J-Rod

Ok,

I installed a Meziere WP this week, and wanted to see if they had helped out. Along with that, I had a few intakes I wanted to test on the car.

I managed to get my hands on a couple of manifolds, actually. Yes LGM has FAST intakes, and yes, I got a 90MM for testing. So you may be asking yourself, well how did get a TB for one. The simple answer is I used the TPIS oval TB on the FAST intake. It isn't a true 90MM, its oval (76MMx90MM), but its bigger than stock, and Lou had already seen a gain on it in his car.

Anyhow, Jayson @ MTI was nice enough to rent me the dyno for the better part of the day. (Major Props to MTI)...

Anyhow, the dyno consisted of 3 baseline pulls with a stock LS6 intake with a polished TB. After the baselines, the intake was swapped for the TPIS modified LS6. Two pulls were made with the TPIS intake. Finally, the FAST intake was installed, and two more dyno runs were made.

The results were quite shocking, so here they are. I will be posting two sets of numbers. The Dynojet software @ MTI is the DOs version. I am suing the newsest version of the the runjet viewer, and for some reason it makes all my dyno runs about 1HP higher. So, I will post the MTI numbers and the runviewer numbers.

MTI Numbers
The baseline pull for the car with the stock intake was
471.9 HP / 423.5 Tq - which is about a 8 HP gain from the WP.
TPIS modified intake
478.9 HP / 428.3 Tq
FAST w TPIS TB
476.7 HP / 415.3 Tq

Runjet viewer numbers
The baseline pull for the car with the stock intake was
472.87/421.05
TPIS modified intake
480.17/426.40
FAST w TPIS TB
477.44/415.49

Here are the graphs:
All 3


TPIS vs FAST


I was somewhat suprised to see that the FAST lost so much torque across the entire spectrum. On the graph it is down all the way across. I figured with all the work Wilson had done on the manifold that this thing would be right on. All I can say is GM did their homework, and yet again it appears that its hard to improve on their work. The Big TB on the TPIS however did seem to help. At around 4300 it separates itself from the stock TB and pulls away all the way to peak. Let this be an object lesson that bigger may not always be better. Remeber that velocity vs flow folks kepp talking about? Well, this is a pretty good example. The FAST has bigger runners, and should have more flow, but it appears that velocity may be hurt, and thus torque suffers. Its not to say that there is not some incremetal improvement between the FAST and a stock LS6, there is. Its just not what I would have hoped to see. It will be interesting to see what happens when some of the flow wizards get some time in with them and what it results in. I can't comment on what other shops result have been, or why they differ from mine. All I can do is provide you with my data, and let you come to your own conclusions.

I know I gave props to MTI earlier but I would like to point out that MTI went out of there way to help me with this test. Jayson came over personally numerous times while I was there to see if he could help me out. He made sure if I needed anything that he got it right away. He and his staff were helpful in every way shape and form. I just wanted to say thanks again, and point out what a class act the guys over there are.

Mike K.

Thanks for dynoing these and helping us poor guys decide what to spend our money on. As these threads continue it looks as though the fast may not be worth all the extra cash.. and I was almost convinced to buy one too haha.

J-Rod

Fixed...

Mike K.

ty edited mine as well so people are not like WTF.. lol

seriously thanks for the dyno comparisons.

maddboost

iTrader: (11)

Interesting numbers J-ROD I guess im gonna have to stick with a LS6 intake on my car because the $1200 for the TPIS is just too much right now. Looks like the LSX intake just cant hold up to the hype. Hope AFRs heads are the same.

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

That's interesting. I'm suprised to see the FAST to lose area under the curve when it seemed that all the other tests on the stock 346 CID motors gained EVERYWHERE under the curve. How was the TPIS TB attached to the FAST intake? Was it sealing completely? Was the TB used causing turbulence after air entered into the manifold do to the unmatched mating surfaces?

It's a good test but I don't think we can jump to certain conclusions just yet. The pairing of the FAST 90MM TB with the FAST 90MM opening will be the true comparison. Afterall, the TB used on the TPIS and FAST in this test was designed to be used on the TPIS modified LS6 intake, not the FAST. I know it seems like small potatoes but I think for a more accurate comparison the two should be compared in their complete designed form, i.e. TPIS and its TB vs FAST and it's TB it was designed for.

This will probably be laid to rest as soon as the FAST's 90MM TB is released.

Thanks for the info, J-Rod.

jrp

iTrader: (16)

great post man. very informative.

Damian

iTrader: (89)

J-rod you always seem to right books of great info...Thanks man..

Josh

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

Your gains with the TPIS w/oval TB are right on with what Cartek got. Tekhombre posted:
With this, we can obviously see that the TPIS w/oval TB does provide solid gains, although somewhat better, over the LS6 intake w/stock TB.

