FAST102/92 vs LS6 on Cam Only LS1
02-25-2012, 10:39 PM
#42
From a performance aspect it works awesome however I'm having a lot of idle tuning issues. The blade didn't come with a hole drilled in it like the stock throttle body has so to compensate for that along with blocking off the PVC I had to crack the blade slightly to get my IAC counts inline... The problem with that is the throttle body is obviously cheaply made compared to a NW and when the blade comes go rest on the bump stop the blade is in a slightly different position and allows different amounts of airflow in each time it comes to a rest. I am going to attempt to drill a hole in the blade the same size as stock and close the blade back down just before it sticks to see if it eliminates the issues. If not then I'll be purchasing a NW102 to test the gains on. I done suspect any gains as the map readings never dropped with this TB but the transition from TB bore to the intake flange should be quite a big smoother with the larger TB.
Yea that is a good point! The throttle body on the LS6 was the OEM 100k mile TB.
Thanks the biggest reason I did this test was because I've seen numerous FS threads of the older 90/92's claiming they are superior and now all of the sudden a rare item to have. Well this pretty much proves its better than a 90/92 intake and can be had for a price some ppl are asking for a used 90/92.
It looks like he had a stock TB too, I had a really nice ported one for new era.I forgot about that
Thats normally a 5-7hp on a stock car, I think mike told me the most he's seen up to a few years, was 12hp on a cam car. I bet that was giving me 10whp over a unported stock TB. My best ET was 11.1 with the LS6/ported stock TB, MPH 125 I think a few times. That 30whp gain makes more sence now
Thats normally a 5-7hp on a stock car, I think mike told me the most he's seen up to a few years, was 12hp on a cam car. I bet that was giving me 10whp over a unported stock TB. My best ET was 11.1 with the LS6/ported stock TB, MPH 125 I think a few times. That 30whp gain makes more sence nowThanks the biggest reason I did this test was because I've seen numerous FS threads of the older 90/92's claiming they are superior and now all of the sudden a rare item to have. Well this pretty much proves its better than a 90/92 intake and can be had for a price some ppl are asking for a used 90/92.
02-26-2012, 10:31 AM
#43
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pittsburgh PA
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How does the throttle response feel off the dyno and actually running on the street tho? I wouldnt expect it to be lazy at all, but just because something shows power gains on the dyno doesnt mean it will feel better on the street.
02-26-2012, 09:42 PM
#44
Throttle response as in when you blip the throttle or ease into the gas abruptly has increased significantly just due to the fact X% of throttle movement allows much more airflow than the stock throttle body could supply.
Now as far as how it feels on the street it's hard to say honestly cause it's been cold here in KY and on hard 275/40/17 street tires with a 4000 stall makes for nothing very quick other than a bunch of tire smoke. I did pedal the car once and pulled up through 3rd gear really good and I noticed a huge difference at higher speeds.
The tell tell will be this upcoming weekend at beech bend. As long as the weather holds out for opening day TnT I will be there to see how it does.
Now as far as how it feels on the street it's hard to say honestly cause it's been cold here in KY and on hard 275/40/17 street tires with a 4000 stall makes for nothing very quick other than a bunch of tire smoke. I did pedal the car once and pulled up through 3rd gear really good and I noticed a huge difference at higher speeds.
The tell tell will be this upcoming weekend at beech bend. As long as the weather holds out for opening day TnT I will be there to see how it does.
03-04-2012, 02:45 PM
#45
Just to add to this thread I took the pacesetter LT's and tsp ypipe off and installed arh 1-7/8 LT's and ypipe and replaced the slp lid and MAF for a FTP 10xmm lid and straight pipe running SD now and the car picked up pretty good. I am now up to 439rwhp/408rwtq. I don't have the graph off the dyno yet but will edit the post and add the picture of it later tonight.
Furthermore I took the car to the track yesterday and did fairly well considering the strong headwind we had managed a 11.41@118 3570lb race weight and not so optimal gearing (3.42 and 275/60/15 radials). Either way I'm tickled with the car and will be heading back soon with a few more adjustments to the shift points hoping to clip an 11.20 and 120mph without the wind.
