View Full Version : lose power with FAST 102 from VS ls6 Intake


raysadude
04-05-2012, 09:20 AM
swapped my ls6 intake to FAST 102/ NW 102 TB and i lost power everywhere across the board except after 5900 rpm where fast outshines ls6 intake mani

here's the thread with the comparison dyno graph

http://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1526260-lq9-torquer-v2-232-234-243-heads-hooker-1-7-8-updated-fast-102-102-result-2.html

my car didn't even run lean after the intake swap, AFR stayed the same on dyno run right after the FAST installed.

im stumped and pissed off, im open to opinion and suggestions.

is it in the combo? i still have stock lid and stock size MAF i dont know if those gonna be a restriction.

thunderstruck507
04-05-2012, 09:39 AM
MAF won't be much if any restriction, but the stock lid is a restriction even on a stock car. Get rid of it.

As far as why it lost power under the curve, not sure. I went from a ls1 intake to a Fast 90 and it picked up everywhere, but more noticeably over 3500rpm or so (I had stock converter at the time and 230/224 cam).

Midnight02
04-05-2012, 10:47 AM
Was really surprised to see this thread with all of the other apples-to-apples comparisons of the LS6 vs. FAST intakes showing substantial gains across the powerband.

And then I noticed that you still have the stock heads on the car. Based on your supporting mods, a head swap should really wake that car up!

raysadude
04-05-2012, 10:56 AM
my heads are PRC 2.5 ls6 heads 64cc 2.02"/1.575" intake/exhaust

thunder: i'm just thinking the MAF is the restrction as far as letting more air coming in to supply the FAST 102 on lower RPM

dodson55
04-05-2012, 11:23 AM
i think the maf is a restriction to throw it away and go sd tune

Z284U2TRY
04-05-2012, 11:25 AM
I doubt the maf is hold back this car

BrntWS6
04-05-2012, 11:28 AM
I'm not surprised you lost power down low but that much and the way up to 6k?? I lost a little when I swapped to my 92/92 but less than 5rwhp and all under 4k rpms. After 4k rpms it showed almost 20rwhp all the way to redline. Possibley get ahold of a 92mm TB and see if that helps?

If you decide to swap cams I'd call up someone like Pat G, explain your setup and see what he has to say. Are your heads milled at all to up compression? It's got to be something in your combo not allowing to take advantage of the FAST.

thunderstruck507
04-05-2012, 11:29 AM
my heads are PRC 2.5 ls6 heads 64cc 2.02"/1.575" intake/exhaust

thunder: i'm just thinking the MAF is the restrction as far as letting more air coming in to supply the FAST 102 on lower RPM

I did not realize you had ported heads, though they were stock 243s.

With them being ported like that, I would be concerned. Your numbers are kinda low for mid size cam and ported ls6 heads, regardless of the intake. I would definitely be taking it to the track to get a MPH for the car.

2QUIK4U
04-05-2012, 11:29 AM
I would definitely ditch the stock lid and MAF. Any reason why you are running a stock lid on a H/C car? I would have bought a lid way before spending the money on a FAST intake. A lid is the most basic mod you can possibly do.

Stippy17
04-05-2012, 11:36 AM
Get rid of that stock lid ASAP, and I'd upgrade the maf while your at it. Then get some runs at the track. That will show more than a dyno graph.

raysadude
04-05-2012, 11:56 AM
it's not the stock lid, but it's a stock size lid, not 98mm or 104mm. i'm going to get 100mm MAF and 104mm lid, and see if i pick up anything.

The lid and the MAF were already there when i bought the car. i bought the car with the following combo:

ported 243 heads(c5z06)yella terra billet rocker arms-hardened pushrods
232 234 .595 .598 cam
mac midlengths headers
borla exhaust
bmr torque arm
subframes
LCA
T/A girdle stock 10bolt 373 gears
ls6 intake
ls2 timing chain
lid
36lb injectors
ls7 clutch

made 425/408 on a dynojet

since then here's what i've changed on the car:
Hooker 1 7/8" LT with E-cutout
FAST 102/NW 102 TB
swap the PCV to LS6 PCV style(swapped to LS6 valley cover)
Poly motor mounts and transmission mount.

net me 438/401 on a dynojet 414/365 on a mustang dyno

I'm pretty sure my MAF right now is NOT a restriction but i'm just thinking if i can let more air coming in by swapping to 100mm MAF and 104mm lid then i'll do it.

thunderstruck507
04-05-2012, 12:02 PM
net me 438/401 on a dynojet 414/365 on a mustang dyno

I'm pretty sure my MAF right now is NOT a restriction but i'm just thinking if i can let more air coming in by swapping to 100mm MAF and 104mm lid then i'll do it.

Gotcha, well those numbers aren't bad. I was wrong and thought I read 413rwhp on a dynojet.

For what it's worth I swapped my MAF for the bigger GM one and gained nothing...but I'm also not running fully ported heads.

It could possibly help but kind of expensive to find out.

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 12:06 PM
I think the tune needs to be looked at ...

I've never seen a loss from an LS6 to any FAST intake... they always pick up power if tuned properly

if your A/F didnt change from one intake to the other, then you obviously either have a restriction
your best test to find out is just to pull off everything in front of the TB and do another few pulls....if it still doesnt change, then you have a whole other problem to solve...

It should make more power everywhere.

also... you cant do a different day comparison and have it be 100% accurate...
so many things make a difference..and dyno correction factors are not perfect
I would bet you have totally different results if you did a same day swap on the dyno

and it says corrected... but is it SAE or STD?
I know a lot of operators who dont know the difference, and dont understand that they need to use SAE for it to be in the ball park from day to day

raysadude
04-05-2012, 12:14 PM
the numbers are corrected for weather they are SAE, the dynojet was STD smoothing:3, and we did a pull with the lid off and actually lose power, it made 406 with lid off, just straight from MAF, my AFR was all over the place on that run.

the LS6 intake run was made on a 65 degree day, yesterday was 68 degree, numbers were corrected for weather.

i'll get FTP 104mm lid and 100mm MAF re tune the car, i've got nothing to lose i guess, unless bigger MAF and Lid cost me more power then i'll swap everything back to where they were...

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 12:24 PM
yeah... something is wrong in the tune if it lost power pulling stuff out of the way..



so there 9 rwhp/ 4rwtq to my ls6 intake and stock ported TB.


that intake is good for 15-20 HP over an LS6 intake with a proper tune


not having any plumbing in front of the MAF will cause sporadic AFR
same issue happens when you put a 104 MAF on your car.. people have issues with getting AFR to stabilize.. because they dont have enough plumbing in front of the MAF to properly smooth and direct the airflow for it to read correctly

if you pull stuff out of the way from in front of the TB, you have to do a pull in SD...
If your Dyno guy is worth a crap, he will know how to tune in SD to do a pull or two to test
If he's just a dummy that straps your car down and does 3 pulls, then you should go somewhere else.

Midnight02
04-05-2012, 12:25 PM
I did not realize you had ported heads, though they were stock 243s.

With them being ported like that, I would be concerned. Your numbers are kinda low for mid size cam and ported ls6 heads, regardless of the intake. I would definitely be taking it to the track to get a MPH for the car.

Yikes! Likewise, didn't realize you already had aftermarket ported heads. Something is up here.

A cheap and easy place to start would be to ditch the stock lid and then you can work back from there.

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 12:29 PM
also.. with your mods...
on a Dyno Jet
you should make 440~ 450 HP to the tires...

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 12:49 PM
Just one of many examples on this forum showing that the Fast intakes make more power than the LS6 intake.,...everywhere...all rpm's..

http://ls1tech.com/forums/4792100-post2.html

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 12:54 PM
this image...is effectively an LS1, vs LS6, vs Fast 92
all on the same day...all intakes swapped in the dyno

http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f192/turbocrazydsm/RX-7/rx7%20build%20pics/intakes.jpg


Just more data to show your issues are most likely in your tune

raysadude
04-05-2012, 01:20 PM
i trust my tuner 100%

when i get the 100mm MAF i'll get the saxonpc honeycomb airflow straightener to help smoothing the air flow

is the above dyno graph is from 347/367 ci?

i agree something wrong with my setup, but i just can't figure out how after the FAST 102 my car did not run lean at all, and the AFR stays the same

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 01:29 PM
i trust my tuner 100%

when i get the 100mm MAF i'll get the saxonpc honeycomb airflow straightener to help smoothing the air flow

is the above dyno graph is from 347/367 ci?

i agree something wrong with my setup, but i just can't figure out how after the FAST 102 my car did not run lean at all, and the AFR stays the same

superflow engine dyno...
not sure of engine size, but it wasnt anything crazy..


and you may trust your tuner...but with a result like that... I would second guess him and at least ask for a copy of the tune that you could email somebody like myself for a second opinion to see if theres anything obvious that looks like the culprit

MM98
04-05-2012, 01:40 PM
Don't waste your money on a 100mm maf.. Go put it on Abel's Dynojet & watch your #'s go up to the 430-450 range.. An even better idea would be to go to the track tmrw & see what it mph's. There's not a whole bunch you can do to a wot tune. Your's was at 28* timing with a 12.5-12.7 afr with no knock.

thunderstruck507
04-05-2012, 02:47 PM
I doubt the issue is his tune. His tuner is known to be one of the best in OK last I heard.

I would start with running it at the track and see what it does. Might be chasing a gremlin that doesn't exist.

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 02:56 PM
Don't waste your money on a 100mm maf.. Go put it on Abel's Dynojet & watch your #'s go up to the 430-450 range.. An even better idea would be to go to the track tmrw & see what it mph's. There's not a whole bunch you can do to a wot tune. Your's was at 28* timing with a 12.5-12.7 afr with no knock.


no knock does not mean best timing....
I've seen a lot of cars with timing at 28 and when backed down to 26 piked up quite a bit of power
also, 12.5-12.7 may be a bit rich...not saying it is...Just consider that theres power to be made if you play with the fueling as well

a flat 28* would be incorrect...
the LS1 likes a little dip in the timing around peak torque....not that its going to change the #'s up top..but it will change the #'s in the mid range

I agree with the track comment...
see what MPH it traps and that should give you a good indication..

also... meter your Voltage (or just log it in your scanner) and see what its doing...
I've seen a lot of cars(my own included) that had pretty good voltage drops as rpm went up...which cost power.
solutions include a higher output alternator, and better wiring(usually the Big3)

raysadude
04-05-2012, 02:57 PM
The dyno jet graph in the thread is from abel racing, I made 438.

I'm not upset about the peak hp, but rather I lost power between 3000rpm all the way up to 5900rpm, I may go to the track tomorrow to see what she does.

mikh338
04-05-2012, 02:59 PM
why is everyone comparing a fast 92 setup to his fast 102 setup? did i miss something here? ive heard time and time again that you will not benefit from a 102 unless you are over 400ci hence why i have not done it yet but want to.

MM98
04-05-2012, 03:05 PM
no knock does not mean best timing....
I've seen a lot of cars with timing at 28 and when backed down to 26 piked up quite a bit of power
also, 12.5-12.7 may be a bit rich...not saying it is...Just consider that theres power to be made if you play with the fueling as well

a flat 28* would be incorrect...
the LS1 likes a little dip in the timing around peak torque....not that its going to change the #'s up top..but it will change the #'s in the mid range Agreed.. The same tuner who tunned the OP's car tunned mine.. I Started with 26* with no knock & then tried 28* & again had no knock.. The car didn't make any more power w/ 28* so we backed it down to 26* & left it.

I think if he's really caught up in the dyno #'s, he should put it on a dyno-jet & see if it picks up everywhere vs the mustang dyno.

raysadude
04-05-2012, 03:09 PM
And I will try to ask glen for the copy of the tune.

thunderstruck507
04-05-2012, 03:11 PM
why is everyone comparing a fast 92 setup to his fast 102 setup? did i miss something here? ive heard time and time again that you will not benefit from a 102 unless you are over 400ci hence why i have not done it yet but want to.

That information is also bad.

The 102 is an improved replacement for the 92, not an upgrade for bigger engines. The TB size has very little to do with why it performs, it's about runner design. :cheers:

mikh338
04-05-2012, 03:20 PM
That information is also bad.

