super vic vs. FAST 102
12-10-2010, 06:23 PM
#1
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Springfield, Illinois
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
super vic vs. FAST 102 On a stock internal ls1/ls6 which intake manifold gives the best power and which one will give great under the curve power but also great top end? Also on the super vic, do the shorter runners hurt it in lower rpm range vs the fast 102?
12-10-2010, 07:46 PM
#3
The SV is a topend intake and will only surpass the FAST above 4.5k-5k. Unless it is a dedicated trackcar go FAST. May want to consider a Prowflow XT http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_.../7000/7139.pdf It doesn't sacrifice as much bottom as a SV but still makes strong topend power...
12-10-2010, 08:31 PM
#5
Why??? Please support that statement....
The one I saw on a H/C LS2 in a 2nd gen Camaro made good #'s and ran strong. Put 2-3 cars on my old 346 that ran 7.40's
Edit: https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...n-fast-31.html Post 613 has some #'s. The setup changed a bit but the changes should have yielded lower gains... FAST is an unported 90...
The one I saw on a H/C LS2 in a 2nd gen Camaro made good #'s and ran strong. Put 2-3 cars on my old 346 that ran 7.40's
Edit: https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...n-fast-31.html Post 613 has some #'s. The setup changed a bit but the changes should have yielded lower gains... FAST is an unported 90...
Last edited by SOMbitch; 12-10-2010 at 09:17 PM.
12-11-2010, 09:28 AM
#6
Let me start by saying, these two intaks should never be decided between on any engine, as they have tottally different applications. If your truely concidering both, you need to stop and do a little research to understand your combination a little better.
Ive watched these two tested side by side, on a stockish engine and on a 500hp. The Proflow loses 25-35lb/ft 2500-5000RPM on both engines. It made more power than the FAST at 6400+ range, by 5-7hp. The Super Vic was even worse, I saw it about 4years ago and it lost 40-50lbft on a 525hp engine.
The FAST manifold would make the car faster in ever situation, except for a trailored drag only car with a 6000 stall convetor'd car that never saw any driving.
The Edelbrock intakes all sacrafice tons of low end. The Pro Flow, The Vic jr, and the Super Vic. Edelbrock is still stuck in the 70s world of single plane, wet manifold design. Search Raffman on the truck forum. He installed the Pro flow and lost a full second in the 1/8th mile!
Ive watched these two tested side by side, on a stockish engine and on a 500hp. The Proflow loses 25-35lb/ft 2500-5000RPM on both engines. It made more power than the FAST at 6400+ range, by 5-7hp. The Super Vic was even worse, I saw it about 4years ago and it lost 40-50lbft on a 525hp engine.
The FAST manifold would make the car faster in ever situation, except for a trailored drag only car with a 6000 stall convetor'd car that never saw any driving.
The Edelbrock intakes all sacrafice tons of low end. The Pro Flow, The Vic jr, and the Super Vic. Edelbrock is still stuck in the 70s world of single plane, wet manifold design. Search Raffman on the truck forum. He installed the Pro flow and lost a full second in the 1/8th mile!
12-11-2010, 01:06 PM
#7
On The Tree
Thread Starter
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Springfield, Illinois
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im doing a 402 build at the moment and plan on going the forced induction route...still fighting myself on whether to go sc or turbo but I don't plan on reving the motor past 7-7200. I just didn't see any side by side tests done on here that showed the pros and cons of the 2intakes.
