Ls7 Fast 102 vs MSD airforce comparison
04-07-2015, 12:27 PM
#41
I also see they relocated the coil packs lower on the valve covers. The Holleys are somewhat lower on the valve covers already. I don't know if it will be enough, I might have to make some brackets to move them even lower.
04-07-2015, 10:07 PM
#43
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Coast of San Mateo County Between Pacifica & HMB
Posts: 1,822
Received 220 Likes
on
131 Posts
^^^^^^ I Agree ^^^^^^ Hio is right! ^^^^^^
as long as it is dry LOL,
That being said in all seriousness I like the Looks of the VRX INTAKE!
especially when you imagine the air path as it moves through it.
as long as it is dry LOL,
That being said in all seriousness I like the Looks of the VRX INTAKE!
especially when you imagine the air path as it moves through it.
04-07-2015, 11:22 PM
#44
04-08-2015, 02:33 AM
#45
Just tell me which one makes the most HP and is reasonably priced 
FAST102 has better clearance. I'm not worried about 10hp.
Vararam- what do you got?
I have an AllPro single plane intake that is going to poke thru my hood with a 4500 series TB on it. Not the best for aero, visibility, or low/mid range power
700rwhp n/a should make me forget about those issues though
FAST102 has better clearance. I'm not worried about 10hp.
Vararam- what do you got?
I have an AllPro single plane intake that is going to poke thru my hood with a 4500 series TB on it. Not the best for aero, visibility, or low/mid range power
700rwhp n/a should make me forget about those issues though
04-08-2015, 10:58 AM
#46
Did the MSD make more than the FAST? Yes, now is 10hp better worth it to upgrade, probably not, but if you have a car that has a stock intake, and you start doing mods, which one would you buy? Chances are the one that makes the most hp. The amount of modded 5th gen camaros is increasing steadily now that more and more are out of warranty and it's a huge market. I know, some guys actually wait till it's out of warranty to mod it, but it happens.
04-09-2015, 10:07 AM
#47
but if you have a car that has a stock intake, and you start doing mods, which one would you buy? Chances are the one that makes the most hp.
Personal speculation only, but I'd imagine the MSD intake to actually lose torque throughout the range in a smaller less radical setup (eg. 34x-40x engines). At that point, I'd still go with a FAST.
But I'll leave this last point as just that, speculation, until someone actually does a similar comparison on an LS1 2 or 3.
04-09-2015, 10:11 AM
#48
TECH Veteran
For clueless guys that just look at peak numbers yes they will be immediately drawn to this unit for that reason alone. For the majority of us, especially on the forums here, will probably choose whichever one gives better power throughtout the RPM range rather than just at 6000+.
Personal speculation only, but I'd imagine the MSD intake to actually lose torque throughout the range in a smaller less radical setup (eg. 34x-40x engines). At that point, I'd still go with a FAST.
But I'll leave this last point as just that, speculation, until someone actually does a similar comparison on an LS1 2 or 3.
Personal speculation only, but I'd imagine the MSD intake to actually lose torque throughout the range in a smaller less radical setup (eg. 34x-40x engines). At that point, I'd still go with a FAST.
But I'll leave this last point as just that, speculation, until someone actually does a similar comparison on an LS1 2 or 3.
It's not all about peak like you mention.... I like to have a strong average number too!!
04-09-2015, 10:26 AM
#49
For clueless guys that just look at peak numbers yes they will be immediately drawn to this unit for that reason alone. For the majority of us, especially on the forums here, will probably choose whichever one gives better power throughtout the RPM range rather than just at 6000+.
Personal speculation only, but I'd imagine the MSD intake to actually lose torque throughout the range in a smaller less radical setup (eg. 34x-40x engines). At that point, I'd still go with a FAST.
But I'll leave this last point as just that, speculation, until someone actually does a similar comparison on an LS1 2 or 3.
Personal speculation only, but I'd imagine the MSD intake to actually lose torque throughout the range in a smaller less radical setup (eg. 34x-40x engines). At that point, I'd still go with a FAST.
But I'll leave this last point as just that, speculation, until someone actually does a similar comparison on an LS1 2 or 3.
04-09-2015, 10:47 AM
#50
however look at the average power numbers , I posted them on the second sheet. The msd is slightly higher overall.
Same for the power, 411.039 vs. 410.506...that's half a hp on average accross the range.
I don't think anyone's going to tell the difference between half a hp.
04-09-2015, 10:56 AM
#51
You must remember that the dyno takes that average from 2500 rpm to redline , not 5k rpm to redline . I don't know about you, but I personally don't race from 2500 rpm. Let's be honest, two identical cars, one with a fast one with a msd. It's going to be a drivers race, but from a pure numbers point of view , the msd wins in the rpm ranges these motors are raced.
04-09-2015, 11:10 AM
#52
it all depends on what kind of racing you do. If its street roll racing where you start in your rpm range that gives you the best power, then the MSD will be the better option. If you road race or drag race, having an intake that's not shining only in the 5k-7k range will suit you much better. I'd take the FAST based on this comparison.
04-09-2015, 11:33 AM
#53
I don't know about you, but I personally don't race from 2500 rpm. Let's be honest, two identical cars, one with a fast one with a msd. It's going to be a drivers race, but from a pure numbers point of view , the msd wins in the rpm ranges these motors are raced.