The 102 is an improved replacement for the 92, not an upgrade for bigger engines. The TB size has very little to do with why it performs, it's about runner design. :cheers:

yes i deff agree with that info. thats why you see many people making very good gains with stock cube motors and the 102.

mikh338
04-05-2012, 03:22 PM
i have a few local tuners that told me very firmly not to go with the 102 because of such low end loss etc...

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 03:24 PM
I've tuned several cars that switched from an LS1 or an LS6 intake....
none of them lost power anywhere...

there is an issue....
its just a matter of trying to figure out where it is.

raysadude
04-05-2012, 04:03 PM
If I swap to 100mm maf, what do you guys think will be the downfall to that? The fact that's. Its losing power anywhere across the board is what caught me not the peak number.

I messaged glen and I think he got a little bit pissed by me with me asking for the copy of the tune since he's busy, now I feel bad :(

raysadude
04-05-2012, 04:05 PM
Like I said I trust him 100% and I will have him tune my car when I get the 100mm maf. I hope he'll do it for me

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 04:16 PM
If I swap to 100mm maf, what do you guys think will be the downfall to that? The fact that's. Its losing power anywhere across the board is what caught me not the peak number.

I messaged glen and I think he got a little bit pissed by me with me asking for the copy of the tune since he's busy, now I feel bad :(

if somebody gets pissed when you ask for the tune....then they are either not doing it right or trying to hide something...or both

I dont care what somebody's reputation is...if they are a good tuner, they will let you have the file without being upset about it...

Tuning is not like its a one of a kind top secret voodoo any more like when people first started doing it.
either you are doing it correct, or you are not

MM98
04-05-2012, 04:17 PM
Why are you set on buying a 100mm maf? That's a waste of money & will you gain you lil if anything at all. My old H/C setup only made 385 to the rear wheels on a dyno jet, but trapped 115 in the 1/4 at full weight.. Going by a calculator that's more like 420 to the wheels.. Take your car to the track before you start wasting money on unnecessary mods.

427LS7HCI
04-05-2012, 04:22 PM
Bigger is not always better.

OP, get rid of your 102 tb and go back to a 90 or 92 TB.

soundengineer
04-05-2012, 04:27 PM
Bigger is not always better.

OP, get rid of your 102 tb and go back to a 90 or 92 TB.

I disagree....

In His case.. the 102 should be better than his ls6...and the 102tb should be better than his previous as well

again.... on a 346 ci engine(or any LSx engine), I've never seen a car lose power from swapping up to a 102 intake/tb combo

and I have tuned probably close to 20 of them now(maybe not as much as some people...but its more than enough to show that it works every time)

raysadude
04-05-2012, 04:30 PM
MM are you mike miller that glen called yesterday? I figure I can always sell it because my friend is building a stroker lq9 427 along with the 104 lid. I'll use this moment as an apple to apple comparison between my MAF and lid that I have right now with bigger one.

I'll take pic of the lid and MAF that I have right now, it's granatelli and it should be stocker size, but when I took a measurement today it was actually 90mm..and the lid is matching it.

I will still take it to the track, but the fact that lose power everywhere except for the peak on the same dyno and similar weather really bug me

raysadude
04-05-2012, 04:38 PM
Sound: in glen's defense I'd be pissed off too if my customer brought the car to me and have me tuned it and turn around and asking for the tune file because he/she thought that the problem is in the tune.
He's a very nice and stand up guy, he didn't even charge me anything when he looked up the tune.

MM98
04-05-2012, 04:41 PM
MM are you mike miller that glen called yesterday? I will still take it to the track, but the fact that lose power everywhere except for the peak on the same dyno and similar weather really bug meI am.. I agree with the what 427LS7HCI said about trying a 92mm tb & I said the same in your dyno thread.. The fact that you're loosing power below & gaining at peak sounds like poor intake velocity with the big 102 tb. Worth a shot if you know somebody who has one they'd let you try.

raysadude
04-05-2012, 05:25 PM
I'll try to find one, heck I might just sell my 102 for fast 92

raysadude
04-05-2012, 06:55 PM
here's the pic of the MAF that's in the car, seems to me it's the 90mm one
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120405-00256.jpg

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120405-00257.jpg

here's the pic of lid
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120405-00254.jpg

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120405-00255.jpg

and here's beneath my air filter
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120405-00252.jpg

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120405-00253.jpg

jlcustomz
04-05-2012, 08:09 PM
The new design of the 102's is a removable runner, removable top , right? Any chance you have an internal leak? Also leftover casting flashing & shrink variations could be worse in one intake than most.
Just trying to think inside the box here.

raysadude
04-05-2012, 08:20 PM
what would an internal like sound like? any idea of how to identify this? i'm thinking about doing smoke test on my car, do you guys think it'll be useful?


there's one runner that makes a "wooss" sound but i'm thinking it's just more air compared to the ls6 intake

DrkPhx
04-07-2012, 09:33 AM
Do you have a data log from the dyno run from a WOT run of the LS6 intake? You need to compare the MAP kPa reading between the (and using key on values) two which gives a good indication of incoming airflow. It should be higher at WOT for the FAST intake. I would also ditch the GMS MAF and go with a new GM 85mm MAF.

BrntWS6
04-07-2012, 10:57 AM
From dyno thread.....you need to get ahold of a GM 90mm MAF. 100mm is just a waste on your car and there harder to tune.

Here is the log from his last pull with the graph he posted on the Mustang Dyno. And it's a stock 75mm MAF center section with afermarket plastic MAF ends.

raysadude
04-07-2012, 11:19 AM
will i need a re tune if i put GM 85mm MAF? and why would you guys think the new GM 85mm will help me?

soundengineer
04-07-2012, 12:26 PM
From dyno thread.....you need to get ahold of a GM 90mm MAF. 100mm is just a waste on your car and there harder to tune.

100 mm MAF is not a waste...
but you do need to have the proper length of tubing in front of it to allow it to work correctly...need some way to smooth out the airflow.

BrntWS6
04-07-2012, 12:42 PM
I disagree on his setup. It's good for big cubes but 95% of guys don't need 100+ mm TB's and MAF.

soundengineer
04-07-2012, 12:51 PM
I disagree on his setup. It's good for big cubes but 95% of guys don't need 100+ mm TB's and MAF.


you have it slightly incorrect there...
its not that he doesnt need it.... its always good to get more air into the engine any way you can..
the problem is that he is not set up to use it effectively..

I agree.. His setup cannot use a 100+mm MAF properly...

big or small cubes doesnt make a difference...my 346 showed power gain going from a 90mm MAF to a 100mm MAF, but I also had the proper amount of tuing in front of the MAF and got the airflow smoothed out before it went thru the MAF.

raysadude
04-07-2012, 01:06 PM
sound:like i said i'm planning to put the saxon airflow straightener to help smoothen up the air flow. what do you mean that my setup can't use 100mm MAF properly and you can?

soundengineer
04-07-2012, 01:13 PM
sound:like i said i'm planning to put the saxon airflow straightener to help smoothen up the air flow. what do you mean that my setup can't use 100mm MAF properly and you can?

you need more pipe.....
not just the straightener
2ft+ in front of the MAF

I no longer use a MAF....not really possible with my setup....
My intake line is too short and larger than a 104mm...

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h384/soundtechscott/2001%20Chevy%20Camaro/Nitrous%20Install/IMAG0745.jpg

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h384/soundtechscott/2001%20Chevy%20Camaro/Nitrous%20Install/IMAG0748.jpg

BrntWS6
04-07-2012, 01:48 PM
you have it slightly incorrect there...
its not that he doesnt need it.... its always good to get more air into the engine any way you can..
the problem is that he is not set up to use it effectively..

I agree.. His setup cannot use a 100+mm MAF properly...

big or small cubes doesnt make a difference...my 346 showed power gain going from a 90mm MAF to a 100mm MAF, but I also had the proper amount of tuing in front of the MAF and got the airflow smoothed out before it went thru the MAF.

From dyno thread.....you need to get ahold of a GM 90mm MAF. 100mm is just a waste on your car and there harder to tune.

Glad we agree.

raysadude
04-07-2012, 02:56 PM
I see what you guys are saying. I have the MAF coming in anyway and I'll sell it to get 92mm TB and 85mm MAF hope that will help me gain my mid range power back.

Thank you for the inputs.

raysadude
04-07-2012, 02:59 PM
One more thing, will I need a re tune if I put the new 85mm MAF on?

ULTIMATEORANGESS
04-07-2012, 04:07 PM
you need more pipe.....
not just the straightener
2ft+ in front of the MAF

I no longer use a MAF....not really possible with my setup....
My intake line is too short and larger than a 104mm...

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h384/soundtechscott/2001%20Chevy%20Camaro/Nitrous%20Install/IMAG0745.jpg

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h384/soundtechscott/2001%20Chevy%20Camaro/Nitrous%20Install/IMAG0748.jpg

that an impressive looking setup. it must be a monster.

BrntWS6
04-08-2012, 01:12 PM
One more thing, will I need a re tune if I put the new 85mm MAF on?


Yeah, I'd say you will need it touched up a bit.

Pumba
04-10-2012, 08:04 AM
It's probably too late for this, but if you can sell the F.A.S.T. intake manifold do so.

Then contact TPiS and send them your LS6 intake manifold. TPiS will convert the snout of it to accept the 90mm GM throttle body. Your cost will be approximately $400. The result will be more power than a F.A.S.T. 90 mm, better low and mid-range torque, and you will save money.


-

thunderstruck507
04-10-2012, 08:23 AM
[SIZE="3"][COLOR="Navy"]The result will be more power than a F.A.S.T. 90 mm, better low and mid-range torque, and you will save money.




Not the results I have seen from testing. Have any links to some good info?

Mike Morris
04-10-2012, 08:25 AM
It's probably too late for this, but if you can sell the F.A.S.T. intake manifold do so.

Then contact TPiS and send them your LS6 intake manifold. TPiS will convert the snout of it to accept the 90mm GM throttle body. Your cost will be approximately $400. The result will be more power than a F.A.S.T. 90 mm, better low and mid-range torque, and you will save money.


-


Thats utter nonsense.

There is an issue with the car or the tune. The Fast should have gained power-its proven to gain power even on bolt on cars.

bww3588
04-10-2012, 09:17 AM
It's probably too late for this, but if you can sell the F.A.S.T. intake manifold do so.

Then contact TPiS and send them your LS6 intake manifold. TPiS will convert the snout of it to accept the 90mm GM throttle body. Your cost will be approximately $400. The result will be more power than a F.A.S.T. 90 mm, better low and mid-range torque, and you will save money.


-


care to back that up?



if that were the case, TPIS would be selling these things like crazy and every car would have a TPIS 90mm LS6...not a FAST. :punch:

427LS7HCI
04-10-2012, 09:25 AM
From dyno thread.....you need to get ahold of a GM 90mm MAF. 100mm is just a waste on your car and there harder to tune.

I agree. He needs the 90mm MAF and 90mm TB to complement in FAST 102 manifold.

The 100mm MAF and 102mm TB is KILLING his airflow velocity. Bigger is not always better.

raysadude
04-10-2012, 09:25 AM
guys just to clarify, the car did gain power, but lose power anywhere between 3k - 5.5k RPM and i'm sure the problem is not in the tune. my tuner posted the dyno log on the other thread.
The fact that the car didn't lean out one bit after the Fast 102 leads me to think that the motor didn't get more air than it was before or at least not by much. i'm trying to change the TB from 102 to 92mm and swap my MAF to 85mm and get a re tune. if it doesn't fix the problem then new heads will be next on the list.

and i will not sell my FAST 102, i deal with problems not avoiding them.

raysadude
04-10-2012, 09:28 AM
I agree. He needs the 90mm MAF and 90mm TB to complement in FAST 102 manifold.

The 100mm MAF and 102mm TB is KILLING his airflow velocity. Bigger is not always better.

thank you for the inputs sir. it's my next on my list. i have the 100mm MAF with me now and a guy will send me 92mm TB and i'll compliment it with a 85mm MAF

here's the pic of 100mm MAF.
http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/IMG-20120409-00258.jpg

427LS7HCI
04-10-2012, 09:32 AM
you have it slightly incorrect there...
its not that he doesnt need it.... its always good to get more air into the engine any way you can..
the problem is that he is not set up to use it effectively..

