Intake test ( n/a )
Once again I gotta say there was no boost present in the test. I only mentioned a high overlap cam as that would be what would suit a very short runner in a naturally aspirated combo like the Vic Jr. From a boosted perspective the test might be somewhat useful If you believe boost doesnt skew the results much.
Last edited by ramairroughneck; Aug 8, 2015 at 09:33 PM.
I have a FAST 102 on my NA LS1. It has had issues with the gasket between the halves as it is. I wouldn't trust it with much boost.
Good intake though.
I don't think FAST has released the adjustable runner version yet. I took mine all apart, pretty cool design.
I run the Pro Flow on my 5.3 turbo. Chosen strictly for looks. Martin designed my cam with the intake in mind.
Interesting, my 5.3 really favors high rpm. Just like the intake.
The TBSS looks very appealing. Great torque and respectable top end.
A quick check showed many new ones avail for less than $150.
A simple adapter to run our fav stock cable TB.
Ron
Good intake though.
I don't think FAST has released the adjustable runner version yet. I took mine all apart, pretty cool design.
I run the Pro Flow on my 5.3 turbo. Chosen strictly for looks. Martin designed my cam with the intake in mind.
Interesting, my 5.3 really favors high rpm. Just like the intake.
The TBSS looks very appealing. Great torque and respectable top end.
A quick check showed many new ones avail for less than $150.
A simple adapter to run our fav stock cable TB.
Ron
Thread Starter
9 Second Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,616
Likes: 185
From: Norn Iron
I couldnt disagree more. There is a very high percentage of people on this forum using custom cams from Martin, LJMS, and Kip/Cam Motion. I think those cams are proven to work. They sell enough that they have narrowed down the selections to fit exactly with your setup. They are not just guesing. A lot of trial and error got them to this point. The same could be said about many of the other vendors that build cars that get raced every weekend. They see a wide variety of combos and know their stuff when its time to spec a cam.
Until multiple cams are actually chosen and tested you nor anyone else can say what is optimal for any build...as with only a single grind that is not a proper testing procedure.
That would be like going to a dyno for a tune, doing one single pull using tuning based on experience and just leaving it there. After all, the tuners experience should get it perfect straight away ?
Nope, they will spend time fine tuning things to ensure they get the best from the combo. That isnt to say that first guess might not be very good...but it will be a miracle if they get it absolutely spot on first go.
Obviously it would be very expensive and impractical to do that for camshafts though, but that doesnt change the facts
And of course there is boost...ie air pressure involved in the test. It may not be what you perceive as positive boost pressure, but there is still atmospheric pressure at play. One thing seems clear, whilst boost can overcome a lot of inefficiencies in a setup, having a good base airflow ability to start from is always a good thing.
That cam is about as good of compromise for the single plane to the OEM long runner that I have seen for a test.
There is is 13* overlap at .050 on that cam... If your all excited about overlap that is as more than any of the off the shelf tick, ljms, ect off the shelf turbo cams
If anything is suited to the OEM type manifold and not the single plane on that cam is the IVC but that is assuming it was installed at a 113 ICL and not any advance
That test IS and excellent test of the trend
And boost is irrelevant
There is is 13* overlap at .050 on that cam... If your all excited about overlap that is as more than any of the off the shelf tick, ljms, ect off the shelf turbo cams
If anything is suited to the OEM type manifold and not the single plane on that cam is the IVC but that is assuming it was installed at a 113 ICL and not any advance
That test IS and excellent test of the trend
And boost is irrelevant
Flow velocities do not drastically change, or much at all when the drive pressure is kept in line
It's a positive displacement pump. The only thing you are playing with is VE
And if anything on a typical turbo setup velocity is less for a given rpm vs NA since VE is less
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
If an engine is a “mechanically fixed” displacement pump, then displaced CFM shouldn’t change with added boost. That said, how would an “optimal” NA cam differ from an “optimal” turbo cam on the same engine if turbo drive pressure remained at 1:1 or better?
Restricted User
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,192
Likes: 109
From: Ohio
Would a turbo really change the port velocity’s on the intake side? Or just increase charge density?
If an engine is a “mechanically fixed” displacement pump, then displaced CFM shouldn’t change with added boost. That said, how would an “optimal” NA cam differ from an “optimal” turbo cam on the same engine if turbo drive pressure remained at 1:1 or better?
If an engine is a “mechanically fixed” displacement pump, then displaced CFM shouldn’t change with added boost. That said, how would an “optimal” NA cam differ from an “optimal” turbo cam on the same engine if turbo drive pressure remained at 1:1 or better?
It is true that CFM shouldn't increase with pressure. CFM has no direct correlation with pressure, and therefore 300 CFM at STP is still 300 CFM at 200 PSI. This is why you don't need huge head ports for a turbo setup. If the port isn't a restriction N/A, it won't be a restriction with more pressure. But the air is not only being forced in via positive pressure, its also being drawn in by the vacuum created in the cylinder via the piston. You get a higher pressure differential, and a larger amount of CFM. The CFM increase doesn't have any direct relation with the amount of pressure differential, it has to due with the increased velocity caused by it.
