Big Mike

iTrader: (4)

Excellent work J-Rod, big props to you!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if nitrous assisted cars will benefit any from the FAST intake?

J-Rod

Keep in mid this testing was done on a z06 with a big MAF, that is already descreened. It has a breathless airbridge (which is bigger than stock, and an aftermarket air intake. Again, time and more testing will tell.

DJ's Z

iTrader: (10)

I belive they do and quite a few 85mm but are we comparing apples to apples or is air flow pretty much all relative??

Cobraeater

J-Rod,

What I don't understand is how Slowhawk can make 11hp and 6 torque with his h/c setup with the 78mm LSX intake and you make less with your h/c setup?

I believe the 90mm tb should show better numbers with the 90mm intake, and I saw Two Guys Garage this morning on Speed and they showed a LSX intake with the FAST 78mm and 90mm tb's and the 90mm looked huge!

LS1derfull

Larger Tb and maf openings will reduce airspeed into manifold, this should contribute to higher quality flow into port openings with less turbulence and losses in flow. On any size motor this condition will move peak torque up in the curve, this is called adding "hp". Any loss in Torque is only measured by looking at lower rpm as a reference. The ability to gain hp is by definition the ability to gain rpm that continues to be productive. If higher rpm power production is on your "to do" list than these parts will get you closer to your goals. There is no magic, it is a science with tradeoffs at every step. The key is to match the best airspeed at your setups correct rpm.

11 Bravo

iTrader: (3)

What do the injectors on this motor look like? Just curious. If anything, hopefully people will stop bashing LG's dyno #'s from now on. That's a strong freaking setup.

verbs

I agree, not only could there have been some turbulence, but this could also answer the question of, "is the 90mm intake too big for a stock cubed motor?"

Possibly, yes. I would have liked to have also seen a standard 78mm LSX intake thrown into the mix of this dyno.

I don't think this is an end all test, and having the right combo (proper TB to match the opening, right sized manifold for the cubes) is what we should be looking for.

J-Rod, thanks for taking the time to do this test;there are too many variables, questions, and mismatches for me to say "oh, the LSX isn't worth it."

Cobraeater

I think Verbs is on to something.

J-Rod,
Could you test out the 78mm intake with a ported tb and see what the results are? For 346ci the 78mm intake could be the limit, and the 90mm should be used for strokers, super, and turbocharged setups. It will be interesting to see the results if you test out the 90mm tb (whenever they come out) with the 90mm intake also.

The numbers from a 78mm intake could actually be higher than the TPIS/FAST 90mm you tested.

John B

iTrader: (10)

J-Rod, awesome testing! You're to be commended for taking the time and trouble to do this. I must say that I am blown away by the results! It's interesting to note how the TPIS set-up mirrors Julio's testing.

I would have to agree with the others though, until a test can be performed with the 90mm TB the results are not fully conclusive other than the TPIS with an oval TB definately spanks a FAST with this same oval TB.

Any chance of hunting up a Holley 90mm TB and "grafting" it to the FAST manifold so that we don't have to wait for a FAST 90mm TB?

FAST LS1

iTrader: (2)

I won't believe that the 90mm TB and intake are "too big" for even a 346ci engine until the real tests are run. GM went to a 90mm TB and intake on the C6 which is rated at only 400hp. Sure it's a 6.0L but these stock cubic inch 346 heads and cam cars are making over 400rwhp so surely 90mm isn't too big for 400hp and 400ft lbs of trq stock on the C6.
There are 3.0L-3.5L V-6's in family sedans that have 70mm TB's and they don't even make 300hp.

The other problem might be the 85mm openings at the begining of the intake track. I'm sure on the new C6 they're using at least a 90mm MAF or maybe even larger like a 95mm. These initial restrictions might limit the 90mm intake and TB even once they are both released.

Raughammer

Killer test...that was VERY informative, it backs up what i had heard.

Thanks again.

White_Hawk

iTrader: (3)

Has anyone tested a FAST intake on a boosted car yet?

-Geoff

J-Rod

I think some of y'all are missing a few points. The 78MM is basically stock sized. We saw a gain with a TB much larger than the stock TB on a stock LS6 manifold. The TB I tested is 90MM across by 78MM tall. That would lead me to think a 78 is too small.

Sure, I could test a 78MM, and if someone wants to loan me one, we can test that over @ MTI also. But, keep in mind MTI tested an LS6 with a ported TB against a 78 MM on a 427 and lost torque across the board with that combo with the FAST, and only gained a marginal ammount of HP at the very top. Yes, it made a bit more @ peak, but across the board the losses offset the gain. I don't believe a 90MM is too big @ this point. I think any H/C car should benefit in the higher RPM ranges with a biger TB. Airflow will dictate where this occcurs on the motor. But, a bigger TB, and bigger runners may not be what our motors need. Again, I don't think its the size of the TB. I think its a matter of velocity and runner design, and how its interacting with this combination.

FAST LS1

iTrader: (2)

If the FAST LSX intake design itself ends up being bad, I'll just wait for the stock LS2 intakes to come out with 90mm TB's. Obviously they got the runner design right for a 90mm TB and 400+hp. I'm still going to reserve judgement till the final results are in since there might still be a restriction with the MAF or lid not being 90+mm.

C4VetteLS1

Well too bad none of you are in the Southern California area...you guys are more than welcome to come use my dyno for any new LS1 parts testing all you need

Fireball

iTrader: (21)

figuring the TB was 78x90 covering a 90mm hole, there is a big step across the short sides of the TB into the plenum. This really can disrupt airflow.

Until I see results from a true 90 mm TB...

Smoke_ur_5.0

iTrader: (2)

Sounds interesting. Wonder if the oval design of the TB matched to the round opening of the intake had some ill effects. We'll find out sometime. What I find interesting is that we did another test of the TPIS intake and TB on a H/C car with a 222/222 cam and our RMs Stage 2's. The car made 385hp unlocked, then we swapped the TPIS unit on and gained 10rwhp and 7rwtq across the entire lower rpms but started to match up in the upper rpms and only gained 1rwhp at peak. Good gains but not much bragging rights. I've posted before too that the TPIS gained 15+rwhp on a 427 setup. Haven't been able to get m y hands on LSX's though.

JRod, if you are in the KC area or want to make a trip up here I will let you use the dyno for the day(no charge) to try out any of these setups on our dyno. I would like to see more info on these setups.

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

Looks like a proper mating 90MM TB on the FAST 90MM version is showing GREAT promise:
https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...50#post1011650

J-Rod

I'll be testing it soon enough, and I will post the results. The other thing is changing the manifold does not change the tune one iota. A/F remains the same.... So, no re-tune at this point...

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

True 'dat, J-Rod. Can't wait to see the gains you'll make he he he