I agree.. His setup cannot use a 100+mm MAF properly...

big or small cubes doesnt make a difference...my 346 showed power gain going from a 90mm MAF to a 100mm MAF, but I also had the proper amount of tuing in front of the MAF and got the airflow smoothed out before it went thru the MAF.

I disagree, Big Cubes, Small cubes, it DOES make a difference. Airflow velocity is decreased while air volume is increased, the larger cubed 408 motor will move more more air and at a faster rate than a 346. Therefore a 102mm TB/MAF will be more beneficial to it than on a 346.

You've added about 2ft of piping to your old 346 w/102mm MAF/102mm TB setup which increased airflow velocity in the intake tract, however, you weren't using a FAST Manifold, the OP is using a FAST manifold. Down low and midrange, the FAST 102 will outpower an EFI carbed intake on a Naturally Aspirated application all day long, which defeats the purpose of adding piping unless running nitrous or forced induction.

bww3588
04-10-2012, 10:02 AM
I disagree, Big Cubes, Small cubes, it DOES make a difference. Airflow velocity is decreased while air volume is increased, the larger cubed 408 motor will move more more air and at a faster rate than a 346. Therefore a 102mm TB/MAF will be more beneficial to it than on a 346.

You've added about 2ft of piping to your old 346 w/102mm MAF/102mm TB setup which increased airflow velocity in the intake tract, however, you weren't using a FAST Manifold, the OP is using a FAST manifold. Down low and midrange, the FAST 102 will outpower an EFI carbed intake on a Naturally Aspirated application all day long, which defeats the purpose of adding piping unless running nitrous or forced induction.

I'm not quite sure you have a grasp on what actually goes on in an intake manifold....

TB opening has little to nothing to do with air speed to the cylinders...

In any case dealing with a fuel injected intake, the TB has 2 purposes and 2 purposes only...that is to replenish the plenum as the engine depletes it and regulate air flow based on throttle position. as long as the plenum can be replenished as fast or faster than the engine can consume it, your good.

that is why a 102mm TB will work just fine on a stock cube car.

your air speed and velocity is determined by the runners, not the TB opening.

At WOT, the TB has nothing to do with anything, if anything, it is in the way. At WOT, you want everything that engine can give you. so theoretically, if you could remove the TB totally at WOT, you wouldnt have a problem. at part throttle conditions, the TB chokes the engine keeping the RPM's from spiking out of control. (common sense) which actually what you are doing is....creating a vacuum in the intake! which means your not replenishing the plenum as the engine wants more, slowing the process down.

This is also why your manifold vacuum should drop to 0 at WOT, if you still have a vacuum, you have a restriction somewhere.

you can prove this debate yourself by simply putting a vaccum gauge on your manifold. if you have 0 vacuum at WOT, your TB is big enough and you will not gain anything by going smaller. if you switch to a smaller TB and still have 0 vacuum, you just gained nothing. the air needed is still there when the engine wants it.

Pumba
04-10-2012, 04:12 PM
care to back that up?



if that were the case, TPIS would be selling these things like crazy and every car would have a TPIS 90mm LS6...not a FAST. :punch:



Here is the data:

First, here are the results from a LS6 engine test that was run by Street Thunder Magazine and published in their Jan/Feb 2006 issue. The first result is for a LS6 intake manifold that TPiS modified by cutting off the 78 mm throttle body snout and replacing it with a 90 mm snout. They install a 90 mm throttle body and a cam with a 236 degree intake and 241 exhaust duration, 113 LSA, and .602 inch intake lift and .567 inch exhaust lift.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/TPiSManifoldTest-1.jpg


Next, using the same throttle body, cam, and engine they replaced the 90 mm LS6 intake with a 90 mm F.A.S.T. intake


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/TPiSManifoldTest-2.jpg


The TPiS 90 mm LS6 intake runs just as well as the 90 mm F.A.S.T. and is significantly cheaper.



Also, TPiS makes a 102 mm throttle body that flows over 1,800 cfm, but very few LS engine owners - builders know about it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/TPiS-102TBRSView.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/TPiS-102TBLSView.jpg


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/TPiS-102TBFrtVieww.jpg

-

Mike Morris
04-10-2012, 04:28 PM
That mag test was on a big cube motor and before the Fast 102 ever came out.

Fast 102 is better than a modded LS6 intake even on a stock cubed n/a car with stock heads.

BrntWS6
04-10-2012, 04:33 PM
^ Throw some heads on there and test it again.

Pumba
04-10-2012, 04:42 PM
That mag test was on a big cube motor and before the Fast 102 ever came out.



Before you post again, get your facts straights. The motor in the Street Thunder LS test was a 346 cubic ince LS6:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/TPiSManifoldTest-1A.jpg

-

soundengineer
04-10-2012, 04:58 PM
It's probably too late for this, but if you can sell the F.A.S.T. intake manifold do so.

Then contact TPiS and send them your LS6 intake manifold. TPiS will convert the snout of it to accept the 90mm GM throttle body. Your cost will be approximately $400. The result will be more power than a F.A.S.T. 90 mm, better low and mid-range torque, and you will save money.




I think you are smoking crack...
the LS6 does not flow more CFM with a 90mm opening than the FAST 90 does straight out of the box

and when properly tuned, I've never seen a FAST 90 lose any power down low compared to an LS6 intake...

SweetS10V8
04-10-2012, 05:00 PM
I'm late to this thread, but....I'll try to help to clear up some things. I know others have already said something in responce. Here goes....lol

swapped my ls6 intake to FAST 102/ NW 102 TB and i lost power everywhere across the board except after 5900 rpm where fast outshines ls6 intake mani

This isnt possible without an issue of some sort. The FAST will ALWAYS make more power than an LS6 on any application. I dont make too many blanket statements, but this is where you can make one.

im stumped and pissed off, im open to opinion and suggestions.
Should you be stumped, sure. Pissed off, no. There is obviously a problem and it just has to be found. Hopefully everyone can help figure it out.

Was really surprised to see this thread with all of the other apples-to-apples comparisons of the LS6 vs. FAST intakes showing substantial gains across the powerband. Thats because wehen everything is correct, thats what happens....power everywhere.i think the maf is a restriction to throw it away and go sd tuneI wouldnt do that!! A MAF measures actual airflow and used speed density as a backup to fill in transitional periods.the numbers are corrected for weather they are SAE, the dynojet was STD smoothing:3, and we did a pull with the lid off and actually lose power, it made 406 with lid off, just straight from MAF, my AFR was all over the place on that run.Are you saying one was correct STD and the other SAE?

The MAF will hate not having anything smooth the air into it. The sharp edge will drive it bonkers, I wouldnt advise doing that anymore!why is everyone comparing a fast 92 setup to his fast 102 setup? did i miss something here? ive heard time and time again that you will not benefit from a 102 unless you are over 400ci hence why i have not done it yet but want to.You have heard and are completely incorrect.

i have a few local tuners that told me very firmly not to go with the 102 because of such low end loss etc...Dont go to them for techinical information, they have no idea what they are talking about. This thing doesn have a carb and require a "signal" to pull fuel out of the carb. PLus as mentioned the internal runners are what creat velocity to the port.I'll try to find one, heck I might just sell my 102 for fast 92Again no useable velocity to be gained here, but you wont see a power difference between the 92mm and the 102mm. Which is why I run a 92mm whenever possible.I see what you guys are saying. I have the MAF coming in anyway and I'll sell it to get 92mm TB and 85mm MAF hope that will help me gain my mid range power back.

Thank you for the inputs.It wont, you have to find out the true issue on why its down on power, vacuum leaks, incorrect installation, etcIt's probably too late for this, but if you can sell the F.A.S.T. intake manifold do so.

Then contact TPiS and send them your LS6 intake manifold. TPiS will convert the snout of it to accept the 90mm GM throttle body. Your cost will be approximately $400. The result will be more power than a F.A.S.T. 90 mm, better low and mid-range torque, and you will save money.


-
False, Like said TB size has little to do with power, its all abou the internal runnersThe 100mm MAF and 102mm TB is KILLING his airflow velocity. Bigger is not always better.Another example of someone who isnt completely informed....

Pumba
04-10-2012, 05:15 PM
I'm late to this thread, but....I'll try to help to clear up some things. I know others have already said something in responce. Here goes....lol

False, Like said TB size has little to do with power, its all abou the internal runners.

Another example of someone who isnt completely informed.


Incorrect, the following is an A - B comparison of an LS6 engine where the ONLY CHANGE was from a stock LS1 78 mm throttle body to a stock LS2 90 mm throttle body, after the snout on the intake manifold has been changed by TPiS.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v503/Pumbajr/Z06ThrottleBodyComparison.jpg

soundengineer
04-10-2012, 05:19 PM
Incorrect, the following is an A - B comparison of an LS6 engine where the ONLY CHANGE was from a stock LS1 78 mm throttle body to a stock LS2 90 mm throttle body, after the snout on the intake manifold has been changed by TPiS.





the LS2 intake is not a FAST 90....
your comparison is flawed


LS2 vs FAST
LS2 is the Lower one
http://inlinethumb39.webshots.com/42086/2084875330060344825S600x600Q85.jpg

soundengineer
04-10-2012, 05:22 PM
and Pumba....
your Blue Font Sucks........ :p

Pumba
04-10-2012, 05:28 PM
the LS2 intake is not a FAST 90....
your comparison is flawed


LS2 vs FAST
LS2 is the Lower one
http://inlinethumb39.webshots.com/42086/2084875330060344825S600x600Q85.jpg



I showed data for a 90 mm LS6 versus a F.A.S.T. 90 mm intake.

LS2 intake manifolds are very poor performers.

Show us your data for a 90 mm LS6 versus a 90 mm F.A.S.T.

bww3588
04-10-2012, 05:39 PM
You are wrong. Period.

The ONLY way you will gain anything by only changing the throttle body opening is if the existing opening is too small. Going from a 102 to a 92 thinking air velocity will gain you power is totally ignorant and makes no sense.

Also don't forget, magazine tests are not something to bet the farm on. Results are given to the highest bidder in most cases.

soundengineer
04-10-2012, 05:43 PM
I showed data for a 90 mm LS6 verus a F.A.S.T. 90 mm intake.

LS2 intake manifolds are very poor performers.

Show us your data for a 90 mm LS6 versus a 90 mm F.A.S.T.



the LS2 intake does marginally better than an LS6 intake, and the LS2 intake uses a 90mm TB...
so I have a Better than Ls6 with a 90mmTb...compared to a FAST intake

this is the LS2 intake vs LS6 intake for reference of how marginally better it does...this was an independent test if I recall correctly

LS2 is the Higher # in this one
http://image.vetteweb.com/f/8982093/vemp_0612_mods2_13_z+ls2_crate_motor+ls6_intake_dy no_graph.jpg

and here in the same test is the FAST 90 vs LS2
FAST 90 is the Higher # in this one
http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=99264&d=1232085939

and again.. its all irrelevant because he has a FAST 102 ..... which does better than a fast 90.




and your oversized Blue Custom font still sucks.:judge:

JS01
04-10-2012, 05:47 PM
http://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1513065-fast102-92-vs-ls6-cam-only-ls1.html

/thread

bww3588
04-10-2012, 05:50 PM
You showed us a magazine article...hardly credible information to anyone who knows anything about how this industry works.

Also, that article does not show us any proof that the tpis is better than the fast. It still shows the fast being worth 8hp and 3ftlbs.

The only thing your test has showed, is the mule engine obviously wants more air than the stock 78mm opening can replenish into the plenum. All you have proven is that the engine was choked.

BrntWS6
04-10-2012, 07:33 PM
When I switched to my FAST 92/92 I lost power under 4k rpms, but gained 19rwhp all the way from 4k to redline on the same dyno. The loss was minimal though....under 5rwhp. So a FAST won't alway gain HP everywhere.

raysadude
04-10-2012, 10:03 PM
i figure i'll post up here since my dyno thread went south...i will have the 92mm TB coming and a 85mm MAF too. i will also take the car to the track to see the trap speed, considering trap speed is a better measure of HP than ET, again correct me if i'm wrong.

i'm all about learning things and this is my first H/C/I car so i'm pretty sure i'd do things wrong.