Here's the link to the prior info w/dyno sheet: https://ls1tech.com/forums/showthrea...ht=tpis+intake

Here are some pics of the LS6 vs TPIS modified LS6





My only idea for the difference is mating of an oval TB to a circumfrential TB hole as in the FAST mounting, they're not mating together like they were designed. However, in the TPIS modified LS6, it's mated to its matching counterpart for a smooth transition.

What are everyone else's thoughts?

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

I did two quick calculations to compare the area of air flow available for the FAST's 90 MM TB and the current TPIS oval TB.

Calculation of area of an oval:
L x W x 0.8,
88(mm) x 76(mm) x 0.8 = 5350.4(mm)^2

Area of a circle:
Pi x radius^2
Pi x 45(mm)^2 = 6361.73(mm)^2

6361.73(MM)^2/5350.4(mm)^2 = 1.18902, this indicates that the FAST 90MM TB has 1.18902 of the area of the TPIS oval TB. I know that Bernouli and other principles come into play for fluid flow, etc but just a comparsion of the area of fluid that can enter each TB is pretty interesting.

Nine Ball

iTrader: (38)

interesting results. How exactly is the TPIS intake modified? Is the front part a custom piece that is just bonded to a factory intake? Are the runners modified at all, or internally?

Either way, your heads/cam setup is SMOKIN!

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

I'm quoting Tekhombre here:
The TPIS intake is made by machining off the snout from a stock LS6 intake and attaching a new oval opening that excepts an oval TB, so the runners are left intact (stock length, diameter and taper angle) and won't change the wave action.

ne14a6t9

J-rod, I praise you for your time and research along with mti. This is the third dyno your car has been on and Im still amazed how much power it puts out. what will it take to get another 20 ponies, also do you think that tweaking the tuning will add hp with the different intakes. Maybe the added airflow requires additional tuning to maximize power potential with the intakes

props to Lg motorsports for setting up a great package

J-Rod

Thanks everyone.

The 90MM opening is not that much different than stock. 2 of the 3 holes on the TPIS TB mated right up. One is a bit off. I had considered machining a spacer with all the correct bolt holes but just clamped that one side for the dyno test. It initially had a small leak, I re-did which side I was going to clamp, and the car had no idle issue. It would idle on the dyno just like it did with the stock TB, if it had an airleak, it would not have idled.

I understand the hydraullic principles at work when you have an opening that is mis-matched. It is similar to the transition between your exhaust port and your headers. There is a potential for some flow disturbance at that boundary, but I don't think it played an issue with the loss of torque. I would attribute it to runner volume. Velocity = Power, not absolute flow.

bspz28

iTrader: (1)

wow !!!! I have the TPIS on my car now and the f.a.s.t 90mm om order .. I will also do some testing when it comes in.

Scalpel

iTrader: (4)

Thanks for the info, J-Rod.

I guess the only way to rule out the turbulence issue is with a FAST 90MM TB on the FAST.

Also, Slowhawk mentioned that his FAST had casting flash on the runners and a few other mating surfaces which he rectified by smoothing them out. Did you happen to notice this on your LSX?

Also, Slowhawk's TB blade was being hindered from opening fully thus not reaching 100% TPS. Was that an issue when you ran the FAST?

Actually, here's Slowhawk's exact posting:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slowhawk

Something I forgot to mention on my last post.
On my first run with the LSX we gained 1hp.We just looked and shook our heads figuring the intake was crap..We went over everything and found that the TB would not go 100%..On my car the PVC hookup was in the way of the throttle Cam.We just cut off a corner of the Cam that was hitting.This does not affect anything.Then we got all the power

I've seen some lackluster results and wonder if the people running these checked to see that the TB was opening 100%.Mine was only opening 80% before cutting...

Just trying to rule out as many variables as possible

J-Rod

The Vette is fly by wire, so thats not an issue. I checked the opening manually before installing it, and got 100% opening.

There may be some power in tuning. If you look at the graph you will in all 3 graphs it takes a weird dip at the beginning of the run, even the stock intake and TB. I may need a bit more TLC from LS1edit. I think everything is good up top, I think right now what the car could most likely use is a bit of part throttel work, and a bit of fuel from 2200-3500. I just got EFIlive, so I will do doing some logs soon to see what it needs. I had some issues on the way home witht he car idling and hunting. Lou had none of these issues with the intake on his car, so I am going to go check for leaks, etc... in the next day or two.

SScam68

iTrader: (20)

What were the MAP readings across the board for both intakes?

J-Rod

I didn't log any data during the runs.

T/A Medic

iTrader: (1)

Very Nicely Done!

Thank You