Generation IV External Engine - FAST 102 gains over ported LS3 intake in bolt-on 6.0L G8

There has been so much speculation as to whether the FAST 102 would gain any power over a ported LS3 intake on a 6.0-6.2L engine with a stock long block, I decided to conduct my own scientific test. By scientific, I mean that only the manifold gains or losses alone would be shown.

We started off with a 2009 Pontiac G8 with a 6.0L L76 engine with AFM/DOD, stock 90mm throttle body, American Racing 1 7/8" headers with dual cats, Vararam Cold Air Intake, ASP UD pulley, Yella Terra 1.85 rockers, and Comp 26918 beehive valve springs (so we could have better valve control above 6000 rpm). Stock cam, stock torque converter. All runs were same day, same dyno. The manifold swap was performed on the dyno.

The red run featured a Stage 2 ported LS3 intake manifold by an LS1Tech sponsor. This combo was super-tuned for best overall power. The blue run is with the FAST 102. It too was super-tuned. As you can see, even with the mildest of engines available with an L92/LS3 head, the FAST 102 intake manifold gains nicely over the most expertly ported factory intake. If you were to add significant airflow from a camshaft or increase cubes, the gains would only be larger. Remember, this is the smallest, mildest motor that come with rectangular port heads.

For those who can't read the dyno sheet, the ported intake made 389.3rwhp/387.6rwtq. The FAST 102 made 393.7rwhp/390.6rwtq. Although the peak gains were only 4.4/4.0, the gains at other rpm were much higher.

http://guerragroup.com/ported_intake_vs_fast_102.JPG

Interesting read, thanks for sharing!

Patrick Patrick, say it isn't so. Say this isn't ANOTHER Fast 102 intake comparison using a 90mm tb??
I was sooooooooo excited that it was you posting the comparison but in the end, this comparison is much like the others, meaning not performed with the tb it was designed to work with. :(

Well my mind is made up. I be going the fast 102 route, but I will buy it's made for companion... The NW 102 dbw t.b.

Patrick Patrick, say it isn't so. Say this isn't ANOTHER Fast 102 intake comparison using a 90mm tb??
I was sooooooooo excited that it was you posting the comparison but in the end, this comparison is much like the others, meaning not performed with the tb it was designed to work with. :(In a 6.0L, the 90mm TB is not the choke, it's the runners. There have been plenty of dynos showing gains of the FAST 102 on cammed L92/LS3 combos and stroker L92/LS3 combos. Very few tests exist of a 6.0L with stock AFM/DOD cam. There is no reason for me to upgrade to a larger TB until I have more cubes. Very few fly-by-wire throttle bodies are out in 102mm configuration. If you want to see some results for a bigger TB, do like I did...put down your own cash and conduct your own test.

If you want to see some results for a bigger TB, do like I did...put down your own cash and conduct your own test.

It comes back to that doesn't it. :engarde:

Good writeup Patrick.

Makes me glad I bought someones ported intake for my 6.0L instead of the FAST.

On another positive note, I've seen my fuel economy increase 1mpg above the factory intake. It took a 1mpg drop with the ported intake vs stock, but the FAST got it up 2 mpg over the ported intake (hence the 1 mpg gain over stock). I know these are inconsequential gains for many on this board, but for a daily driver, any time you can gain some power and get better fuel economy, that's good news. :)

Good writeup Patrick.

Makes me glad I bought someones ported intake for my 6.0L instead of the FAST.Unless you dynoed before and after with your ported intake, you have no guarantee that it's going to gain. For example, here is an overlay of my first ported intake vs stock. The stock intake is in blue (361rwhp) and the ported Stage 2 intake (353rwhp) is in red. That's right, I lost 8 rwhp vs. stock. Had I not dynoed the before and after while sitting on the chassis dyno, I would have never know the new ported intake was junk. The intake that I tested against the FAST 102 was the second manifold from the same sponsor. All I can say is, when it comes to ported factory intakes, your gains are not always guaranteed.

http://guerragroup.com/ported_intake1_vs_stock.JPG

Point taken, good information to have.