BrntWS6
04-11-2012, 08:17 AM
i figure i'll post up here since my dyno thread went south...i will have the 92mm TB coming and a 85mm MAF too. i will also take the car to the track to see the trap speed, considering trap speed is a better measure of HP than ET, again correct me if i'm wrong.

i'm all about learning things and this is my first H/C/I car so i'm pretty sure i'd do things wrong.


I read that....very unprofessional on both sides.

kinglt-1
04-11-2012, 10:29 AM
I dont understand how some can think that the op's results are not fairly normal? The fact is he picked up power over the ls6 which he repeatedly stated and yet some completely ignored. This is not the first time somebody has swapped over to a fast from a ls6 and lost a slight amount of low end. Fast designed the intake to make power where your going to use it(4500+rpm)...anyways, Fuck a dyno number, take it to the track and see what it traps!!!

BrntWS6
04-11-2012, 02:14 PM
He lost power everywhere until ~5700rpms. And in some spots up to 25rwtq and 15rwhp....makes that intake useless.

Old Geezer
04-11-2012, 02:45 PM
[QUOTE=DrkPhx;16170570]Do you have a data log from the dyno run from a WOT run of the LS6 intake? You need to compare the MAP kPa reading between the (and using key on values) two which gives a good indication of incoming airflow. It should be higher at WOT for the FAST intake.

start, too.

SweetS10V8
04-11-2012, 05:09 PM
He lost power everywhere until ~5700rpms. And in some spots up to 25rwtq and 15rwhp....makes that intake useless.No, it tells you there obviously problem. More than likely installation error or an internal vacuum leak. Did the OP remove the runners ever?

BrntWS6
04-11-2012, 05:58 PM
No, it tells you there obviously problem. More than likely installation error or an internal vacuum leak. Did the OP remove the runners ever?

Well, that's what I meant....in his specific circumstance it's not helping him how it should. I know FAST intakes aren't useless, have one and gained almost 20rwhp after 4k rpms.

jlcustomz
04-11-2012, 06:02 PM
No, it tells you there obviously problem. More than likely installation error or an internal vacuum leak. Did the OP remove the runners ever?

That's still my thought.

raysadude
04-11-2012, 06:46 PM
No, it tells you there obviously problem. More than likely installation error or an internal vacuum leak. Did the OP remove the runners ever?

no i have not remove the runners yet, since it's my daily.

there's someone mentioned internal leak before and it actually got my attention, but i don't have any clue on how to address this. Yes i can take the intake manifold off, but can you guys give me pointers on how to remove the runners and diagnose if there's any internal leaks?

would a smoke test be beneficial?

SweetS10V8
04-12-2012, 03:25 PM
Yes i can take the intake manifold off, but can you guys give me pointers on how to remove the runners and diagnose if there's any internal leaks? Remove manifold, look at instructions. They tell you how to remove the lid and the runners.

Its 2 bolts on the front and 3 on the back to remove the lid. Then there are single t-20 torx screws holding each individual runner in the manifold.

Before removeing look at the orange orings that seal the runner to the manifold. if they look ok, continue.... remove the runners and inspect the entire oring itself, and the runner to make sure it isnt split into 2 pieces

MoBoost
04-12-2012, 05:21 PM
From dyno thread: the car was never tuned for Fast102 after switch from LS6.

You guys are trying to find a hardware solution for a software problem.

Of course there is a chance that manifold is not assembled correctly (and I've seen it first hand - TB hitting the water pump) - but to give the FAST102 benefit of the doubt the basics should be covered first IMHO.

MikeWS6
04-12-2012, 05:22 PM
I dont understand how some can think that the op's results are not fairly normal? The fact is he picked up power over the ls6 which he repeatedly stated and yet some completely ignored. This is not the first time somebody has swapped over to a fast from a ls6 and lost a slight amount of low end. Fast designed the intake to make power where your going to use it(4500+rpm)...anyways, Fuck a dyno number, take it to the track and see what it traps!!!

This is exactly right. Lets end this cry fest.

soundengineer
04-12-2012, 06:26 PM
From dyno thread: the car was never tuned for Fast102 after switch from LS6.

You guys are trying to find a hardware solution for a software problem.

Of course there is a chance that manifold is not assembled correctly (and I've seen it first hand - TB hitting the water pump) - but to give the FAST102 benefit of the doubt the basics should be covered first IMHO.

I already mentioned the tune in post 13
http://ls1tech.com/forums/16164007-post13.html

but the OP refuses to believe that it is possible that his tune is flawed
He continues to say that his tuner could not possibly make a mistake....where I say.. it happens all the time..
he claims "best tuner in the state.."... I still say compared to who and why do we not get a name...

I agree... its in the tune...
hundreds of results across this forum that show no loss when upgrading from the LS6 intake to a FAST 102

I can tell you for a fact that my buddies vette did not lose any power anywhere when switching from his stock LS6 intake to a FAST 102, and I did the tune...on the dyno, on the street, at the track...all showed improvement over his LS6 intake
he couldnt spin the tires in 2nd gear at lower rpm with his ls6 intake
he spins the tires all the time in 2nd gear with his FAST 102 at lower rpm

the fact that his "tuner" would not give him the file from the car, tells me he is not a "tuner"...any competent tuner will gladly give you his file for your car.

mike c.
04-12-2012, 06:28 PM
On my car when i removed the stock mass for a gm 85mm i gained 10hp. If you have a stock mass and a stock lid you are down about 12-14hp. This was on my ls1 car with great heads(AFR),cam and a fast 90mm. Even now on my 402ci i only have an 85 mass and a 92mm body. I have a fast 102 on this motor but think you may be thinking all the parts you have are great,you know bigger is better.. They don't seem to be working togeather well.

BrntWS6
04-12-2012, 06:37 PM
After the bitch fest on the dyno thread I wouldn't go to either tuner. Get your money back and send your PCM to Frost if no other tuners are out there.

SweetS10V8
04-13-2012, 07:51 AM
I dont understand how some can think that the op's results are not fairly normal? . Fast designed the intake to make power where your going to use it(4500+rpm) You are 1000% incorrect! I hate when people spout out things they dont understand.This is exactly right. Lets end this cry fest.Then there are the others who regurgitate the same ignorant garbage.......

If you dont know what your talking about, dont speak. :thinker:

BrntWS6
04-13-2012, 08:04 AM
I could be wrong here, but I've seen quite a few dynos from FAST installs including my own. And never seen one loose 25rwtq and 15rwhp down low, and that was after his tuner said he got done with it. I just can't see how someone would consider that normal.

raysadude
04-13-2012, 10:07 AM
Andrei's right, the tune was never meant for fast102 but as far as the AFR concern the car didn't lean out one bit after the fast, that's probably the reason he didn't change the tune since everything seems spot on.

I installed the fast 92mm tb and believe it or not the car "feels" torquier than it was before. I could be wrong but that's what my butt dyno tells me. I can also hear the tb sucking the air now when I rev the engine up.
I'm not going to have the car dyno or tuned until I get the 85mm MAF. And I don't like the idea of mail order tune so frost is out of question.

raysadude
04-13-2012, 10:12 AM
Andrei's right, the tune was never meant for fast102 but as far as the AFR concern the car didn't lean out one bit after the fast, that's probably the reason he didn't change the tune since everything seems spot on.

I installed the fast 92mm tb and believe it or not the car "feels" torquier than it was before. I could be wrong but that's what my butt dyno tells me. I can also hear the tb sucking the air now when I rev the engine up.
I'm not going to have the car dyno or tuned until I get the 85mm MAF. And I don't like the idea of mail order tune so frost is out of question.

raysadude
04-13-2012, 10:29 AM
Soundengineer: I believe in the tuner I never said he was the best but some people mentioned him as one of the best in OKC even in the other thread. Let's not turn this thread like the other one.
I believed in his tuning ability and still do, I never said that he can't be wrong but the fact that the AFR didn't lean out was probably why he didn't think that the tune need to be changed.

99french
04-13-2012, 10:40 AM
with out pulling the intake you can check to see if it has a vac leak with carb or brake cleaner. just spray it around the base of the intake and if it smooths out idle wise. well u know you have a leak. but if this test is inconclusive. RUN THAT BITCH. do it with the large throttle body and your 90 set up. which ever gets you bettor times use it.

kinglt-1
04-13-2012, 10:43 AM
You are 1000% incorrect! I hate when people spout out things they dont understand.Then there are the others who regurgitate the same ignorant garbage.......

If you dont know what your talking about, dont speak. :thinker:

point is: I dont give a shit about a dyno number, take it to the track and see the results first hand. Yes I have seen folks switch to a fast and see dismal results on a dyno, but go to the track and pick up 3 tenths. So who is the one really spouting out ignorant garbage?? :thinker:

raysadude
04-13-2012, 10:54 AM
The thing is I have ZERO problem at idle which leads me to believe that I don't have vacuum leak. The only thing that got my attention was the internal vacuum leak but I need to take off the manifold to check it. I've talked with several people most of them doubt its a vacuum leak or internal vacuum leak, since the car idle and drive part throttle fine.

SweetS10V8
04-13-2012, 11:03 AM
point is: I dont give a shit about a dyno number, take it to the track and see the results first hand. Yes I have seen folks switch to a fast and see dismal results on a dyno, but go to the track and pick up 3 tenths. So who is the one really spouting out ignorant garbage?? :thinker:Your coming around more to your senses..... this was the only garbage I was talking about because it was nonsense (quote below).

I dont understand how some can think that the op's results are not fairly normal? . Fast designed the intake to make power where your going to use it(4500+rpm) Ive tested these intakes forever, and I can tell you that they are designed to equal a stock intake till 3500, then pull away and make power accross the board, reguardless of ci, or craziness of the motor. And thats what 90% of tests show, people just dont have a filter to understand that there is bad data from a lot of dyno tests. Then take that bad data and say "well one time I saw....."

If FAST wanted them to make more power, they could!!! But that requires & results in actual torque loss down low, in order to make more power up high.

kinglt-1
04-13-2012, 11:06 AM
Your coming around more to your senses..... this was the only garbage I was talking about because it was nonsense (quote below).

Ive tested these intakes forever, and I can tell you that they are designed to equal a stock intake till 3500, then pull away and make power accross the board, reguardless of ci, or craziness of the motor. And thats what 90% of tests show, people just dont have a filter to understand that there is bad data from a lot of dyno tests. Then take that bad data and say "well one time I saw....."

If FAST wanted them to make more power, they could!!! But that requires & results in actual torque loss down low, in order to make more power up high.

You are correct and I should of worded that a bit different.

kinglt-1
04-13-2012, 11:12 AM
The thing is I have ZERO problem at idle which leads me to believe that I don't have vacuum leak. The only thing that got my attention was the internal vacuum leak but I need to take off the manifold to check it. I've talked with several people most of them doubt its a vacuum leak or internal vacuum leak, since the car idle and drive part throttle fine.

If you have a internal vacuum leak the idle will surge, especially when cold. I had a internal leak on my 5.3 silverado and thats what it did. Also it may throw lean missfire code aswell. Like I said if the tune looks good then take it to the track and run it. Dynos have too many variables to get all hung up on a number. This is why I keep my ol trusty g-tech around. Everytime I do a mod, I take it out and run it and see real world gains.

soundengineer
04-13-2012, 11:23 AM
Andrei's right, the tune was never meant for fast102 but as far as the AFR concern the car didn't lean out one bit after the fast, that's probably the reason he didn't change the tune since everything seems spot on.

I installed the fast 92mm tb and believe it or not the car "feels" torquier than it was before. I could be wrong but that's what my butt dyno tells me. I can also hear the tb sucking the air now when I rev the engine up.
I'm not going to have the car dyno or tuned until I get the 85mm MAF. And I don't like the idea of mail order tune so frost is out of question.

