Ls7 Fast 102 vs MSD airforce comparison
04-05-2015, 09:12 PM
#23
Bummer the MSD didn't stack up better!
On another note.... the FAST102 also has more hood clearance for engine swaps like an RX-7. Another owner of an RX-7 test fit the MSD and it had no chance in hell fitting under the factory hood.... the FAST102 does.
On another note.... the FAST102 also has more hood clearance for engine swaps like an RX-7. Another owner of an RX-7 test fit the MSD and it had no chance in hell fitting under the factory hood.... the FAST102 does.
04-05-2015, 09:27 PM
#26
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ryan
04-06-2015, 01:51 PM
#28
True. But while on the subject, once you are past peak torque I see no reason not to lean it out some in the upper rpm ranges. IMHO around peak torque maybe have the AFR around 12.6 put by the time you are at 6500 or so I see no reason not to be around 13:1. Again IMHO in the higher rpm ranges the chance for detonation becomes quite small.
04-06-2015, 02:48 PM
#29
For everyone commenting on the air fuel ratio variance . That is from the tailpipe reading , the wideband in the midpipe showed less then a .1 afr variance . Regardless , with e85 in an NA appilication , anything leaner than .89 lambda generally hurts power more than helps it... FWIW
Last edited by Ryne @ CMS; 04-07-2015 at 06:49 PM.
04-06-2015, 02:50 PM
#30
True. But while on the subject, once you are past peak torque I see no reason not to lean it out some in the upper rpm ranges. IMHO around peak torque maybe have the AFR around 12.6 put by the time you are at 6500 or so I see no reason not to be around 13:1. Again IMHO in the higher rpm ranges the chance for detonation becomes quite small.
04-06-2015, 04:44 PM
#31
Teching In
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For everyone commenting on the air fuel ratio variance . That is from the tailpipe reading , the wideband in the midpipe showed ledd then a .1 afr variance . Regardless , with e85 in an NA appilication , anything leaner than .89 lambda generally hurts power more than helps it... FWIW
04-06-2015, 05:05 PM
#32
to be fair that post was posted right when mine was so i didnt see it. however I still think there is something amiss there. The afr was on for the whole rest of the run then right there it differed and thats where it made hp. Im not sure why they would log the tailpip afr on the graph as opposed to mid pipe. However thats mostly conjecture so well see what happens in the future. CMS did a great service here awaiting other results. I think if this intake is slightly better than the fast the new runners will put them right on par
Either way the 8-9 hp difference it had over the 102 doesnt make it a good case for milder combos. This is one badass c6z that obviously needs a lot of air, I dont see the gains happening on smaller setups but only time will tell.
Either way the 8-9 hp difference it had over the 102 doesnt make it a good case for milder combos. This is one badass c6z that obviously needs a lot of air, I dont see the gains happening on smaller setups but only time will tell.
Last edited by redbird555; 04-06-2015 at 05:18 PM.
04-06-2015, 08:52 PM
#38
You will notice in the above dyno test there was not much difference between the fast and the stock LS3 intake as has been reported in many tests. The Vararam had them both by a good margin. They have probably improved that since the test was taken.
