What does it take to optimize your 102 FAST??
02-12-2011, 11:39 AM
#61
TECH Resident
iTrader: (23)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any results on the 245's yet? have they been released?
also, say if you port match your 102 setup to say afr 205'S (i have both) will that have repercussions towards your next set of aftermarket heads that you will want to fully optimize when you go to upgrade to bigger cubes/heads down the road?
can you also pm me a price to port match both.
thanks for the informative thread tony. -james
also, say if you port match your 102 setup to say afr 205'S (i have both) will that have repercussions towards your next set of aftermarket heads that you will want to fully optimize when you go to upgrade to bigger cubes/heads down the road?
can you also pm me a price to port match both.
thanks for the informative thread tony. -james
02-13-2011, 01:13 PM
#62
any results on the 245's yet? have they been released?
also, say if you port match your 102 setup to say afr 205'S (i have both) will that have repercussions towards your next set of aftermarket heads that you will want to fully optimize when you go to upgrade to bigger cubes/heads down the road?
can you also pm me a price to port match both.
thanks for the informative thread tony. -james
also, say if you port match your 102 setup to say afr 205'S (i have both) will that have repercussions towards your next set of aftermarket heads that you will want to fully optimize when you go to upgrade to bigger cubes/heads down the road?
can you also pm me a price to port match both.
thanks for the informative thread tony. -james
I'm building a 454 CID piece for myself right now that will feature that head. It should be on the dyno in about two months....three at the latest. Im really looking forward to seeing what this build is capable of.
Regarding the intake I would almost say the same job would apply to both heads....if I cut the port exits slightly big for the 205's it would still work well on them and only be slightly small for the 245 opening still being a good working piece. The opening of the port entrance isn't much different....its when you start heading into the bowls of the port that the really drastic changes in shape and CSA start to take place.
-Tony
02-13-2011, 01:26 PM
#63
I'm building a 454 CID piece for myself right now that will feature that head and be sent to MeentSS02 for testing in his '02 Camaro. It should be on the dyno in about two months....three at the latest. Im really looking forward to seeing what this build is capable of.
Can't wait to see the results, especially considering it will be solid roller?
02-13-2011, 04:47 PM
#64
No....I have a silver C5 I need to dust off with that new engine....LOL
Actually this will be a hyd. roller build....a decision I tortured myself over for many months. Im more a solid roller kind of guy but I knew the general public would be more receptive and excited about big power from a hydraulic (its alot less hassle for most) and truthfully a big part of me was curious what I could achieve with one as well paying extremely close attention to every detail to maximize valve control.
Also, what really put me over the edge was the fact I knew with this much engine and the looooong runner FAST intake I would be lucky to see a 7000 RPM usable power curve anyway, and I was pretty confident I could see really good valve control to that RPM. Probably set the rev limiter at 71-7200 max....these big inch small blocks tend to roll over quickly but Im doing all I can do to try and have it hang strong to 7K or so.
We shall see!
Cheers,
Tony
02-14-2011, 10:32 AM
#66
Launching!
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: northern indiana
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The runner is almost a perfect match to the 245 entrance (when I'm done)....if its inboard at all it may be .010 or so. Most of it is the angle of the shot which was also challenging to get focused properly. Plus, an intake a shade smaller than the port opening is fine and is actually the desired situation....it allows a little left and right shift when installed without creating a forward lip at the head (where now the intake port protrudes a little into the path of air)
The porting work on these plastic wonders has been a journey for me....
I have literally ported over 200 of them since I pioneered doing this in 04' when everyone thought I was crazy and wasting my time (it didn't need porting of course per the general opinion on the Internet). It took me approximately 12 hours back then but I have worked on continually refining the way I go about it so I'm moving the intake around less and anything I can do in an effort to be more efficient and save time including getting the right type of carbide bits that work better on the plastic. With all the refinements I have made in the way I approach the work and the fact I have done so many I can almost close my eyes (Im able to do neater more precise work much faster now on this plastic material which is tricky to work with), I have reduced my porting time at least 30% maybe even 35%. BUT....that is calculated doing pieces at a time and adding up all the minutes invested in each segment of the porting. Meaning it's impossible to grind for that many hours in a row without losing your hands to carpal tunnel related damage quickly if you attempt this on a regular basis. I already have damage to my right hand from the last 15-20 years of cylinder head and manifold work and wear a padded glove to reduce the vibrations that attack the nerves. Point is it seems it takes longer because I attack one of these projects pieces at a time by taking breaks on the Internet or working on something else to give my hands a rest in between the various stages of the work.