Just because it didnt lean out, doesnt mean it is spot on...

if he was Lean at part throttle from putting in the intake without a tune,
then his pcm would add fuel to correct...also known ass LTFT(long term fuel trims)
when this happens...when you go to WOT, the PCM assumes you will also be lean..so it add some fuel at WOT....yes..Positive LTFT values will carry over to WOT

this example above would can make it so that when you go to WOT you still seem to have enough fuel....

however... your car can also experience knock, which will make your car use the Low octane fuel table...
removing spark will also cause a rich condition..
so now we end up with timing pulled by the PCM, and Fuel being added...
the combo of the two could make it seem like its spot on, but show #'s like the OP is seeing at the Dyno


"I never said that he can't be wrong but the fact that the AFR didn't lean out was probably why he didn't think that the tune need to be changed. "


that is a common problem with people who shouldnt be tuning cars
they dont actually Look at it the Data and the tune... they just put it on the Dyno, do a pull, and if AFR looks good they assume its ok...

there are a lot more pieces to tuning than Just fueling and Spark at WOT...
the entire tune needs to be considered...Idle, Part throttle, and WOT..
most people dont notice issues at Idle and part throttle because the PCM can correct Fueling for anything Idle and Part throttle once closed loop conditions occur. and that starts at a pretty low temperature in the stock tune...and as long as the spark timing isnt a hack job or isnt way off....It will run and not be noticeable to the average person



I would bet that if we could actually see a tune file, and see a data log...we would see pretty quickly that the issues he is having are caused by the tune..

bww3588
04-13-2012, 11:33 AM
Soundengineer: I believe in the tuner I never said he was the best but some people mentioned him as one of the best in OKC even in the other thread.

Thats like saying McDonalds is the best restaurant in bumfuk, Egypt.

even though it's the only, or every alternative is shitty, It's still McDonalds

raysadude
04-13-2012, 11:58 AM
King-lt1: I'll take a video of the car at idle and part throttle and post it here.
Soundengineer: I see what you're saying. But let's not bashing anyone here. He did what he could when the car was dyno'd with the fast 102.

Like everyone said already I need to run the car on the track and see what she does.

soundengineer
04-13-2012, 12:09 PM
King-lt1: I'll take a video of the car at idle and part throttle and post it here.
Soundengineer: I see what you're saying. But let's not bashing anyone here. He did what he could when the car was dyno'd with the fast 102.

Like everyone said already I need to run the car on the track and see what she does.


I'm sorry to say... the tune needs to be corrected first
then after it has been corrected, then go to the track and see how it does.
absolutely no change in AFR without getting a tune... in a change from LS6 intake to FAST intake either means your tune is not right, or you got a really good Fake FAST that is just an LS6 intake that Looks like a FAST...



if you think I'm "bashing".... I'm not....
when I bash.. its obvious...
telling somebody to get a second opinion or to get the tune looked at is not bashing..

But let's not bashing anyone here.
lets say it correctly..... Lets not "bash" anyone here.....learn how to speak correctly

that would be bashing :punch:


the fact that you refuse to listen to commons sense posted by people who have been doing this for 10+ years and have tuned Hundreds or thousands of cars..
and we have seen this intake many many times, and have seen results from these intakes many many times....and all of our results say it should gain power everywhere...
at the minimum... it only gains a small amount of power down low... but it does not Lose power.(and claiming 5hp is a loss...is not correct... many factors from day to day can contribute to a 5hp difference....)

raysadude
04-13-2012, 01:58 PM
the fact that you refuse to listen to commons sense posted by people who have been doing this for 10+ years and have tuned Hundreds or thousands of cars..
and we have seen this intake many many times, and have seen results from these intakes many many times....and all of our results say it should gain power everywhere...
at the minimum... it only gains a small amount of power down low... but it does not Lose power.(and claiming 5hp is a loss...is not correct... many factors from day to day can contribute to a 5hp difference....)

i appreciate your inputs man, i just don't want to discredit anyone. FWIW when we had the car dyno tuned the first time, we went from 378 to 399 on mustang dyno with LS6 intake, that's a respectable gain just from tune alone IMO.

i'm open to inputs, suggestions and ideas, and there's nowhere in the thread i implied that i refuse to listen to people that have more experience than i do. i'm going to check if there's any internal vacuum leak.

i lost 20 - 25rwhp and 15-20 rwtq if you look at the graph around 3k - 5.5k BUT gained 15 - 20rwhp around 6k..i worded the title wrong and i apologize.

here's the video of the car idle.

http://youtu.be/KKPKAiZwB0c

oh and on the side note, when i swapped the TB yesterday i notice there's already a thin film layer of oil inside the manifold...and i did the ls6 PCV conversion already..thought it was supposed to fix this problem.

MikeWS6
04-13-2012, 03:05 PM
You are 1000% incorrect! I hate when people spout out things they dont understand.Then there are the others who regurgitate the same ignorant garbage.......

If you dont know what your talking about, dont speak. :thinker:

Then there are people who act tough on the internet :lol: Every fast thread with any neg response always ends the same way.

MoBoost
04-13-2012, 09:16 PM
point is: I dont give a shit about a dyno number, take it to the track and see the results first hand. Yes I have seen folks switch to a fast and see dismal results on a dyno, but go to the track and pick up 3 tenths. So who is the one really spouting out ignorant garbage?? :thinker:

I've seen cars go faster with parts that made no power; but lets be honest here, if the engine can't accelerate a heavy roller it won't accelerate the car either - I call it wallet weight reduction effect AKA placebo.

Dyno is a dumb tool that spits out numbers - interpreting the numbers is a whole different story. No doubt, the only number that really matter is the one of the board at the end of 1320, BUT there are so many variables that affect it, the only way to make conclusions is either from HUGE difference (I'd say at least 5% of ET) or LARGE sample (dozens of runs).

bww3588
04-14-2012, 03:09 PM
i appreciate your inputs man, i just don't want to discredit anyone. FWIW when we had the car dyno tuned the first time, we went from 378 to 399 on mustang dyno with LS6 intake, that's a respectable gain just from tune alone IMO.

there is a difference between discrediting someone for no reason, and pointing out when something they did (or didnt do) wasent right. In this case, the general consensus is the tune is not right. He may be the best tuner in the world, but even the best make mistakes once in a while. And if it does come down to the tune being off and he cant own up to his mistake, he just lost all credibility in my book.

i'm open to inputs, suggestions and ideas, and there's nowhere in the thread i implied that i refuse to listen to people that have more experience than i do. i'm going to check if there's any internal vacuum leak.

then why are you doing everything but what people are suggesting you do? your throwing parts at this car, and what your doing is not going to help. 9 out of 10 people agree it's in the tune, and there is NO reason you should have lost power going to a FAST. and 9 out of 10 threads on here regarding the subject will also agree with what were saying. Changing TB's and MAF's is not going to gain you any power because plenum velocity has little to nothing to do with power. As already stated.

i lost 20 - 25rwhp and 15-20 rwtq if you look at the graph around 3k - 5.5k BUT gained 15 - 20rwhp around 6k..i worded the title wrong and i apologize.

at any rate, you should have not lost any power anywhere in the RPM range.

here's the video of the car idle.

the video is not going to tell anyone much because it is a cold start and hasent hit closed loop yet. (it's not running on total real time data, mostly stored KAM data.
oh and on the side note, when i swapped the TB yesterday i notice there's already a thin film layer of oil inside the manifold...and i did the ls6 PCV conversion already..thought it was supposed to fix this problem.

install a catch can. all stock PCV systems on these cars are crap. just some are better than others.

mypoorLS1
04-14-2012, 04:30 PM
Big penis contest aside. If the lid/maf were too small, it wouldn't choke t low RMP where alot of air isn't needed. It should loose the power up top.

bww3588
04-14-2012, 04:42 PM
Big penis contest aside. If the lid/maf were too small, it wouldn't choke t low RMP where alot of air isn't needed. It should loose the power up top.

what does this have to do with anything?

he changed the 102 for a 92 and a smaller MAF...after the dyno where he lost power. He was looking for more low to mid range power with the smaller MAF and TB.

mypoorLS1
04-14-2012, 04:48 PM
what does this have to do with anything?

he changed the 102 for a 92 and a smaller MAF...after the dyno where he lost power. He was looking for more low to mid range power with the smaller MAF and TB.

Maybe I missed something in all the squabble. But wasn't it a question as to whether or not his lid/maf was too small?

mypoorLS1
04-14-2012, 04:50 PM
my heads are PRC 2.5 ls6 heads 64cc 2.02"/1.575" intake/exhaust

thunder: i'm just thinking the MAF is the restrction as far as letting more air coming in to supply the FAST 102 on lower RPM

This is what I was reffering to

BrntWS6
04-14-2012, 05:29 PM
He had stock MAF with MAF ends and 102/102. Now he switched to GM 90mm MAF and 92/102.

bww3588
04-14-2012, 05:38 PM
He had stock MAF with MAF ends and 102/102. Now he switched to GM 90mm MAF and 92/102.

which means if any gains are going to be had, they are from the change in MAF. otherwise nothing has changed.

mypoorLS1
04-14-2012, 06:01 PM
which means if any gains are going to be had, they are from the change in MAF. otherwise nothing has changed.

Yup. You're right. I missed the switch. I read things to learn. I really try to skip over the parts where people are arguing and skipped over an important piece of info.

bww3588
04-14-2012, 06:08 PM
Yup. You're right. I missed the switch. I read things to learn. I really try to skip over the parts where people are arguing and skipped over an important piece of info.

too many cooks in the kitchen...I just re-read most of it and I got lost as well...

raysadude
04-15-2012, 08:08 PM
took the FAST 102 today, checked the intake manifold and re installed it again, everything looked sealed up real good when i took it off.

i didn't take the top shell off of the intake manifold but ran a check if it has internal leaking using air compressor, plug all the runners off and spray the air gun from the opening and listen for any hissing or leaking noise and i didn't find any leak at all.
re installed everything and made sure everything sealed up properly and all the bolts torqued to spec this time.

when i look at the runners again, they actually fit really nice with the PRC ls6 heads i have, it's almost like the manifold created for the heads lol.. i know it's not but it almost look like it is.

didn't have the car run at the track since we had crappy tornado weather over the weekend. i'll update the thread once i got the car run at the track.

next mods are: custom cam with beefier valve train. here's my thinking valve train is what turn/open/close everything in the engine so i want to have the good one in the car for peace of mind.

bww3588
04-15-2012, 08:39 PM
Sounds like I good plan. However, when you do get it To the track, make sure you list all mods in here (what tb, maf, intake, etc...)because this thread has got so lost I'm not sure anyone knows your current setup.

soundengineer
04-15-2012, 09:01 PM
I'm over it...
you wont do what you have been asked to do, and you wont admit to the fact that your "missing power" is all in the tune...

I give up trying to beat a dead horse with somebody who doesnt want to listen to experienced tuners who have done this type of combo more times than he has ever thought about...

I'm out...
Subscription removed..

I no longer care if you fix your issues or not...

raysadude
04-15-2012, 11:32 PM
Sound: I am going to get another tune, but I need to find another tuner now. I don't think Glen will want to tune my car anymore now.
I did what I could do first by checking physical things like the intake manifold itself since I know nothing about tuning, I called comp cam and they recommended me to use 92 for 370 ci engine not the 102mm. I'm not trying to argue about TB size but that's what they told me so that's the reason I swapped to 92mm TB.
Thank you for all your inputs and trust me I'm all ears to your suggestions but this car is my daily and finding a tuner and time to do it is not easy for me.

raysadude
04-15-2012, 11:56 PM
Cliff notes:
Parts changed are intake manifold and TB
-Car started with 378 rwhp on mustang dyno with ls6 intake/stock ported TB
-after the initial tune:399 rwhp with ls6 intake/stock ported TB
- dyno'd at dyno jet and made 425 rwhp with ls6 intake/stock ported TB

Swapped to fast 102/102
-dyno the car with dynojet 438 rwhp lost midrange power with fast 102/102
-dyno the car with mustang dyno 413 rwhp lost midrange power with fast 102/102

Swapped to fast 102/92
-have not get the car dyno waiting for 85mm MAF and a retune for the MAF.

To be continued..

SweetS10V8
04-16-2012, 08:04 AM
Too much back and forth for any good data. At this point you need to get the LS6 back on the car and tune with new MAF. Then within minutes of finishing, start reinstalling the FAST, retune, redyno.....otherwise its not going to be accurate.

