Mamo Ported 102 Fast LSXR LS7 vs. Ported LS7 Intake - Results
06-21-2010, 10:02 PM
#1
Mamo Ported 102 Fast LSXR LS7 vs. Ported LS7 Intake - Results 
These are the Dyno results for swaping out my RPM ported stock LS7 for a Mamo ported Fast 102. This is on a 441 N/A F-Body with a A4 trans PY3400 Yank stall. Nothing else was changed other then the intakes. The only thing different was a totally different day, same dyno, new tune. All pulls made on a Dynometer dynojet. First dyno session was in April in around 50 degree temp and the next was end of June in 80 degree temp. Pretty decent gain considering everything else i've seen and it really added where it's needed the most. Just one question to throw out there........does anybody know why the dip at or around the 4200 rpm range?? Andy at Dynotune USA did the tuning and i can't say how good he is, one of the best in my opinion! Big thanks goes out to Tony Mamo for helping me try to squeeze every last horse outta this combo and Andy for putting up with me pestering him every other week!! Now let the discussion and bashing begin......................
Last edited by ramairws6; 10-20-2013 at 05:37 PM.
06-21-2010, 10:48 PM
#4
Damn, i knew i forgot something! It's a Rev Extreme 100mm TB and Texas Speed 100 maf. None of this was changed from the first run.This is not a toned down Ragin' cam it's a LSL lobe 23X/26X Comp grind.............
Last edited by ramairws6; 01-26-2012 at 05:26 PM.
06-22-2010, 08:02 AM
#6
Another thing i forgot to add is these are factory LS7 hand ported heads done by Charlie at RPM Motors. The heads were done way back in 2006 so there has been alot of CNC programs since then............now if they would help me any or not i don't know.
06-22-2010, 09:44 AM
#7
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Nice gains. Just one question, why are we looking at dyno numbers from 2009 and comparing them to post swap numbers for 2010 vs baselining the car that day, swapping the intake, tweek the tune and re dyno? Would be the best comparison. At any rate same dyno different day is still a good indicator. Thanks a lot for sharing. The gains between 3200 and 4300 look great. Power that will be felt in the real world. Most people shift between 3500 and 4000 under normal driving so the results are ideal !!! Thanks again for posting up the results.
Great port work Tony !!
Great port work Tony !!
Trending Topics
06-22-2010, 01:42 PM
#9
May have been a larger gap in the curve at higher RPM's but either way we never really saw where and what this engine peaked at looking at the data provided.
IMO, the gains from the intake are significant and well worth the cost of admission....not to mention would have likely been some 10 HP and 10 ft/lbs stronger if a stock intake was used as the baseline.
Good stuff...
Seems alot of folks have questioned the usefulness of the FAST 102 LS7 style intakes (the cathedral versions are far more proven), and it seems there is mixed reviews out in the field, but the handful of people I have helped (all with ported versions obviously) have all experienced good results.
I was slightly more apprehensive about this test and feel it was slightly more unique because it was only an intake swap (against a ported OEM intake for a baseline which certainly upped the ante) on a car that alot of time has been spent on optimizing the tune for best results prior to the swap. Some of the customers I help are incorporating the manifold swap with other mods (heads, cam, more compression, etc.) so its more challenging to get a feel of what just the manifold itself was worth and most of them are replacing un-ported OEM intakes without a whole lot of time invested in the tune before hand.
-Tony
06-22-2010, 03:31 PM
#11
Nice gains. Just one question, why are we looking at dyno numbers from 2009 and comparing them to post swap numbers for 2010 vs baselining the car that day, swapping the intake, tweek the tune and re dyno? Would be the best comparison. At any rate same dyno different day is still a good indicator. Thanks a lot for sharing. The gains between 3200 and 4300 look great. Power that will be felt in the real world. Most people shift between 3500 and 4000 under normal driving so the results are ideal !!! Thanks again for posting up the results.
Great port work Tony !!
Great port work Tony !!
06-22-2010, 06:52 PM
#17
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
clear things up a little bit, I dont have time to post a whole lot so bear with me...
the pull was made to about 6800ish, although the tach signal on the dyno must have dropped out on that pull about 6300... If you overlay over wheelspeed it shows the car was ran just past peak. The car has multiple pulls all the way up and runs clean, just a dirty signal to the tach lead on the dyno. Dynojet will "clear up" the dirty signals on the graph. If I overlay RPM vs wheel speed, it shows that 6300 is 129 mph, whereas the graph that shows wheelspeed runs to 140 mph. This may not make sense if you haven't been around a dynojet much, but I can assure you of this. I dont have that file on this computer, but I did look. The gains are reflected all the way to the top of the wheelspeed graph, not showing more than the 10-15 @ peak (going solely from memory here) although the gains are consisten to the end of the run to 6800, or 140 mph.
