Generation III External Engine LS1 | LS6 | Bolt-Ons | Intakes | Exhaust | Ignition | Accessories
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

FAST 92mm Intake Vs FAST LSXR 102mm Intake... RESULTS INSIDE!!!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-20-2010 | 04:03 AM
  #41  
Soul TKR's Avatar
TECH Junkie

iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 2
From: San Diego, CA
Default

hmmm.... thanks for chiming in Tony.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i get the slight hint that you are not head over heals for the new 102. You pointed out the optimizations, but seems that you sort of liked the 90/92's better? Did I read into it too much, or are my internet mind reading abilities correct?
Old 03-20-2010 | 06:19 AM
  #42  
Canada's Avatar
11 Second Club

iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 421
Likes: 1
From: St.Louis
Default

Everything I read up until this has said there is nothing to port on the new 102. Have any pics of the port work? Would also like to see a ported 92 against a non ported 102.
Old 03-20-2010 | 07:51 AM
  #43  
SweetS10V8's Avatar
12 Second Club

iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,580
Likes: 3
From: Michigan
Default

Originally Posted by Canada
Everything I read up until this has said there is nothing to port on the new 102. Have any pics of the port work? Would also like to see a ported 92 against a non ported 102.
Get out your wallet, Ron accepts credit cards and cash. Call him. He will do the testing and you can post the results.
Old 03-20-2010 | 08:11 AM
  #44  
zacht's Avatar
TECH Fanatic

iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,021
Likes: 0
Default

this is pretty awesome news for the 346 guys! glad to see huge cubes aren't necessary for this intake...although big cubes are fun.

keep up the good work! ill be watching more results as they come in!
Old 03-20-2010 | 09:22 AM
  #45  
k0bun's Avatar
Teching In
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
From: Earth...I think I've been there before
Default

Nice!

Any opinion as to whether similar or better gains will be made going from a ported 90mm to a ported 102mm on a H/C LS2?
Old 03-20-2010 | 12:55 PM
  #46  
Spectre86's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (42)
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 38
From: Oregon
Default

Ron, any plans to do a test on Ported LSXR for ls3/l92
Old 03-20-2010 | 04:02 PM
  #47  
VIPRETR2's Avatar
10 Second Club
iTrader: (63)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 757
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
You mean does the floor of the intake sit lower than the floor of the intake port?

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
That's exactly what I was referring to. I was also curious if the "casting" lines that seem to run down the sides of each runner are hurting anything. Would it be worthwhile to epoxy those and smooth the runner? Thanks for the insight,

Larry
Old 03-20-2010 | 04:10 PM
  #48  
Soul TKR's Avatar
TECH Junkie

iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 2
From: San Diego, CA
Default

Originally Posted by VIPRETR2
That's exactly what I was referring to. I was also curious if the "casting" lines that seem to run down the sides of each runner are hurting anything. Would it be worthwhile to epoxy those and smooth the runner? Thanks for the insight,

Larry
I would venture to say that most people would say stay away from epoxying anything in the intake. The chance that it could break off and get sucked into the combustion chamber is not worth the risk IMO... I've seen it happen...
Old 03-20-2010 | 09:45 PM
  #49  
Tony Mamo @ AFR's Avatar
Flow Wizard
iTrader: (13)
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,197
Likes: 5
Default

Originally Posted by Soul TKR
hmmm.... thanks for chiming in Tony.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but i get the slight hint that you are not head over heals for the new 102. You pointed out the optimizations, but seems that you sort of liked the 90/92's better? Did I read into it too much, or are my internet mind reading abilities correct?
No....not at all.

I actually like the new design alot. Or should I say it has more potential than the old design after reworking it. Or to sum it up even better its a better piece out of the box and a better piece ported IMO (compared to the 90/92 series) and so far based on Ron's dyno results it's showing the same trend I see in design and airflow potential on running engines (I haven't personally dyno'ed one yet). Is it perfect??.....no....I would have done a few things differently but its a step up from the older design and I like the construction and fit and finish nicer as well.