If you cant do that, just put it the new MAF, retune, drive and be happy.

ringram
04-16-2012, 09:38 AM
I doubt the maf is hold back this car

Fail.

Stock MAF sucks. Get the tune right and dyno it with and without maf.
If it doenst show significant gains Ill eat a turd.

thunderstruck507
04-16-2012, 10:41 AM
Stock MAF is known for not being a restriction until near or above the 450rwhp level.

Personally, I tried going from a stock screened MAF to the larger Delphi MAF and retuned the car and it showed no signs of a gain at the track.

I need to run some logs to see if the filter itself is a restriction on front of the MAF, but I doubt that will turn out to be the case.

SweetS10V8
05-11-2012, 06:27 AM
Cleaned up thread......

MikeWS6
05-11-2012, 11:36 AM
I get the feeling alot of people on here work for fast :lol:

SweetS10V8
05-11-2012, 01:02 PM
The thread simply got way out of hand and I just cleaned it up back to the point of being constructive.

Edit: This is probably an important fact left out........

Shit! I didnt change my valley cover bolts when I installed my fast102.

Is there any way to tell if the bottom part of the intake manifold is cracked?

raysadude
06-14-2012, 10:10 AM
to put this thread to rest i've changed several things and was surprised that i actually gained back the lost power on midrange RPM.

here's what i changed:
FAST 92mm TB
FTP 98mm
85mm MAF

now i gained back all the power i lost from ls6 intake, and gain after 5400 RPM, even though i changed my lid and MAF i think the part that mostly accountable for the gain is the TB. not saying 102mm TB is too big for every case but it did for my case.

/thread

thunderstruck507
06-14-2012, 10:14 AM
Did you address the valley cover bolts?

If not you still might have some small vacuum leaks.

raysadude
06-14-2012, 12:43 PM
have not changed them yet, been really busy with work.

i'll do it soon though, i don't think it's cracked yet, and there's no sign of the vacuum leak from the tune.

i'm just happy now that i gained back the power on mid range and gain up top.

we compared the curve of the LS6 intake run on 65* day and very very low humidity with last run with fast 102/92 run at 87* day with 52% humidity if im not mistaken and the graph is pretty much aligned with the fast 102 graph gained up top, so IMO on the same day i'd gain everywhere across the board.

dr_whigham
06-14-2012, 01:00 PM
I'm lost. I thought all it took was once to crack the lower of the intake w/o the proper button head bolts, as in, torque her down once and that's all it takes.

thunderstruck507
06-14-2012, 01:10 PM
I'm lost. I thought all it took was once to crack the lower of the intake w/o the proper button head bolts, as in, torque her down once and that's all it takes.

I've seen pictures of some which dented the plastic and had just enough give to prevent cracks.

Likely the difference between new intake gaskets and reusing old ones is enough to make or break...that and how much torque is put on the intake bolts.

MM98
06-14-2012, 01:15 PM
Wait-what!!!!!! You mean it wasn't................................THE TUNE!

raysadude
06-14-2012, 02:11 PM
Dr whigham: I'd give a visual check, when I open it up, but I doubt there's any crack that could cause leak since when the car was hooked up to the computer there's zero sign of vacuum leak.

MM98: no its not the tune, never said it was, and you were actually right about the TB too big.thank you

MM98
06-14-2012, 02:18 PM
MM98: no its not the tune, never said it was, and you were actually right about the TB too big.thank youI know man, my post wasn't directed towards you, it was for the others who seemed to think that there's some magical tunning needed to make the fast 102 work. Glad you're happy with it.

BrntWS6
06-14-2012, 06:00 PM
Interesting...glad you posted the outcome.

bww3588
06-14-2012, 09:43 PM
Lol...gotta love it. Bandaids for the win...

raysadude
06-15-2012, 07:20 AM
^ I don't get it..

bww3588
06-15-2012, 07:28 AM
Just like I don't get how your engine is the only engine in the world that a 102 is too big for...but yet your tuner is perfect...

svede1212
06-15-2012, 07:58 AM
I'd like to hear the reasoning of how too big of a TB will affect power. Driveability maybe but the TB's job at WOT is just to keep the plenum filled with atmospheric pressure. The velocity magic happens in the intake runners. A 102 NW TB on a 102 FAST got me gains everywhere on my LS1. I did install and tune it right tho. . .

Mike Morris
06-15-2012, 08:13 AM
Never had a problem on twenty different LS1s with a 102TB and Fast as well...

bww3588
06-15-2012, 08:20 AM
It doesn't effect power...as it shouldn't.

In my opinion, this is a bandaid to cover up a poor tune/tuner.

MM98
06-15-2012, 08:48 AM
Everyone is so quick to blame the tuner when they don't get the #'s they think they should out of a $1000 peice of plastic.. Read this quote from one of the best LS tuners in the country..

You don't "tune" a FAST intake. Unless it flows significantly more air to cause a lean condition. It either makes power or it doesn't. If the A/F is in range, the tune is pretty irrelevant to whether it makes power or not. You should be able to bolt it right on and make power.

Some engines do not benefit from a FAST intake simply because they do not require the additional airflow the intake is CAPABLE of flowing. The engine is the pump, you're just trying to help get the air in. There can be several reasons for it to not need, or want more air. The intake, by itself, does not make power.

That was from this thread with a guy who put on a fast 102 & gained pretty much nothing.

http://ls1tech.com/forums/pcm-diagnostics-tuning/1554087-no-hp-gain-after-costly-mods-bad-tune-exh.html

bww3588
06-15-2012, 08:54 AM
Using that logic, I guess it depends on if your ls1 was a built on a Wednesday or Friday...plenty of examples have been given in this thread, plus the many examples elsewhere showing gains of 20+ on STOCK ls1's.

Sorry, but you don't just "bolt on" a 102, walk away from it and expect it to make power.

raysadude
06-15-2012, 09:45 AM
Look man I'm just as stumped as you as far as the TB, I've always read here that TB opening has nothing to do with power and air velocity is just an internet myth..so I don't know TBH

But I don't get how is this a band aid? If the tune was not right then with the 102, how would it be right with different tb? I'm not going to argue why or how I gained power with 92mm tb over 102 because I know I don't have adequate knowledge to debate over it.

I remember I read over the dyno section that ed hutchins mentioned that you DO NOT tune fast 102, it's either the engine needs the extra air or no.

raysadude
06-15-2012, 09:51 AM
And I do gain all across the board with the fast 102 intake manifold WITH the fast 92mm TB.

Like I said:

We compared the graph of the LS6 intake manifold run on 65* day with very low humidity vs the last run with fast102/92 on 87* day and very humid because it was about to rain here in oklahoma, and the hp/torque curve is aligned all the way from 3k rpm to 5k and then fast 102 outshine ls6 intake. So on the same day I'm pretty confident that I'd gain everywhere with the fast102 vs ls6 intake.

Mike Morris
06-15-2012, 02:07 PM
I have seen at least 3 cars(Ls1s) with stock internals gain power with that intake and 102 TB after tune was adjusted and not just peak either. I think that post above is WRONG big time.

MM98
06-15-2012, 02:51 PM
I have seen at least 3 cars(Ls1s) with stock internals gain power with that intake and 102 TB after tune was adjusted and not just peak either. I think that post above is WRONG big time.Was the TUNE stock as well before the intake went on? What do you really think needs to be changed in a wot tune if A/F & timing is on? I think you guys are getting driveability tunning confused with wot tunning.

raysadude
06-15-2012, 03:06 PM
I have seen at least 3 cars(Ls1s) with stock internals gain power with that intake and 102 TB after tune was adjusted and not just peak either. I think that post above is WRONG big time.

Different car, dyno, weather, etc

i have the dyno sheet to prove it that IN MY CASE that's what happened. i lost midrange power with 102mm TB, but i won't go around and telling people that they'd lose midrange power switching from stock TB to 102mm TB because i know it could be different with their car.

Blk98Vert
06-15-2012, 07:42 PM
Different car, dyno, weather, etc

i have the dyno sheet to prove it that IN MY CASE that's what happened. i lost midrange power with 102mm TB, but i won't go around and telling people that they'd lose midrange power switching from stock TB to 102mm TB because i know it could be different with their car.

It would be, its good that you got everything worked out and you arent hurting your setup running a 92mm, but a 102 wont hurt anything. You got a bad tune, plain and simple

raysadude
06-16-2012, 10:32 AM
It would be, its good that you got everything worked out and you arent hurting your setup running a 92mm, but a 102 wont hurt anything. You got a bad tune, plain and simple

What do you really think needs to be changed in a wot tune if A/F & timing is on? the WOT tune was not changed at all with the 92 TB btw only the drivability tune because i swapped to 85mm MAF

bww3588
06-16-2012, 12:41 PM
Obviously something needs to be changed if your losing power with something that has nothing to do with power. It's simple physics, changing the tb has nothing to do with power...period.

Blk98Vert
06-16-2012, 02:43 PM
Exactly. LT1 guys thought for years a twin 58mm TB was too big for a stock cube engine. But I have yet to see losses reported and instead see massive throttle response gains and a handful of horsepower

LilJayV10
06-16-2012, 06:05 PM
I have to say this is THE worst thread I've ever seen on tech. It's like every newb decided to post in here. There are a few people, maybe 1/2 dozen, that have posted and have given good info. Threads like this is why there is so much bad information on the internet.

I just got done reading the whole thread. That's like 15 minutes of my life I will never get back.

raysadude
06-16-2012, 06:20 PM
I posted my result and I followed up with what fixed my problem. What's wrong with it? People can disagree with what happened but that doesn't change the FACTS that in my case I actually lost midrange power with 102 TB.

bww3588
06-16-2012, 07:16 PM
People might leave you and your "results" alone if you stop blaming the size of the throttle body.

raysadude
06-16-2012, 07:43 PM
When you have a setup with part x and then you change to part y everything else equal and gain power in worse condition what would you think?

Blk98Vert
06-16-2012, 08:40 PM
You had a stock MAF with the 102/102 UNTUNED, say you lost power and then put on a 85mm MAF and got a decent tune while swapping to a 92mm TB. Plain and simple it was your tune, stop blaming the TB and blame your tuner for looking at AFR numbers and saying that because it didnt lean out he didnt change anything. Call up any reputable tuner or even call FAST and they will all tell you he lost your power. You cannot throw on that manifold and TB on the stock tune and judge the tune by the AFR. The O2 sensors will adjust the fuel trims to match the target AFR in the tune, but if the PCM doesnt know what has been added it is essentially guessing therefore costing you power

raysadude
06-16-2012, 08:57 PM
Did you miss the part that I mentioned that my WOT tune was not changed? Only drivability tune after the 85mm MAF changed, he drove the car on the street never past 3500 rpm.

To clarify it was the same tuner that did my drivability tune with the new MAF.

BOBS99SS
06-16-2012, 09:26 PM
Liljay i couldnt agree with you more,i could not believe the dumbness on the first few pages of this thread,this is how bad info gets out to people that are trying to learn /build there car,then we get 50 dumb threads that all go over the same thing

Also i would like to add if anyone wants to trade there 102 setup for a ls6 setup let me know and ill even buy you dinner lol

raysadude
06-17-2012, 12:36 AM
i admit there's bad info in this thread but all you have to do is take everything with grain and salt and understand that every setup is different, and be open minded about things.

bww3588
06-17-2012, 03:07 AM
I didn't miss anything...you had a crap tune to begin with, now you still have a crap tune and your covering it up by dumbing down the setup so the computer can keep up...yep, pretty sure anyone who has a clue has already absorbed that...except you. I can tell your a smart guy, but you have to wake up sometime and realize not everyone is the "professional" they claim to be.