Camshaft plays a huge role. Positive overlap will leave pressure from the exhaust in the cylinder, decreasing the differential and reducing flow. Negative overlap will increase it.
Like rotary1307cc said, a blower is a best case scenario. Far less exhaust pressure, maximum pressure differential. That doesn't mean it can't be made to work with a turbo in an ideal setup.
Thread Starter
9 Second Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,616
Likes: 185
From: Norn Iron
The more I flick through all those graphs, it really does show that all of the non OEM style intakes actually performed ***** !
Yes a couple may have done a little better right above 6k...but the losses below that are poor. Some just barely match the base LS1 plastic intake.
The carb intakes were some of the worst performers
Yes a couple may have done a little better right above 6k...but the losses below that are poor. Some just barely match the base LS1 plastic intake.
The carb intakes were some of the worst performers
The more I flick through all those graphs, it really does show that all of the non OEM style intakes actually performed ***** !
Yes a couple may have done a little better right above 6k...but the losses below that are poor. Some just barely match the base LS1 plastic intake.
The carb intakes were some of the worst performers
Yes a couple may have done a little better right above 6k...but the losses below that are poor. Some just barely match the base LS1 plastic intake.
The carb intakes were some of the worst performers
And not a single plug was read that day.
IDK about plastic intake land, but OEM LT1 Gen 2 intakes like to run lean and rich pending distance from TB cylinder wise. I am pretty content to have a much more balanced air distribution with my single plane. My plugs all look very consistent across the bores.
(granted I am in the slow retard class with no options of plastic front feeders anyway
)
IDK about plastic intake land, but OEM LT1 Gen 2 intakes like to run lean and rich pending distance from TB cylinder wise. I am pretty content to have a much more balanced air distribution with my single plane. My plugs all look very consistent across the bores.
(granted I am in the slow retard class with no options of plastic front feeders anyway
) So my question. Is the fast 102 going to get me gains on my boosted setup? I have a p1sc on 6lbs of boost... I started wanting a fast after reading a bunch of post's on how bad the ls2 intakes were and than seen the gains of the fast 102... Should I see gains with a 102 with boost or not!???
Do you honestly think a carb does a better job “cooling” the mixture than fuel injection? ...Think about it.
Do we want a cooler Air/Fuel charge before the combustion chamber or IN the combustion chamber?
A carb’s Air/Fuel mixture is introduced farther upstream than in FI. Causing the A/F charge to be exposed to more of the intake manifold/runner before it gets to the CC. Fuel flashing in the intake results in the “cool to the touch” intake manifold, which leads many to think a CARB does a better job at cooling. In reality, a carb is wasting energy used to cool the intake manifold that would be much better spent cooling the CC itself. Also a carb does a poor job atomizing fuel compared to FI.
Ideally you want the fuel introduced as close to the CC as possible in as fine a mixture as possible. This will have the most dramatic effect on CC temperature reduction. Direct injection engines are a great example of this.
Last edited by Forcefed86; Aug 11, 2015 at 01:59 PM.
I am no engineer for sure but I have read my whole life that as fuel atomizes it cools air. I can only guess that there is more time to atomize and cool the air before it reaches the chamber with a carb than there ever would be with a conventional fuel injector located at the end of the port. When talking about direct injection the massive amount of pressure atomizes the fuel in the chamber much better than a carb or an injector at #58 pounds ever could. You cant say its fuel placement only. You are leaving out the other component as to why its better-pressure.
Last edited by ramairroughneck; Aug 11, 2015 at 10:11 AM.
Heres a carb/fi test from a couple years back that Hotrod conducted using a Hi-Ram.
Is fuel injection really the hot setup? When it comes to power production, the results of our Carburetor vs Fuel Injection test indicate that simple carburetion can more than hold its own against modern fuel injection. The versatility of Holley's Hi-Ram intake allowed us to directly compare EFI and a single, 102mm throttle-body against a pair of Holley 750 HP carburetors. The key to this back-to-back test was the two-piece Hi-Ram intake, which is designed to accept a number of different upper manifolds. For our test, we chose to compare the single-throttle-body EFI to a dual-quad upper intake. As indicated by the power numbers, the pair of carburetors not only offered more power but also improved the power output through most of the rev range. Credit for the majority of the power goes to the intake-charge cooling offered by the carburetion.
EFI Carbs
RPM HP TQ HP TQ
3,000 266 466 271 474
3,300 313 498 306 487
3,600 356 519 361 527
3,900 405 546 408 550
4,200 459 574 463 579
4,500 518 605 528 616
4,800 557 609 571 625
5,100 596 614 612 630
5,400 627 610 648 631
5,700 657 605 678 625
6,000 684 598 701 614
6,300 694 578 709 591
6,600 704 560 720 573
6,900 713 543 724 551
7,000 711 533 720 540
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3iWFcnHCW
Is fuel injection really the hot setup? When it comes to power production, the results of our Carburetor vs Fuel Injection test indicate that simple carburetion can more than hold its own against modern fuel injection. The versatility of Holley's Hi-Ram intake allowed us to directly compare EFI and a single, 102mm throttle-body against a pair of Holley 750 HP carburetors. The key to this back-to-back test was the two-piece Hi-Ram intake, which is designed to accept a number of different upper manifolds. For our test, we chose to compare the single-throttle-body EFI to a dual-quad upper intake. As indicated by the power numbers, the pair of carburetors not only offered more power but also improved the power output through most of the rev range. Credit for the majority of the power goes to the intake-charge cooling offered by the carburetion.
