I'm still impressed with the performance of the peanut ports. I remember when Chevy came out with the SS454 pick up truck back in 1990. Everyone said it was totally lacking in performance all due to the peanut port heads. Guys were doing top end swaps and were getting good performance from them but of course that also included a new cam. After watching Richard dyno test peanut ports several times the only conclusion is that they are really decent heads. I have been a long time Pontiac guy and I can tell you that stock high performance D-port Pontiac heads will not make 512 on a 455. 450 is about all you will ever see and that's with a single plane intake and really big cam. And these are heads us Pontiac guys always considered pretty good.

It's not just the peak HP and peak torque that matters, it's area under the curve. And, as Darin Morgan says, port velocity makes engines accelerate vehicles.

I've used the AFR 265's and Brodix Race Rite 270's on 496's and they were absolute monsters. One was a '70 Nova with a 2.73 gear and the other a 68 Chevelle SS with 3.73's. The 2.73's were fine. That big motor didn't care what gears the car had. The 3.73's were just ridiculous. No traction in any gear.

I am always interested in BBC heads. Like you said, we were all "conditioned" to believe that rec ports are the way to go for performance. I ran the stock ovals for years. Then I finally got to buy some closed chamber rec ports and intake from a '68 427. I am not sure I am much better off, at least on a street car. On my next engine I think I will go oval port.

I think it would be really interesting to test factory Chevy rectangle port vs. factory Chevy oval port heads on the same engine back to back. You could find some late 1960's closed chamber oval port heads and test them on your L78 396 and LS6 454 engines using a vintage Edelbrock C-396 oval port dual plane high rise intake. Another interesting test IMO, would be to test your L78 engine stock with headers and then blueprint and modify it to the 1967 NHRA rule book for "stock" class racing and dyno. Then modify for "super stock" class racing and dyno.

Availability on good aluminum heads comes into play these days also, always like the head comparisons

My old cast iron 702 heads are working really good for me. Closed chamber oval ports with bigger valves and mild porting on the SSR and chamber walls plunge cut to unshroud the intake valves. With 9.5:1 CR and a small Clay Smith HR 221/235 @0.050” o.577” lift and a 3310 VS Holley. When the back barrels open it blows the tires off. These hemis, camaras and mustangs gonna learn not to mess with the patina ‘72 C10 in SW Houston....😂😂😂

Quality pays for itself over time.

Would be interesting to see how AFR's as cast heads would perform compared to speedmaster's.

Great test, I always enjoy a test showing that bigger is not necessarily better. I don't know how often resale comes into play for most hot rod folk with their car / engine parts but the AFRs come out ahead here too for me and likely most.

I wanna say this was from my comment on your last video, but thank you for making this! My gen 6 might have hope yet!

Totally worth the cost, even for a mild street machine. Best way to save money on BBC heads is use GM castings.

The 265 AFR's are benefiting from the higher intake velocity that you get from a smaller port area. That's why peanut port heads hold their own up to about 5000 rpm. Keeping intake velocity up makes power and torque. The Speedmasters aren't bad heads. Their ports just have too much area for this test. Air entering the head slows down. I'd love to see a Speedmaster 270 aluminum oval port head hit the market. Lots of guys would run them on the street if for no other reason than to take some weight of the front end. Great test!

Port velocity I guess is what’s more important on a smaller engine with smaller heads

It has to do with VELOCITY. The bigger port is too big, which SLOWS THE VELOCITY, this is not good for power. Port design also has a significant impact on flow, especially with the big block Chevy, which is affected much more than most engines by this.

Yes it's absolutely worth it! Have you ever run the 100cc heads edelbrock makes I believe they are marine heads but always worth looking into

Speedmaster heads work well for mild street/show cars, you can easily get close to their price just having a set of stock heads rebuilt.