Also, if I didn't care about perfectly straight walls and perfectly contoured radius's and getting every port to look and size exactly the same I could do one of these in half the time but I just took the "art" out of the artwork and thats not what I'm about. I would rather cater to a smaller percentage of the market and put out work Im proud to put my name on.
Sorry for the long winded response but my answering with "it takes "X" amount of hours" is really scratching the surface as far as a response. Anyone who's attempted to do this right can vouch for the time it takes to do so, and my guess is most of those people are still likely removing less actual plastic than I am and the end results probably not as consistent. Also, the key is knowing what to remove and what not to and I haven't even touched on the hours invested on the flowbench to figure that out. Part of what you pay me for is all the R&D I have already invested....not just my hand skills with the grinder.
Thanks,
Tony
PS.....Christian, shoot me a PM about a 102 combo for your Vette and get me up to speed on the 364 I built for Gilles.
The porting work on these plastic wonders has been a journey for me....
I have literally ported over 200 of them since I pioneered doing this in 04' when everyone thought I was crazy and wasting my time (it didn't need porting of course per the general opinion on the Internet). It took me approximately 12 hours back then but I have worked on continually refining the way I go about it so I'm moving the intake around less and anything I can do in an effort to be more efficient and save time including getting the right type of carbide bits that work better on the plastic. With all the refinements I have made in the way I approach the work and the fact I have done so many I can almost close my eyes (Im able to do neater more precise work much faster now on this plastic material which is tricky to work with), I have reduced my porting time at least 30% maybe even 35%. BUT....that is calculated doing pieces at a time and adding up all the minutes invested in each segment of the porting. Meaning it's impossible to grind for that many hours in a row without losing your hands to carpal tunnel related damage quickly if you attempt this on a regular basis. I already have damage to my right hand from the last 15-20 years of cylinder head and manifold work and wear a padded glove to reduce the vibrations that attack the nerves. Point is it seems it takes longer because I attack one of these projects pieces at a time by taking breaks on the Internet or working on something else to give my hands a rest in between the various stages of the work.
Also, if I didn't care about perfectly straight walls and perfectly contoured radius's and getting every port to look and size exactly the same I could do one of these in half the time but I just took the "art" out of the artwork and thats not what I'm about. I would rather cater to a smaller percentage of the market and put out work Im proud to put my name on.
Sorry for the long winded response but my answering with "it takes "X" amount of hours" is really scratching the surface as far as a response. Anyone who's attempted to do this right can vouch for the time it takes to do so, and my guess is most of those people are still likely removing less actual plastic than I am and the end results probably not as consistent. Also, the key is knowing what to remove and what not to and I haven't even touched on the hours invested on the flowbench to figure that out. Part of what you pay me for is all the R&D I have already invested....not just my hand skills with the grinder.
Thanks,
Tony
PS.....Christian, shoot me a PM about a 102 combo for your Vette and get me up to speed on the 364 I built for Gilles.
02-14-2011, 11:09 AM
#67
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N. Falmouth MA
Posts: 4,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was wondering this too. Was thinking about port matching this myself, but I want to make sure I do it correctly. My intake ports, are prolly on the small-er side, and Was wondering if I just open the base of the intake out to match the same dimensions of the head port? On Tony's pics I noticed that the intake port was rather larger and he didn't hog the intake base out all the way. -Prolly for a good reason.
My ports measured to 1.016" at it's wider section towards the middle/bottom third of the port and slightly tapers toward the top. On a side note; any idea of the port size here? They're P+P'd 243s I never got any info for.
I'll smooth the runners out by hand, but I'm not looking at trying to port anything. Just looking to smooth out any casting bumps or "flash" I think it's called.
My ports measured to 1.016" at it's wider section towards the middle/bottom third of the port and slightly tapers toward the top. On a side note; any idea of the port size here? They're P+P'd 243s I never got any info for.
I'll smooth the runners out by hand, but I'm not looking at trying to port anything. Just looking to smooth out any casting bumps or "flash" I think it's called.