4doortypels
06-17-2012, 05:54 AM
i dont see the all the hype of a fast 102... if you arent running 7.0L, a fast 102 is generally a waste of money... most bolt ons and cam cars do not have the displacement to move that amount of air. i have personally seen ls3 418 and 414s lose a little power. your motor still has to move the incoming air. with the amount of air coming in on a smaller cubic inch motor, you sacrifice low end torque due to loss in the air velocity. a bolt on cam 346 motor does not need a 4 inch throttle body. all combos are different... i can agree most bolt on cam cars that came with the ls1 and ls2 intake manifolds can get good gains from a fast 90 and ls6 intakes may see a little gain, but a 102 is such a step for an ls1 car, maybe if you were running a solid roller in 8000 rpm motor perhaps it would be different. buddy of mine has a g8 heads cam bolt ons picked up 7rwhp, and lost 12 torque, after a 102 and retune... spent 1800 for the mani throttle body and retune. he was happy with it so thats all that mattered his money not mine. to each his own

BrntWS6
06-17-2012, 08:43 AM
I have budget heads and a medium size cam and picked up 20rwhp after my FAST 92 install on the same dyno. It was worth it to me, and it looks bad ass under the hood.

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q97/BrntWS6/IMG_0755.jpg

bww3588
06-17-2012, 11:05 AM
Lol...ignorance is bliss...

The sooner you people realize tb size has nothing to do with power, the sooner these threads will stop popping up.

raysadude
06-17-2012, 11:09 AM
here's what i'm going to do, i'll try to find anyone here that has 102 TB borrow it, dyno it on the same day back to back with the 92mm TB. hope it'll settle the TB debate once and for all.

bww3588
06-17-2012, 11:20 AM
Get your tune straightened out first...

Blk98Vert
06-17-2012, 02:17 PM
i dont see the all the hype of a fast 102... if you arent running 7.0L, a fast 102 is generally a waste of money... most bolt ons and cam cars do not have the displacement to move that amount of air. i have personally seen ls3 418 and 414s lose a little power. your motor still has to move the incoming air. with the amount of air coming in on a smaller cubic inch motor, you sacrifice low end torque due to loss in the air velocity. a bolt on cam 346 motor does not need a 4 inch throttle body. all combos are different... i can agree most bolt on cam cars that came with the ls1 and ls2 intake manifolds can get good gains from a fast 90 and ls6 intakes may see a little gain, but a 102 is such a step for an ls1 car, maybe if you were running a solid roller in 8000 rpm motor perhaps it would be different. buddy of mine has a g8 heads cam bolt ons picked up 7rwhp, and lost 12 torque, after a 102 and retune... spent 1800 for the mani throttle body and retune. he was happy with it so thats all that mattered his money not mine. to each his own

Umm no. I personally know my friends 99 FRC Vette with a mild H/C setup that was making 430ish rwhp, swapped to a 102/102 from a 92/92 and picked up a solid 10 throughout the entire powerband. The velocity is not determined by the throttle blade, you have to get that carb mentality out of your head. We arent atomizing fuel here. The throttle blade isnt a factor, stepping up the size is merely getting rid of a restriction. True a 102 throttle body isnt needed on a 346, BUT running one wont hurt anything at all. FASTs arent high rpm intakes. And I would love to see that dyno graph, the G8s are known to pick up everywhere running a 102 on a H/C combo. Would also love to see these stroker LS3s losing power also.

Mike Morris
06-17-2012, 02:22 PM
i dont see the all the hype of a fast 102... if you arent running 7.0L, a fast 102 is generally a waste of money... most bolt ons and cam cars do not have the displacement to move that amount of air. i have personally seen ls3 418 and 414s lose a little power. your motor still has to move the incoming air. with the amount of air coming in on a smaller cubic inch motor, you sacrifice low end torque due to loss in the air velocity. a bolt on cam 346 motor does not need a 4 inch throttle body. all combos are different... i can agree most bolt on cam cars that came with the ls1 and ls2 intake manifolds can get good gains from a fast 90 and ls6 intakes may see a little gain, but a 102 is such a step for an ls1 car, maybe if you were running a solid roller in 8000 rpm motor perhaps it would be different. buddy of mine has a g8 heads cam bolt ons picked up 7rwhp, and lost 12 torque, after a 102 and retune... spent 1800 for the mani throttle body and retune. he was happy with it so thats all that mattered his money not mine. to each his own

Nonsense.

Umm no. I personally know my friends 99 FRC Vette with a mild H/C setup that was making 430ish rwhp, swapped to a 102/102 from a 92/92 and picked up a solid 10 throughout the entire powerband. The velocity is not determined by the throttle blade, you have to get that carb mentality out of your head. We arent atomizing fuel here. The throttle blade isnt a factor, stepping up the size is merely getting rid of a restriction. True a 102 throttle body isnt needed on a 346, BUT running one wont hurt anything at all. FASTs arent high rpm intakes. And I would love to see that dyno graph, the G8s are known to pick up everywhere running a 102 on a H/C combo. Would also love to see these stroker LS3s losing power also.


Agree and yes.

Blk98Vert
06-17-2012, 02:25 PM
^^Thank you

karpetcm
06-18-2012, 11:55 AM
you need more pipe.....
not just the straightener
2ft+ in front of the MAF

I no longer use a MAF....not really possible with my setup....
My intake line is too short and larger than a 104mm...

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h384/soundtechscott/2001%20Chevy%20Camaro/Nitrous%20Install/IMAG0745.jpg

http://i1107.photobucket.com/albums/h384/soundtechscott/2001%20Chevy%20Camaro/Nitrous%20Install/IMAG0748.jpg


I know alot of people have experience and opinions of what works and doesnt but i respect soundengineer advice alot. Couple of suggestions he made to me ended up being true and resolved my issues. I think he makes valid points and going bigger doesnt hurt and the runner design is better with a good tune he should be making power everywhere. Either way i hope you have good track results OP and in the end your resolve your issue.

BlackNiteWS6
06-18-2012, 07:55 PM
These threads all seem the same or very close...There's always a controversy about all the Fast intakes. There's always people saying that they gain very little vs. price. I personally don't like the Fast 102 on a 346 cube motor. But honestly if these intakes were so good than there wouldn't be so many post that have 6 pages or more. From what i've read on this site is guys saying they gained very little for the money. And others claim these awesome gains, but they hardly tell you what kind of track gains they got. Some claim no gains and a lot claim very little. Even if you get 12-14whp thats horrible for $1,200 and that doesn't count the TB and porting. So we're getting real close to $1,500 or more for small gains in the low and mid-range which is were the car spends most of it's time. Just my feelings about the intake. I said it before that the TPIS LS6 intake shows virtually the same gains. With the exception that Fast makes alittle more in higher rpms. Maybe on a LS7 the Fast should show better gains.Ooops i forgot to mention that the TPIS LS6 on a 427cid only made a little less HP. But the TPIS made nice gains through the whole rpm band, which is what you want. A Fast 102 starts to show it's better gains well over 4,700 rpm. And anyone that knows racing knows its important to make strong gains through the WHOLE rpm band. I know i wouldn't want a lazy motor in low rpm's, for example when driving around town. The modified LS6 gains hp and tq from idle to well above 6,000 rpm and its only $350 if you send in your intake. Which is fine...you can send it in while the car is apart. By the time you finish your car you'll have the intake back and ready to install. That could be why so many guys on corvetteforum.com sold or never bought the Fast and got a TPIS LS6.

Blk98Vert
06-18-2012, 08:53 PM
12 to 14 horsepower gain? On a decent cam only setup or head and cam setup the gain is 20 to 40 over an LS6. And the LS7 FAST gaine everywhere from what I have personally seen. The peak gains arent a whole lot but midrange is over 20

Blk98Vert
06-18-2012, 08:57 PM
Id love to see these dyno graphs, you are describing the FAST like its a super vic

bww3588
06-18-2012, 09:45 PM
Once again, most of the fast's gains will come out in the tune. Most of it is fuel related. When you allow more air into the cylinders, you have to add fuel in the tune. You can't let the o2's do the work and compensate.

A poor tune will kill a fast all day long...or any decent intake for that matter.

BlackNiteWS6
06-18-2012, 10:51 PM
I dont understand how some can think that the op's results are not fairly normal? The fact is he picked up power over the ls6 which he repeatedly stated and yet some completely ignored. This is not the first time somebody has swapped over to a fast from a ls6 and lost a slight amount of low end. Fast designed the intake to make power where your going to use it(4500+rpm)...anyways, Fuck a dyno number, take it to the track and see what it traps!!!

You are totally correct...Dyno's don't tell the whole story. Dyno's can't simulate what a 3,500lbs car does at the track. I've seen the SLP crank pulley show nothing on a dyno but the same car knocked off a full tenth at the track. So basically test the Fast 102 at the track to see what it's really worth. If there is a 20rwhp gain from the Fast like some have claimed, then the ET and MPH should reflect the claimed gain. if you do a search here you'll have a hard time finding someone posting that they lowered their ET's after installing the $1,800 Fast package. I've been on couple Corvette forums and some only showed 8rwhp/10rwtq. There's just too many issues like low gains and little to no track benefit. I believe the gains that are seen is from the tuning that guys do after installing the intake. So if a retune nets 10rwhp then that tells me the intake isn't showing that much of a gain. Bottom line get a baseline at the track with stock intake, then if possible swap out the intake to the Fast the same day and see what you get. Best wishes to OP.

Blk98Vert
06-18-2012, 10:54 PM
Why would you do that though? This isnt an air lid this is a brand new manifold. So its a good idea to add air after the MAF and do WOT runs untuned. Sounds like a plan

bww3588
06-19-2012, 12:06 AM
That's like adding a cam, and taking it to the track un tuned then bitching cause you didn't gain anything.

Since everyone is stuck in the 60's on carb mentality...would you change from a 500 carb to a 750 and not get your screw driver out to dial it In? No....same applies here, except tuning software is your screwdriver.

Blk98Vert
06-19-2012, 12:15 AM
Also where the hell are you getting your pricing? You can have a brand new 102 and TB for $1130 shipped and LS2 rails arent that expensive. You can have fun with your TPIS LS6 that not only nobody runs but I have never met a single person that has or has had one/

bww3588
06-19-2012, 02:13 AM
Also keep snatching up all the fast 90's. Pretty soon, they are going to be more expensive than the brand new 102's.

dr_whigham
06-19-2012, 07:01 AM
That's like adding a cam, and taking it to the track un tuned then bitching cause you didn't gain anything.

Since everyone is stuck in the 60's on carb mentality...would you change from a 500 carb to a 750 and not get your screw driver out to dial it In? No....same applies here, except tuning software is your screwdriver.

Truer words have never been spoken

Also keep snatching up all the fast 90's. Pretty soon, they are going to be more expensive than the brand new 102's.

They already are, as far as I know :jest:

bww3588
06-19-2012, 07:37 AM
And they will be unless people pull their heads out of their ass and realize the 102 is not too big.

raysadude
06-19-2012, 09:13 AM
The 102 intake manifold is NOT too big. I gained everywhere in the power range(after I switched to 92 mm TB) :)

bww3588
06-19-2012, 12:18 PM
Which has nothing to do with power...

BlackNiteWS6
06-19-2012, 01:43 PM
Also where the hell are you getting your pricing? You can have a brand new 102 and TB for $1130 shipped and LS2 rails arent that expensive. You can have fun with your TPIS LS6 that not only nobody runs but I have never met a single person that has or has had one/

I assume you are talking to me...By the time you buy the Fast 102, the TB, and the porting you are close to $1,700 to $1,800. And no one runs the TPIS LS6 intake? You personally know everyone that owns a LS1 f-body or Vette? Go to the corvetteforum and see how many run the TPIS. Plus Lingenfelter and many others on other forums found that there's only a 5whp to 7whp over a Fast. The retune is more responsible as well. I would bet that most of the gains you get from a Fast 102 on a 346cid LS1 is from the tuning after the install. It's not hard to believe that fine tuning the PCM could net 10whp. The intake is way over kill on stock cubes. And it's a fact that more than 10 years ago guys were running in the 10's on stock intakes. But to say nobody runs the TPIS intake is moronic. Call TPIS and tell them that nobody buys their intake and see what they say:eyes: Sorry about the pricing issue..I see it's close to $1,200 and $200 more for porting.
But still $1,200 for maybe 15whp is high, especially that a chunk of the gains can be credited to fine tuning. And just cause you don't like the TPIS intake doesn't change the fact that it only makes a few less HP then a Fast, and the fact it only cost $350 if you send in your intake, no core charge.

dr_whigham
06-19-2012, 01:56 PM
Shit just got real...... :corn:

LS1-450
06-19-2012, 02:03 PM
Both are great intakes. Everyone who understands the tuning requirements of each can benefit from either. It's pointless to argue results based on a partial modification.

raysadude
06-19-2012, 02:16 PM
Anyone wanna borrow me their uninstalled 102 cable TB? I'll spend my money and my time to do back to back run between 92mm and 102mm tb.