That was a great test! Who is not going to pick a bigger port for less money right? Unless it’s a budget breaker I would spend the money on the AFRs. Fifty hp is just too much to leave on the table and I think you get better quality overall and probably better reliability as well. I have seen this on other parts as well. For example has anybody ever seen a test where a Performer RPM intake does not make more power than seemingly identical knock offs?

I feel like you made this video based on our last exchange of emails Richard! Lol awesome

my issue with the cheap heads isn't if they offer the power, but if they simply actually work, as in seal, don't crack, are not warped, line up, etc.

Here are some data points from 1967-1968 NHRA drag times for rectangle port 396/375hp cars in A/S, SS/C and SS/D classes versus oval port 396/325hp cars in SS/E and SS/EA classes: From 1967 races: 1967 SS396/375 Camaro, Bill Thomas, NHRA SS/C, 4sp, 3,508 lbs: 11.85 @ 119.86 mph 1966 SS396/375 Chevelle, Wally Booth/Dick Arons, SS/D, 4sp: 11.80 @ 119.36 mph 1967 SS396/375 Camaro, Bill Jenkins, SS/C, 4sp: 11.51 @ 115.97 (not full pass) 1967 SS396/325 Camaro, Dick Arons, SS/EA, TH400, 3,217 lbs: 11.63 @ 118 mph 1966 SS396/375 Chevelle, Mike Hoover, A/S, 4sp: 12.01 @ 117.18 mph From 1968 races: 1968 SS396/375 Camaro, Kelly Chadwick, SS/C, 4sp: 11.30@124 mph 1968 SS396/325 Camaro, Jim Baker/Bill Thomas, SS/EA, TH400, 3,308 lbs: 11.67 @ 120.95 mph 1968 SS396/375 Nova, Ed Hedrick/Jenkins, SS/D, 4sp: 11.30 @ 123.38 mph 1967 SS396/375 Camaro, Bill Jenkins, SS/C, 4sp: 11.18 @ 124.48 (also ran 11.05, Jenkins claimed 540hp on dyno) 1968 SS396/325 Camaro, Christie Fisher, SS/E, 4sp, 3,250 lbs: 11.55 @ 121 mph 1968 SS396/375 Camaro, Dale Armstrong/Dana, SS/C, 4sp., L89 alum. head, 3,162 lbs: 10.61 @ 128 mph For NHRA SS class, cars could use any stock appearing single 4 bbl intake and any flat tappet cam, but must use stock carb so SS/E and SS/EA 325hp cars ran with stock Quadrajet. Also, in 1968, NHRA factored iron head L78 396 at 425hp and factored aluminum headed L78/L89 at 435 hp. Per NHRA, shipping weight for L78 car was 3,235 lbs and shipping weight for L78/L89 was 3,162 lbs for SS/C class. Dale Armstrong's Dana '68 L78/L89 Camaro was basically a 396 cid L88 since it ran L88 heads, L88 intake with gutted plenum and 2nd design L88 cam.

Another great test video!

Those AFR heads are wild for only being 265cc.

With the engines I run, this is easy, we tend to go with CFM at various lifts to tell what we should run rather than port volume. I like to chase torque rather than HP, because most of my engines live under 6000rpm, so port velocity is far more important to me than port volume or cross section. With Pontiac engines and only having one Chy-na budget head available, we usually port all of them anyway. Who does the porting makes a difference. A friend of mine has an engine of the same CI and compression, but he is making less power because of the port work, and supposedly his heads flow more. However what mine flow at .550 lift his flow at .700. So many interesting parameters and effects of the various engine designs, they're more than just air pumps, though you can expect certain things that are similar across all of them. The difference is where they make their power and what the ultimate limits are. Thats why I like to see what the other engines do, what the torque curves look like, and what effects changes have. I really like the grunt engines though, even if they are harder to get to hook up.

Hey Richard, appreciate 1 more for the library, Thanks!

right on time, again!