I bought Kevin's ported L76 intake, I don't think I will be able to do a back to back so I will just cross my fingers and see what it will do.

Point taken, good information to have.

I bought Kevin's ported L76 intake, I don't think I will be able to do a back to back so I will just cross my fingers and see what it will do.

Here is the graph with the only change being stock L76 vs LS2portworks ported L76. I think I remember Ed saying he got better results on the 6.0's with the ported intake. Still loosing 8-9 Kpa at the time of these graphs.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/WKMCD/Kevinsnew2.jpg

Nice write up Pat. What is the fuel mileage are you getting with that car?

Nice write up Pat. What is the fuel mileage are you getting with that car?Depends on whether I have a headwind or tailwind. In calm winds, I'm getting 26-27mpg at 70-75mph. A tail wind raises it closer to 29 and a head wind drops it closer to 24 mpg. The mileage varies more in 4 cylinder mode because it doesn't make near the power as all 8. A 20mph head wind really taxes the motor in 4 cylinder mode compared to when it's running on all 8.

If you want to see some results for a bigger TB, do like I did...put down your own cash and conduct your own test.

Yeah thanks for the advice but I spent all my car money this year already. :(
Season hasn't even started yet. :jest:

You really think those nice gains you're talking about is worth the $900+ for that inake on that combo? I know it's your money that was spent, you made that very clear but perhaps some members who want to get the most hp per dollar would disagree that the intake gains "nicely" considering what it costs. I know I do.

I appreciate most of the threads and research you do and post up one here as I'm sure many other members do also, it's good for a read. I personally have not applied any of the info you have provided over the years on my own car but that's irrelavant.

Thanks for bolting an intake on and posting the dyno graph Patrick.
You're a pioneer. :thumb:

Thanks Kevin,
I have seen plenty of dyno graphs from here, CF, LS1GTO and others to know the LS2portworks one works on the little engines. Even the Fastproms one that is used here does well on engines that breathe and rev. The bang for the buck helps too.

Keep in mind, the dyno overlay is of FAST 102 gains over what some consider the finest hand ported factory intake. If you look at the gains vs a stock LS3 intake, the gap widens further at higher rpm. The FAST 102 is in red and the stock unported intake is in blue. There's over a 20rwhp gain at 6200 rpm. Just think how much it would gain with a cam bigger than my 200/208 .479/.478 116LSA stock cam. :jest:

http://guerragroup.com/stock_intake_vs-fast-102.JPG

So what your saying Pat is If your not going to go with a FAST intake, don't port your L76/LS3 intake............... ??

Good test and interesting results indeed. I fell partly responsible for setting the fires that led to this I have to say.

That said Its still very pricey $per/hp ratio to me and not convincing enough for my build to require one at this time. It still seems clear that concerning L92 heads and FAST intake its a case of

"the bigger the cubes, the bigger the rewards"

So when i build bigger cubes in a couple years I'll look into it then. $1000.00 buys a lot of stroker parts :D

So what your saying Pat is If your not going to go with a FAST intake, don't port your L76/LS3 intake............... ??Pretty much. Hand porting the factory intake is hit or miss as far as gains are concerned and you'll never know it unless you to a back to back dyno comparison.

Good test and interesting results indeed. I fell partly responsible for setting the fires that led to this I have to say.

That said Its still very pricey $per/hp ratio to me and not convincing enough for my build to require one at this time. It still seems clear that concerning L92 heads and FAST intake its a case of

"the bigger the cubes, the bigger the rewards"

So when i build bigger cubes in a couple years I'll look into it then. $1000.00 buys a lot of stroker parts :DI don't think that you necessarily need more cubes, just more airflow than what the measly stock AFM cam allows you to pull through the motor. There are plenty of 6.0 and 6.2L engines with stock L92/LS3 heads that make 480rwhp or more. For engines like this, the FAST 102 would make WAY bigger gains.

Remember, the old FAST 90 only made nominal gains when bolted up to a stock LS1 with stock LS1 heads and stock LS1 cam. Of course, few will deny how essential a power producing component the FAST 90 was for the LS1s once you added better heads and larger cam.