My take is the intake port job is worthwhile throughout the pull, picking up good torque down low and hp up top. I also graphed the rpm rise vs mph gained and noticed there was a bit of converter slip (very little, about a .5 mph variation) @ 4200ish, so that will explain the bit of a dip @ 4200, or when torque was approaching peak. It is hard on the converter to be locked, especially at power levels such as this. A 6 speed car may have been slightly better for the graphs, but I will say that it only hinders the dyno numbers- although SLIGHTLY and only @ peak torque. The numbers would have actually reflected an even larger gap at the peak torque range (possibly 5-7 where the dip was, minimal but a gain none the less)
I will say I have probably dynoed WAAAAAAYYYYYY over 1000 LS powered cars, I have had this same dynojet for 8 years. It is used daily in my shop and every weekend @ shows (Hot Rod Power Tour, Car Craft Summer Nationals, etc- many times having more than 100 cars on the dyno a WEEKEND) I have seen many intakes that Tony has done, although I have no personal ties with him. I have never seen disappointment in his work. This was done as an experiment as Tony wanted real world results. I was informed he requested good, bad or ugly. The results are no question favorable for the work, although I have no idea what the charge would be, or a cost comparison of HP gained. Just my perceptions, take them as that. You guys are brutal for info!!! Just a joke, I'm the same way- just dont have time to spend interwebbing a whole lot currently!
Just an FYI, the dynojet SAE correction factor is pretty damn consistent, I have had my dyno in Denver (4800+ feet), Reno (3800+ feet), New Orleans (below sea level), and most of the time it is around 1400-1900 ft elevation. I have been in mobile al in the 95 degree heat (just two weeks ago, actually) A stock c5 will make the same HP within 3-4 utilizing the dynojet sae correction @ 45 degrees ACTUAL temp or 100 degrees with varying humidity, with comprable timing and such. I know it gets discussed about the heat & humidity, but the results I have seen show it really doesn't vary much with SAE. If uncorrected #s, hang onto yer britches.
thanks
andy
the pull was made to about 6800ish, although the tach signal on the dyno must have dropped out on that pull about 6300... If you overlay over wheelspeed it shows the car was ran just past peak. The car has multiple pulls all the way up and runs clean, just a dirty signal to the tach lead on the dyno. Dynojet will "clear up" the dirty signals on the graph. If I overlay RPM vs wheel speed, it shows that 6300 is 129 mph, whereas the graph that shows wheelspeed runs to 140 mph. This may not make sense if you haven't been around a dynojet much, but I can assure you of this. I dont have that file on this computer, but I did look. The gains are reflected all the way to the top of the wheelspeed graph, not showing more than the 10-15 @ peak (going solely from memory here) although the gains are consisten to the end of the run to 6800, or 140 mph.
My take is the intake port job is worthwhile throughout the pull, picking up good torque down low and hp up top. I also graphed the rpm rise vs mph gained and noticed there was a bit of converter slip (very little, about a .5 mph variation) @ 4200ish, so that will explain the bit of a dip @ 4200, or when torque was approaching peak. It is hard on the converter to be locked, especially at power levels such as this. A 6 speed car may have been slightly better for the graphs, but I will say that it only hinders the dyno numbers- although SLIGHTLY and only @ peak torque. The numbers would have actually reflected an even larger gap at the peak torque range (possibly 5-7 where the dip was, minimal but a gain none the less)
I will say I have probably dynoed WAAAAAAYYYYYY over 1000 LS powered cars, I have had this same dynojet for 8 years. It is used daily in my shop and every weekend @ shows (Hot Rod Power Tour, Car Craft Summer Nationals, etc- many times having more than 100 cars on the dyno a WEEKEND) I have seen many intakes that Tony has done, although I have no personal ties with him. I have never seen disappointment in his work. This was done as an experiment as Tony wanted real world results. I was informed he requested good, bad or ugly. The results are no question favorable for the work, although I have no idea what the charge would be, or a cost comparison of HP gained. Just my perceptions, take them as that. You guys are brutal for info!!! Just a joke, I'm the same way- just dont have time to spend interwebbing a whole lot currently!
