2.8 heads or not?

[Mark00s4]

Im trying to decide which route to go with my heads/intake.so any input from people that have real first hand experience is much appreciated.
So ill be running 605.2 on a built bottom end possibly going e85 in future but for now just a 93 oct 50/50 meth tune.
Full supertech valvetrain is going in.
Choice 1 . Full 2.8 heads /cams. Which casting are best to use?
Choice 2. 2.7 heads / 2.8 cams.
Ive read countless threads and still no closer to making a choice. The car is going to be a fun weekend car rarely hitting the track. Im a little considered about putting the powerband to far to the right.

[GrapeBandit]

2.8 heads for the win. ive got a set i can ship you lol
http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...Heads-and-cams

[pas6201]

2.8 heads for the win. ive got a set i can ship you lol
http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...Heads-and-cams

Im interested in a set of 2.8 heads

[jimmer009]

So if you are going to have the heads off have you thought of doing work to them?? 3way vavle job or any machining. I think it would be better than putting stock heads back on. I could be wrong and a 15v head might be expensive. But flow is flow and flow makes HP.

[bigern45]

concerned about the power being too far to the right? stick with K04's. if you go 605.2, id def suggest 2.8 cams, even if you stick with 2.7 heads

edit: from what ive heard and read, the aggressive cam profiles on the 2.8 heads make more increase than do the 2.8 heads.

[GrapeBandit]

Im interested in a set of 2.8 heads

if you really are, PM me. i have a full 2.8 that i am parting out. the car ran until the TB and fuel pump took a shit. since the car wasnt cosmetically sound on the inside and needed a lot of work, i am just parting it, didnt want to dump money into it, thats what my 1.8t BT build is for

[Mark00s4]

The 2.7 head with 2.8 is what im leaning towards. For what i read most of the gain is from the cams. Anyone running this setup on 605.2 ?

[S4tech2]

I've got a set of rs4 intake cams, there aren't quite as aggressive but will still be better than stock. I also have some 2.7 heads that are port matched and polished but has bent valves.

[mikeb17]

I'm not sure about the casting but I'll be using the 2.8 off of my 2.8 a4 this summer when I build my car.

[FlyboyS4]

Im trying to decide which route to go with my heads/intake.so any input from people that have real first hand experience is much appreciated.

The only first hand experience that would be worth getting is from somebody who had a set of 2.7 heads worked on, i.e. valve job, and then recorded the results, then put in worked over 2.8 heads to see how they compared. I doubt anybody has gone through such an effort, thus I doubt there's going to be anybody with firsthand experience worth hearing about as it pertains to the 2.7 vs 2.8 heads.

Of your proposed options my choice would be 2.7 heads (with a valve job and upgraded valvetrain), and 2.8 cams.

[Mark00s4]

The only first hand experience that would be worth getting is from somebody who had a set of 2.7 heads worked on, i.e. valve job, and then recorded the results, then put in worked over 2.8 heads to see how they compared. I doubt anybody has gone through such an effort, thus I doubt there's going to be anybody with firsthand experience worth hearing about as it pertains to the 2.7 vs 2.8 heads.

Of your proposed options my choice would be 2.7 heads (with a valve job and upgraded valvetrain), and 2.8 cams.

That would be ideal,then you would have a good idea of how the differnt parts would work . Ive looked at alot of articles and dyno graphs and have a pretty good idea what i want to do,just looking for some input. I definitely like the idea of a head that has good velocity and that is designed for a turbo and with more lift and duration of the 2.8 cams should work well with the 605. Thats my thinking

[Drehmoment]

AMD did a couple of early Tial versions(Tial650?) with 2.7 and 2.8 heads, from memory the 2.8 head had about 40 whp more up top than the 2.7 with 2.8 cams head. The dyno charts float around here somewhere, it happened approx 5-6 years ago

Ideally RS4 heads would work best ,large intake and small exhaust ports for high end breathing and retaining TQ down low

[Mark00s4]

Yes i think i read that.
I agree the rs4 heads and probably cams would be ideal, but $$.

[jaychen]

Yes i think i read that.
I agree the rs4 heads and probably cams would be ideal, but $$.

2.8 cam profiles are nearly identical to RS4.. not worth the coin. RS4 heads are also more prone to cracking.

[FlyboyS4]

AMD did a couple of early Tial versions(Tial650?) with 2.7 and 2.8 heads, from memory the 2.8 head had about 40 whp more up top than the 2.7 with 2.8 cams head. The dyno charts float around here somewhere, it happened approx 5-6 years ago

Ideally RS4 heads would work best ,large intake and small exhaust ports for high end breathing and retaining TQ down low

That 650 comparison was of full RS4 intake + heads vs S4 heads.