*General* FAST LSXr 102 thread
02-24-2011, 04:25 PM
#21
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N. Falmouth MA
Posts: 4,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you read the Weiand Street Warrior intake thread that was started on here a while back? They were promising an intake that would perform well and cost a good deal less than the FAST intake, and it never came to market. So far, no one can compete with FAST when it comes to a stock style intake that actually performs, and is why they can set the price wherever they want.
I really wish someone else would do something as well. They're prolly losing a lot of business to FAST.
And does anyone have pics of the WP clearance with the TB installed? Gonna have to look for a NW TB or a FAST now that the eBay TBs are a bust.
02-25-2011, 03:27 AM
#31
TECH Fanatic
I went from an Accufab 78mm TB with an LS6 intake, to a Fast 102 intake & a PTM 102mm TB,
all before & after parts are unported. rest of supporting mods are in sig.
I will be getting it re tuned in the future when more $$$$ become available as this tuner is not as efficient as my original tuner who is 2 1/2 hrs drive away, and i have every faith he will find more power when he tunes it.
I haven't had it on the road properly yet as i have to replace the cooling fans as they've collapsed, The PTM TB is sticking so will also sort that this weekend.
all before & after parts are unported. rest of supporting mods are in sig.
I will be getting it re tuned in the future when more $$$$ become available as this tuner is not as efficient as my original tuner who is 2 1/2 hrs drive away, and i have every faith he will find more power when he tunes it.
I haven't had it on the road properly yet as i have to replace the cooling fans as they've collapsed, The PTM TB is sticking so will also sort that this weekend.
Last edited by ls1 1990 VN; 05-29-2013 at 04:21 AM.
02-25-2011, 12:39 PM
#33
Guys,
Someone pointed me in the direction of this thread yesterday and while I think most of this stuff has been rehashed many times over, I thought I would quickly chime in and share a few things....
The first is tuning....there is NO question a 102 TB is more of a bitch to tune properly for prefect drivability but it is far more an issue with an electronic Vette style TB than a cable operated version with the IAC solenoid which helps alot. If its an F-body application and your tuner is remotely competent you should be fine....if it is a Y-body application I would discuss with your tuner ahead of time if he has much experience with the larger TB's....they can be tricky for sure.
Price....yep....it would be nice if these intakes were a little more reasonable and insult to injury with the 102 is the fuel rails you now need to purchase as well but unfortunately if your really serious about extracting the most for your LS combo, this intake is the only game in town and is capable of gobs of torque with its long equal length runners as well as the ability to put up a pretty big HP number although thats where the porting really shines as well.
They are "OK" out of the box but like any mass produced piece leaves room for improvement should the need arise. It's impossible to get anything mass produced absolutely perfect....especially a component with multiple piece construction and also the manufacturer always has to keep in mind the fact this intake may be bolted to a stock head so its sized rather conservatively in out of the box trim. The other issues you have with molded parts is factoring in some "draft" so the parts can be pulled from the molds....this changes the final intended shape and is some of the reasons these intakes really need to be ported to be alot more optimized.
Here is a before and after shot of the porting work and how it effects the shape and CSA of the runner....truthfully bayer-Z28 has a better shot than I took of the stock runner earlier in this thread but in my pics you have the ruler to better see whats going on.
An issue of the MAF size came up....IMO if your dropping dime on the big intake don't handicap some of your gains with a smaller 85mm MAF.....go with one of the 100 mm units and find one that your tuner is OK to work with. In fact I usually recommend to people inquiring about which MAF to speak with their tuner and see if they have a certain preference regarding the larger MAF's....there are a number of different ones on the market....let the tuner select which one he prefers to tune this way he cant say "well I could have done better with so and so's MAF" etc.
Differences in the 90/92 versus the new 102....there are lots but the few that stand out to me are MUCH better construction quality and design with the new 102 unit....its a much stouter piece that can probably handle twice the amount of boost pressure before any measurable leaks would even occur. I know for a fact the burst strength of the new 102 design is significantly higher than the older style intakes....in fact the new design is so much beefier it weighs 3 lbs more and thats alot of weight in plastic.
