New Edelbrock LSx Intake Manifold at SEMA, claiming much more power than FAST
11-10-2008, 10:33 PM
#62
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Signing on, looking to see what the numbers are, what is it made of, and when it will be on the market. Hope it comes true, would like to see the prices on intakes drop as they are way too much for the power gains.
I know our intake prices our a bit cheaper the what the hemi guys are paying, but our engine series has been out longer and we should have seen prices drop by now.
I know our intake prices our a bit cheaper the what the hemi guys are paying, but our engine series has been out longer and we should have seen prices drop by now.
11-10-2008, 10:44 PM
#63
Staging Lane
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let it never be said that Edelbrock knows the meaning of subtle when it comes to putting their logo on ****. Haha... 
I hope this thing winds up being all that it's cracked up to be.
I hope this thing winds up being all that it's cracked up to be.
11-10-2008, 10:54 PM
#64
Here is a link for edelbrock's pdf of the intake. It shows the fuel rail kit they have too.
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...ewprod/4-6.pdf
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...ewprod/4-6.pdf
11-10-2008, 10:59 PM
#66
My .02 Looks like its fairly tall....not sure about an F-Body but I certainly question installation in a C5/C6 platform.
Also, why does every new challenger to the FAST throne compare their stuff to stock OEM intakes??....LOL
I mean while that info is certainly pertinent, the reality is everyone wants to see the data compared to the current and longstanding top dog....and we want to see the whole curve as well.
While I have made a few extra bucks tuning up the FAST product over the years, nothing would make me happier than someone actually raising the bar without destroying the lower RPM power by a significant amount.
I would trade 10 ft/lbs for 20 HP any day but I wouldn't want the opposite of that trade (give up 20 ft/lbs to gain 10 peak)....although in a BIG motor I would probably consider it. The current sheet metal designs usually sacrifice a ton of bottom end....more than I'M willing to trade for a street car. The new aluminum/carbon fibre composite intake looks interesting but once again no real world comparisons yet against the current champ.
Anyway....just had to lightheartedly vent and share an opinion.
With a 447 scheduled for next year, I'm all for a big flowing well designed intake to compliment it. Till further notice, a ported 92 FAST still looks like the intake of choice....hopefully that changes before its time to hit the dyno. For alot of applications though, the ported FAST runner length, cross section, and plenum volume still makes sense. Its only large strokers or aggressive medium sized strokers (383-416) that would benefit from a shorter runner design...the problem that's hard to get away from is much like cams, manifold designs are very much give and take....its extremely difficult to have your cake and eat it to as they say.
Regards,
Tony
Also, why does every new challenger to the FAST throne compare their stuff to stock OEM intakes??....LOL
I mean while that info is certainly pertinent, the reality is everyone wants to see the data compared to the current and longstanding top dog....and we want to see the whole curve as well.
While I have made a few extra bucks tuning up the FAST product over the years, nothing would make me happier than someone actually raising the bar without destroying the lower RPM power by a significant amount.
I would trade 10 ft/lbs for 20 HP any day but I wouldn't want the opposite of that trade (give up 20 ft/lbs to gain 10 peak)....although in a BIG motor I would probably consider it. The current sheet metal designs usually sacrifice a ton of bottom end....more than I'M willing to trade for a street car. The new aluminum/carbon fibre composite intake looks interesting but once again no real world comparisons yet against the current champ.
Anyway....just had to lightheartedly vent and share an opinion.
With a 447 scheduled for next year, I'm all for a big flowing well designed intake to compliment it. Till further notice, a ported 92 FAST still looks like the intake of choice....hopefully that changes before its time to hit the dyno. For alot of applications though, the ported FAST runner length, cross section, and plenum volume still makes sense. Its only large strokers or aggressive medium sized strokers (383-416) that would benefit from a shorter runner design...the problem that's hard to get away from is much like cams, manifold designs are very much give and take....its extremely difficult to have your cake and eat it to as they say.
Regards,
Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 11-11-2008 at 12:10 AM.
11-10-2008, 11:46 PM
#67
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (64)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Bakersfield, CA
Posts: 1,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of my builds use large converter (3500-4200) setups so low even if this intake gave up any torque below 4000rpm, it wouldnt matter. I called and had atech/summit add all the part numbers to their catalog today and do a price/availability inquiry with edelbrock today....
It appears summit will be selling it for around $399.99 from my phone call today
It appears summit will be selling it for around $399.99 from my phone call today
11-11-2008, 01:13 AM
#69
Staging Lane
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it say what TB it is supposed to run with or does it require a new one as well? Will that new fuel rail system be required to run? If that thing fits, its a helluva deal, but if it ends up being same price as a fast with all the 'extras'
11-11-2008, 01:58 AM
#70
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I wouldn't get something like that and then put a stock TB on it. Even if you spend 400 on the intake and another 300 on the TB, and then another 150 on fuel rails you are right at the price of a box stock unported FAST 92 sans TB.
11-11-2008, 03:34 AM
#71
this is interesting. would like to see what it does with an independent test as well, just like everybody else. any word when this will come out and if it does i do believe that FAST intakes will lose a lot of value!!
11-11-2008, 03:53 AM
#72
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the main reason people have something to say about the fast intake is because 98% of the politics towards is cost related ---- nothing more nothing less-
good things cost money-
my 2 cents-
11-11-2008, 05:42 AM
#73
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rochester,Ny
Posts: 1,433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edelcrap is still trying to stay in the LSX game????I will be very suprised if this is anything worth buying.I currently dont know of any good lsx parts made by edelbrock.Thay make good carbs though
11-11-2008, 07:24 AM
#77
11-11-2008, 07:54 AM
#78
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Shelbyville, IN
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed I have a feeling this will dissapoint most LS1 owners. Those runners look extremely short and will probably be worthless short of 7,000rpm.
FAST will probably still be king for street cars. I don't know much about this new 102mm intake; but if the runner cross sections are larger keeping the same length that will be badass. Although prob $$$$.
FAST will probably still be king for street cars. I don't know much about this new 102mm intake; but if the runner cross sections are larger keeping the same length that will be badass. Although prob $$$$.
11-11-2008, 08:07 AM
#79
On The Tree
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Somewhere down in Texas
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm also interested to see if you HAVE to use their fuel rail kit or if the stock fuel rails will fit.
