LS6 Manifold Differences
07-05-2012, 05:56 AM
#21
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
I'd rather personally spend $725 on an intake manifold and tb combo than $900 on just a manifold.
The only real reason for this that I can fathom is the extra weight. That's the only reason that really makes sense besides appearance which everyone has their own opinion on.
If I had an LS6 to start with I wouldn't waste money on a BBK, I'd either stick with it or go FAST. But since I have an LS1, the BBK is the better bang for the buck over the FAST. And I'm currently back to planning on a BBK now because the seller of that Z06 intake didn't get back to me before he sold it
The only real reason for this that I can fathom is the extra weight. That's the only reason that really makes sense besides appearance which everyone has their own opinion on.
If I had an LS6 to start with I wouldn't waste money on a BBK, I'd either stick with it or go FAST. But since I have an LS1, the BBK is the better bang for the buck over the FAST. And I'm currently back to planning on a BBK now because the seller of that Z06 intake didn't get back to me before he sold it
07-05-2012, 09:17 AM
#23
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
True but then I need a TB on top of that, fuel rails + injectors, or at least rails. And I've heard the 102 may require modifications to the water pump...definitely not into that lol
07-05-2012, 09:34 AM
#24
The only difference I'm aware of, is some of the later LS6 manifolds from the drive by wire cars (Vette and CTS-V) don't have the threaded brass inserts for the throttle cable bracket to bolt to. If you're missing them though, you can cut the plastic on the old LS1 intake away to salvage them from it, and press them into the new manifold gently, and you'll be good to go.
07-05-2012, 10:04 AM
#26
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Pardon me, but I never said you needed injectors 
Injectors would just be something you might as well get but aren't required...of course I'd be doing the intake along with a H/C package or at least a cam package so the stock injectors may be reaching the limits of their duty cycle, not sure about that.
Injectors would just be something you might as well get but aren't required...of course I'd be doing the intake along with a H/C package or at least a cam package so the stock injectors may be reaching the limits of their duty cycle, not sure about that.
07-05-2012, 11:30 AM
#28
An LS6 intake is an LS6 intake. There are no power differences between one that comes off a F body vs Y body.
BBK intakes are NOT better than the LS6. Heatsoak DOES exist and DOES affect intake charge temperature. The BBK throttle body IAC passages are terrible.
If you want to upgrade your intake and keep it under 6500rpm, consider the LS6 or the FAST, and nothing else. If the price of the FAST seems steep pick up a used 92mm and avoid the fuel rail cost associated with the 102mm.
BBK intakes are NOT better than the LS6. Heatsoak DOES exist and DOES affect intake charge temperature. The BBK throttle body IAC passages are terrible.
If you want to upgrade your intake and keep it under 6500rpm, consider the LS6 or the FAST, and nothing else. If the price of the FAST seems steep pick up a used 92mm and avoid the fuel rail cost associated with the 102mm.
07-05-2012, 11:50 AM
#29
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
I don't really believe in the 'heat soak' crap...the air is really moving too fast for it to make any sort of noticeable change in temperature when traveling through the intake manifold. I definitely say the LS6 though, the BBK will add like 15lbs to your front end (not a whole lot, till you start doing serious weight reduction), but still.
At WOT you have no "time over target" to heat the air in. Even if the manifold is "heat soaked". If you want to
cut down on that, run your fans full time like I do.
The fin surface area of your radiator is about 5000 square
inches. The surface area of the manifold runner is about
25 square inches more or less. I figured up that at 500CFM
your air spends under 5 milliseconds in the runner.
I spent some time tonight pulling heat transfer calcs
off the Interwebs, and it looks like an aluminum runner
of our geometry and 100C (212F, hotter than water
jacket if you're smart) will push 68 watts (yeah) of
heat and raise the air temp 1.9 degrees (yeah) along
its length.
Feel free to check my work.
cut down on that, run your fans full time like I do.
The fin surface area of your radiator is about 5000 square
inches. The surface area of the manifold runner is about
25 square inches more or less. I figured up that at 500CFM
your air spends under 5 milliseconds in the runner.
