Which FAST intake for current cam/heads?
08-27-2012, 01:15 PM
#22
No pun intended, but I hate comments like yours. Of course anything can be cheaper when you buy it used. There is a USED FAST 102 on Ebay right now for $500. One just sold here the other day for $600...
With any budget build, deals are out there. Not good for comparison though...IMHO a used 92 intake (at least what I have seen), are not far off from the new price tag. If they were....I would have bought one by now...
08-27-2012, 08:36 PM
#23
TECH Veteran
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N. Falmouth MA
Posts: 4,085
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was your baro reading? 105kPa tells me your DA was in the negatives which is hard to hit in the summer. Here in NJ I'm 33ft above sea level and my Baro usually reads around 101kPa. At WOT I usually see between 98 - 100 kPa one the MAP reading depending on the weather. Just curious as to how you got to 105+ kPa?
I'm around central CT area, so the sea level would be about the same as yours.
08-27-2012, 10:32 PM
#25
ummm....So is the LSXR...
Thats why they stopped making the FAST 92. The LSXR is the latest and greatest design. The internet myths and popularity brought it back.
08-28-2012, 12:44 AM
#26
it is on the fast website as we speak.... As for the lsxr102 I know it bolts on to the ls1 just fine, but you will have to get new fuel rail, and injector spacers. That's all i meant with the 92 was that everything swaps right over. Last edited by rdd014camaro; 08-28-2012 at 12:54 AM. Reason: Adding information
08-28-2012, 12:25 PM
#27
The FAST 92 was discontinued shortly after the LSXR was released. A OEM LS2 rail and some .400" rail spacers is not a big deal.
Our point is , there is not really a cost difference and the 102 is superior.
Our point is , there is not really a cost difference and the 102 is superior.
08-28-2012, 03:35 PM
#29
Duly noted sir.... While we're on the subject and you seem fairly knowledgable on the subject. On a 347ci engine I have heard that the cable operated 102 throttle body is a little tricky to drive due to the large diameter running on a cable, and that the 92 throttle body is a better choice for those applications. Any validity to this?
08-28-2012, 04:22 PM
#31
If the 102 truly is far superior then why did Fast just start making the 92mm again? Im not trying to be a dick, just truly wondering why. I havent used the 102 but ive heard of fitment issues on the 98-02 cars and that they are harder to get the tune right.
08-28-2012, 06:31 PM
#32
Simple business technique. There is no arguement the FAST 92 is popular and the internet myths killed some of the sales for the FAST 102...But Dyno numbers prove the 102 makes more power. I can't believe people were paying what they were for used 92s. CPG knew there was still money to make on them, so they brought them back.
lol
06-06-2013, 10:47 AM
#37
There are dyno sheets on here showing side by side comparisons. Not only did the 102 make more power, it was more power all across the board. It was more than 4 hp....
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...ts-inside.html
Not bad for being CHEAPER than the 92.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/generatio...ts-inside.html
Not bad for being CHEAPER than the 92.
Nice comparison between the two. I thought about at 102 but did not want to buy a new LS2 WP or grind down my stock one. Had I seen that test before it may have changed my mind.
I bought a used Vengeance ported 92 and ended up taking A LOT more material off of their 'ported' version. Don't know if it made a big difference or not but sure it didn't hurt.
