taman86

iTrader: (19)

anybody have dyno numbers going from pp 96mm intake/ tb to fast 102/102 set up or something similiar. i am debating if it is worth it to pay the extra 500 bucks for the fast. i dont want to hear the whole noob myth crap either about heat soak, that has been dead and gone for a long time, and anyone who can sit there and try to make themselves sound believable about are ignorant. i am strictly asking about dyno numbers swapping from one to the other. thanx

themealonwheels

iTrader: (20)

Myth crap? lol, forget science!

I'm getting tuned and dyno'd in the beginning of April switching from a PP 96mm to a FAST 102. Unfortunately for you and everyone else who hates science, I also switched from Pacesetter 1 3/4" to TSP 1 7/8", swapped the Y-pipe, went from a Flowmaster to a Magnaflow, added a catch can, etc so it won't be apples to apples. But you bet I'll be posting that up in the dyno section.

LOL, "I don't want to hear logic crap!"

taman86

iTrader: (19)

how is it science, its speculation! there has been no hard data to back up the "so called" heat soak myth while using an aluminum intake. i've had a PP 96 and it heats up the same just like a composite.

IF ANYONE IS WILLING TO DO HOURS OF DYNO PULLS TO VERIFY THAT HEAT SOAK IS APPARENT ON ALUMINUM INTAKES AND DOES AFFECT PERFORMANCE BY ANY NOTICEABLE AMOUNT AND CAN POST DYNO GRAPHS TO BACK IT UP, THEN I WILL GLADLY AND RESPECTFULLY ACCEPT IT AND STOP THUMPING MY FIST IN FAVOR OF ALUMINUM INTAKES AND SAY COMPOSITE IS SUPERIOR IN EVERY WAY.

but think about about it "logically"....90% of ALL LS aftermarket intake manifolds are aluminum. Edelbrock, Holley, PP, BBK, Lingenfelter, Custom SHEET METAL.........are all those intakes worthless also when at least 4 of those names above are proven performers. Hell, even holley tried introducing a composite intake a few years back called the street fighter and nobody bought it. it was good performer for low and midrange but didnt do well at the top end, but nobody even bought it because people werent used to holley producing a composite intake, people were used to holley producing aluminum intakes. And as a matter of fact, the PP 96mm has been proven to perform better then the fast 90 and 92's, all right out of the box and untouched. So all the composite intake thumpers are all biased because of the name "FAST". The majority of them are as ignorant, biased, and closed minded as extreme christian advocates.

So, NO, it isnt LOGICAL, and NO, i dont want to hear any ILLOGICAL crap. I just want to hear logical hard numbers differentiating between the two, and i stated that to begin with. Now, if you do swap your intakes from the PP 96 to the FAST 102, i would like to see some numbers.

jimmyblue

iTrader: (11)

Measured manifold temperatures were posted here for
my aluminum PP 85mm. Short answer = fuggedaboudit.
Or however you spell that in Latin.

themealonwheels

iTrader: (20)

I know, I really appreciated the fact that you took the time to take some temp measurements! However, I had a few issues with the calculations you made... like that 500CFM would be going through each runner. If a performance head at full song can only pass 300CFM at 0.600" lift, I'd expect the flow rate through each runner during normal driving to be less than 200CFM and at full song to be at MAX 300CFM. That increases the residence time in the runners, and the temperature change would be a little more than your calculated temperature change.

However, something that I feel is overlooked is that the nylon composite intake ALSO has a heat transfer coefficient. What most people don't consider is that while the LS6, BBK, Weiand, etc runners are the outer wall of the intake, the FAST has runners WITHIN the outer shell, ensuring there is a barrier of air in between the hottest part of the intake and the actual runner. Food for thought...

I agree that heat soak is overstated, but it's not non-existent. While a metal intake may heat up air 3DGF, maybe a nylon intake heats it up 2DGF. Either way, there's something there.

OP, I'll get your damned results, lol

SweetS10V8

iTrader: (4)

Simple,

Cheap = Professional Products, I would actually get an LS6 WAY before a PP intake.
Max power = FAST

Throttle body size has very little to do with power production.