Originally Posted by VIPRETR2
That's exactly what I was referring to. I was also curious if the "casting" lines that seem to run down the sides of each runner are hurting anything. Would it be worthwhile to epoxy those and smooth the runner? Thanks for the insight,

Larry
No....the casting lines aren't really an issue. In the new 245 head I cleared up the problem of the FAST sitting too low by slightly dropping the floor of the inlet port of the head....I figured the FAST on that head is going to be the manifold of choice for awhile and I wanted to optimize it with that particular manifold. I will post some pics in my official 245 release thread potentially this week.

-Tony
Old 03-21-2010 | 12:38 AM
  #50  
chrs1313's Avatar
10 Second Club
15 Year Member
iTrader: (24)
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 5,697
Likes: 4
Default

Originally Posted by Tony Mamo @ AFR
You mean does the floor of the intake sit lower than the floor of the intake port?

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
good to know...
Old 03-21-2010 | 11:00 AM
  #51  
Jimmyz's Avatar
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 1
From: Marietta, GA
Default

I will volunteer for the LS3 test if you'd like a guinea pig for the 102 setup with one MAJOR IF. That "IF" being we can tune it like it's tune now.
Old 03-22-2010 | 09:45 AM
  #52  
RX666's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati
Default

ah, finally.. the results i expected.
Old 03-22-2010 | 11:14 AM
  #53  
SLOC5LS6's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Default

Originally Posted by Canada
Everything I read up until this has said there is nothing to port on the new 102. Have any pics of the port work? Would also like to see a ported 92 against a non ported 102.
he said a ported FAST 92 against a non ported 102 was no gain.
Old 03-22-2010 | 04:58 PM
  #54  
RX666's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati
Default

Im going to assume that based off the design of this manifold, eventually they will introduce alternative configured runners you can swap into the manifold based off your setup.

Last edited by RX666; 03-22-2010 at 05:05 PM.
Old 03-23-2010 | 12:17 AM
  #55  
Soul TKR's Avatar
TECH Junkie

iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 3,543
Likes: 2
From: San Diego, CA
Default

Originally Posted by RX666
Im going to assume that based off the design of this manifold, eventually they will introduce alternative configured runners you can swap into the manifold based off your setup.
that would be a smart move...

but they'd probably charge like 2k for them
Old 03-23-2010 | 08:24 AM
  #56  
SweetS10V8's Avatar
12 Second Club

iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,580
Likes: 3
From: Michigan
Default

Originally Posted by Soul TKR
that would be a smart move...

but they'd probably charge like 2k for them
You must not have looked at the intake. You could simply pop out one runners and put in another, removable runners. We would only have to buy the runners.

I think people would start to cry if they did realease a race only runner. Everyone thinks they need "race" pieces on their street car. And wont realize that to make more peak horsepower, the intake would have to give up some torque in the low to midrange in order to make that peak power up top. As well as shift the RPM range higher.
Old 03-23-2010 | 08:23 PM
  #57  
RX666's Avatar
On The Tree
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati
Default

yea i think all they intend for you to port on this model is just the port area where you would port match it to the heads. Im talking **** out of my *** though, you have like the larry bird of intake manifold porting in here, ask him, im just some jerkoff in ohio.

haha
Old 03-25-2010 | 03:52 PM
  #58  
allngn_c5's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 1
From: Western Burbs of Detroit
Default

Just checking in. Hopefully theres an update soon with more testing and full results.
Old 03-26-2010 | 11:00 AM
  #59  
Ron@Vengeance's Avatar
Thread Starter
FormerVendor
iTrader: (51)
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 1
From: Cumming GA
Default

Stay tuned for testing of a Vengeance ported 102mm LSXR against a Vengeance ported 92mm on a 440 LS7 stroker early next week!!!
Old 03-26-2010 | 11:36 AM
  #60  
allngn_c5's Avatar
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 1
From: Western Burbs of Detroit
Default

Originally Posted by Ron@Vengeance
Stay tuned for testing of a Vengeance ported 102mm LSXR against a Vengeance ported 92mm on a 440 LS7 stroker early next week!!!
And hopefully my 402 on the following Tuesday if I can get in. What do you say Ron ?


Quick Reply: FAST 92mm Intake Vs FAST LSXR 102mm Intake... RESULTS INSIDE!!!



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:59 AM.