I was thinking about turning the MAP and grabbing a piece of 14ga sheet metal cut to the size of the body of the MAP with a hole for the screw. I could rotate it vertically and the metal would keep somewhat even pressure on it and act as a big washer. I'll try it today. There's a course thread screw that came w the manifold that is used for the EGR that has a bigger washer on it but I was having issues getting the washer off it last night so I gave up on it.

I'd rather have it in the back, come to think of it. Cleaner.

I'm just wondering how the HELL I'm gonna get a tq wrench in here too..

-=EDIT=-

I figured it out. The MAP thing that is. Made a small piece of sheetmetal for a hold down. Snugged up good and the MAP isn't moving.

 

So the 92 or 102 TB difference on a 102 manifold will be negligible?

 

100% correct.

 

^ WTF?! Why would I get the damn 102mm TB then??! What's the point in the first place? I can just look around for a frickin NW 92.

 

The TB size determines the restriction, technically you cant have too big as stated. Id just go with the 102, same price and it cant hurt

 

Yes and no.....

At some point you will see next to nothing as you keep enlarging the TB, not too mention create fits for your tuner because if you hypothetically crack a 120mm TB just say five degree it may be the equivalent of opening a 92mm TB a quarter throttle.

While an engine may only need say 750 CFM's to produce 550 HP.....as you go bigger in TB size there is usually a gain in power (especially if we are discussing going larger than its theoretical minimum airflow requirement), but once you start approaching 1500 - 2000 CFM's which is essentially where we are currently (with the new 102 TB), from here any increase in size starts to become a mute point. The runners and the airflow appetite of the engine in question simply doesn't warrant it.....other areas along the intake and exhaust tract (including the heads) start to become the main roadblock to additional airflow and power.

Dont forget guys you can make 1000 horsepower normally aspirated with an 1150 -1200 CFM carb.....this is a fact.

Whats interesting though is Pat G's 6.0 litre that put down 500 RWHP with our new 230 V2 heads picked up about 5 ponies with the 102 TB versus the 92 (Bayer-Z28....I know this is the info you crave).....now I suspect half that gain was from eliminating the back swirl of air around the perimeter of the 92 TB exit going into the 102mm hole (a 1/4 lip around the entire TB), but none the less this answers the question of what is the 102 worth on the large manifold versus the 90 or 92mm TB. Not to mention I suspect on a larger motor with a really big appetite it may be worth a little more.

In summary....doubt there will be a larger manifold in the near future from FAST.....doubt even if they produced it it would be remotely worth the head aches in tunability that would ensue, and lastly, if your stepping up and getting the new 102, IMO, take the plunge of the high board and get the larger TB as well. A 5 RWHP swing represents 20-25% more output from the swap....not an insignificant number (but on the flip side not the end of the world either if you have a good working ported 90 and you want an easier time tuning the new combination).

Decisions, decisions.....but I know what will be parked in front of my own 102 mm shortly....LOL....one way or another I will get that big TB tuned and working properly.

Thanks,
Tony

 

Tony,

Can you look at my previous post concerning runner length?

 

It's on target....everything you said was pretty spot on

They could have (and should have) produced various runner lengths for this new style intake IMO.

Between you and I, the real reason they didn't opt to do that was to prevent someone not very engine savvy from purchasing and bolting on the shorter runner combination looking for more power and then proceed to start whining on the Internet about the fact they lost 20 ft/lbs down low compared to their stock intake .

I say inform the customer and produce the parts....I would buy a set of those short runners in a heartbeat for the 454 Im building for myself right now....would gladly give up 20 or even 30 ft/lbs downstairs to see another 20 HP upstairs with the ability to carry that power longer and later in the curve.....especially considering the engine Im building will likely make more torque than I can apply to the ground anyway....at least on the street.

To be honest, the length Comp chose for the FAST 102 produced close to the power of the shorter runners in their testing (so they say) while still generating more torque than stock....a win/win across the board and the reason they opted not to produce more than one length/style runner. They couldn't have an unhappy customer that way.

