brenx

The picture tells the story. CHI on top AFD 2V underneath. No need to say anymore.

__________________
XB Fairmont (street car) 11.07@123.02mph.

brenx

In addition I have a question.

How can the CHI 185 port be smaller when quoted @ 2.125 and the the AFD 2V port which is quoted @ just over 1.96 be larger?

Doesn't make sense to me at all.

Brenden

__________________
XB Fairmont (street car) 11.07@123.02mph.

STROKEXD

Good find Brenx.

Yeah well they can only be measuring differently because the pic is very obvious.

What is interesting is the runner on the CHI drops exactly straight onto the back of the valve, and it is also slightly to the left. Looks to me where a runner should be in relation to a valve and very efficient.

Makes one wonder why Ford (and AFD) ever chose to set their heads up the way they did. Why have your inlet charge having to turn a corner when you don't need to.

__________________

xdclevo

Firstly, as everyone knows, min cross section is not at the gasket faces. It is furthur in the port, with the opening just to match manifolds available ect.
Also, if you want to compare ports visually, you should have got 2 seperate pictures at the same heigh and angle. STROKEXD, i think you'll find they both have a nice shot at the back of the valve. I know AFD does cause i own a set.
This a pretty strait shot too for a standard Ford head.

__________________
10.70 @ 125.00 on the black fun top
408 Cube Cleveland.

Jet711

this is getting boring!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Work Horse

Amen, both great heads, there is no winner we need choice!!

The AFD head fits any 2V manifold so the port opening has to be close to standard.

The CHI head has a modified inlet port, (one of its features) and is designed to be fitted with a CHI inlet manifold.

As xdclevo said the minimum cross section is not measured at the gasket face.The port opening is clearly much smaller on the CHI head but this is not the area in dispute.

I also agree with xdclevo, that the angle of the photo needs to be the same. The photo above shows the port all the way to the valve on the AFD head which makes it look much bigger than the obscured view of the CHI head.

These are both great (Aussie made!!!!!) after market items for our clevelands, no need to divide and conquer.

But well done brenx to get the photo up so quickly. Where did you get it??

STROKEXD

Don't know how your eyes work guys because the photo sure looks like to me to be lined up same for each head.

Check the bolt hole to the right, they are both vertically aligned to the right of the page.

__________________

Work Horse

It's the angle of the photo I was referring to Brad.
If the heads where swapped (top to bottem) then you would be looking down the CHI port all the way to the valve, perhaps making it appear bigger than the obscured AFD port.

But I believe the minimum port cross sectional area is measured just before the short turn. That is a little bit hard to compare in any photo.

Just my humble opinion

xdclevo

This comment is a bit harsh. You question why AFD ever made their head like they did.
Your better off leaving head design to the experts.

__________________
10.70 @ 125.00 on the black fun top
408 Cube Cleveland.

STROKEXD

Maybe it was.

But in any event I'm free to express an opinion without you telling me what I am better off to do...

I'm sure there were plenty of good reasons why AFD chose this route, perhaps some economical and no doubt compatability with existing 2V hardware works well in the market.

So though my comment may have sounded a bit critical, know that I recognise there is more involved in presenting a head to the market.

But as to my original comment, I'll stick with it - as this is a forum for expansion and exchange of useful information.

A straighter shot at the back of the valve makes for a better design. Deal with it.

__________________