jfm

iTrader: (4)

J-Rod,thanks for the info.

Got Me SOM

iTrader: (2)

That 90 mm manifold is designed for big breathing set ups, heads/cam cars and strokers. It way overkill for a stock Z06. You should have tested a 78 mm manifold, I'm sure you would have seen the gains everyone else has seen.

J-Rod

A couple of points here. The 78MM and 90MM FAST intakes are the same intake, the only difference is the top. MTI has tested the 78MM intake on a 427, which is a big cube motor. Jayson told me before I bolted the intake on the car that he expected the intake to do no better, and perhaps worse than the TPIS. He related to me that in their testing the FAST had marginal gains on a 427 at the expense of torque through most of the powerband. In MTI's testing it was only after the torque got some where over 5000RPM that it began to recover. The marginal gains at the top were offset by losses across the board. I don't know about most folks, but I would think that most of y'all would recognize MTIs ability to install and test products. If you don't think Jayson has a pretty good idea of if a car need tuning or not, or if a part works perhaps you ought to stop by there some time. The 427 should have more airflow requirements than any 346, so a bigger runner should complement that motor. Only the results of their testing did not bear this out. Keep in mind this testing was independant of the testing we did.


If anyone wants to pony up for some more dyno time, I'll be more than happy to put the 78MM FAST on the car and see how it does against the TPIS. Keep in mind there is a very short transition from the neck of the intake to the plenum of the intake. This is a much larger step from neck to plenum than the 12 MM difference between the TPIS TB and the FAST intake neck. We spoke extensively with FAST prior to the manifold being released. Up until the time they showed up there was some concern as to whether they would ship. The folks we spoke with at FAST expressed concern and said there had been some "issues" with the intake. My other concern with the intake is with the material the top is constructed of. The construction quite honestly scares me. I was afraid the whole time that something was going to crack on the intake.

I know folks were hoping this was going to be the "magic bullet", but my testing has led me to believe otherwise. If I honestly felt like the FAST was superior I would have kept it on the car. From our testing my feelings are that even a max effort 346 only begins to see improvements after 4000 rpms or so. Below that, I saw no gain/loss compared to stock.

I did not modify the FAST intake so that it could be returned. There may be some flow improvements that can be made via porting the casting flash, but that goes no where in helping to pick up torque.

I eagerly await other folks results. As for the whole TB mess, I know FAST ordered 400 of them to start with, and their supplier has had issues. I don't know how soon till the F-Body TB is availiable, but, but the Vette TB is a LONG way off from my understanding.

Folks can form their own conclusions. If you think tuning, TB size, or magic pixie dust made the torque go away, so be it. Like I said, bigger ain't always better, velocity is the key. Whether it be an intake port, or in this case an intake runner.

I'll keep y'all posted if there is any other testing that gets done.

Got Me SOM

iTrader: (2)

good points made. However in keeping with the velocity theory I think for the hell of it you should try the 78 mm FAST. I'll trow in 20 bucks for dyno time. My opinion is that the 90 mm tb opening is overkill.

I've read about the TPIS oval intake and it looks like good stuff. It may be hard to beat. These prices really need to come down so that people on Earth can afford em..

J-Rod

Did you look at the dyno numbers? Do you think a stock Z06 makes 480RWHP? This is a full bore max effort H/C car. In fact it is one of the highest HP H/C cars I have seen in person, or posted... It gained from a bigger than stock TB. I would be willing to bet that if a 78MM FAST was put on, torque would drop, and HP might go up just a bit, but not much...

I'll measure the runners, and see if there is any sizable size difference, but I think out of the box they are stock size.

Got Me SOM

iTrader: (2)

I'm not with it, JROD feel free to whack me over the head. Forget what I said.
I'm a dumbass. LOL

Shoot stick with what works, the TPIS oval intake.

LASTLS1

iTrader: (7)

SPEED INC picked up 17-18 hp on a 427ci with a 75mm fast intake. ???????????? What is going on!

J-Rod

Don't know.

Speed Inc and Thunder picked up HP.

MTI, myself, and I think a few other shops have dropped power.


SOM- Consider yourself whacked with a stick

Me SOM

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

I'm confused, are you saying it's pointless to test the 90MM FAST TB on the 90MM FAST intake with larger motors after this testing you have conducted?

Or pointless to test the 90MM TB'd version period, on either H/C or bigger cubes? Is the reasoning behind the intake not performing is b/c the larger runner size failed to yield, actually lost tq, on the 427 they tested?