Runner design....much improved as well over the former design with a larger cross section....better runner taper, and a better line of sight to the exit of the port (and ultimately the entrance to the cylinder head). Also, most of the older 90 and 92 designs had #7 and #2 intake runners slightly compromised by an obtrusion in the roof of the port they they cast there due to some folks thinking it would be better in boosted applications. Seriously that was a mistake as it did nothing to improve the integrity of the manifold but it did slightly impede airflow in both of those two cylinders. If the back of your intake says "Revision J", than you have one of these intake I'm referencing (thats all they produced btw for about 2-3 years prior to the release of the new 102 design so unless your intake is pretty old you likely have a "Revision J" manifold).
What else.....thats it I guess. Bottom line is the move to a 102 intake is not for everyone....its not as user friendly a bolt on as the older style intakes but from the standpoint of design and performance is a fairly nice upgrade over the earlier design 90 and 92mm versions. If your not looking for every last pony and score a deal on an older 90/92 I say go for it....ported properly the old design is within 5 RWHP of a 102 unless you are discussing a big stroker with very high flow heads and a large appetite for air....in that case, I feel a properly ported 102 is 5-10 better than a properly ported 90/92 design....still not the end of the world, but enough of a gain at that level to consider the upgrade.
Hope some of this info helps out....
Thanks,
Tony
PS....Another issue I see constantly is the Internet folklore that a 102 is "too big" for a 346 CID combo. I wish I had a nickel for every time Ive read that. Bottom line guys is we arent trying to atomize fuel here....the "too big" BS stems back from the days of guys using too large a carburetor on their combinations which effected the signal and metering of fuel in a negative fashion hurting performance. Your injectors are handling all the fuel delivery and atomization....the manifold (and TB more precisely) is just a big "air blade"....the larger and more free flowing it is the more it reduces restriction in the inlet track. The key to getting the most gains from the swap to a 102 (or a 90/92 for that matter) is GOOD HEADS! The better the heads the more a stock manifold wont be able to keep up and the more a well designed aftermarket intake will benefit you. If you were building even a mild 346 with say our new 210 head and only a 224/228 cam, the move to a 102 would pick up the power curve everywhere and make a bunch more power upstairs (25-30 RWHP with one of my ported units) in spite of the fact we are discussing a small cam stock displacement build. Its the cylinder heads that determine primarily the types of gains that are possible with the swap to a better intake.
Someone pointed me in the direction of this thread yesterday and while I think most of this stuff has been rehashed many times over, I thought I would quickly chime in and share a few things....
The first is tuning....there is NO question a 102 TB is more of a bitch to tune properly for prefect drivability but it is far more an issue with an electronic Vette style TB than a cable operated version with the IAC solenoid which helps alot. If its an F-body application and your tuner is remotely competent you should be fine....if it is a Y-body application I would discuss with your tuner ahead of time if he has much experience with the larger TB's....they can be tricky for sure.
Price....yep....it would be nice if these intakes were a little more reasonable and insult to injury with the 102 is the fuel rails you now need to purchase as well but unfortunately if your really serious about extracting the most for your LS combo, this intake is the only game in town and is capable of gobs of torque with its long equal length runners as well as the ability to put up a pretty big HP number although thats where the porting really shines as well.
They are "OK" out of the box but like any mass produced piece leaves room for improvement should the need arise. It's impossible to get anything mass produced absolutely perfect....especially a component with multiple piece construction and also the manufacturer always has to keep in mind the fact this intake may be bolted to a stock head so its sized rather conservatively in out of the box trim. The other issues you have with molded parts is factoring in some "draft" so the parts can be pulled from the molds....this changes the final intended shape and is some of the reasons these intakes really need to be ported to be alot more optimized.
Here is a before and after shot of the porting work and how it effects the shape and CSA of the runner....truthfully bayer-Z28 has a better shot than I took of the stock runner earlier in this thread but in my pics you have the ruler to better see whats going on.
An issue of the MAF size came up....IMO if your dropping dime on the big intake don't handicap some of your gains with a smaller 85mm MAF.....go with one of the 100 mm units and find one that your tuner is OK to work with. In fact I usually recommend to people inquiring about which MAF to speak with their tuner and see if they have a certain preference regarding the larger MAF's....there are a number of different ones on the market....let the tuner select which one he prefers to tune this way he cant say "well I could have done better with so and so's MAF" etc.
Differences in the 90/92 versus the new 102....there are lots but the few that stand out to me are MUCH better construction quality and design with the new 102 unit....its a much stouter piece that can probably handle twice the amount of boost pressure before any measurable leaks would even occur. I know for a fact the burst strength of the new 102 design is significantly higher than the older style intakes....in fact the new design is so much beefier it weighs 3 lbs more and thats alot of weight in plastic.
