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 592	Yeah, I've heard a lot of complaints saying that the AFR flow numbers are skewed. I found this article http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2...r/index2.shtml And it seems that the TF heads beat the AFR's in intake but lose to them in exhaust. I have not been able to find any other direct comparisons on near stock engines... though I am still leaning torwards the AFR's due to the fact that they pre-port their heads and that would be one less thing that I would have to worry about. For the moment.... I picked up that set of 351C heads for $100 last night! They need some serious wirebrushing cause they look like they have been sitting for quite a while. The intake ports are clean but the exhaust ports have flaky rust inside that seriously needs removal and there is carbon caked penny-thick in the combustion chambers. Other than that, there are no serious show-stoppers. I'm gonna get medival on these things while I contemplate the AFR's to come this winter. __________________ 91 GT Carb conversion, holley 600 double pumper, edelbrock performer intake, FMS "C" drop springs, march 1000 underdrive pullies, crane 1.7 roller rockers, GT-40P headers, bassani x pipe, american thunder catback, FMS 4.56's, msd aL6, trunkmount battery, A/C eliminator kit, 3000 stall tci streetfighter, AOD with transgo kit, A+ servo, 300M hardened lockup shaft, kevlar bands and 28,000 gvw trans cooler, 3 core radiator, 300 lbs stripped with a full interior Last edited by crazypete; 06-16-2004 at 12:49 PM..

06-16-2004, 01:13 PM	#8
jonnyk Being stroked is great Join Date: Oct 1998 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 772	The 165's are the only AFR head that will fit a stock 302 bottom end. Flycutting the stock pistons is risky business...you throw the whole engine out of balance if you try that to put a bigger head on it, and a 302 can't use the airflow of a 185 sized head unless it's spinning over about 7000 rpm. I'd vote for the 165's or TW's. I love the Twisted Wedges myself. __________________ Novi 2000 now spinning off the snout of the 331... Mods Pics

06-16-2004, 01:24 PM	#9
crazypete Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 592	Good thing you wrote, Jonny. My next question would have been 165 or 185s? So I'm set on AFR's simply because all the really positive hype they have recieved. It seems head comparisons now use AFR's instead of TW's so they must be good. I'll amuse myself on these cleveland heads for now. __________________ 91 GT Carb conversion, holley 600 double pumper, edelbrock performer intake, FMS "C" drop springs, march 1000 underdrive pullies, crane 1.7 roller rockers, GT-40P headers, bassani x pipe, american thunder catback, FMS 4.56's, msd aL6, trunkmount battery, A/C eliminator kit, 3000 stall tci streetfighter, AOD with transgo kit, A+ servo, 300M hardened lockup shaft, kevlar bands and 28,000 gvw trans cooler, 3 core radiator, 300 lbs stripped with a full interior

06-18-2004, 12:08 AM	#10
NoSlow5.0 YOU HAVE NO MARBLES!!!!!! Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Jonesboro,Georgia,USA (Providence, Ri) Posts: 868	One more vote for 165's. The 185's would be too big for a stock 5.0.The 165's will make more average power than the TW's. We use either canfields or AFR's on all of our cars and have had great results with the AFR's. The canfields do great too, but need a lot of work to reach their full potential. Check out Brodix also. I will be switching to a set of their Neal heads on my new mill. I have 225's on my 408 and they make sick power, but on your 5.0 they will barely even run. Too much flow for such a small disp, small cam, and low rpm. __________________ My 87 GT....Marbles....The one and only O.G.!!! AIM: Marbles87Fox Light Em Up!!!

06-18-2004, 08:15 AM	#12
crazypete Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Boston Posts: 592	I went and started a thread on the cleveland subject: http://forums.mustangworks.com/showt...threadid=43279 I felt it was a can of worms on it's own and outside the scope of AFR vs. TW! Have a great weekend all! Pete __________________ 91 GT Carb conversion, holley 600 double pumper, edelbrock performer intake, FMS "C" drop springs, march 1000 underdrive pullies, crane 1.7 roller rockers, GT-40P headers, bassani x pipe, american thunder catback, FMS 4.56's, msd aL6, trunkmount battery, A/C eliminator kit, 3000 stall tci streetfighter, AOD with transgo kit, A+ servo, 300M hardened lockup shaft, kevlar bands and 28,000 gvw trans cooler, 3 core radiator, 300 lbs stripped with a full interior Last edited by crazypete; 06-18-2004 at 02:08 PM..

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For whoever it was considering using stock ported heads	2FastLX	Windsor Power	5	10-11-2001 01:53 PM
Header bolt size	swtstang	Windsor Power	1	05-22-2001 07:03 PM
is there any difference between 351C heads and 351M heads	tireburner163	Windsor Power	7	03-09-2001 09:26 PM
Is the true about Edelbrock heads with TFS intake?	gt93mustang	Windsor Power	14	03-06-2001 07:01 PM
Head bolt size? help?	MAstang5O	Windsor Power	1	02-07-2001 08:36 PM