Anyone? Not looking to have people give away trade secrets, but I just want to make sure the port matching I'm looking to do is the right idea. I'm not gonna remove any material until I get an ok on stuff. I'll take some sandpaper to the runners, but that's it.
02-14-2011, 12:29 PM
#68
Its better to remove too little material than too much. There are some area's I purposely avoid with the grinder and other areas I go at rather aggressively to get the best results when I'm finished.
IMO, some things in life are better left alone or left to the true professionals....things that are specialized in nature and require experience and a "deft touch" if you will. At some level this becomes an artform of sorts....make no mistake about it.
Seriously, without any real experience or an eye of what to look out for your better off doing very minimal work. At least that still keeps the option of having it ported later without compromising and handicapping your own situation.
Just my .02
-Tony
12-20-2011, 09:47 PM
#72
Staging Lane
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 4 years ago, I had a complete package installed by a reputable shop in Dallas for my 2005 Corvette. It consisted of CNC Ported stock 243 heads by Lingenfelter, a small Lingenfelter cam, and LT headers. On 2 different dyno's in Austin, the car made 410 rwhp. I was disappointed.
I ported the stock LS2 intake manifold and it made 427 rwhp or 17 rwhp that the unported stock intake. Not bad but I heard the FAST 92 was better.
I then installed a ported a FAST 92 intake I did myself. I carefully ported the intake to match the CNC heads keeping the manifold ports as straight and tapered to match the heads. As Tony said, it takes a lot of time. I think I did it over 3-4 days. This was my first one but I think I did a very respectable job.
It dyno'd at 443 or about 33 rwhp over the stock LS2 intake. I was very happy. Of course, it was tuned each time because of the change in air flow. The increase in torque and power were about the same over the whole RPM range. If you have a cam and headers, the FAST intake manifold is a must. Porting to match the heads is a smart thing to do.
Since then, I put on a set of Yella Terra rocker arms and had it dyno'd again. The last dyno it made 457 rwhp and 417 rwtq. It idles smooth at 650 rpm and most people would not know it makes 100 rwhp more than stock. It starts and drives like stock until you go WOT. Exactly what I wanted.
I ported the stock LS2 intake manifold and it made 427 rwhp or 17 rwhp that the unported stock intake. Not bad but I heard the FAST 92 was better.
I then installed a ported a FAST 92 intake I did myself. I carefully ported the intake to match the CNC heads keeping the manifold ports as straight and tapered to match the heads. As Tony said, it takes a lot of time. I think I did it over 3-4 days. This was my first one but I think I did a very respectable job.
It dyno'd at 443 or about 33 rwhp over the stock LS2 intake. I was very happy. Of course, it was tuned each time because of the change in air flow. The increase in torque and power were about the same over the whole RPM range. If you have a cam and headers, the FAST intake manifold is a must. Porting to match the heads is a smart thing to do.
Since then, I put on a set of Yella Terra rocker arms and had it dyno'd again. The last dyno it made 457 rwhp and 417 rwtq. It idles smooth at 650 rpm and most people would not know it makes 100 rwhp more than stock. It starts and drives like stock until you go WOT. Exactly what I wanted.
Last edited by Mez; 12-20-2011 at 09:53 PM.
12-21-2011, 08:32 AM
#76
Ive thought of seeing if FAST would copy a "Mamo" intake. They could retool and somehow label the exterior of runners with Mamo as well.
Then give the Mamo intake a different part number, and pay Tony a royalty. Tony would make money without having to spend hours on each manifold.
Then give the Mamo intake a different part number, and pay Tony a royalty. Tony would make money without having to spend hours on each manifold.
12-21-2011, 10:51 AM
#77
IMO, I think there is just too many variables to make this beneficial in a production application.
Just as an example, Tony was saying he does the ports to the specific heads, which couldnt be done with a production intake unless one was made for each head.
Maybe im completely wrong in my thinking though?
Just as an example, Tony was saying he does the ports to the specific heads, which couldnt be done with a production intake unless one was made for each head.
Maybe im completely wrong in my thinking though?
12-21-2011, 01:39 PM
#78
IMO, I think there is just too many variables to make this beneficial in a production application.
Just as an example, Tony was saying he does the ports to the specific heads, which couldnt be done with a production intake unless one was made for each head.
Maybe im completely wrong in my thinking though?
