Shorter Runners for FAST Intake!!!
08-05-2015, 10:34 PM
#42
A company....any company in any field....has an interest in recouping R&D costs as soon as possible. And the R&D that went into this design is probably fairly significant.
If these runners work as they 'should', FAST would put them out ASAP in order to:
Get a jump on the competitions' intakes (release and sell now and 'flood the market');
Generate revenue from previous customers looking to upgrade or a higher degree of flexibility;
Generate revenue from new customers;
And provide a cheaper alternative to the expensive sheet metal intakes on the market.
Also.....if they come out with a stronger product than what they already have, they suppress the 'ambitions' of competitors to enter the market.
He11....MSD supposedly compared their intake design against the FAST and look where they are.....
Also, MSD 'ambition' to release a LS3 intake was stifled due to their failure to substantially improve over the stock intake (a testament to the OEM's quality). With these runners, FAST can do to the competition what GM did to MSD with the LS3 intake.
But to do that, FAST would have to release the runners BEFORE the competition can bring a product to market.
All that being said, I'm betting that FAST is either having issues with the new runner designs working as they 'should' or there's a manufacturing issue they haven't let us in on....
KW
08-06-2015, 07:40 AM
#43
Makes no sense from a business stand-point.
A company....any company in any field....has an interest in recouping R&D costs as soon as possible. And the R&D that went into this design is probably fairly significant.
If these runners work as they 'should', FAST would put them out ASAP in order to:
Get a jump on the competitions' intakes (release and sell now and 'flood the market');
Generate revenue from previous customers looking to upgrade or a higher degree of flexibility;
Generate revenue from new customers;
And provide a cheaper alternative to the expensive sheet metal intakes on the market.
Also.....if they come out with a stronger product than what they already have, they suppress the 'ambitions' of competitors to enter the market.
He11....MSD supposedly compared their intake design against the FAST and look where they are.....
Also, MSD 'ambition' to release a LS3 intake was stifled due to their failure to substantially improve over the stock intake (a testament to the OEM's quality). With these runners, FAST can do to the competition what GM did to MSD with the LS3 intake.
But to do that, FAST would have to release the runners BEFORE the competition can bring a product to market.
All that being said, I'm betting that FAST is either having issues with the new runner designs working as they 'should' or there's a manufacturing issue they haven't let us in on....
KW
A company....any company in any field....has an interest in recouping R&D costs as soon as possible. And the R&D that went into this design is probably fairly significant.
If these runners work as they 'should', FAST would put them out ASAP in order to:
Get a jump on the competitions' intakes (release and sell now and 'flood the market');
Generate revenue from previous customers looking to upgrade or a higher degree of flexibility;
Generate revenue from new customers;
And provide a cheaper alternative to the expensive sheet metal intakes on the market.
Also.....if they come out with a stronger product than what they already have, they suppress the 'ambitions' of competitors to enter the market.
He11....MSD supposedly compared their intake design against the FAST and look where they are.....
Also, MSD 'ambition' to release a LS3 intake was stifled due to their failure to substantially improve over the stock intake (a testament to the OEM's quality). With these runners, FAST can do to the competition what GM did to MSD with the LS3 intake.
But to do that, FAST would have to release the runners BEFORE the competition can bring a product to market.
All that being said, I'm betting that FAST is either having issues with the new runner designs working as they 'should' or there's a manufacturing issue they haven't let us in on....
KW
Your pretty much bang on the money I would say, which is why I decided to cough hard and buy the fabricated manifold, with the short runner length that we wanted. Took only 3 weeks from paying the money to having it delivered and its a very nice piece, that I am well pleased.
Cheer's,
Mark.
08-09-2015, 07:17 AM
#44
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must be missing something.
The standard FAST 102 performance is well documented.
Modification of runner lengths has also been tested extensively and documented.
If someone feels that a shorter runner will benefit their engine combination......order a standard set and cut them.
The standard FAST 102 performance is well documented.
Modification of runner lengths has also been tested extensively and documented.
If someone feels that a shorter runner will benefit their engine combination......order a standard set and cut them.
08-10-2015, 03:40 PM
#45
I must be missing something.
The standard FAST 102 performance is well documented.
Modification of runner lengths has also been tested extensively and documented.
If someone feels that a shorter runner will benefit their engine combination......order a standard set and cut them.
The standard FAST 102 performance is well documented.
Modification of runner lengths has also been tested extensively and documented.
If someone feels that a shorter runner will benefit their engine combination......order a standard set and cut them.
