Ls7 Fast 102 vs MSD airforce comparison
04-04-2015, 08:13 PM
#1
Ls7 Fast 102 vs MSD airforce comparison Today we did a simple apples to apples comparision with a FAST 102 to a new MSD airforce intake manifold, on a c6 z06. We baseline dyno'ed and insured the Air fuel was correct with the fast 102, then installed the msd and did the same thing.
Car: 06 c6 z06
Mods:
CMS custom stage 3 cam (23x-25x on a 113)
WCCH stage 2 heads
FAST 102/ NW102 tb
ARH long tube headers with cats
stock rear section exhaust
DSX flex fuel sensor setup
FIC 725 cc injectors
Vararam intake
CMS custom flex fuel calibration
all runs done on e85, ethanol content of 76-78% throughout the day. we tried to keep coolant temp and IAT temps the same from run to run, in order to keep this test as legit as possible.
Fast 102/nw102 baseline:
553 RWHP and 510rwtq
MSD Airforce / NW102
562 rwhp 510 rwtq
conclusion:
After viewing the MSD airforce at sema last year, I could definitely see there were improvements over the fast 102 intake manifold. That being said, I knew in a factory style intake configuration, there wasn't going to be a huge gain without sacrificing power/tq down low and into the mid range. As you can see in the dyno sheet below, the msd does sacrifice a very slight bit down low and into the midrange, in exchange of a larger increase in power from 5000+ rpm on. In fact HP/TQ averages are slightly higher with the MSD unit. Now if the customer has an msd intake would I suggest upgrading to a msd? I would say its not worth the investment, however if he had a factory intake, I'd say move into the MSD versus the fast. In addition to the power gains, I like the fact that the msd utilizes the use of the production ls7 fuel and injectors. This means initial investment is less then the FAST unit, as the fast will require injector height adapters (or different length injectors) and a ls2/3 fuel rail (or aftermarket rails). I've also attached a text data sheet of both runs.
Dyno Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVY...ature=youtu.be
dyno sheet with peak numbers, run 1 is the msd, 2 is the fast:
Dyno sheet with avg. numbers, run 1 is the msd, 2 is the fast
Intake pics
Car: 06 c6 z06
Mods:
CMS custom stage 3 cam (23x-25x on a 113)
WCCH stage 2 heads
FAST 102/ NW102 tb
ARH long tube headers with cats
stock rear section exhaust
DSX flex fuel sensor setup
FIC 725 cc injectors
Vararam intake
CMS custom flex fuel calibration
all runs done on e85, ethanol content of 76-78% throughout the day. we tried to keep coolant temp and IAT temps the same from run to run, in order to keep this test as legit as possible.
Fast 102/nw102 baseline:
553 RWHP and 510rwtq
MSD Airforce / NW102
562 rwhp 510 rwtq
conclusion:
After viewing the MSD airforce at sema last year, I could definitely see there were improvements over the fast 102 intake manifold. That being said, I knew in a factory style intake configuration, there wasn't going to be a huge gain without sacrificing power/tq down low and into the mid range. As you can see in the dyno sheet below, the msd does sacrifice a very slight bit down low and into the midrange, in exchange of a larger increase in power from 5000+ rpm on. In fact HP/TQ averages are slightly higher with the MSD unit. Now if the customer has an msd intake would I suggest upgrading to a msd? I would say its not worth the investment, however if he had a factory intake, I'd say move into the MSD versus the fast. In addition to the power gains, I like the fact that the msd utilizes the use of the production ls7 fuel and injectors. This means initial investment is less then the FAST unit, as the fast will require injector height adapters (or different length injectors) and a ls2/3 fuel rail (or aftermarket rails). I've also attached a text data sheet of both runs.
Dyno Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaVY...ature=youtu.be
dyno sheet with peak numbers, run 1 is the msd, 2 is the fast:
Dyno sheet with avg. numbers, run 1 is the msd, 2 is the fast
Intake pics
04-04-2015, 08:25 PM
#2
TECH Veteran
Wow!! Finally someone posted real world results and opinions to boot. I expected the MSD to perform better due to all the hype about it. The fast held its on..... I'm willing to bet a ported fast intake would do even better than the MSD.
04-04-2015, 08:45 PM
#3
To be frank, I've yet to see a ported fast ls7 manifold show measurable gains.. It's good out of the box. You get in there and port away , you remove a fair amount of material thinking it's going to have big gains, but it haven't seen it.