Just as an example, Tony was saying he does the ports to the specific heads, which couldnt be done with a production intake unless one was made for each head.
Maybe im completely wrong in my thinking though?
How about a CNC "mamo" porting by some company. Then Tony could make different cylinder head versions; Stock port, AFR 210, AFR 230, etc, etc,.....
12-22-2011, 07:12 PM
#80
Sorry guys....
Year end and getting ready for the Holidays.....not to mention a dyno day or two thrown in as well.
Trying to get caught up here.
Bottom line is new tooling is expensive....and some of what I do stems from the fact tooling must have a certain amount of draft to pull parts from so there is taper built into the part thats not necessarily wanted or needed for optimum flow and performance results. Some of what I do to these intakes remedies tooling and typical production issues any cast component is going to deal with....not to mention these intakes have multiple cast components that fit together adding even more to the stacking of tolerances problem that i address with the grinder.
Sure....some of what I do (how i shape the finished runner) could be incorporated into a new mold but there would still be items that needed to be addressed with a production part if you were looking for all the money from the manifold.
Its not very different in the cylinder head business. We have tried to make high flowing as cast heads for years.....something we could offer the end user at a bargain price that still was capable of putting up the numbers. Its just not a viable situation (yet) and even the most modern of foundries simply cant get it done (but have come along way since even 10 years ago). We have to CNC everything to produce a truly efficient cylinder head....thats just the way it is and likely the way it will stay.
The FAST 102 is the best of bunch with a better overall design and much better construction than the older style intakes....but once again still leaves the door open for a guy like myself or anyone talented with a grinder to pick it up even further (its critical to know where to grind and where not to grind though....most of the amateur ported intakes I have seen had material removed in areas it hurts the flowpath....not ideal obviously). I modify thie new FAST 102 differently than the older style intakes because I am able to due to of it's different design (the way its constructed with a solid base and eight individual runners), allowing even more net results than the older stuff I ported which typically was worth 22-26 RWHP gains. My new program on these 102's should be worth 30 plus with a really good set of heads! Those are gains more associated with head swaps than intake swaps so the guys that complain about the money invested should really think again....sure its not cheap but the gains are very significant and more than justify the cost of admission.
Have a good Holiday everyone.....looking forward to 2012....finishing my 54' build and hunting for a 140 trap speed N/A in my C5!
-Tony
Year end and getting ready for the Holidays.....not to mention a dyno day or two thrown in as well.
Trying to get caught up here.
Bottom line is new tooling is expensive....and some of what I do stems from the fact tooling must have a certain amount of draft to pull parts from so there is taper built into the part thats not necessarily wanted or needed for optimum flow and performance results. Some of what I do to these intakes remedies tooling and typical production issues any cast component is going to deal with....not to mention these intakes have multiple cast components that fit together adding even more to the stacking of tolerances problem that i address with the grinder.
Sure....some of what I do (how i shape the finished runner) could be incorporated into a new mold but there would still be items that needed to be addressed with a production part if you were looking for all the money from the manifold.
Its not very different in the cylinder head business. We have tried to make high flowing as cast heads for years.....something we could offer the end user at a bargain price that still was capable of putting up the numbers. Its just not a viable situation (yet) and even the most modern of foundries simply cant get it done (but have come along way since even 10 years ago). We have to CNC everything to produce a truly efficient cylinder head....thats just the way it is and likely the way it will stay.
The FAST 102 is the best of bunch with a better overall design and much better construction than the older style intakes....but once again still leaves the door open for a guy like myself or anyone talented with a grinder to pick it up even further (its critical to know where to grind and where not to grind though....most of the amateur ported intakes I have seen had material removed in areas it hurts the flowpath....not ideal obviously). I modify thie new FAST 102 differently than the older style intakes because I am able to due to of it's different design (the way its constructed with a solid base and eight individual runners), allowing even more net results than the older stuff I ported which typically was worth 22-26 RWHP gains. My new program on these 102's should be worth 30 plus with a really good set of heads! Those are gains more associated with head swaps than intake swaps so the guys that complain about the money invested should really think again....sure its not cheap but the gains are very significant and more than justify the cost of admission.
Have a good Holiday everyone.....looking forward to 2012....finishing my 54' build and hunting for a 140 trap speed N/A in my C5!
-Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 12-22-2011 at 07:19 PM.