Unertl42

iTrader: (63)

99% of the time, you get what you pay for

taman86

iTrader: (19)

sorry if i came off a bit, assholish up top, i was tired and cranky lol. themealonwheels, i look forward to your results and agree with your post. metal DOES have the ability to transfer more heat into the air inside the plenum and runners where as the plastic composit intakes don't transfer the as much. is that considered heat soak, yes; has there been actual dyno comparison to back up the "myth" that heat soak diminishes peak power, no, at least from what i have seen and read. if i wanted something that performs close to a fast 90 or 92, ide buy the pp96 intake. if i want absolute peak power, ide go with a fast 102 but here's another problem.......

if you're already running a donkey dick of a cam and the power band is 2500-7000 rpms or something and you throw on a fast 102, you are loosing even more torque down low, and driving a street car that has to be ramped up to 2500 or 3000 rpms to go from a stop light wouldnt be much fun. throw on a pair of stage 3 or 2.5 243's or equivalent and that problem worsens. where as at least the 96 performs close to a fast 92. i think it really comes down to what the individual is willing to compromise with.

i am interested, with the intent of this thread, comparing peak numbers from the pp 96 to the fast 102 and how much of difference is there. i think it will be quite interesting and shocking to many, maybe even myself. i mean figure a complete 102 set up with a freer flowing intake from the lid to the TB matched at around 100mm, you're looking at around 1300+ and thats being conservative i think. a pp setup is around 700 complete, and staying with a 85mm maf. now throwing a number out there with no claim to back this up, lets say the fast 102 gains 10 peak hp. thats 60 bucks for every 1 hp gained, and thats just with the random numbers i threw out. not worth the expense for the gain. now if its 20 hp gained and based upon the same cost that i threw out just a min. ago, now thats 30 bucks for every 1 hp gained, now thats worth the extra cash.

taman86

iTrader: (19)

been doing a lot of searching about this topic and have come across zero info regarding dyno numbers with a 96mm. i have however came across a few threads regarding the fast and the pp 85mm individually.

Ls6 10 whp over ls1
Pp 85 14.5 hp over ls1 (actual engine dyno was 18hp over ls1, so 18% loss for manual drivetrain came up with the above whp gain)
fast 78 3 whp less then pp 85
fast 102 25 whp over ls1

the pp85 was on an engine with afr 205 heads and average size cam. the fast 78 was compared to the pp 85 on the same engine. so i imagine the pp 96 can only be better then the 85.

i guess that its prolly worth another 8 hp over the 85. if that were true then it would be close to the same average gains with the fast 102. i really am curious if anyone has ANY dyno numbers using this intake or switching to another.

mikh338

iTrader: (16)

i would really like to see myself, i am in the same boat as you

00Wildcat

Sept 2011 gm hightech page 44-51 383 picked up 26hp N/A and only 16hp turbo under boost over a truck intake sacrificing torque. Fast intake imo is a huge waste of money unless high employees max effort deal. That $1300+ would be much much better spent o n heads .

taman86

iTrader: (19)

i am seriously leaning toward a pp 96 and being unbiased. performance is performance. for 500 for a 96/96 setup, 40 bucks for gaskets at the most, and have it sent to a porter for a couple hundred, you can have a fast 102 or VERY CLOSE.

the bbk can only be ported to a 90 and have close to the same performance as fast 92.

and from what i have read a stock bbk vs a stock 92 is 8 whp difference averaged. a fast 102 over a fast 92 is worth 8 whp averaged. so a 85mm bbk to a fast 102 would be averaged at 16 whp for a grand and thats on the cheap side. 85mm bbk to unported 96mm pp, estimated 8 whp. pp 96 ported to 102 would be 5-8 whp. 85mm bbk to 102 ported pp would be 13-16 whp difference.

themealonwheels

iTrader: (20)

I think you're over thinking this. What were the power levels of each of those applications? If we're talking 300whp applications, the % increase from intake to intake is around 3% from what you're showing. But if you're talking about 8rwhp on a 400whp application, 2% change, etc. Plus, certain head/cam setups will emphasize intake capabilities more than others. And if you really want to rain on parades, a lot of those gains are only at peak rpms, 5500 and up. Example, I'm betting I don't gain 8whp over my Typhoon with the FAST because my cam is tiny and my heads are non-LS1Tech-approved Patriot heads

If you've done a portion of the research you appear to have done, you'll have seen these threads:

https://ls1tech.com/forums/11336642-post1.html

https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...vs-fast92.html

The FAST gains through the entire power band, while most of the metal intakes gain at the top end. (Probably) Not because they're metal or because of the throttle opening, but because of the runner design and plenum volume. SweetS10V8 has already demonstrated that throttle size has very little effect on numbers, and we've agreed the metal aspect is marginal at best.