I'm gonna bet that simply cutting them shorter without regard to the final shape of the runner will yield some interesting results.
KW
08-10-2015, 09:01 PM
#46
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to look a lot like the new runners...much straighter.
08-10-2015, 09:47 PM
#47
If FAST came up with a successful design, why wouldn't they look exactly like their original runners, only cut?
The little bit of curvature may not make a difference at all; but then again, it might. And I bet you wouldn't bet your kids' college fund on it......
KW
08-12-2015, 04:38 PM
#48
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly my point.
If FAST came up with a successful design, why wouldn't they look exactly like their original runners, only cut?
The little bit of curvature may not make a difference at all; but then again, it might. And I bet you wouldn't bet your kids' college fund on it......
KW
If FAST came up with a successful design, why wouldn't they look exactly like their original runners, only cut?
The little bit of curvature may not make a difference at all; but then again, it might. And I bet you wouldn't bet your kids' college fund on it......
KW
the cost of 8 runners.
............................... 
08-13-2015, 03:26 PM
#50
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have suggested a direction that the members could possibly
take in order to accomplish the goal of improving the upper
rpm power of the FAST 102 manifold.
By the tone of your posts, you don't agree.
That is perfectly acceptable......I am interested in the options
you feel would be more correct/efficient?
Thank you
take in order to accomplish the goal of improving the upper
rpm power of the FAST 102 manifold.
By the tone of your posts, you don't agree.
That is perfectly acceptable......I am interested in the options
you feel would be more correct/efficient?
Thank you
08-14-2015, 02:04 PM
#51
I have suggested a direction that the members could possibly
take in order to accomplish the goal of improving the upper
rpm power of the FAST 102 manifold.
By the tone of your posts, you don't agree.
That is perfectly acceptable......I am interested in the options
you feel would be more correct/efficient?
Thank you
take in order to accomplish the goal of improving the upper
rpm power of the FAST 102 manifold.
By the tone of your posts, you don't agree.
That is perfectly acceptable......I am interested in the options
you feel would be more correct/efficient?
Thank you
Or.....you can hold pat and just run with the FAST as it is.
Of the three, I know what I would NOT do. But hell....that's just me
.KW
08-14-2015, 04:10 PM
#52
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can wait on FAST to release their shorter runners.....or you can dissect your $800+ investment, hack up the runners purely on guess work, and hope for the best.
Or.....you can hold pat and just run with the FAST as it is.
Of the three, I know what I would NOT do. But hell....that's just me .
KW
Or.....you can hold pat and just run with the FAST as it is.
Of the three, I know what I would NOT do. But hell....that's just me
.KW
original post.
Purchase runner set #146353 (cathedral) or #146053 (rectangular)
for modification. While not cheap, (you know I'm not a big spender)
the sets are not close to college tuition figures.
Set #146353 lists for $423.20. #146053 should have similar pricing.
At the present, anyone one feeling that a reduced length runner would
benefit their application, is faced with purchasing a fabricated sheet
metal manifold.
Our suggestion was meant only as a quick and less expensive way
to test.
Last edited by magnum-gto; 08-15-2015 at 09:19 AM.
08-16-2015, 09:26 AM
#53
Wait, you forgot the forth option...The option I was referring to in our
original post.
Purchase runner set #146353 (cathedral) or #146053 (rectangular)
for modification. While not cheap, (you know I'm not a big spender)
the sets are not close to college tuition figures.
Set #146353 lists for $423.20. #146053 should have similar pricing.
At the present, anyone one feeling that a reduced length runner would
benefit their application, is faced with purchasing a fabricated sheet
metal manifold.
Our suggestion was meant only as a quick and less expensive way
to test.
original post.
Purchase runner set #146353 (cathedral) or #146053 (rectangular)
for modification. While not cheap, (you know I'm not a big spender)
the sets are not close to college tuition figures.
Set #146353 lists for $423.20. #146053 should have similar pricing.
At the present, anyone one feeling that a reduced length runner would
benefit their application, is faced with purchasing a fabricated sheet
metal manifold.
Our suggestion was meant only as a quick and less expensive way
to test.
I don't have to really worry about hood clearance, so I'm looking at a Hi Ram with a 4150/4500 top.
08-16-2015, 09:38 AM
#54
08-16-2015, 06:40 PM
#55
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08-16-2015, 06:47 PM
#56
8 Second Club
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Statham,Ga
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with compatible supporting components and modifications.
