Mac 2002 SS

iTrader: (6)

Great post ,Tony. But we all still haven't seen anyone with a set of good heads ,cam, exhaust etc post any ET's after installing the FAST102/102 on a stock bottom end LS1 !! I can find post all day long about LS2 this,LS3 that, but never LS1 with a FAST102/102 . Now if someone can find a few threads on here or any other site ,please post them on here. I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know.

Please don't take this like I'm trying to be an *** ,but I'm just stating a fact. I know Tony knows what he is talking about cause he has put together a bunch of monster over the years . But I'm just your everyday run of the mill weekend warrior whenever I have time kinda of guy !! When I spend my money ,I want to know it works by seeing it work. Not by hearing it works. I'm sure you all can understand that.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

The runners on the 102 are slightly taller....nice one piece design with an O-ring as it inserts into the base. Nicer bell-mouth on all the runners....slight overall tweaks/improvements is the best way to describe. Waaaay better build quality than the original design....in fact the intake is 3 lbs heavier and lets not forget that 3 lbs of plastic is substantial.


Listen....if you have a premium high flowing set of heads and a well thought out combination, even a 346 would be served well by the additional of this intake. It will make more power everywhere compared to a 90/92 as long as we are discussing the same level of prep....meaning a properly ported 102 versus a properly ported 92 or stock to stock....you get my drift.

If you are running a stock cube build and say already have one of my older ported 90's or 92 mm FAST, it wouldn't be a very cost effective move to see another 3-5 ponies, but if your were building an aggressive stroker with say our new AFR 245 head, I would sell the ported 90/92 and let me rework a 102 for you....on that application you will see more sizable gains and lets not forget your bring in some revenue to offset the cost by selling the original intake you had making the swap more cost effective.

If you don't have either already just step up and buy the 102 assuming the package warrants the purchase as I have previously discussed....there are no downsides to the 102....thats the point I have been trying to drive home....only slight upsides...with slightly larger upsides when discussing big cube big flow applications.

8,000,006 and counting

Regards,
Tony

Mac 2002 SS

iTrader: (6)

I get your drift ,Tony. Thank you for your "professional " input. I will eventually find what I'm looking for sooner or later. Do you have anymore "Mamofied" 92 setups laying around the shop ?

Chevy Guy

iTrader: (2)

No, its not the free market economy. FAST turned their back on a very rabid customer base they had with the C5 LS1 crowd. They can still make 90/92mm manifolds, they choose not to.

The LS1 is NOT for use on a C% as evidenced by the fact that you have to shim the sub frame to get them to clear the cowl, which is borderline ridiculous. They are doing C5 customers a huge disservice making the claim this is for LS1 engines. Either that or they have **** poor development and quality control.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

The problem may also lie with the plastic fantastic IMO....

The R&D team at FAST mocked up the intake on a C5 owned by one of their in house techs and measured a 5 mm gap between the intake and the cowl. The problem is the cowl is glued to the fiberglass body shell and it is not a precision situation at all. Not to mention 5 mm is less than .200....not nearly enough room for comfort IMO.

I spend alot of time on the Corvette Forum as well....I think the general consensus is some guys have had fitment issues with the new 102 and others have not. I'm building a 454 CID engine to feature our new 245 head soon that I will be dropping in my C5 and the bottom line is I'm a motivated to do whatever it takes to get that intake under the hood of my car. I may modify the cowl if necessary and/or slightly shim the cradle which really isn't that big a deal when you consider how much Ive modified my car already in search of additional performance (handling and engine/driveline mods).

Once again, the guys looking for every last edge will always go the extra yard to make it happen....I'm one of those guys but everybody has their own threshold of pain versus gain.

-Tony

Chevy Guy

iTrader: (2)

Yes, if I had a big inch high performance engine with ***** to the wall heads, the 102 would be a no brainer, I would even say you may need that intake.

But what about the average guy with a cam and headers car? The 102 is seemingly overkill, and they are left with no new intake from FAST.

I still think its stupid to shim a cradle/sub frame to make up for **** poor development and QA.

Mac 2002 SS

iTrader: (6)

It looks like you and I have the same views on this , Chevy. Here's to you ,buddy .

SweetS10V8

iTrader: (4)

Ive installed many 102s on C5/C6 and never had an issue. It's tight but it clears. If you want to point fingers, Id be upset with GM not FAST. I promise you the tolerance is much tighter on the intake than GM's firewall

Chevy Guy

iTrader: (2)

SweetS10V8

iTrader: (4)

Exactly what I thought when I read your post.

2000redtaws6

What is the largest throttlebody that can be used on a stock 2000 ls1 trans am intake manifold? I am considering upgrading my throttle body and possibly my intake manifold. The engine is basically stock except for a high flow air fliter,slp airbox lid, and a Corsa catback. Would you replace the intake and tb as the next small step in my quest for better response and more power?