Long ago I had a 461 bbc with closed chamber oval port heads. Was ~ 12:1 compression and a street car that made 512 hp. Got tired of mixing expensive race fuel with pump gas. Switched to open chamber 990 square ports and a different intake, and lowered the compression to ~ 10.5:1. Then on pump gas it made 573 hp, a 61 hp gain. Oval wasn’t the best in my situation when using factory cast iron heads. The car picked up considerable et as well.

AFR worth the money if u got it id probably buy AFR even if i had to wait to save the extra doe. But id like to see speed master heads with port work done to them. Maybe wouldn’t make much difference idk. It’s crazy how much more power AFR actually make. Great stuff Thanks

But now the real test on the Speedmaster heads would be comparing them to factory rec port heads on the same combination in a 540 cu in BBC. I bet the perform a little better with more demand from the engine. Also, you can open the bowls to 100% of the valve size, the throats to 91%, and widen and flatten the short side radius a bit and pick up some more airflow.

$ per HP is what that boils down to. How that impacts ones particular wallet, and what the intended use really is. Flow numbers vs intake CC volume would be the interesting thing. A smaller port with a better shape, flows more, than a bigger port that sucks. And will therefore make more power across the board, and with better throttle response because the port velocity will be far greater. Another aspect of this is the amount of demand being placed on the port. A 454 vs a 540 vs a 598 etc will respond differently with one head to the other.

Not all of us have big budgets for cylinder heads. On Summit you can get bare "as cast"heads, it would be interestibg to see a build of those to get them running well. Id imagjne they would need to be completely gone through but maybe save a few bucks in the long run

Hey Richard, love your stuff. I would be really interested to see a BBC Head comparison between AFR 265/315's etc vs the Enforcer item, in terms of bang for buck

Richard has proved peanut port heads are incredibly good. I'll stick with them. Can't beat the price either.

👍👍👍 thanks Richard

He as a ford guy and watching you test all this stuff I gotta say there’s a big difference between top quality mfg’s let alone cheap offshore stuff. No doubt about it. The good heads are worth it.

I’ve got a 454 im trying to wake up, and it’s looking like AFR is the way to go.

The ProComp/Speedmaster heads aren't mostly bad. If you're good at porting and cleaning up the intake port they're worth the money to buy them bare, second hand for $300-400 a set. Everything else about the heads in a built config is garbage. Springs, seals, valves, all garbage. The biggest issue is the crap porting and the massive valve seat overhang. Flow numbers aren't everything, how clean they flow is just as important. If you are good with a grinder you can get in there and clean most/all of that up. Just have to be real careful when cleaning up the valve seat overhang/lip to not get in to the sealing surface. Friend and I did a similar test between Speedmaster's and TrickFlow heads on a SBM 318. After cleaning up the Speedmaster's and building them with good parts they were only 9 HP under the TrickFlow's with very similar torque and power curves.

I’d like to see the same engine with a set of AFR Rec port 305’s just for curiosity. I wonder how much could be gained if you ported the Pro Comp oval ports. Great content as always 👍

The speedmasters are basically good for a weight reduction. The AFR will be much more fun to drive, all the time. They'll probably get better mileage too. The cheap ones can't even be ported to match the AFR...maybe with lots of epoxy.

Is all about flow. CC size of the chambers isn’t as important as the flow. It’s still important, just not as important as manufacturers want you to believe. Why a 950cfm carb? That’s way more than that build will utilize.

Love the test Richard,any chance someday you can test Profiler 320 oval port bbc heads on a 496 combo??

I didn’t hear you mention chamber/compression ratio differences. The factory heads vary all over, and you did flash the 112 cc up for the AFRs. The CR can move the meat of the torque curve up or down quite a bit. Those AFR ovals seem to work really well. Thanks, Richard!