For the 6.0L and 6.2L engines with L92/LS3 heads, we already have really good heads, we just need better cams to make big power gains. When you get to this point, the FAST 102 LSXR will again be a must-have component for staying ahead of the competition.

Pat,

Long time no talk to!

Just stumbled across this thread and have to say good job as always documenting the info which helps many of the members of this board make some decisions of their own.

The new FAST, as you mentioned, would likely show better gains on a more aggressive package with higher flowing reworked heads. I also think there are a few more ponies to be found with some porting of that piece (:devil:), but honestly even that work would be somewhat wasted on a mild package with that head and manifold configuration.

FWIW, I have reworked a handful of the cathedral 102's lately and they need/require more work than the rect port L92 or LS7 seem to require to be optimized....meaning there are more gains to be had from doing the porting to the cathedral version of the FAST than the square port versions although a few of my LS7 guys have seen 20+ over their OEM intakes which is impressive IMO (without the huge TB btw).

I will post some pics soon of a cathedral 102 R&D piece I have been testing (bolted to our new 245 heads) with some before and after pics of the intake. Quite a bit of plastic shards when Im done with one of those but Im actually seeing 325 CFM net at the cylinder when bolted in front of a new 245 AFR that flows in the mid 350's (killer cathedral #'s obviously).....and thats very good for a long runner bolt on design with a common plenum. It just needs a good bit of work to get there (even getting over 300 CFM net is an accomplishment here guys).

Down the road when the power bug in the G8 keeps biting lets get together on that manifold!

-Tony

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn283/Flowizard/2006_1112DougMarshall0002.jpg

Great thread here with very pertinent info from some of the most knowledgeable guys around. Lesson to be learned, be VERY selective about who you choose to to your intake/TB porting. Personally I wouldn't even consider anyone but Tony M, VA Speed, Vengeance or Pete from VMax, who did mine. Seen too many "hack jobs" from other so-called "pros" that looked
like they were done by a 10 year old with a rusty bastard file.
Tony, it would be great to see the results of your new 245 heads with the ported FAST 102. Any numbers coming anytime soon? Thanks,

Jimbo

Great write up Pat. G. I might consider that that intake verses the vic jr an losing power down low... It would prolly gain some decent power with the right heads & cam on it with a 102TB. There is a guy with a shop out of a shop in St. Louis called Performace By Joe and he is claiming some 20+ numbers on the Ls7 version an he seems to think i could gain the same with him taking the time tuning it with me through a big MAF so who knows it would really be nice to fogg this piece for the street an still be able to run a stock hood. Would a 408 cube be decent for this app?

Tony, when you gonna start playing with these things? I would like to get a ported piece from you when you get further into these guys... ;) Always been a fan of your worked pieces never herd a complaint on here. Any info would be great.

Great thread here with very pertinent info from some of the most knowledgeable guys around. Lesson to be learned, be VERY selective about who you choose to to your intake/TB porting. Personally I wouldn't even consider anyone but Tony M, VA Speed, Vengeance or Pete from VMax, who did mine. Seen too many "hack jobs" from other so-called "pros" that looked
like they were done by a 10 year old with a rusty bastard file.
Tony, it would be great to see the results of your new 245 heads with the ported FAST 102. Any numbers coming anytime soon? Thanks,

Jimbo

Very soon.....within a week or so hopefully!

-Tony

Tony, when you gonna start playing with these things? I would like to get a ported piece from you when you get further into these guys... ;) Always been a fan of your worked pieces never herd a complaint on here. Any info would be great.

Im all done playin'......LOL

Takes a different approach to the porting than the older style intake but ultimately the end results are (IMO) better than the first design for sure. Like I mentioned a few posts up, with one of my ported 102 intakes bolted to a new prototype AFR 245, I am seeing 325 CFM net to the cylinder.....most of the better cathedral heads I have tested fall in that area without a manifold attached (and some fall quite a bit short of that). Take a good flowing 320-325 CFM port (like our current 225 head)...bolt a properly ported FAST 90 or FAST 92 up to it, and you were lucky to see 300 CFM's net at the cylinder (290's was more typical). Obviously a good bit of this is related to how well the AFR 245 flows (mid 350's @ .650), but the fact the ported 102 I finished only knocks 30 or so CFM off that big number is very impressive. Bolt an LS6 intake in front of that same head and watch twice that much airflow disappear.