Runner design....much improved as well over the former design with a larger cross section....better runner taper, and a better line of sight to the exit of the port (and ultimately the entrance to the cylinder head). Also, most of the older 90 and 92 designs had #7 and #2 intake runners slightly compromised by an obtrusion in the roof of the port they they cast there due to some folks thinking it would be better in boosted applications. Seriously that was a mistake as it did nothing to improve the integrity of the manifold but it did slightly impede airflow in both of those two cylinders. If the back of your intake says "Revision J", than you have one of these intake I'm referencing (thats all they produced btw for about 2-3 years prior to the release of the new 102 design so unless your intake is pretty old you likely have a "Revision J" manifold).
What else.....thats it I guess. Bottom line is the move to a 102 intake is not for everyone....its not as user friendly a bolt on as the older style intakes but from the standpoint of design and performance is a fairly nice upgrade over the earlier design 90 and 92mm versions. If your not looking for every last pony and score a deal on an older 90/92 I say go for it....ported properly the old design is within 5 RWHP of a 102 unless you are discussing a big stroker with very high flow heads and a large appetite for air....in that case, I feel a properly ported 102 is 5-10 better than a properly ported 90/92 design....still not the end of the world, but enough of a gain at that level to consider the upgrade.
Hope some of this info helps out....
Thanks,
Tony
PS....Another issue I see constantly is the Internet folklore that a 102 is "too big" for a 346 CID combo. I wish I had a nickel for every time Ive read that. Bottom line guys is we arent trying to atomize fuel here....the "too big" BS stems back from the days of guys using too large a carburetor on their combinations which effected the signal and metering of fuel in a negative fashion hurting performance. Your injectors are handling all the fuel delivery and atomization....the manifold (and TB more precisely) is just a big "air blade"....the larger and more free flowing it is the more it reduces restriction in the inlet track. The key to getting the most gains from the swap to a 102 (or a 90/92 for that matter) is GOOD HEADS! The better the heads the more a stock manifold wont be able to keep up and the more a well designed aftermarket intake will benefit you. If you were building even a mild 346 with say our new 210 head and only a 224/228 cam, the move to a 102 would pick up the power curve everywhere and make a bunch more power upstairs (25-30 RWHP with one of my ported units) in spite of the fact we are discussing a small cam stock displacement build. Its the cylinder heads that determine primarily the types of gains that are possible with the swap to a better intake.
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 02-25-2011 at 02:35 PM.
02-25-2011, 05:41 PM
#36
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N. Falmouth MA
Posts: 4,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple more misc questions;
-Anyone NOT use washers on the TB bracket? Just curious.. Just put mine together and got lazy on that one.
-Anyone "customise" a set of fuel rails?
-I finished the inside work on the intake, put the top on, torqued everything down to spec with a dab of blue Loc-Tite, got everything setup and realized I forgot to drill the hole in the back for the MAP.
Was gonna run it up front (easier to catch the crumbs.) Any qualms about running the MAP up front? (stupid question)
-Anyone NOT use washers on the TB bracket? Just curious.. Just put mine together and got lazy on that one.
-Anyone "customise" a set of fuel rails?
-I finished the inside work on the intake, put the top on, torqued everything down to spec with a dab of blue Loc-Tite, got everything setup and realized I forgot to drill the hole in the back for the MAP.
Was gonna run it up front (easier to catch the crumbs.) Any qualms about running the MAP up front? (stupid question)
02-25-2011, 08:00 PM
#37
Great thread, and awesome post Tony, thx for taking the time to chime in..
PS....Another issue I see constantly is the Internet folklore that a 102 is "too big" for a 346 CID combo. I wish I had a nickel for every time Ive read that. Bottom line guys is we arent trying to atomize fuel here....the "too big" BS stems back from the days of guys using too large a carburetor on their combinations which effected the signal and metering of fuel in a negative fashion hurting performance. Your injectors are handling all the fuel delivery and atomization....the manifold (and TB more precisely) is just a big "air blade"....the larger and more free flowing it is the more it reduces restriction in the inlet track. The key to getting the most gains from the swap to a 102 (or a 90/92 for that matter) is GOOD HEADS! The better the heads the more a stock manifold wont be able to keep up and the more a well designed aftermarket intake will benefit you. If you were building even a mild 346 with say our new 210 head and only a 224/228 cam, the move to a 102 would pick up the power curve everywhere and make a bunch more power upstairs (25-30 RWHP with one of my ported units) in spite of the fact we are discussing a small cam stock displacement build. Its the cylinder heads that determine primarily the types of gains that are possible with the swap to a better intake.