Richard I've been waiting for you to use this kind of combo on your big block Chevy 468. I feel like the average street guy this is the most common big block Chevy they're going to do somewhere in this same realm I'd like to see you do something a little better than the super cheap pro comps which are everyone knows are junk.... how about maybe you could do a AFR 335 as cast enforcer head because it is an offshore Chinese head casting. Compared to maybe a promax 317 which is the as cast offshore version of the AFR 315. And then do it with an actual AFR 315. It would just be cool to see offshore AFR against onshore AFR on this motor... same cam... same compression... just different heads

another thing to consider, how much was the valve job and upgraded springs on the cheaper speedmaster heads? Id love to see the final prices on the different sets of heads

AFR makes a good head. I have a set of 305's on what started out as a 454, now 532(different bottom end.) I'm curious if the 265's have the same fitment issues that the 305's do. By raising the exhaust port, it made headers and spark plugs much more difficult. I have a street 427 that has a set of 990's on it, HUGE ports, and ported out on top of that prior to my ownership. I've thought of changing them out for a set of AFR 265's. This video proved why.

My uncle taught me you want to have the smallest intake Port cc that flows the most air (cfm) When comparing cylinder heads. Like you said bigger isn't always better

Hey Richard have you had the chance to port the Speedmaster heads or know of any that have been ported and tested on a similar combo?

Right on

I’m curious about the smaller port Speedmaster Heads and how they might stack up against the AFR? At 305 they are not much bigger than the Edelbrock which are at 290. I’m also curious how the Edelbrock “High Compression” heads compare to the factory Vortec heads? They both have a combustion chamber volume of 100cc’s.

I for one would be (and do) pay higher $$ products for my vehicles. Engines are no exception. You usually get what you pay for, for performance. Gotta pay to play. And durability I think comes into play as well

I would like to see a test of the flotek 290 oval vs the 265 afr.

What about the same test but fully ported and gasket matched heads? One cheap, one expensive.

I'd love to see a Profiler v. Chinese head test. After all, most of the Chinese knock offs are a knockoff of the Profiler. And as someone said below, it's the work done on the head after the casting that makes all the difference. Another thing, replace the springs, retainers and valves to 'comparable' and that price difference really isn't double. Basically, you're getting AFR or whoevers CNC port program for cheap. And lastly, you can't compare a 335 head to a 265 head - they're different heads for different builds.....

The quandary becomes even more perplexing when you realize that Speedmaster has a 40% off sale every Black Friday weekend, making those $1250 heads come in at $750 including shipping. Best is to buy them bare for even less and put better valves and springs in. I don't recall AFR's or any of the other "domestic" brands ever being on sale.

Ive got a set of 781 oval port heads that I can’t decide whether or not I want to use. Im sure they’ll make power but man are they heavy!

For a budget deal, I’d install larger valves and some bowl work on the peanuts. The speedmaster have too many quality horror stories. For similar money you could have similar horsepower without worrying about dropping a valve seat

Being able to change a head without 3 buddies and a chiropractor is also a good reason for cheapo aluminum heads.

Guy's, first of all, I haven't fooled with BBC engines for 50 years and I don't know my butt from a hole in the ground, need to say that up front. I do build a few SBC Stroker engines with decent results. I have been asked to build a BBC for an 80s 4 WD truck. I can't get the information that I would like so this is by the seat of my pants. I have a 454 4 bolt and peanut heads and throttle body. I haven't heard it run and can't start it the way my test stand is set up, so the first thing is an intake and carb. I was reading about Skip White from Kingsport, TN. He took a 454 and built a 496 stroker with a 4.25" stroke and bored .060 over, 218cc piston and cam along with the "As-Cast" AFR 335 Aluminum head. He used a Wieand Warrior intake and Holley carb. On the Dyno the engine the engine produced something like 672 HP. He has the stroker kit and AFR heads advertised at 650HP. For both the stroker kit and heads is about $3800. Of course there are other incidentals that I will incur like the Warrior intake, carb and timing gear and cam. This should be a Bad-A$$ engine in the truck. Got no idea what the truck will be used for. I was going to build a 383 Stroker for it. He just told me he wanted something "Stout". Any thoughts? BTW, I want to hear it run for my own reasons. When I pulled the intake I found both pushrods on #7 cylinder badly bent with one of the lifters for that cylinder lying in the lifter valley. Also found probably 6-8 other pushrods badly bent and one of the pushrod guides for #7 Cylinder broke in half. Got no idea why.