On a side note, I just checked the dyno comparison section and one recent thread that Lsxpwrd car gain power was with 92mm TB :)

Again not arguing just trying to pursue after facts here.

BlackNiteWS6
06-19-2012, 02:19 PM
^^^Well said...to each is own. It's also a shame that some just buy parts cause they see
others on the internet buying it. I know for sure that there are people in this thread that don't even run a Fast intake, but they'll post that it's a waste of time running a stock LS6 intake and that they should spend the money on a Fast setup:eyes:

raysadude
06-19-2012, 02:22 PM
As far as the pricing goes here's what I've spent for the intake setup

Intake 800
Tb 375
Fuel rails and gaskets 230

Total 1405

Sold my ls6 intake, fuel rails, stock ported tb and get back 500

So all in all I spent 905 ish

Blk98Vert
06-19-2012, 03:17 PM
I assume you are talking to me...By the time you buy the Fast 102, the TB, and the porting you are close to $1,700 to $1,800. And no one runs the TPIS LS6 intake? You personally know everyone that owns a LS1 f-body or Vette? Go to the corvetteforum and see how many run the TPIS. Plus Lingenfelter and many others on other forums found that there's only a 5whp to 7whp over a Fast. The retune is more responsible as well. I would bet that most of the gains you get from a Fast 102 on a 346cid LS1 is from the tuning after the install. It's not hard to believe that fine tuning the PCM could net 10whp. The intake is way over kill on stock cubes. And it's a fact that more than 10 years ago guys were running in the 10's on stock intakes. But to say nobody runs the TPIS intake is moronic. Call TPIS and tell them that nobody buys their intake and see what they say:eyes: Sorry about the pricing issue..I see it's close to $1,200 and $200 more for porting.
But still $1,200 for maybe 15whp is high, especially that a chunk of the gains can be credited to fine tuning. And just cause you don't like the TPIS intake doesn't change the fact that it only makes a few less HP then a Fast, and the fact it only cost $350 if you send in your intake, no core charge.


Alright lets break down a TPIS LS6s real cost. Sure the modification is $350. What about a TB? A Nick Williams 92mm LS2 is $330. So really bring the cost up to $680, lets call it $700 with shipping. And if someone bought an LS6 and did this make the price $1000 minimum. Or you could buy a used FAST 90, brand new TB and sell your LS6 and be out of pocket $550 at most. Or you could do the same with a BBK 85/85 or PP 85/85 and be out of pocket no more than $200. You would break even on a 92/92 vs doing the TPIS setup. So what is the point of doing it when there are better and cheaper options available?

MM98
06-19-2012, 03:26 PM
Here's some cliff notes about the car & mods since some people still think the tune in it is junk..

Car made 382rwhp(mustang dyno) with LS6 intake & previous unknown tune.

Car made 399rwhp(mustang dyno) after new tune & LS6 intake.. Got to be a crappy tuner right there.

Car made 413rwhp(mustang dyno) with the 102/102 but lost some low-mid power.

A/F did not show a lean condition after swap so car was left alone.

Changed to 92mm tb & 85mm maf, car was street tuned for new maf & gained back the lost low-mid power, OP is happy.

Every engine combo is not the same & this not the first time a person has lost some low-mid power with a 102.. 413 on a mustang dyno comes close to 470 on a dynojet, car is pretty stout... Ray take it to the track & see what she traps, dynos don't always tell the story.

raysadude
06-19-2012, 03:26 PM
I'll be honest I went with fast 102 based on the positive reviews I've read over here, and that's how I learn things, learning by doing.

I never regret doing it though because I know the intake is gonna be sufficient when I go with bigger cubes which I'm planning to do in the future.

BlackNiteWS6
06-19-2012, 05:59 PM
^^I hear ya..I saw a video on Youtube where they tested a stock LS7 ZO6 intake vs.
the Fast 102. It was uploaded by COMPcams...they gained 18hp and 7tq. The car was a 2008 ZO6 LS7 with cam and bolt-ons.

bww3588
06-22-2012, 07:32 PM
Here's some cliff notes about the car & mods since some people still think the tune in it is junk..

Car made 382rwhp(mustang dyno) with LS6 intake & previous unknown tune.

Car made 399rwhp(mustang dyno) after new tune & LS6 intake.. Got to be a crappy tuner right there.

Car made 413rwhp(mustang dyno) with the 102/102 but lost some low-mid power.

A/F did not show a lean condition after swap so car was left alone.

Changed to 92mm tb & 85mm maf, car was street tuned for new maf & gained back the lost low-mid power, OP is happy.

Every engine combo is not the same & this not the first time a person has lost some low-mid power with a 102.. 413 on a mustang dyno comes close to 470 on a dynojet, car is pretty stout... Ray take it to the track & see what she traps, dynos don't always tell the story.

Thanks for proving the point that you dont just bolt on a FAST and go....

CLIFF NOTES

OP bolted on FAST 102/102 w/104 lid and 100 MAF and did not retune...wonders why lost power. Now to the weather with Ollie...hows the weather out there Ollie? ITS RAINING!!! /family guy

MM98
06-22-2012, 09:56 PM
Thanks for proving the point that you dont just bolt on a FAST and go....

CLIFF NOTES

OP bolted on FAST 102/102 w/104 lid and 100 MAF and did not retune...wonders why lost power. Now to the weather with Ollie...hows the weather out there Ollie? ITS RAINING!!! /family guyYou gotta read man.. OP lost low-mid power with the fast 102/102, stock maf & mti style lid.. He never had a 100mm maf on the car, just thought about trying one but didn't.. It was just a simple intake swap after the new tuner gained almost 20rwhp from the previous tune that was on the car.. After he tuned the car, they simply swapped the fast on & lost low- mid ,but gained peak power.. The car did not lean out with the fast.. He then switched to a 92mm tb, 85mm maf & l04 lid.. Had the car street tuned for the new 85mm maf & gained back lost power.

bww3588
06-22-2012, 11:34 PM
I did read...a fast was bolted on, and not tuned. If people knew anything it's the same as changing carbs. You add air, you gotta add fuel.

Probably why the AFR didn't change is because the on board o2's were compensating. Which is not what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to compensate if something goes wrong, not on a regular basis.

Violatorno1
09-15-2012, 02:14 PM
I tried reading through this whole thread but gave up somewhere near the end. It's seems that a new MAF,TB,lid and tune cured the problem. Going off of argument that a larger TB doesn't make a difference unless the smaller causes restriction and thinking the lid won't make much of a difference in stock cubes along with everything else I could take in, it seems to me that the one change that makes sense to the fix was the MAF. Was a failing or possibly contaminated MAF ruled out before attributing the fix to TB size? I would have liked to have seen the original MAF changed out for a known good MAF equal to the original and a retune. I have seen many running/fuel milage problems over the years that never threw a code that resulted from a contaminated or failing MAF. The O2's would have compensated to keep commaned AFR correct.

raysadude
09-16-2012, 04:23 PM
If I had to guess it wasn't the MAF, I think it was the TB that cost me the hp down low. I maybe wrong though, that's just my opinion.

There was never any problem with the MAF ever, so I highly doubt that MAF was the culprit. I always cleaned up my MAF at least once every month too.

All in all I realize there was too many things factor in the hp gain downlow. Me and my tuner believe it was attributing to the TB, some believe it's the tune, but really I'm done with dyno numbers.

For now, I'm just enjoying the car each and every day, since she's my daily..believe it or not, I got better gas mileage after the fast compared to the ls6 intake

4doortypels
09-16-2012, 04:42 PM
truth is a fast 102 is not an optimal intake for a smaller displacement... low end loses are due to loss in the intake port velocity... you have to have the displacement and the bore, or a hella high rpm motor to make it function with advertised gains... most street cars dont need its and a 90 or 92mm set up can provide great gains on the lower end and top end of the power band... does fast advertise the "power band" on their sight?

bww3588
09-16-2012, 04:49 PM
Your high on life. Who ever spoon fed you that bullshit seen you coming from a mile away.

svede1212
10-12-2012, 10:02 AM
truth is a fast 102 is not an optimal intake for a smaller displacement... low end loses are due to loss in the intake port velocity... you have to have the displacement and the bore, or a hella high rpm motor to make it function with advertised gains... most street cars dont need its and a 90 or 92mm set up can provide great gains on the lower end and top end of the power band... does fast advertise the "power band" on their sight?

I failed to see that with my LS1. Heads/cam/LTs and I gained more "down low", up to 30+ RWHP/TQ, than I did up top and that was substantial.

Heads/cam/LTs vs Heads/cam/LTs/FAST 102/NW 102 TB same dyno, same conditions

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l40/svede1212/LS1GTO/2012-08-25_17-20-58_681.jpg

raysadude
10-12-2012, 11:06 AM
Eh i thought I posted that I gained my midrange lost after switching to 92mm TB from 102mm..it's not the best bang for the buck type of mod. More like it'd be beneficial in the long run kind of mod.

bww3588
10-12-2012, 11:24 AM
You did...many times. But unfortunately, it was just a bandage for a poor tune.

raysadude
10-12-2012, 12:28 PM
Lol poor tune? I'll post up some graph here in a minute, and you can judge for yourself.

raysadude
10-12-2012, 01:20 PM
Here we go:

Unknown tune VS Glen's tune
PRC LS6 heads, YT Rockers, MTI lid, stock ported MAF, S2 TB, Hookers 1 7/8" LS7 Clutch

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/Dyno_APS_MustangDyno.jpg

Glen's tune ITSELF net me 17 rwhp/25rwtq

FAST 102/102 installed
PRC LS6 heads, YT Rockers, MTI lid, stock ported MAF, S2 TB, Hookers 1 7/8" LS7 Clutch + FAST 102/102

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/Dyno_APS_FAST102.jpg

Gained 14rwhp up top and let's not talk about torque...

Installed FTP 98mm lid, 85mm MAF, 92mm TB - tune on the street only NO WOT Tune on dyno

Regained mid range loss and gained up top. i don't have the graph but it's similar to the one above except from 5500 the FAST shine over LS6 intake

TFS 215 installed
Glen Re tune the car since it was LEAN now unlike when i swapped to FAST it didn't lean out any.

http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp68/renaldi1982/Dyno_APS_10102012.jpg

From the heads and re-tune i net close to 40rwhp/40rwtq since before the re-tune the car wouldn't even pass 400 mark

if you still think the tune is poor then i don't know what to say man.

You've never even see the tune and your comments implied as if you've experienced all of this first hand.

Sincerely yours,

Ray

bww3588
10-12-2012, 01:36 PM
Nobody has to see your tune to know it's not right, if it was, you wouldn't have had to switch to a smaller tb to gain what you think you lost. Period. I'm not sure how many more times this has to be presented to you, but tb size has nothing to do with power output UNLESS it's choking the engine. You could have a 200mm tb on the car and it wouldn't matter.

Hiding behind your "extraordinary personal experience" does not change physics. Sorry bud.

I'm done with this epic failure of a thread. For future reference, when you ask for help, you can't shoot people down you don't agree with. If your going to do that, you obviously don't need help because you already know the answer whether it's right or not.

bww3588
10-12-2012, 01:39 PM
Svede1212 posted a prime example, how did he gain everywhere with a less hard core setup than yours but yet, "your combo is too small...it doesn't need all that air..." Yea, your tune is perfect.

Best of luck to you...your gonna need it.

raysadude
10-12-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm not shooting anyone down. i'm just simply stating FACTS backed up with Dyno sheets, and it's not my "Extraordinary personal experience" if you care to look there's people who lost power down low with the 102 TB.

Have you ever heard of every setup is different? i'm pretty sure you have so you must have known that what work for you might now work for anyone else.

I don't care if you're done with this thread or whatever. Doesn't change the FACT that my car gained the lost with 92mm TB

/THREAD