What do you guys think needs to be done to make the Fast 90mm intake better? Bigger TB? Bigger Plenum? Shorter runners?

 

Put it on my car ... LOL! j/k That's a tough one depending on the intended application. I'd say just port it at the factory and leave it at that.

 

Just a noobie chiming in here. I guess it depends on how much better you want it. I think that it has been proved that the LS7 will outflow it and it has a 90 mm throttle body also. I guess we could examine the differences between the two of them then we could find some of the answer. having said that, you can't really make a side by side comparison between the 2 because they won't fit on the same heads. You already know all that i'm sure but I thought I would put in my .02 cents tho. I would really like to know where this goes as well.

 

Just some work thru the runners, if that's what you want for runner length and cross section.

The new Wilson billet intake is another choice if shorter runners are what you need.




http://www.wilsonmanifolds.com/news/01020602.html

It might still be aluminum, but it's VERY impressive to see in person.

Bret

 

I wonder how a bigger plenum/shorter runner would work....

 

The pleanum will make more power, but might not work as well with as many shifts as you are putting against it.

As for the runner length.... depends on the RPM range you are working in. If you are below 4500rpm for a minimum RPM and 7000rpm for a max then it's hard to beat the FAST runner length.

Bret

 

IMO, the cross-sectional area and the TB opening are not big enough on the FAST to support larger motors (402ci+) with 340 cfm heads like the larger ETs. It seems the smaller runnered heads like the AFR 225 and ET 215s and 225s have done very well with the FAST intake, but the guys that are bolting up the 245, 255 and 265cc ETs don't seem to be getting the incremental increases in power. In fact, many of them perform worse than the smaller runnered heads. Maybe the air-speed between the FAST and the smaller heads are a better match. The same way you don't run the unrestricted heads on a restrictor plate motor in NASCAR.

Porting the FAST has its benefits, but the limit seems to be about an additional 10 cfm through the head.

 

bigger everything.
it was carfully designed for a balance with a 347.... now that we're sticking it on ever larger motors, it just needs a larger area for more volume...

there is a point where if we want a bigger throttlebody, we're going to have to either get away from the monoblade design, or change the linkage somewhat... atleast on the cable cars... you could do it in the PCM for the drive by wire cars... the throttle will just get too touchy otherwise.

 

dam that looks good! hehe

for me well ther are loads of things you could do!

you could do veriable length runners, indavidual throtle bodies, carbon construction, verying size of throttle body(s) for diffrent power goals and applications!

thanks Chris

 

What about 408/414 ci engines with a 225cc intake runner such as afr, rhs, or etp. Can it still keep up ?

 

With a truck motor a FAST 90 would be a dam good intake. There are gains in porting the FAST intake, just have to know what to do.

bret

 

If space is no problem, how will this setup do in 402-441 with big cam and

and heads (240+) which i am planning to try

Intake (not the same length)

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/aaljum...e2.jpg&.src=ph

------------------

T/B

The Accufab 4500 flows 2128 CFM and has four 2-1/4" brass throttle plates. Both styles have high quality progressive linkage and use late model GM electronics, included.

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/aaljum...e2.jpg&.src=ph

---------

I am talking N/A and no elbow.

Is that much flow in the T/B a plus?

Being not the same intake port length how will it effect the flow overall,

IE will it about the same for all ?

Thanks.

 

You would be suprised as too how much a FAST/WILSON 90mm flows...

FWIW we were talking about that intake a few threads down this forum.

Bret

 

Fast 90mm Intake could be improved in one way....MAKE IT CHEAPER FOR ME!!

 

Phil, based on what you are doing (max effort high rpm, yes?), shorter runners is the key, imo.

 

I talked with Wilson Manifolds about shorter runners. He said that they have tested shorter runners on the LS6 intake. By shortening the runner he did pick up airflow and moved the peak HP/TQ higher in the RPM band.
He did not try shortening the runners on the Fast 90, but would be the same effect.
You would be shortening the floor of the runner, that is a removable center piece.
Best way is to dyno, shorten the runner and redyno.

 

Like Patrick said. My ET 245`s outflow my Fast 90mm intake ported by LME bigtime. I`m going to have to go in a differant direction also. Does anyone know what the wilson intake flows and cost? Looks good!

 

Recently I've seen more than a few motors being nuked in #7, maybe something could be tweaked in the back of the Fast, so that #7 and #8 might run a little richer and prevent detonation.

 

One thing that is important to remember is that Keith Wilson (Wilson Manifolds) was a major design consultant/developer of the FAST manifold http://www.wilsonmanifolds.com/. The FAST manifold is an improved, flexible modular design that will work over a broad RPM range. It's not designed for a single RPM niche.

The original post asks what can be done to make the FAST manifold better. In order to define better, you need to define your goals and what you are willing to sacrifice. Better for someone running on the street and occasionally at the strip might not be better at all for someone running an all out drag car. A high performance street car and a road racer might have approximately the same goals.

Steve

 

yup.. when designing a motor its about applying the right parts.. a single manifold cannot be optimized for every engine... the FAST is about as good as it gets for a general intake

Runner lenghts are VERY important for specific RPM power