Richard, why the valve job on the Speedmaster heads? Where they new out of the box? I've always heard to buy these heads bare, then add your valves and Springs. By the time you do that you should be roughly the same cost at the AFRs correct? Whats your opinion on Speedmaster in general?

Need more compression to for the larger runners you should know already know this and you do but this is just a funny video

It looks like the springs were giving up around 5500 on the procomp heads? Power goes flat and then dives… if you did a little porting cleanup on the procomp would that do much or maybe they already did that from the factory?

Did the valves fail to control the valve train on the speedmaster heads? Up at the top it just falls down while the afr heads stay nice and smooth.

Okay, so if you spent a weekend and ported the speedmaster heads, how much closer do you get to the AFR?

Lingenfelter showed this back in the '90s making big numbers with peanut and oval port heads.

I think a lot depends on if it's a street car or quarter mile car and what gears how many times does a street car actually use 5 to 6 thousand rpms richard have you done a video on how much power port matched intake gains on performer rpm manifold

What intake did you use with the AFR heads?

The afr is best, no doubt. If you can afford it yea it’s worth it. If not then either the Chinese stuff and add a 150 of nitrous and go. Chances are something better than those ages will come along later anyway.

The more port velocity with smaller ports is key.

You should test out a set of skip white performance heads I think there cheaper than the speed masters

This would be great if we all was building 496 not all of us have that kind of cash the 119 cc chamber is ok when you have a five gallon bucket for a pistons but I have a 402 with a speed pro pistons 29715-12A-B STD and when you do the math on the compression it comes out to 7.5-1 I’m not trying to rotate the earth under acceleration but I would like the wait reduction just want a oval port I wish you would look at the Bow Tie heads they are oval ports and a 110 cc chamber but since they put the cool Bow Tie emblem on the exhaust ports that added a big $ kinda wondering if they are worth it for me or is there a cheap knock off I know that the valves usually don’t seal but I own all the equipment to fix that been down that road before

Classic 049 oval ports here

Richard, have you compared a factory rectangle port head to a modern aftermarket oval port? Thanks for the videos and all your work!

The rec port heads did work pretty well, but the problem from the factory was always that they used the wrong cam in the rec port engines. The cams they used stock usually being a single pattern, or only a small split between intake and exhaust duration, work pretty well with the factory ovals that had a pretty good I/E flow ratio. The rec ports tho, they needed a better exhaust port to really work like they should have. One way to compensate is with more exhaust duration that really does help them out. The OE rec port heads really need a cam with an exhaust lobe about 15* bigger than the intake to work well without port work. GM started to figure that out I think in the late 70s or 80s, when the 454 HO came with a 211/230 cam in it, to work with the 990 heads. It worked pretty well, considering it was only like 8.8:1 compression too.

Need to do a test on the afr enforcer ls heads

I'd like to see some Oldsmobile testing.

What about the aftermarket iron heads? Dart or World Products?

Is reliability worth anything? I had a set of pro comp heads. Ran for a few days...Junk!

Hi richard. Love your channel. I have gen6 454. I’m thinking about upgrading to afr 265 heads. A ramjet mpfi intake along with some 1.72 roller rockers. Id like to know if you think it would pick up a decent increase. It would still have stock cam. It would be losing some static compression but think it would be a lot of fun!! 99 Chevy suburban k2500. Keep up the great content!!

would be interested to see the world products merlin 3 320cc heads since they are pretty inexpensive

If I were not putting any money into power adders, it would make sense to spend it on the better heads. However, if putting a turbo or blower to it ....