Furthermore I took the car to the track yesterday and did fairly well considering the strong headwind we had managed a 11.41@118 3570lb race weight and not so optimal gearing (3.42 and 275/60/15 radials). Either way I'm tickled with the car and will be heading back soon with a few more adjustments to the shift points hoping to clip an 11.20 and 120mph without the wind.
03-05-2012, 03:15 PM
#47
I was off 2tq... got the graphs loaded on the computer and it looks like 406rwtq instead of 408. I updated the first post with a little description and some dyno graphs!
Once I get the video's from the track done and uploaded I will post those up in the first post as well.
Once I get the video's from the track done and uploaded I will post those up in the first post as well.
03-05-2012, 04:46 PM
#48
11 Second Club
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had planned on a FAST 90 or 92 setup for my 00' TA when funds allowed, but this has me leaning towards running a 102/92 setup. What all has to be clearanced, changed, and/or modified to install a FAST 102 on a 346? Anything with the water pump, other accessories, PCV, etc??
03-10-2012, 10:45 PM
#51
Gearing and strong headwind was the cause for trap speeds. 28" tire and 3.42 gears aren't optimal at all. Really need another 500rpm in 3rd gear to get up in the meat of the power curve. Just for the record with a 3.73 and 26" tires it went 115mph at the same track with 395rwhp. I'll have it back to the track before too long.
Gonna eventually spray the car which is why the gear is still tall. Plus I like to cruise on the interstate at a decent speed without cranking all kinds of rpm.
Gonna eventually spray the car which is why the gear is still tall. Plus I like to cruise on the interstate at a decent speed without cranking all kinds of rpm.
Last edited by LSxPwrDZ; 03-10-2012 at 11:07 PM.
03-13-2012, 11:19 AM
#53
Anybody else notice a 50 ft/lbs increase in torque at 3500 rpm after the header/lid swap. I understand the change to peak TQ was considerably less, however 50 ft/lbs at any point in the curve seems huge.
Am I missing something here?
Makes me want to completely ditch the K&N FIPK (which you could make the argument for already) and the 1 3/4" headers for a big lid setup and 1 7/8" headers.
Am I missing something here?
Makes me want to completely ditch the K&N FIPK (which you could make the argument for already) and the 1 3/4" headers for a big lid setup and 1 7/8" headers.
03-14-2012, 12:11 AM
#54
The headers was the main reason for the huge TQ gains. Brian Tooley told me that the larger tube headers really shine with the smaller stock exhaust valve. The TQ it picked up down low and in the midrange is very very noticeable as well. Flashing the car at the track bumped up to ~4400-4500rpm where as before it would only flash to ~4000-4100. It also took a ton more fuel in the midrange which reflects the torque/power increase.
03-14-2012, 02:42 PM
#55
The headers was the main reason for the huge TQ gains. Brian Tooley told me that the larger tube headers really shine with the smaller stock exhaust valve. The TQ it picked up down low and in the midrange is very very noticeable as well. Flashing the car at the track bumped up to ~4400-4500rpm where as before it would only flash to ~4000-4100. It also took a ton more fuel in the midrange which reflects the torque/power increase.
Thanks for an awesome thread. These are the types of things that are debated on the board all day long....it's nice to actually see some concrete "apples-to-apples" numbers to support the conclusions!
03-15-2012, 08:16 AM
#58
I agre with jimmy. I was in Memphis last year and I got the chance to tour Comp cams facility. I also got to talk to the guy who engineered the 102. He said that the rumor bout the 102 being to big or a stock ci motor was ridiculous. He said you could put a 12 inch opening on the front it wouldn't matter what mattered was the runners shape and engineering.
Last edited by SweetS10V8; 03-15-2012 at 09:25 AM.
03-16-2012, 09:41 PM
#59
I will def keep you guys posted with the car. Not made any changes but will be heading back to the track tomorrow if the rain holds off. Not expecting crazy numbers though cause it was 80% humidity today. But we will see.
***Edit***
Track was closed for rain so maybe next time...
***Edit***
Track was closed for rain so maybe next time...
Last edited by LSxPwrDZ; 03-17-2012 at 12:19 PM.