I spent some time tonight pulling heat transfer calcs
off the Interwebs, and it looks like an aluminum runner
of our geometry and 100C (212F, hotter than water
jacket if you're smart) will push 68 watts (yeah) of
heat and raise the air temp 1.9 degrees (yeah) along
its length.
Feel free to check my work.
I pulled out the laser temperature meter and took some readings. After a 5 mile drive and 5 minute idling in the
parking lot with the hood closed, the Pro Products intake
read 112F on the runner 1/2" from the heads, heads read
168F, front fender 85F.
On the way back out of Wal-Mart, heads and intake both
135F. I was in there a while.
So there's your heat soak bogeyman. If you're set up like
me there's nothing much going on while running. If my
calcs based on 212F are any kind of right, the aluminum
doesn't do any significant heating at all on my car (112F).
Of course if you have dumb factory fan settings, a plugged
up radiator and live in Arizona, you might well be worse.
But there's no excuse for any of that.
parking lot with the hood closed, the Pro Products intake
read 112F on the runner 1/2" from the heads, heads read
168F, front fender 85F.
On the way back out of Wal-Mart, heads and intake both
135F. I was in there a while.
So there's your heat soak bogeyman. If you're set up like
me there's nothing much going on while running. If my
calcs based on 212F are any kind of right, the aluminum
doesn't do any significant heating at all on my car (112F).
Of course if you have dumb factory fan settings, a plugged
up radiator and live in Arizona, you might well be worse.
But there's no excuse for any of that.
I'm mixed on this. If I had a stock TB and a LS1 intake, I would buy a BBK for sure. Unless I found a LS6 intake cheap, like $250 that doesnt happen much. Most are $330-350. A BBK 85mm intake is only $399 at NewEra were I got mine. So thats a good deal if you have a LS1 intake still, its 5whp more then a LS6, that like 25% the power gain for not alot more money. And you can port them pretty easy, maybe even fit a used 90mm TB on them. But Ive found most 346s are fine with a 85MM TB. The BBK is really nice compaired to that Profenial Products intake, Ive worked with 2 of them, and there were both junk. That heat soak stuff is BS, after the dyno pull I could push my hand hard on the BBK and keep it there. Warm not hot, just the same as my LS6 gets. The heads were to hot to touch. Sitting in a parking lot in the sun running it will get hot, but so dose the wheel wells and everything else from engine heat and no airflow. The intake sits on the rubber O-rings, its not bolted right to the motor touching with a paper gasket. The bolts carry some heat but this is a must.
If I had a LS6 intake and a ported stock TB I don't think I'd buy a BBK, but then again it was almost have the gains of the fast over the really good LS6 intake with a 75mm TB. And I could, and I'm going to sell my LS6 for 330-350$ and my ported stock TB for $100.
The fast intake is a lot of money all setup on your car, I was hoping to make 420whp and was disappointed on the 415whp. But even Mike at new era said he sees a lot of cars that don't gain 13-15whp over a LS6, and with tuning only gain a 9-11 kinda sucks for the money. But its true if you have stock heads, and cubes. But I've seen cars gain 25-30 with smaller 370-383cube deals, and good heads, over the LS6.
If I had a LS6 intake and a ported stock TB I don't think I'd buy a BBK, but then again it was almost have the gains of the fast over the really good LS6 intake with a 75mm TB. And I could, and I'm going to sell my LS6 for 330-350$ and my ported stock TB for $100.
The fast intake is a lot of money all setup on your car, I was hoping to make 420whp and was disappointed on the 415whp. But even Mike at new era said he sees a lot of cars that don't gain 13-15whp over a LS6, and with tuning only gain a 9-11 kinda sucks for the money. But its true if you have stock heads, and cubes. But I've seen cars gain 25-30 with smaller 370-383cube deals, and good heads, over the LS6.