These days, I'm more in the buy once, cry once crowd. If you have the budget for nicer parts, they usually payoff, especially if they are better matched. I put AFRs on my SBC, and the castings are really great quality, even superior to some of the other domestic brands I've seen. And the AFRs are much, much better than offshore, especially in terms of the valve job, hardware, and being truly ready to run without a rebuild prior to install. I suppose here it depends on your usage. If you want to invest in the AFRs and potentially squeeze a bit more out of this engine that would make sense. If it's just a cruiser then the Speedmasters could also make sense. The AFRs seem to help at an RPM many street cars wouldn't spend a lot of time at. That said, I think I'd go with the AFRs and put it in a v-drive boat with boat headers.

I wonder how the edelbrock rectoval heads stack up. Side note: I didn't have much luck with the milodon marine oil pan & I'm not the only one. Rumor is that they didn't put much r&d into it due to being a small market. I went with a Stef's fabricated pan to fit my hull and it worked perfectly.

What about speed master and a power adder?

Not sure if you covered it... What head gasket do you like to use for Na/ test or boost if different?

This test reminds me of the B-head 96-98 Vs the C-head 99-04Cobra.

Velocity is a big factor with the afr heads. I wonder how the runner sizes would react with boost. That would Be a good comparison. Smaller runners are better for n/a

Would have love to see them vs the larger peanut port (96-00)

A little off topic but will a edelbrock performer oval port head from a mark IV fit on a gen v block with a gen V head gasket?

The expense comes from CNC machining! If you take your low buck heads and have them ported by CNC and you probably be pretty close to HP from high dollar heads! But perhaps the money value of being "CHEAP" isn't so cheap after you do all of the machining!

I wonder what a set of bigger AFR heads would do like the 290’s. The 265 AFR’s are for towing looking at the catalog on their website. The offer up to 385cc tho😮

For a hipo street 454 up to 7k rpm use a set of 049's with a 2.19 intake and some mild porting and your good to go. A proven combo but yeah they do weigh 80lbs more than aluminum heads.

The question you should ask will this engine make more horsepower on boost, yes run the same setup on a single turbo or twin on each heads. To see if the extra 59hp gain will it double or make more horsepower vs the speed master head.

What about testing a 265 cc Speedmaster head if they make a 265 cc or a 290 cc Speedmaster...just an idea

Maybey I missed it? Did you mention what compression each of these heads made? Or the shape of combustion chamber?? I would want to know how much that played a roll in the out put differences?

So the speedmaster heads are great for mild street builds just to get the weight off. Or they're great if you have a short block and no heads at all, vs finding a set used and running them thru the machine shop, then buying springs and hardware. Spending more makes sense if you have specific power goals or other heavy duty requirements

Would like to of seen the smaller oval speedmaster heads tested, kinda a better match to the other 2 heads you are comparing them to. 320cfm is allot of air for that cubes...

should have thrown a set of vortecs in as peanut replacmemts??maybe or did i miss that episode

Yeah, my junkyard mk-iv 454 Combo with factory iron #781 casting oval Port heads unported, stock size 2.06"intake and 1.72" exhaust valves custom grind solid roller cam combo makes more Power from 2500-6000 rpm than my 10 second quarter mile small block combo, it's all over by 6500rpm though. There is more init, but I don't have the money for anymore testing.and I doubt you will do better than that for unported factory oval Port heads and a given amount of money anyway.

Richard, in your experience, how large of port volume (on AFR type BBC head!) can you go before it cost a “significant” amount of low end torque? If investing on a quality set of heads is it wise to invest some additional dollars for some “just in case” future power mods??

i’ve got a couple different versions GEN 4and a GEN 5 both have peanut port heads my gen4 has an Edelbrock air gap with a 870 demon the gen5 was a TBI a motor as you know we put the same induction as a gen 4 on and made less power and torque i’ve run compression checks on both motors, give or take 4or5 psi cylinder compression on both engines range 200-205. maybe someone can enlighten me where there any differences on a peanut port heads did they change the runner Heights or angles? Have you ran into discrepancies like this Richard?