20 Ls cathedral intakes tested!
08-03-2015, 12:07 PM
#21
08-03-2015, 08:07 PM
#26
TECH Fanatic
08-03-2015, 08:32 PM
#28
9 Second Club
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw this, yesterday, I'm also disappointed they didn't test the Super Victor. But the test results do have me thinking about switch to a Hi ram or LSXrt away from the Super Victor.
08-03-2015, 08:35 PM
#29
I honestly expedcted more out of the lsxrt I usually see a lot better hp claims on it with its better runners and plenum volume but it doesnt seem to make much of a difference here.
I cant say I'm surprised by the msd though, its proved what I said since i first saw it....With the typical ls intake design and space allotted in these cars there simply isnt enough real estate to make power jumps over the fast. you just cant make the runners long enough or plenum large enough to make a big difference. fast has been developing ls intakes for over 10 years, i think they've pretty much squeezed everything they can from that design. msd making breakthroughs that somehow fast overlooked was pipe-dreamish. the vararam is a whole new design so i'm curious about that.
I cant say I'm surprised by the msd though, its proved what I said since i first saw it....With the typical ls intake design and space allotted in these cars there simply isnt enough real estate to make power jumps over the fast. you just cant make the runners long enough or plenum large enough to make a big difference. fast has been developing ls intakes for over 10 years, i think they've pretty much squeezed everything they can from that design. msd making breakthroughs that somehow fast overlooked was pipe-dreamish. the vararam is a whole new design so i'm curious about that.
08-03-2015, 08:54 PM
#30
I'm using the truck intake on a 325 CID Gen III.
See attached images of partially assembled engine in mockup.
Application is a 1970 International Harvester Scout.
I think it looks significantly better after being worked over. At least it works for me.
This is a daily driver vehicle, where I am not looking to achieve max HP or torque at high RPM.
Exhaust manifolds (difficult to see) are from an LS-2 and are powder coated.
See attached images of partially assembled engine in mockup.
Application is a 1970 International Harvester Scout.
I think it looks significantly better after being worked over. At least it works for me.
This is a daily driver vehicle, where I am not looking to achieve max HP or torque at high RPM.
Exhaust manifolds (difficult to see) are from an LS-2 and are powder coated.
08-04-2015, 05:02 AM
#31
Agreed. I personally wouldn't bother buy a LS6 intake. If you're making this much power, it would be holding an engine back, and on something closer to stock they barely make a difference over a LS1 intake.
What surprised me is the single plane carb intakes made so much less power than the FAST 102. Though they didn't test the super victor.
08-04-2015, 04:03 PM
#33
Yeah, but it's going in my flat black square body, so it'll blend in. Haha
That came out nice!
I'm using the truck intake on a 325 CID Gen III.
See attached images of partially assembled engine in mockup.
Application is a 1970 International Harvester Scout.
I think it looks significantly better after being worked over. At least it works for me.
This is a daily driver vehicle, where I am not looking to achieve max HP or torque at high RPM.
Exhaust manifolds (difficult to see) are from an LS-2 and are powder coated.
See attached images of partially assembled engine in mockup.
Application is a 1970 International Harvester Scout.
I think it looks significantly better after being worked over. At least it works for me.
This is a daily driver vehicle, where I am not looking to achieve max HP or torque at high RPM.
Exhaust manifolds (difficult to see) are from an LS-2 and are powder coated.
08-04-2015, 07:15 PM
#34
08-05-2015, 01:34 AM
#35
That could be part of it, but in "theory" it shouldn't have been much of a factor on a dyno when both are tuned for max hp.
It would be interesting to see how an EFI single planes with elbow would compare, since that seems to be a common set up.
I've kinda been under the impression that people are choosing single plane intakes with elbows for max hp over the FAST 102, but the test sure didn't show that.
It would be interesting to see how an EFI single planes with elbow would compare, since that seems to be a common set up.
I've kinda been under the impression that people are choosing single plane intakes with elbows for max hp over the FAST 102, but the test sure didn't show that.
08-05-2015, 06:49 AM
#36
TECH Fanatic
I'm using the truck intake on a 325 CID Gen III.
See attached images of partially assembled engine in mockup.
Application is a 1970 International Harvester Scout.
I think it looks significantly better after being worked over. At least it works for me.
This is a daily driver vehicle, where I am not looking to achieve max HP or torque at high RPM.
Exhaust manifolds (difficult to see) are from an LS-2 and are powder coated.
See attached images of partially assembled engine in mockup.
Application is a 1970 International Harvester Scout.
I think it looks significantly better after being worked over. At least it works for me.
This is a daily driver vehicle, where I am not looking to achieve max HP or torque at high RPM.
Exhaust manifolds (difficult to see) are from an LS-2 and are powder coated.
That turned out really nice.
Unfortunately, that intake and fuel rail set up won't allow me to use the fuel rail covers I already put some work into for the 5.3 going in my dad's 64 Impala SS.
08-05-2015, 07:40 AM
#37
The big thing with single planes is the right camshaft, to me this test shows fast is min on this combo. The Vic jr doesn't preform as well as the super Vic. Also it's single plane is intended rpm use is a lot different and the use of a elbow will kill power and really needs a 4150 throttle body or carb.
08-05-2015, 08:56 AM
#38
08-06-2015, 09:57 AM
#39
08-09-2015, 07:39 PM
#40