EFI Carbs
RPM HP TQ HP TQ
3,000 266 466 271 474
3,300 313 498 306 487
3,600 356 519 361 527
3,900 405 546 408 550
4,200 459 574 463 579
4,500 518 605 528 616
4,800 557 609 571 625
5,100 596 614 612 630
5,400 627 610 648 631
5,700 657 605 678 625
6,000 684 598 701 614
6,300 694 578 709 591
6,600 704 560 720 573
6,900 713 543 724 551
7,000 711 533 720 540
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3iWFcnHCW
Restricted User
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 7,192
Likes: 109
From: Ohio
I am no engineer for sure but I have read my whole life that as fuel atomizes it cools air. I can only guess that there is more time to atomize and cool the air before it reaches the chamber with a carb than there ever would be with a conventional fuel injector located at the end of the port. When talking about direct injection the massive amount of pressure atomizes the fuel in the chamber much better than a carb or an injector at #58 pounds ever could. You cant say its fuel placement only. You are leaving out the other component as to why its better-pressure.
The only upside to this is slightly more dense intake air passing through the heads/valves. And I mean SLIGHTLY, because air expands 1/273 of its own volume for every degree C* that it increases. So if the air in the carb setup is cooled by 27.3 C* (~50 F*), then it will be 10% more dense and carry 10* more oxygen.
Honestly, the power increase probably comes from the dual-quad carb setup giving more even fuel distribution and a more direct air-flow path.
Thread Starter
9 Second Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 13,616
Likes: 185
From: Norn Iron
Heres a carb/fi test from a couple years back that Hotrod conducted using a Hi-Ram.
Is fuel injection really the hot setup? When it comes to power production, the results of our Carburetor vs Fuel Injection test indicate that simple carburetion can more than hold its own against modern fuel injection. The versatility of Holley's Hi-Ram intake allowed us to directly compare EFI and a single, 102mm throttle-body against a pair of Holley 750 HP carburetors. The key to this back-to-back test was the two-piece Hi-Ram intake, which is designed to accept a number of different upper manifolds. For our test, we chose to compare the single-throttle-body EFI to a dual-quad upper intake. As indicated by the power numbers, the pair of carburetors not only offered more power but also improved the power output through most of the rev range. Credit for the majority of the power goes to the intake-charge cooling offered by the carburetion.
EFI Carbs
RPM HP TQ HP TQ
3,000 266 466 271 474
3,300 313 498 306 487
3,600 356 519 361 527
3,900 405 546 408 550
4,200 459 574 463 579
4,500 518 605 528 616
4,800 557 609 571 625
5,100 596 614 612 630
5,400 627 610 648 631
5,700 657 605 678 625
6,000 684 598 701 614
6,300 694 578 709 591
6,600 704 560 720 573
6,900 713 543 724 551
7,000 711 533 720 540
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3iWFcnHCW
Is fuel injection really the hot setup? When it comes to power production, the results of our Carburetor vs Fuel Injection test indicate that simple carburetion can more than hold its own against modern fuel injection. The versatility of Holley's Hi-Ram intake allowed us to directly compare EFI and a single, 102mm throttle-body against a pair of Holley 750 HP carburetors. The key to this back-to-back test was the two-piece Hi-Ram intake, which is designed to accept a number of different upper manifolds. For our test, we chose to compare the single-throttle-body EFI to a dual-quad upper intake. As indicated by the power numbers, the pair of carburetors not only offered more power but also improved the power output through most of the rev range. Credit for the majority of the power goes to the intake-charge cooling offered by the carburetion.
EFI Carbs
RPM HP TQ HP TQ
3,000 266 466 271 474
3,300 313 498 306 487
3,600 356 519 361 527
3,900 405 546 408 550
4,200 459 574 463 579
4,500 518 605 528 616
4,800 557 609 571 625
5,100 596 614 612 630
5,400 627 610 648 631
5,700 657 605 678 625
6,000 684 598 701 614
6,300 694 578 709 591
6,600 704 560 720 573
6,900 713 543 724 551
7,000 711 533 720 540
Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...#ixzz3iWFcnHCW
Which also makes it so surprising that the dual carb test in the link I posted....actually performed so poorly.
There will always be other factors, but if you go all out IMO the fuel injected setup will always offer better performance, simply through accuracy of fuel metering if nothing else.
That isnt to say carbs cannot perform very very good too though
Gains per $$$, it looks like that Wieand intake probably offers the best all round balance unless the TBSS intake can be had cheap.