FAST 92mm Intake Vs FAST LSXR 102mm Intake... RESULTS INSIDE!!!
03-18-2010, 09:02 PM
#22
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Anyone remember what a 346 ran like with a hogged out set of overly ported heads? Like a dog down low, but really shined above 5000 rpms. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the 346 probably isn't the ideal sized motor for a tb of that size. Just saying, I'll defer to Ron and his opinion on the subject if cares to do so......RON ?
03-19-2010, 12:03 AM
#25
10 Second Club
iTrader: (66)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RON! Thank You for taking the time out of your busy schedule to test these 2 intakes and then posting the comparisons. This helps ALOT!
I too will be getting a FAST 102 for my 403.
Just wanted to say Thanks, And very nice gains for a small cubed engine setup.
James
I too will be getting a FAST 102 for my 403.
Just wanted to say Thanks, And very nice gains for a small cubed engine setup.
James
03-19-2010, 05:44 AM
#26
That's great results, sucks that I have a Venegance ported 90, but oh well. Good to know that there are better options out there when it's time to step up to a bigger cube motor.
I'm sure that with a bigger cube motor, with better flowing heads, the 102 will shine even more.
I'm sure that with a bigger cube motor, with better flowing heads, the 102 will shine even more.
03-19-2010, 07:03 AM
#27
Thanx guys!! Glad to help!!!
One thing to note.. Please remember both of these intakes were Vengeance ported intakes... If you purchase a stock 102mm intake you will more than likely not see the gains posted in this thread!!!
Stay tuned for testing on a stroker coming soon!!
One thing to note.. Please remember both of these intakes were Vengeance ported intakes... If you purchase a stock 102mm intake you will more than likely not see the gains posted in this thread!!!
Stay tuned for testing on a stroker coming soon!!
03-19-2010, 11:24 AM
#29
Anyone remember what a 346 ran like with a hogged out set of overly ported heads? Like a dog down low, but really shined above 5000 rpms. I'm going to hazard a guess and say that the 346 probably isn't the ideal sized motor for a tb of that size. Just saying, I'll defer to Ron and his opinion on the subject if cares to do so......RON ?
Different concept with throttle bodies and dry flow manifolds.
The TB is simply an air blade.....its not metering fuel where a large entry way might hurt proper atomization of fuel. You almost cant have too big a TB but at some point you will not see any gains from going larger and the "tunability" becomes close to impossible because you uncover so much air too quickly. BTW, I personally dont believe most of the gains here are from the larger TB (entry way) of the manifold. IMO the runner design is slightly better optimized than the original 90/92 series.
And the jury is still out on the ease (or difficulty) of tuning the large 102mm TB's, but where there is a will there is a way and my guess is its going to be more challenging on the Vette crowd or any other application running an ETC style 102 TB.
Looking more and more like the new 102 is a nice shot in the arm for all the LSx enthusiasts....and hats off to the testing provided by the guys at Vengeance. My guess is other shops will start chiming in soon as well but its nice these guys got the info out sooner than later. I knew a couple of months ago I liked the design (and it looked better on the flowbench both before and especially after porting), but nothing like seeing the numbers on the dyno to back up some of the airflow data (which when discussing intakes especially, is only a small part of what makes for a better design)
-Tony
03-19-2010, 11:35 AM
#30
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Burbs of Detroit
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks for the clarification on my less then accurate comment Tony. I guess I was basing it partly on the difficulty that 2 tuners had dialing in the 95 mm tb. One tuner had my car running perfect with the 90mm, but when the 95 was put on and the tune had to be reworked they just didn't quite hit it out of the park. Mike C at Vengeance worked and worked until he got it right, and drivability (no bucking, surging, stalling etc) was a true testament.
Sorry about my post, I guess I had my idea mixed up a bit. I was thinking the velocity of the air into the intake would be reduced with a larger opening, and the little 346 motor aka "an air pump" wouldn't require that much capacity until the upper RPMS.
Is my thinking still flawed ?
Sorry about my post, I guess I had my idea mixed up a bit. I was thinking the velocity of the air into the intake would be reduced with a larger opening, and the little 346 motor aka "an air pump" wouldn't require that much capacity until the upper RPMS.
Is my thinking still flawed ?
03-19-2010, 11:49 AM
#32
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the results ron, wish i kinda waited a few weeks instead of buyin this used ported 92/92 from someone that was actually done by vengeance haha. Oh well money is too tight now a days.
03-19-2010, 01:00 PM
#33
Thanks for the clarification on my less then accurate comment Tony. I guess I was basing it partly on the difficulty that 2 tuners had dialing in the 95 mm tb. One tuner had my car running perfect with the 90mm, but when the 95 was put on and the tune had to be reworked they just didn't quite hit it out of the park. Mike C at Vengeance worked and worked until he got it right, and drivability (no bucking, surging, stalling etc) was a true testament.
Sorry about my post, I guess I had my idea mixed up a bit. I was thinking the velocity of the air into the intake would be reduced with a larger opening, and the little 346 motor aka "an air pump" wouldn't require that much capacity until the upper RPMS.
Is my thinking still flawed ?
Sorry about my post, I guess I had my idea mixed up a bit. I was thinking the velocity of the air into the intake would be reduced with a larger opening, and the little 346 motor aka "an air pump" wouldn't require that much capacity until the upper RPMS.
Is my thinking still flawed ?
Regarding your "flawed thinking" as you put it, Im sure alot of people did and still do think the same. But what most are missing is you need to concentrate on whats important....its not the size of the intake opening (102 vs 90 or 92).....whats most important is the runner itself and in regards to that the new 102 is similar in shape, length, and cross section to the older stuff....just better designed IMO.
The key is the entire intake tract (intake port of head and intake runner of manifold) is very similar with the new 102 intake, just the flow path is improved from the slightly different runner shape/design of the newer manifold (its more optimized).
The actual front opening of the plenum (the "102" part) could be 200 mm in diameter, but the ports inside where the air is entering each port is the real "meat and potato portion" of the manifold design and that dictates what type of RPM range and power capacity the manifold is capable of properly feeding based on runner length, taper, shape, and CSA (cross sectional area).
Hope this clears it up a little....
-Tony
03-19-2010, 01:45 PM
#35
I knew a couple of months ago I liked the design (and it looked better on the flowbench both before and especially after porting), but nothing like seeing the numbers on the dyno to back up some of the airflow data (which when discussing intakes especially, is only a small part of what makes for a better design)
-Tony
-Tony
Would you mind sharing some of the flow results?
03-19-2010, 03:02 PM
#38
thanks Ron for all the testing you did. Now I know when I get my 408 ready there is another intake that is even better than the 92. maybe now we will see a stock 92 versus a stock 102 fast on an LS1 and bigger cubbed motor.
How much would it be to port the 102 Ron???
How much would it be to port the 102 Ron???
03-19-2010, 03:11 PM
#39
.....whats most important is the runner itself and in regards to that the new 102 is similar in shape, length, and cross section to the older stuff....just better designed IMO.
The key is the entire intake tract (intake port of head and intake runner of manifold) is very similar with the new 102 intake, just the flow path is improved from the slightly different runner shape/design of the newer manifold (its more optimized).
-Tony
The key is the entire intake tract (intake port of head and intake runner of manifold) is very similar with the new 102 intake, just the flow path is improved from the slightly different runner shape/design of the newer manifold (its more optimized).
-Tony
Larry
03-19-2010, 11:04 PM
#40
Yes....its still the same unfortunately, but it has much more generous radius's in the corners better matching most typical aftermarket heads. One of the slight design improvements I generalized earlier.
-Tony