Whenever your ready for one let me know....you wont be disappointed I assure you

:usa:

Here is a pic of one I just finished porting and painted satin black with a red LSXr logo per my customers request.....Im probably going with the same paint scheme on my own intake.....I really like it. I may hit the 102 logo in white when I do my own as well.

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn283/Flowizard/FAST102.jpg

we just need better cams to make big power gains. When you get to this point,

I thought we took care of that?

:secret2:

I thought we took care of that?

:secret2:For you, yes. For me, not yet. I'm working on a hot little baby cam for my next mod. With the added airflow, this FAST 102 intake is going to really pay dividends.

For you, yes. For me, not yet. I'm working on a hot little baby cam for my next mod. With the added airflow, this FAST 102 intake is going to really pay dividends.


Cool I anxiously await results...


:corn:

I'm so glad we are seeing actual comparisons an results verses dumbass kids with the he said she said shit...

I'd send my NW 102mm DBW to join in on the testing once it get to the house...I won't need it until May anyways...

Bumping this thread to the top, hoping to see some numbers soon from Tony M. on the AFR 245/ FAST 102 combo.

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to advertise his stuff in his own thread?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to advertise his stuff in his own thread?

I think anything Tony wants to add to this thread would be more than welcomed by the OP and everyone subscribed to this thread. This is pertinent info from well respected experts that actually contribute alot to this forum! :confused:

The point I was making is Patrick is doing his thing on GM heads, one step at a time, to see what he can get out of them, Tony is using his aftermarket heads. Not even remotely related to the intent of this thread.

The two different tests and their results are very informative to everyone but are not the same comparison.

True story, but i'm sure he will be in the future plans of this built as well possibly

Guys,

I wont be hijacking or semi-hijcking Pat's thread....I had planned to start my own with (hopefully) an announcement of the official launch of the product at the same time.

If things go smoothly that might be by the tail end of the week.

Here is a sneak peak of a pre-production 245....at this point just crossing "T's" and dotting "i's".....I will get into more detail in my own thread.

IMO, its some of the nicest CNC work I have personally ever seen, especially when you consider the cost. This is a high res macro shot that would magnify any minor imperfection. We have really stepped up our game lately and it shows.

Thanks!
Tony

PS....Pat and I are good friends or I wouldnt have posted here but besides checking out the pic leave your questions (should you have any) till my thread discussing the 245 or feel free to PM me.

http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn283/Flowizard/AFRChamber1.jpg

Pat thanks for the tests. What did the original porter do wrong to drop 10hp and then pick up near 40 with the factory intake? Seams like he forgot something important!

The fast 102 is definately the go, Will be running one on mine then. A few shops have picked up say 10hp from the manifold and some shops have gained 25hp from the manifold alone with head/cam L98s. The milder setups generally get 10 from manifold and 15 from TB! So I guess the TB is worth it. DUSSPEED is releasing the OTR to match the FAST 102 and 102 TB its a perfect fit and will complement the setup well with larger filter area. Will go on your G8 pat something you should consider:)

BTW a few good baby cams for these floating around in VE SS's in aus.

cheers mate

Pat thanks for the tests. What did the original porter do wrong to drop 10hp and then pick up near 40 with the factory intake? Seams like he forgot something important!

The fast 102 is definately the go, Will be running one on mine then. A few shops have picked up say 10hp from the manifold and some shops have gained 25hp from the manifold alone with head/cam L98s. The milder setups generally get 10 from manifold and 15 from TB! So I guess the TB is worth it. DUSSPEED is releasing the OTR to match the FAST 102 and 102 TB its a perfect fit and will complement the setup well with larger filter area. Will go on your G8 pat something you should consider:)

BTW a few good baby cams for these floating around in VE SS's in aus.

cheers mate

Would love more info on this...