I'm not trying to dog the intake, seems like it's a very nice piece. However I question how much better or faster a car can be with an extra 9hp at the top of the RPM range (and again that's only on those 100% high speed racing types).
04-09-2015, 11:37 AM
#55
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
I like the gain th msd has at high rpm. I really don't care if I lose tq at 2500-3000. I don't this particular test is a good one for the msd although probably good for the average guy with a cam.
For me personally I would never use that cam.....not even with the fast. I don't want a cam that does not extend my rpm range.....especially in a ls7. All the goods are there to spin it harder.
With that said put a real cam in it and run that bitch to 7500.
For me personally I would never use that cam.....not even with the fast. I don't want a cam that does not extend my rpm range.....especially in a ls7. All the goods are there to spin it harder.
With that said put a real cam in it and run that bitch to 7500.
04-09-2015, 11:44 AM
#57
The fast looks to make more torque or at least the same torque all the way up. The reason the numbers look the same is because the msd carries the torque a little better past 6k however at 6k you're not worried about torque so who cares. But for roll racing the fast would be making a tad more torque at various rpms.
I think for the cathedral people and largely for the rectangular guys the jury is still out they simply mirror each other too well. I want to see more tests on milder setups which is what people people run, rather than really radical stuff like this. Also I feel the cathedral heads may be different since they like different intake variations and dont have the intake head flow the ls3 and ls7 heads do. If 2 same cars raced i'd flip a coin for the winner, they're that close.
What I'm not so sure of and this is purely conjecture so dont put any claim in it but when you look at the fast92 compared to the 102 and then say an ls6 to a fast 92 you'll notice that even though the runners are different the intakes are alll designed to be better all around than stock just like the msd is. However when you look at all those curves the 102 will make 8-9 hp continuously from the beginning of the pulll all the way up and the same for the fast 92 over an ls6.....Point being is that the msd is close enough in design where I find it odd that for the whole curve they're the same but right at the last few hundred rpm it pulls away a hair. i just have never seen an intake do that. Usually you gain the whole curve like with a fast over an ls6 or 102 over a 92 up. With hi rise intakes the trade off is down low tq (pretty decent loss) for a curve that starts to pull away from 4500 or so and with truck style intakes you make tq and power low but it falls off fast up top, not the case here however. I would just like to see more testing on various setups.
I think for the cathedral people and largely for the rectangular guys the jury is still out they simply mirror each other too well. I want to see more tests on milder setups which is what people people run, rather than really radical stuff like this. Also I feel the cathedral heads may be different since they like different intake variations and dont have the intake head flow the ls3 and ls7 heads do. If 2 same cars raced i'd flip a coin for the winner, they're that close.
What I'm not so sure of and this is purely conjecture so dont put any claim in it but when you look at the fast92 compared to the 102 and then say an ls6 to a fast 92 you'll notice that even though the runners are different the intakes are alll designed to be better all around than stock just like the msd is. However when you look at all those curves the 102 will make 8-9 hp continuously from the beginning of the pulll all the way up and the same for the fast 92 over an ls6.....Point being is that the msd is close enough in design where I find it odd that for the whole curve they're the same but right at the last few hundred rpm it pulls away a hair. i just have never seen an intake do that. Usually you gain the whole curve like with a fast over an ls6 or 102 over a 92 up. With hi rise intakes the trade off is down low tq (pretty decent loss) for a curve that starts to pull away from 4500 or so and with truck style intakes you make tq and power low but it falls off fast up top, not the case here however. I would just like to see more testing on various setups.
Last edited by redbird555; 04-09-2015 at 11:53 AM.
04-09-2015, 01:14 PM
#58
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fast looks to make more torque or at least the same torque all the way up. The reason the numbers look the same is because the msd carries the torque a little better past 6k however at 6k you're not worried about torque so who cares. But for roll racing the fast would be making a tad more torque at various rpms.
Are you stoned? Do you know what horsepower is? It's a mathematical derivative of torque.
04-09-2015, 02:04 PM
#59
Tq pulls trailers and gets you off the line which is why people like low end tq. You ever hear people saying "Ya that cams sucks down low but up top it makes killer torque?" Hp at higher rpm ranges is more important to keep the momentum going. 10ft lbs of torque at 6k is much less important than it is at low rpm.
04-09-2015, 02:09 PM
#60
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it's tq x rpm/5252. But after your reach high the torque factor will always be decreasing and rpm will still be rising. They are a function of each other so they will be dependent but torque down low is much more important to get the car moving than at high rpms. So the point being is that over 5200 rpm 10 ft lbs of torque isn't nearly as important as it is at 3800 say.
Tq pulls trailers and gets you off the line which is why people like low end tq. You ever hear people saying "Ya that cams sucks down low but up top it makes killer torque?" Hp at higher rpm ranges is more important to keep the momentum going. 10ft lbs of torque at 6k is much less important than it is at low rpm.
Tq pulls trailers and gets you off the line which is why people like low end tq. You ever hear people saying "Ya that cams sucks down low but up top it makes killer torque?" Hp at higher rpm ranges is more important to keep the momentum going. 10ft lbs of torque at 6k is much less important than it is at low rpm.