I say that was a mistake though....and lobby every year I see them at PRI to make a custom shorter length runner for the stroker crowd.....maybe someday they will listen....who knows! What better manifold to utilize that very important tuning tool with! It would be a piece of cake to swap the runners and you could easily do it right on the chassis dyno to see the results.

Fingers crossed they listen next year!!



Cheers,
Tony

 

Thanks for the response. A sawsall is really all you need for "custom" length runners.

 

Not that easy.....you would need to bellmouth and radius all the runner entrances and if you shorten the runners you run out of real estate for a properly shaped bellmouth entrance to do it right.....I started that project with some extra runners I obtained from Comp and decided it was going to be too time consuming to do it right....and if I did then others would want me to do it for them as well and the price I would have to charge would be ludicrous.

After thinking it all thru I just ditched the project completely....

Someday I may resurrect it though just for ***** and grins....it depends on how quickly my big motor rolls over with one of my "standard" heavily reworked 102 intakes!!...LOL

-Tony

 

I was joking but I am not surprised you had already thought of it. LOL .

 

Hmmm... I've got some stock stuff up for sale to help fund the rest of this. Just got the TB, ducting and lid to do.


Here's my MAP fix..

 

What a FPITA today. FOUR TIMES to get the intake to WP clearance right. I learned that 320gt sand paper makes a darn good feeler gauge. Finally got it torqued down.

Some more findings; I knew the WP had to be ground out but. Before it was torqued down, it looked ok so I thought, "Well, maybe not this one." Nope. Got REALLY close half the way through the first try. Loosen it back up, wedge it up with the rubber handle on a pair of Dycs. Grind the WP down. Second try, STILL too tight after the first TQ pass. Back off AGAIN. Ground it down some more and the Dremel snagged the towel I was using to cover the intake/heads/valley. TRY it again.. STILL not good enough.. MOTHAFUKA!!! NOW I'm getting pissed. Ground it down again, Dremel snagged the towel again and Dremel saw a quick trip against the wall. The first Dremel died (craftsman,) now the second one doesn't work because of it's little "ride" across the garage.

4th time was the charm. But I got aggressive with it. 4.5" angle grinder and a carbide bit on a 3/*' DeWalt drill. Also took a HAIR off the bottom of the intake. Kept checking it with the piece of 320 gt sand paper to use as a feeler gauge. It wasn't going all the way under the throat before and I didn't like it so I wouldn't let myself finish torquing the intake. Don't want to break an $800 manifold.

And a tip for the torque wrench (I used a SMALL Snap-on 3.8" lb/in tw.) Don't snap the socket on there all the way and it works fine. None of my extensions would work. Even have a 1/2" length extension.

Anyway.. Here's some pics for visual aids... and to elaborate on my "Sand paper feeler gauge." It works tho.

Before torquing. This gap can be deceiving.


After it's torqued (first pass), it will look like this:


This is where it was hitting. Couldn't get the paper past this was concerning me.


Third try grinding. Not good enough. Gotta take the side of the bolt "boss" out almost to the threads. Even w some off the intake.


Torque wrench "trick"

 

did you use locktite with those stainless steel bolts...mine backed out on my fast 92 only after 10 miles to half of the tq rating I tightened them too...I added red loctite and they still came loose...I now have the stock ls6 intake bolts and no problems...

 

Wow. I wonder if everyone has this much trouble.

I might look for a 92 and have it ported.

 

It's just a shoe-horn getting it in. That's it. Well, besides grinding the WP.

And FAST called for loc-tite on the bolts, so I used it. I may get a set of ARPs if these give me problems. Torqued to 79 in/lbs. But w me taking it on and off four times today, I wonder if there's still some left on the threads. :-/

 

I have read several threads where people say the FAST bolts don't work and to stick with the factory ones.

Anyone else having these problems please speak up!

 

disregard this post.

I re read what Chris said and I misunderstood it.

My fault.

 

i think the water pump would be alright with 1 less bolt if you needed to take it off for clearance

 

Till it leaks.

I don't now if it would make a difference or not.