Fast 102 Results Dissapointed
11-30-2010, 01:35 AM
#41
Launching!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: El Paso, TX again
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So would the 102mm benefit a stock 00 LS with everything stock save for a catback? I was gonna buy an LS6 manifold but in preperation for more mods I am thinking of going with the 102.
11-30-2010, 01:51 AM
#42
11 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: WA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie Williams at RPM Motors in Santa Clarita did them. He does all lsx stuff out here. I don't have any track times yet, still need better tires and beef up the drivetrain some before I feel confident taking it down the track and not breaking something. http://rpm-motors-inc.com/
The car is a blast to drive, power all over the place.
The car is a blast to drive, power all over the place.
I have a similar cam in my car currently on stock LS6 heads/ LS6 Intake set up. I am hoping to hit 400whp myself with a tune. I see the ported heads and good intake combo on a SD tune allowed you some decent power advantage.
11-30-2010, 06:31 AM
#43
The evidence is everywhere on any engine whether it be LS2, LQ4/9, LS3, L92 or LS1 on any modification level it is the best flowing and performing before you get into Vic Jrs, Sheetmetal etc. The OP dynoed in much warmer weather and dynoed the same as he did with the old intake setup. That says he gained a significant amount of power or else his dyno graph would be lower than his original. There should be a 10 to 15 hp gain across the entire rev range if he dynos in the same weather
11-30-2010, 06:45 AM
#44
Teching In
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading the whole thread im still not sure if i should bother buying this, everyones opinions are so different.
Granted it will be on a bigger cube motor (383 with a 88mm turbo) I have the money for a sheetmetal manifold but i dont "need" a $3000+ manifold as its not my main project more a left overs build for fun.
Do these still have the issues of shattering under boost?
Granted it will be on a bigger cube motor (383 with a 88mm turbo) I have the money for a sheetmetal manifold but i dont "need" a $3000+ manifold as its not my main project more a left overs build for fun.
Do these still have the issues of shattering under boost?
11-30-2010, 07:11 AM
#45
No, they take up to 67psi of boost. So unless you have a diesel, youll be fine.
Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one. And unfortunatly most people dont know jack sqwat, or get their misinformation from forums and magazines. Some of us might happen to have a ton of experience installing and testing these on customers vehicles.
I wont run anything but a FAST. Ive run and tested LS1/LS6/LS2/Edelbrock vic jr/Edelbrock pro flow, etc. And the correct intake to run on a street vehicle is obvious.
Opinions are like A**holes, everyone has one. And unfortunatly most people dont know jack sqwat, or get their misinformation from forums and magazines. Some of us might happen to have a ton of experience installing and testing these on customers vehicles.
I wont run anything but a FAST. Ive run and tested LS1/LS6/LS2/Edelbrock vic jr/Edelbrock pro flow, etc. And the correct intake to run on a street vehicle is obvious.
04-01-2011, 02:19 PM
#48
Well I have a stock displacement ls6 block but it's forged and 12.3:1cr. With my milled TFS 215 heads and MS3 112 lsa cam it really needs a lot of air above 6k rpms, especially when my redline is, or will be 72-7400rpm. Still, to the OP, without heads even a 90mm fast is a big intake. The 102 is an overkill for you. I just ordered a ported 102 and a NW 102 tb but I did testing and data logging with my fast 90/90 combo to see that I needed more air at higher rpm...just depends on your setup. Displacement isn't the only factor determining your need of intake size. Heads, cam and rpm power range have lot to do with it, and of course tuning is huge.
04-01-2011, 02:45 PM
#49
Staging Lane
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Right near the BEACH! BOOIIIEEE
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have done heads first.. But, like everyone is saying; you'll be glad you have it later. Looks like your heads are the 'bottleneck' now (or the tune)
04-01-2011, 05:02 PM
#51
Last edited by chrs1313; 04-01-2011 at 05:07 PM.
04-03-2011, 01:19 AM
#52
I stole this from one of Tony Mamos posts.
PS....Another issue I see constantly is the Internet folklore that a 102 is "too big" for a 346 CID combo. I wish I had a nickel for every time Ive read that. Bottom line guys is we arent trying to atomize fuel here....the "too big" BS stems back from the days of guys using too large a carburetor on their combinations which effected the signal and metering of fuel in a negative fashion hurting performance. Your injectors are handling all the fuel delivery and atomization....the manifold (and TB more precisely) is just a big "air blade"....the larger and more free flowing it is the more it reduces restriction in the inlet track. The key to getting the most gains from the swap to a 102 (or a 90/92 for that matter) is GOOD HEADS! The better the heads the more a stock manifold wont be able to keep up and the more a well designed aftermarket intake will benefit you. If you were building even a mild 346 with say our new 210 head and only a 224/228 cam, the move to a 102 would pick up the power curve everywhere and make a bunch more power upstairs (25-30 RWHP with one of my ported units) in spite of the fact we are discussing a small cam stock displacement build. Its the cylinder heads that determine primarily the types of gains that are possible with the swap to a better intake.
04-03-2011, 09:22 AM
#53
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: From Indy now San Diego
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Jimmy P for putting everyone in their place, tony m's quote explains it all. You can't put a 300 cfm intake on a set of 240 cfm set of heads and expect there to be no bottleneck.
And to the guy calling the guys dyno "inflated", gtfo of here. Or better yet please explain? Several 346ci cars have mad9e that kind of tq, including pat g's old ta. Except pat's setup was more radical and only made 440 rwtq.
And to the guy calling the guys dyno "inflated", gtfo of here. Or better yet please explain? Several 346ci cars have mad9e that kind of tq, including pat g's old ta. Except pat's setup was more radical and only made 440 rwtq.
04-03-2011, 10:09 AM
#55
I agree that the reason he didnt see any gains is due to the fact that the LS6 intake was not restrictive to his current setup. There is nothing to gain when there is nothing being lost! Doesnt matter if the new intake is better than the old if the setup does not require more than what it already has!
04-03-2011, 02:05 PM
#56
Yeah I read Tony Mamos post and its true, cyl heads are a huge factor. Thats why I said, its not about displacement but about parts combo. Spend your money where it needs to be spent. Thats why I never minded paying more for my TFS 215 heads. Cant be too cheap when chasing hp.
04-04-2011, 02:17 AM
#57
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Cleburne, TX
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do need to get a quality tune. The tune I had was done in 100+ weather the y pipe was made by a guy that didnt know what he was doing so I installed cut outs on it. Now recently I did a dual set up and seems like the car can breathe more...But still have to have another tune done. Car smells like fuel I know that is one of the problems.. Will have to get the tune redone and then we will see especially with the nicer weather. GIve me a month guys...then we will see the results.
04-04-2011, 01:12 PM
#60
It's a much better design from the standpoint of airflow and construction and will make a good bit more power everywhere over both of the former 90 and 92 mm versions as long as its used in the the right application....preferably in front of a high flowing set of heads to get the most bang for your buck from the swap. It will also make more with a stock set of heads, but very small gains because the intake isn't really the bottleneck in an engine running OEM castings.
This is the point I have been trying to drive home in this thread and others....in spite of the fact its not popular opinion and most people don't really understand the dynamics behind it.
"A 102 is too big for a 346".....Internet folklore #1 I'm thinking
-Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 04-04-2011 at 01:25 PM.