Just an FYI, the dynojet SAE correction factor is pretty damn consistent, I have had my dyno in Denver (4800+ feet), Reno (3800+ feet), New Orleans (below sea level), and most of the time it is around 1400-1900 ft elevation. I have been in mobile al in the 95 degree heat (just two weeks ago, actually) A stock c5 will make the same HP within 3-4 utilizing the dynojet sae correction @ 45 degrees ACTUAL temp or 100 degrees with varying humidity, with comprable timing and such. I know it gets discussed about the heat & humidity, but the results I have seen show it really doesn't vary much with SAE. If uncorrected #s, hang onto yer britches.
thanks
andy
06-22-2010, 07:48 PM
#20
Andy,
Good post....and thanks of course for the feedback.
A couple of questions for you.....can you verify at what MPH the power peaked? It looks like it hasn't peaked in the graph made available to us here. I would guess 64-6500 RPM but I'm purely speculating.
Also, just to elaborate about the "test", as I mentioned earlier there isn't a whole lot of FAST LS7 intake data and most of it is fairly mixed....some even say its not worth the swap. While I have only done a fraction of LS7 FAST intakes (when I compare to the numerous cathedral units), most of the data I received back was very positive but I always felt it was never a real test of a well tuned baseline with stock intake versus a tuned final result with one of my ported FAST LS7 intakes. Also, the fact the customer's intake was already ported made it more interesting and I did want to see the honest results....good, bad, or somewhere in the middle having a handful of guys out there I helped with ported stock manifolds inquiring about the swap. From a pure design perspective (having ported a handful of stock LS7 intakes when there was nothing else to work) I could say I felt the FAST was a big improvement, but intake testing is alot more complex with variables such as runner length, runner taper, plenum volume and other factors that are not necessarily airflow related effecting the end results....meaning I never head into a manifold test feeling confident its going to work better just because the port is bigger and it flows more on the bench.
Anyway....the results were very much inline with what I hoped and actually somewhat better than I hoped down low considering the baseline wasn't stock. I would have been tickled to see those types of gains over a stock manifold to be honest....its very significant to pick up these types of torque increases at such low RPM and pick up power up top as well. Besides an increase in displacement, it's tough to get the same results on both ends of the power curve (bigger cams and bigger heads can add to the top but usually hurt the bottom).
Looks to me a properly ported FAST LS7 is a significant improvement and well worth the cost of admission....not to mention I charge a little less to port this particular intake because it takes me less time than a cathedral unit which requires more extensive material removal.
Thanks,
Tony
Good post....and thanks of course for the feedback.
A couple of questions for you.....can you verify at what MPH the power peaked? It looks like it hasn't peaked in the graph made available to us here. I would guess 64-6500 RPM but I'm purely speculating.
Also, just to elaborate about the "test", as I mentioned earlier there isn't a whole lot of FAST LS7 intake data and most of it is fairly mixed....some even say its not worth the swap. While I have only done a fraction of LS7 FAST intakes (when I compare to the numerous cathedral units), most of the data I received back was very positive but I always felt it was never a real test of a well tuned baseline with stock intake versus a tuned final result with one of my ported FAST LS7 intakes. Also, the fact the customer's intake was already ported made it more interesting and I did want to see the honest results....good, bad, or somewhere in the middle having a handful of guys out there I helped with ported stock manifolds inquiring about the swap. From a pure design perspective (having ported a handful of stock LS7 intakes when there was nothing else to work) I could say I felt the FAST was a big improvement, but intake testing is alot more complex with variables such as runner length, runner taper, plenum volume and other factors that are not necessarily airflow related effecting the end results....meaning I never head into a manifold test feeling confident its going to work better just because the port is bigger and it flows more on the bench.
Anyway....the results were very much inline with what I hoped and actually somewhat better than I hoped down low considering the baseline wasn't stock. I would have been tickled to see those types of gains over a stock manifold to be honest....its very significant to pick up these types of torque increases at such low RPM and pick up power up top as well. Besides an increase in displacement, it's tough to get the same results on both ends of the power curve (bigger cams and bigger heads can add to the top but usually hurt the bottom).
Looks to me a properly ported FAST LS7 is a significant improvement and well worth the cost of admission....not to mention I charge a little less to port this particular intake because it takes me less time than a cathedral unit which requires more extensive material removal.
Thanks,
Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 06-22-2010 at 07:58 PM.