BADD SS

iTrader: (4)

What they really should do, is build a composite single plane, so I can ditch this 4000 lb super vic..... Honestly, why are there no composite single planes for LS applications...

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

It's not that the 102 didn't work, it works great. Better than subsequent fast models on any setup. It's the carb mentality that the uneducated masses have that "it's too big for a stock engine"

Once people wake up, it will be a bigger hit.

badazz81z28

iTrader: (6)

I'm almost positive I read on the corvette forum the FAST 92 does have fitment problems on the C5.

They usually cut the back of the intake and re-locate the MAP sensor or they mess with the firewall.

Blk98Vert

iTrader: (2)

It was a huge hit with stock cube guys...not sure where you live but out here the vast majority of people running a FAST have a 102, I know several that sold their 92 to upgrade on different platforms

SweetS10V8

iTrader: (4)

All it takes is a runner change to make the intake act like a single plane. Thats whats cool about the indiviual runner concept.....

Scoggin Dickey

iTrader: (34)

The C6 has to cut the back of the 92mm to fit, not the C5. The C5 has to space the k-member or cowl to make the 102mm fit. You don't have to, but it's preferable to move the map sensor to the front on a C5 with either intake. I don't like MAP sensors in the rear of the intake.

For a C6 the 102 is an easier bolt-on, for the C5 and f-body the 92 is an easier bolt-on.

lemons12

iTrader: (71)

Where have you been? I see positive 102 reviews everywhere.

01ssreda4

iTrader: (96)

^^^I don't

Mike Morris

iTrader: (55)

I have seen a lot of 102 positive reviews.
Ask Tony Mamo/Peak/Veneg etc which intake is better on a 346 ported or not. Tony's answer might suprise you and he has a lot of experience with them all.

MAXXLIMIT

iTrader: (16)

My buddy had a LS1 intake on his stock LS1 and we did a LS6 intake swap only and gained 15hp. So for a LS6 intake only costing $300 compared to a FAST 92mm for $900, I can't justify the a $600 differance in price for only 5hp more

I'll stick to a LS6 intake unless I had a 408ci or bigger LSx motor. Then a 102mm would go on for the same price as a 92mm.....

MAXXLIMIT

iTrader: (16)

I did when I had a 102mm FAST and a 102MM TB. The TB was hitting and not fitting right. Had to grind the water pump.

Also with a 102mm on a F-body I came to find out that your throttle cable will be a lil short if you run a 102mm TB also. The cam gear is bigger and you will need to adjust the cable and in my case lost CC due to this adjustment. And REALLY did not like the fitment in a F-body, so against a 102mm in a f-body.

Scoggin Dickey

iTrader: (34)

That was his question, do you have to grind with a 92mm like you do with a 102mm. Advantage - 92mm. For C5s and f-bodies, I prefer the 92mm.

BADD SS

iTrader: (4)

I don't want a forward facing manifold, I want a super vic style (runner length, and distribution) manifold that I can take to 8,000 + rpm.... And fwiw, the fast 102 did not much better if at all then all the fast 92's I've seen. And I've seen tons... Concept is great, execution leaves alot to be desired.....

salemetro

iTrader: (5)

L33, FAST 102,Edelbrock 90mm TB, CTS-V accessories....had to grind the water pump, and locate the MAP on top/front of the 102. No biggie either way here...

Bramlok

iTrader: (7)

Can someone tell me if the MAP sensor mounts on the rear of the FAST 92 without an issue? Or is it still a tight fit?

Blk98Vert

iTrader: (2)

WOW. Throw on a H/C package ans swap the LS6 for a 102 and see if you dont pick up another 15 or more

Scoggin Dickey

iTrader: (34)

It will always be a tight fit when rear mounted, it's an inherent flaw with putting the sensor in the rear with the engine so close to the firewall. I like to use the FAST kit that moves it to the front. It isn't necessary but it is sure convenient.

Firebirdmuscle

iTrader: (16)

I would hope he would gain more than 15 hp just in h/c much less just the intake on top of that

*02WS6TURK*

iTrader: (13)

92 FTW. Awesome intake!

bww3588

iTrader: (49)

He was talking about gains from the intake alone, after heads and cam.