LASTLS1

iTrader: (7)

Call and talk to Tom or Larry. I asked them why the difference, they don't know. They assured me it was correct. I also believe you. It just drives me crazy to here of all the mixed numbers. Thanks for posting your results. Andy

J-Rod

I'm providing the data I have collected. You can draw your own conclusions and decide for yourself what you'd like to do.

I do have an opinion though.

My opinion is at this point, I'm not convinced the FAST with a 90 will gain enough to offset what I see as an across the board torqe loss. This is the same as a sheetmetal manifold. I talked with Jayson @ MTI about SW's old motor. They tried a short runner sheetmetal manifold on the car. The thing picked up about 50RWHP, but it killed too much power (torque) across the board to be effective.

Keep in mind I saw a marginal gain in HP which was almost equal to the TPIS manifold (so in that respect it is better than a stock LS6), but the offset was a huge drop in torque which I feel is to much of a tradeoff. Why take almost the same HP, but 15 less lb/Ft of TQ...

Again, thats my opion, and it is the opinion of just one man. Draw your own conclusions and make your own decisions. If you find anything report back your results...


I don't think anything is set in stone. Too many variables to still be resolved in regards to cam selection, port design, etc... I'll just say I was disappointed in the results.

GTBMad

Thanks for your opinion J Rod at the end of the day thats the only way the others out there can make there decisions. Listening and making a judgement on both sides of the story.

99 Black Bird T/A

iTrader: (4)

Thanks J-Rod, great info!

Chicago Crew UnderBoss

iTrader: (1)

JROD,

Great info and experimenting if you have provided for the LS1 hard core performance crowd for intial testing of the LSX intake on your heavily modded H/C Z06. Great job and thank you for your time and commitment to helping out the LS1 world and of course a BIG THANKS to MTI for helping making this testing possible!

HOTROD98Z

iTrader: (1)

Interesting results to say the least.

Jason99T/A

iTrader: (21)

Thanks alot for the testing, Jarrod. If you are ever near Baton Rouge, I'm sure I can arrange some very cheap dyno runs if you wish to continue your testing. Great info!

Beast96Z

iTrader: (21)

Deffinatlly good info, BUT, when I had my TB off the other day, trying to find a way to mount it to my 90mm FAST, the TB couldn't be centered. If you used the 2 bolt holes that lined up, the TB would not center on the manifold, thus offsetting your air flow to one side of the manifold or the other, depending on which bolt hole you used. I know you used the TPIS set-up, but it still has the same bolt pattern. I'm wondering if the offset is enough to cause a lack of performance in this situation. Once again, having a correct TB will tell the tail. Just my thoughts.

DJ's Z

iTrader: (10)

GTBMad; "Colonels comments regarding TB size to cubic inch capacity etc make a lot of sense and as of yet we are to see any results on larger cubed motors 400 plus"

J-Rod, great info my friend...!! After spending some time on the dyno with Jayson last week I offered my car as a gynea pig for the 90mm FAST intake and 90mm TB for some true comparisons on a stroker with my head/cam/etc... combination. When this is finished I'm sure Jayson or I will be posting some results from this test. I agree with most, approx. $1200.00 for this set up is pretty pricing considering the gains for a H/C car...I have a gut feeling these 90mm set ups will have much better results from some larger bore motors instead of just H/C motor, even MAXED OUT H/C motors. Damn J-Rod that sh** is making some power !! Wonder if my "smaller" cammed 422 will benefit more than a "larger" cammed 346 from the FAST 90mm set up??? I maybe wrong we'll see...

BrokenLS1

Don't 347ci mustangs almost always use 90mm TB and 90mm pro-m mass air meters?
Just using the same logic,and scratching my head.

Slowhawk

iTrader: (12)

It's good to see more testing,but an Oval TB on a round opening doesn't really tell what the 90mm intake can do..Many props for making it work though
When I tested the 78mm we did over 25 runs trying to see what the problems were.1 was the restriction of the MTI lid,2nd was the stock MAF not big ehough,then I'll bet the TB was hurting.The #'s I posted before was with everything on the car.You should of seen the gain when I free'd up the intake I did however clean up the intake runners that have steps in them from the molding process which could make the difference.Took me less than an hour to do with just a dremel.
I currently have an 90mm intake being fully ported to make sure everything lines up perfectly.We are just waiting on the right TB.