This is good to know, but what alot of us stock internal build guys are wondering is if the 102 is overkill for us. I have yet to see anyone slap a 102 on a stock h/c car and show proven dyno and race track results. If anyone has, please point me in the right direction.
Is it worth it for us to shell out the added cost to run a 102? Do we even have the potential with stock heads and cam to utilize the added flow of the 102?
PS....Another issue I see constantly is the Internet folklore that a 102 is "too big" for a 346 CID combo. I wish I had a nickel for every time Ive read that. Bottom line guys is we arent trying to atomize fuel here....the "too big" BS stems back from the days of guys using too large a carburetor on their combinations which effected the signal and metering of fuel in a negative fashion hurting performance. Your injectors are handling all the fuel delivery and atomization....the manifold (and TB more precisely) is just a big "air blade"....the larger and more free flowing it is the more it reduces restriction in the inlet track. The key to getting the most gains from the swap to a 102 (or a 90/92 for that matter) is GOOD HEADS! The better the heads the more a stock manifold wont be able to keep up and the more a well designed aftermarket intake will benefit you. If you were building even a mild 346 with say our new 210 head and only a 224/228 cam, the move to a 102 would pick up the power curve everywhere and make a bunch more power upstairs (25-30 RWHP with one of my ported units) in spite of the fact we are discussing a small cam stock displacement build. Its the cylinder heads that determine primarily the types of gains that are possible with the swap to a better intake.
This is good to know, but what alot of us stock internal build guys are wondering is if the 102 is overkill for us. I have yet to see anyone slap a 102 on a stock h/c car and show proven dyno and race track results. If anyone has, please point me in the right direction.
Is it worth it for us to shell out the added cost to run a 102? Do we even have the potential with stock heads and cam to utilize the added flow of the 102?
02-25-2011, 08:15 PM
#38
Guys,
The first is tuning....there is NO question a 102 TB is more of a bitch to tune properly for prefect drivability but it is far more an issue with an electronic Vette style TB than a cable operated version with the IAC solenoid which helps alot. If its an F-body application and your tuner is remotely competent you should be fine....if it is a Y-body application I would discuss with your tuner ahead of time if he has much experience with the larger TB's....they can be tricky for sure.
[/B]
The first is tuning....there is NO question a 102 TB is more of a bitch to tune properly for prefect drivability but it is far more an issue with an electronic Vette style TB than a cable operated version with the IAC solenoid which helps alot. If its an F-body application and your tuner is remotely competent you should be fine....if it is a Y-body application I would discuss with your tuner ahead of time if he has much experience with the larger TB's....they can be tricky for sure.
[/B]
What are the typical driveability issues you have heard of with the drive by wire 102 TBs.
02-25-2011, 08:57 PM
#39
I did the same with the map sensor. did you screw it down or just set it in there? mines just sitting there the rubber seal hold it snug.
02-25-2011, 09:00 PM
#40
A couple more misc questions;
-Anyone NOT use washers on the TB bracket? Just curious.. Just put mine together and got lazy on that one.
-Anyone "customise" a set of fuel rails?
-I finished the inside work on the intake, put the top on, torqued everything down to spec with a dab of blue Loc-Tite, got everything setup and realized I forgot to drill the hole in the back for the MAP. Was gonna run it up front (easier to catch the crumbs.) Any qualms about running the MAP up front? (stupid question)
-Anyone NOT use washers on the TB bracket? Just curious.. Just put mine together and got lazy on that one.
-Anyone "customise" a set of fuel rails?
-I finished the inside work on the intake, put the top on, torqued everything down to spec with a dab of blue Loc-Tite, got everything setup and realized I forgot to drill the hole in the back for the MAP.
Was gonna run it up front (easier to catch the crumbs.) Any qualms about running the MAP up front? (stupid question)Sorry not to repeat what I just said but yes you can do that and I think its a better reading anyways cuz its closer to main air flow.