I don't think you need my numbers, sounds like you've already convinced yourself. I'm just saying, don't get hung up on the peak numbers.

taman86

iTrader: (19)

Yes I have seen those threads. Some of those were estimations of gains. Some were not. Such as going from a ls6 to a fast 102 have shown avaerage gains around 25 whp. The pp85 picked power everywhere from 3500 on from the ls6 and lost next to nothing over the ls6. The only intake metal intake that has drastic runner design from ls6 style is the PP, the rest have similiar runner as the fast. Most of the numbers that are posted are peak numbers, buts that's the whole reason for swapping an intake, if you weren't then we would stay with a stock intake right. Most of these numbers were also taken from applications running an average cam and heads with exhaust. Only a couple were 400ish whp cam only cars.

EVERY SETUP IS DIFFERENT AND RESULTS MAY VARY.

427LS7HCI

.....................

thunderstruck507

iTrader: (18)

Your mistake in logic is that porting will get you the gains you credit to the Fast. The gains come from runner design, not the size of the opening. You can put a 92mm TB on a Fast 102mm intake and see all the gains on a stock cube engine.

An engine can only consume so much air as dictated by engine size, efficiency, and RPM. I've seen a single blade race carb with a ~95mm blade feed a 800hp big block race car. That's 496ci and 8k rpm versus 346ci and ~7k rpm.

00Wildcat

Unless its a Max effort high rpm setup you are giving up torque and driveability for 15-20hp above 4000rpm. If you want something that looks different than a plastic manifold by all means put whatever aluminum intake you want on there. I think Carb style intake is the poorest choice, bad distribution and giving up torque. Aluminum vs plastic is bullshit. I'm putting a Holley hi-ram on mine because I like the way it looks and with twin 6262 precisions torque will not be a problem.

I've got a Confederate Wildcat motorcycle, it weights around 500lbs and only puts down 116hp but over 120lbs torque to the tire. I love explaining torque vs horsepower after I spank a liter sport bike in the 1/8.

Last I checked victory, Vic Jr, rpm, mast, marcles, proflow, hi-ram, etc all aluminum alternatives

Chaos07

I think it just depends on what your set up is. I mean a fast 102 isnt going to perfrom well under a basically stock setup compared to H/C car. For those of us that dont have a setup like that i say we can keep the LS6 or the BBK or the PP. I personally would love to have the 102 but the 1000 price tag can be spent on a nice 243 head and cam combo

taman86

iTrader: (19)

Wow, didn't know that everything has to be spelled out here. In reference to porting; opening throttle mouth, runners, air intake outlet ports to match head ports. Yes runner design is key, but if the restriction no longer becomes the runners then move onto other aspects to get more air into the engine. Yes, an engine can only consume so much air.

But we're getting off topic here. I am concerned with gains ppl have had going from a pp 96 or even an 85mm to a fast 102 to see the difference in PEAK power and see the cost effectiveness.

BTW, ALL of the above intakes made power the same or close to the same as an LS6 below equal to or below 4000 rpms. Fairly typical power range for street driving

themealonwheels

iTrader: (20)

Sounds like you're planning to have all the right work done to the intake. Now, your original post was asking about 96mm Typhoon to 102mm FAST comparisons. At this point, I think it's fairly irrelevant with the amount of work you'll be putting into the PP. But if you can wait until the beginning of April, you may get the best answer you'll find for now... it just won't be usable because someone could argue my gains are from one of the several other mods I did when I swapped intakes.

I'd say you've done all the research you needed to do, and you sound like you can make an intelligent decision based on the results you've found. Man, I really wish they would have given me a break in price for back to back dyno sessions with the intake swap, we'd know once and for all! On my cam and head setup, that is

Good luck, I'll let you know what happens with my setup... in April