07-05-2012, 11:59 AM
#30
07-05-2012, 12:10 PM
#31
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
I did not.HOWEVER, bigger injectors would be needed depending on the application. In my case, if I am going to do the manifold/tb at the same time as a H/C swap, the stock injectors MAY be at the limits of their duty cycle, which would prompt necessity to get better injectors.
07-05-2012, 12:33 PM
#33
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Well considering my post about injectors was squarely aimed at your comment preceding it regarding the FAST 102, it was specific to that in comparison to the subject of the thread, the aforementioned LS6 intake, in which case injectors would not be needed either. While I do agree that injectors may need swapped for the LS6 as they would with the 102 if the duty cycle is reached with a H/C swap, it wasn't necessary to bring up until the point at which I replied to your comment about the FAST 102.
PS: I wasn't an English major, I have a CIS degree
PS: I wasn't an English major, I have a CIS degree
07-05-2012, 12:44 PM
#34
Those guys have it all wrong. I don't care what they "calculate". People have been separating coolant passages and shielding oil from their intakes for decades and seeing positive results, on every popular platform. Changing the intake material from aluminum/iron to composite takes that practice one step further, if not two steps. When it comes to eliminating heat transfer aluminum is one of the worst materials you could use, and composite one of the best. Heat soak affecting intake temperature charge has been proven to death; not by some dumbass with calculated theory on the internet, but by OEMs and large aftermarket performance companies alike. Look under your hood right now!! Composite, dry intake design... Hello?
07-05-2012, 12:58 PM
#35
Well considering my post about injectors was squarely aimed at your comment preceding it regarding the FAST 102, it was specific to that in comparison to the subject of the thread, the aforementioned LS6 intake, in which case injectors would not be needed either. While I do agree that injectors may need swapped for the LS6 as they would with the 102 if the duty cycle is reached with a H/C swap, it wasn't necessary to bring up until the point at which I replied to your comment about the FAST 102.
PS: I wasn't an English major, I have a CIS degree
PS: I wasn't an English major, I have a CIS degree
right?
07-05-2012, 01:02 PM
#36
^ That would imply you need at least rails, ergo, implying the need for injectors is not there, leaving it to personal preference as to whether or not to get new ones.
HOWEVER, bigger injectors would be needed depending on the application. In my case, if I am going to do the manifold/tb at the same time as a H/C swap, the stock injectors MAY be at the limits of their duty cycle, which would prompt necessity to get better injectors.
HOWEVER, bigger injectors would be needed depending on the application. In my case, if I am going to do the manifold/tb at the same time as a H/C swap, the stock injectors MAY be at the limits of their duty cycle, which would prompt necessity to get better injectors.
this thread is about differences in intake manifolds, which has NOTHING to do with injectors. so why would you bring it up unless you thought for some reason the FAST102 uses different injectors?
07-05-2012, 01:34 PM
#37
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
and had to pipe in leading to the downward spiral this thread has taken.
07-05-2012, 01:36 PM
#38
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
Real stats?! LMAO!!!
Those guys have it all wrong. I don't care what they "calculate". People have been separating coolant passages and shielding oil from their intakes for decades and seeing positive results, on every popular platform. Changing the intake material from aluminum/iron to composite takes that practice one step further, if not two steps. When it comes to eliminating heat transfer aluminum is one of the worst materials you could use, and composite one of the best. Heat soak affecting intake temperature charge has been proven to death; not by some dumbass with calculated theory on the internet, but by OEMs and large aftermarket performance companies alike. Look under your hood right now!! Composite, dry intake design... Hello?
Those guys have it all wrong. I don't care what they "calculate". People have been separating coolant passages and shielding oil from their intakes for decades and seeing positive results, on every popular platform. Changing the intake material from aluminum/iron to composite takes that practice one step further, if not two steps. When it comes to eliminating heat transfer aluminum is one of the worst materials you could use, and composite one of the best. Heat soak affecting intake temperature charge has been proven to death; not by some dumbass with calculated theory on the internet, but by OEMs and large aftermarket performance companies alike. Look under your hood right now!! Composite, dry intake design... Hello?
07-05-2012, 03:01 PM
#40
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter