When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
No but I sure as hell dont leave at 6k lmao. Most people will leave the line at 3k or so on the street and higher at the track but not 6k and as I stated earlier everywhere under 6k the fast makes more torque giving you the advantage off the line.
BUT as I said once again the intakes are so close I dont see you switch from 1 to the other and gaining any performance at the track or losing anything.
To me the curve still looks a little weird as I have never seen an intake gain for 500 rpm if it mirrors the curve usually they make very close to the same power with tuning or something else being the difference. If the intake truly does make more power it usually effects the whole power band.
Last edited by redbird555; 04-09-2015 at 03:36 PM.
No but I sure as hell dont leave at 6k lmao. Most people will leave the line at 3k or so on the street and higher at the track but not 6k and as I stated earlier everywhere uner 6k the fast makes mroe torque giving you the advantage off the line.
BUT as I said once again the intakes are so close I dont see you switch from 1 to the other and gaining any performance at the track or losing anything.
To me the curve still looks a little weird as I have never seen an intae gain for 500 rpm if it mirrors the curve usually they make very close to the same power with tuning or something else being the difference. If the intake truly does make more power it usually effects the whole power band.
i'm not talking about the trivial difference between the new Wonder-intake and the old Wonder-intake.
It just gets old watching monkeys repeat the same misinformation. You said torque doesn't matter at 6k, and you're absolutely wrong. If you're driving around like a grandmother and you're that worried about tip-in response at 2500rpm, then what are you doing messing with hot rods? The entire goal is to make the car faster, and any amount of torque at higher rpm is faster than the same amount of torque at lower rpm if all other variables are addressed. Every. Damn. Time.
The entire goal is to make the car faster, and any amount of torque at higher rpm is faster than the same amount of torque at lower rpm if all other variables are addressed. Every. Damn. Time.
Yeah except not. I'd take 50rwtq from 2000rpm to 6000rpm than the same amount of torque from 6000rpm to redline.
Not every type of racing occurs at 6000rpm. Ever hear of road racing? I guarantee you a car with more torque midrange (like in the example above) will be a helluva lot faster around a track that a similar car but with more torque at the very limits of the RPM range.
So you're telling me that an optimized car with a 408 TFS 225 build (which would be pretty close to your midrange screamer) would be faster than the same car optimized for a Yates 360 small block?
Both make ~550 torque.
Accounting for variables (such as gearing, operating range, etc) a car with its torque peak higher will be faster. If cant turn the engine more than 500rpm past torque peak because you've failed to address the mechanical limitations, that's your bad. If your engine makes 50 ft/lbs more torque at 6000rpm, then don't short shift the damn thing and use the power band.
Nobody beats n/a records under a factory redline.
Originally Posted by redtan
Yeah except not. I'd take 50rwtq from 2000rpm to 6000rpm than the same amount of torque from 6000rpm to redline.
Not every type of racing occurs at 6000rpm. Ever hear of road racing? I guarantee you a car with more torque midrange (like in the example above) will be a helluva lot faster around a track that a similar car but with more torque at the very limits of the RPM range.
So you're telling me that an optimized car with a 408 TFS 225 build (which would be pretty close to your midrange screamer) would be faster than the same car optimized for a Yates 360 small block?
Both make ~550 torque.
Accounting for variables (such as gearing, operating range, etc) a car with its torque peak higher will be faster. If cant turn the engine more than 500rpm past torque peak because you've failed to address the mechanical limitations, that's your bad. If your engine makes 50 ft/lbs more torque at 6000rpm, then don't short shift the damn thing and use the power band.
Nobody beats n/a records under a factory redline.
You just posted a dyno graph of an engine revving to 8500 rpm to support your claim, and then mentioned 50ft lbs at 6k?
50 is just a TAD different than the 5-10 were talking about here if that.
You keep failing to realize I'm not talking about drag racing and/or roll racing here.
There's quite a difference between the engines NASCAR cars use and ones used the ALMS or Rolex series cars.
Put that NASCAR engine in road racer and it will get smoked all day long around any course. The same thing if you put an ALMS engine in a NASCAR it will get smoked around an oval track.
First, you're the only one talking about road racing. I'd be surprised if more than 2% of this board actively road raced.
If you put a faster engine in the car and it slows down, that means you ignored the rest of it, and that's your bad. I'll make sure and tell my buddies who road race to stop building good engines, because a little mid-range torque is all that you need. If your power band is higher up, then make the adjustments to the car and the car will be faster. It's that simple. You guys act like its impossible to have a strong power band that occurs at high rpm, but that little inch engine I posted the dyno to sure does alright for itself.
Again, I don't give a **** about road racing, and I don't care about whether this MSD intake is 1% better than the Fast manifold.
What bothers me are stupid statements like the one that I responded to that spread like wildfire because people don't want to spend the money or live with the concessions made to run faster.
Edit: ALMS is a restrictor plate series, so it's not exactly apples to apples. I also care even less about it now.
Originally Posted by redtan
You keep failing to realize I'm not talking about drag racing and/or roll racing here.
There's quite a difference between the engines NASCAR cars use and ones used the ALMS or Rolex series cars.
Put that NASCAR engine in road racer and it will get smoked all day long around any course. The same thing if you put an ALMS engine in a NASCAR it will get smoked around an oval track.
Wow, a decent thread sure got ruined by a bunch of fast owners with blinders on!..... I'd still like to see what those shorter runners are worth in a motor that peaks 500 or more rpm higher.
Will be interesting to compare it with a shorter runner fast and see if the biger plenum helps the MSD.
Wow, a decent thread sure got ruined by a bunch of fast owners with blinders on!..... I'd still like to see what those shorter runners are worth in a motor that peaks 500 or more rpm higher.
Will be interesting to compare it with a shorter runner fast and see if the biger plenum helps the MSD.
Indeed. I paid attention to the sigs and realized there was no use arguing No matter how you slice it, there will never be a dyno test that satisfies everyone on here. There will always be insinuations of trickery and/or manipulation by whomever carries out the test. Last, but certainly not least:
NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO SELL YOUR DAMN FAST!
Ryne hit the nail on the head if the first post and it's a shame it was was just glossed over:
Now if the customer has an Fast intake would I suggest upgrading to a MSD? I would say its not worth the investment, however if he had a factory intake, I'd say move into the MSD versus the Fast. In addition to the power gains, I like the fact that the msd utilizes the use of the production ls7 fuel and injectors. This means initial investment is less then the FAST unit, as the fast will require injector height adapters (or different length injectors) and a ls2/3 fuel rail (or aftermarket rails).
Here is something that people are not taking into account. The intake manifold needs to work in conjunction with the heads, cam, and exhaust. So on this specific setup, the gain was ~10hp, but on a different set of heads, say a set of MAST or Allpro with different runners and valve angles, the results may be different.
For drag racing you should be at least 4500 rpm and above the entire way if not higher.
My cam-only setup is 5500+ the whole pass.
Anything below that won't matter.
These ls motors want to basically be shifted as high as the motor will allow or the engine builder for that matter.
Never thought a few horsepower would cause an argument like this. The AFR of both pulls follow the power curve and where the AFR differs so does the power curve. I just think the MSD let a lot of folks down, I know I wanted to see major gains!
This thread has a very solid first post that contributes to the site greatly IMO. The rest that follows... come on guys. Throw a guy some smart *** comment and he replies back and gets bullied or people begin to back pedal and cry wolf? Grow up.
We have a real issue with the maturity level on this site. It comes from the average age of the owners going down over time. But, don't think this doesn't happen on other sites. Go to corvette forums, same thing, GTR forums, the same thing. I think the younger generation has "grown up" interacting with people online, so they haven't developed the tact of having a conversation.
We have a real issue with the maturity level on this site. It comes from the average age of the owners going down over time. But, don't think this doesn't happen on other sites. Go to corvette forums, same thing, GTR forums, the same thing. I think the younger generation has "grown up" interacting with people online, so they haven't developed the tact of having a conversation.
Yeah its way too easy to come off arrogant, rude, or just out right unsociable on the net. Things you post on the net can easy sound alot worse than intended. I just saw a post Tony Mamo put up in regards to a thread about porting a Fast 92. He made a statement that looked like it came right out of ******* territory based on the context of the thread. Maybe he didn't mean it to be that way, but it sure reads that way... I've been guilty of the same thing as well, and am trying to watch it. I think the majority of the people here come for useful info and are very passionate. Sometimes we let that control common sense
I would only put a Fast intake on a car ONLY if it's ported by Tony Mamo!!
The MSD looks good but like someone else had mentioned.... we as LS guys expected more than 10 horsepower difference.
I'd be interested to see if some simple port matching would make a difference. Unfortunately, I'm a bad test subject for this as I'm coming from a stock LS7 intake, not a Fast. It's looking like this intake may clear my hood after all with this new subframe (Mazda RX7). I can't be 100% certain, as Greg Good has my heads at the moment. Mocked up & sitting on the valley cover tho', the front of the MSD clears by about 3/8".... plenty of room in the back.
I have no idea how this looks with the lid off in regards to port alignment. I plan on touching it up, if it needs it, prior to heading back to the dyno. HioSSilver and I were talking offline about possibly dyno'ing ours back to back to see where they fall out. His LSXR has been Mamo ported. Might make for an interesting comparison. I'm fairly certain neither of us are expecting to see huge differences between the two given the limitations of the packaging.
For the people that keep bringing up the AFR difference (which with an ls7 on e85 doesn't effect power anyway ) the wideband in the midpipe attached to my hpt cable showed showed .1 difference throughout the curve . The afr measurement is from the tailpipe and frankly I wish I would have removed it from the graph , if I'd known we'd had so many "keyboard experts" chiming in and getting stuck on it. The fact is the msd and fast were close with the msd made slightly more average power, All of that gain from 5000 rpm on. Below that it sacrificed very little . To all these road racer guys, you guys are really in tune with your car if you can feel 1-3 ft on of tq differences on the road course ....
My car made the same power at 10:1 and 13:1 on e85. It didnt really make a difference, the only reason we messed with fueling much was to get it to take timing.
04-09-2015, 03:26 PM
No matter how you slice it, there will never be a dyno test that satisfies everyone on here. There will always be insinuations of trickery and/or manipulation by whomever carries out the test. Last, but certainly not least:
