Mamo ported FAST Vs Mamo ported MSD
06-05-2016, 04:31 AM
#1
LS1Tech Sponsor
Thread Starter
Mamo ported FAST Vs Mamo ported MSD This thread ought to be of interest to you guys....LOL
(Warning: This is going to be a looong post so sit back with your favorite cup of Java....lots going on here!)
So has the King finally been slayed??? Has the "Gold Standard" finally lost its luster??
Clearly I reference the utter domination FAST has had in the cathedral segment of the market now for the last decade. While many other companies have tried, most have failed to outperform the FAST. Turns out MSD threw their hat in the ring last year and in stock trim the FAST was still King but the MSD (also in stock trim) gave it at least a run for it's money. The short story there was down a bit on TQ and close on power.....Richard Holdener did the test a few months back.
Knowing that fact and almost a subconscious allegiance to the FAST after having successfully ported hundreds with good results, I didn't really look much further myself after reading about the results of the MSD that Richard reported (mimicking another I also heard about). Lets move the clock a few months to the the right. Very recently a potential customer of mine was intent on trying the cathedral MSD and intent on having me port one. After my recent success over the last four to five months with my ported MSD LS7 intakes (simply the best front mount OEM style intake on the planet for an LS7 right now), my curiosity was certainly more piqued about the cathedral situation and this particular customer wasn't taking no for an answer anyway.
What did I find when the MSD arrived??....quite a different approach to the port design when compared to the FAST.....the "good" was shorter and straighter runners....a much more direct air path to the intake port. The "bad" (besides all the production transition issues and steps common to both manifolds), was I felt there was some less than ideal cross sectional areas in the runners (too small) and the injector boss area was also suspect IMO. After looking it over carefully I felt I had something potentially good to work with that (assuming I didn't put a hole in it first), I could potentially eliminate or minimize most of the shortcomings of the production piece leaving me with something that just might work really well.
So I went to work taking more plastic out of any single composite manifold than ever before (FAST, MSD etc...). In fact here are a couple of so-so camera phone pics along the way....the first is looking down the stock runner and what you actually see regarding the "port window".....this is what the air "sees" initially as it enters the bellmouth and starts making it way down the runner approaching the head.
This was not a finished piece but a pic I also took along the way in the 1st port I started working on....while not that easy to see here, looking thru the actual part sitting right in front of you was quite eye opening....after enlarging the CSA in the areas I fell needed to be addressed you could really see almost the entire bowl of the intake port now. At some point I may try to take better pics of this but for now this is all I have. The port is clearly wider, taller, and actually even straighter with the extensive porting work
I should add that I also radically altered the injector boss area but some "tricks" and approach to port design are better left as proprietary....the customers that buy one from me pay for the privelidge to inspect things but you would had to have seen one stock to appreciate....LOL
I'm sure by now you guys are getting the feeling this new ported piece may just be the best thing since sliced bread and you visualize the former King bloodied on the floor in his castle (in Tennessee....LOL). The truth of the matter is they are BOTH winners in their own regard. Application and the rest of the combination (especially as it relates to valvetrain stability) will ultimately decide which manifold is best but I was excited by the results of my heavily reworked MSD as it made a good bit more peak power on a 416 I just recently finished and dyno tested at Westech earlier this week.
Obviously the black line is the curve with the MSD and the green line with the FAST. Lets get the obvious out of the way immediately....the ported FAST dominated the ported MSD down low but after 6K the MSD really makes a move increasing peak power by 13 HP, as well as moving it 3-400 RPM higher and carries past peak insanely flat at RPM's cathedral port builds have simply never been able to achieve before. The average power gains are significant if your willing to shift the combo with the MSD (in this particular combinations) at 7500 RPM noting that the FAST would be best shifted 500 RPM earlier.
Summary....IS the MSD the new King?? Yes and no....yes perhaps for a smaller percentage of the market place. A few other things also need to be considered here....would the crossover point be even higher on a 346?? Past experience tells me yes and that would dictate even more RPM required on a smaller motor to take as much advantage however this is pure speculation on my part. At some point in the near future I suspect we will find out for real. Valvetrain....clearly a huge factor here. Most folks that have dealt with me or read about my builds I know I'm a stickler for all the details, especially valvetrain related cause once you start losing valve control it wont make a difference how much time and money you have in your heads and the rest of the combo....its over....power will start signing off immediately. This engine was built by myself, has short travel Johnson lifters and custom length pushrods netting all the same optimized preload, and of course my Pro 10mm Yella Terra rockers I use on all my builds which will handle this type of RPM with aplomb compared to a stock rocker. In fact this engine had a 1.8 ratio with .662 lift and the power curve looked like a solid roller engine with absolute perfect control till the point we terminated the test (7300). This is an important consideration if your considering the MSD.....you better have a serious well thought out valvetrain or valvetrain instability/float will all but eliminate the big gains you might have saw up top with the MSD.
This test leaves me with more questions than answers....most of which surrounding how this intake will work on larger as well as smaller combinations. Unless you have a serious 346 and a dialed in valvetrain, I suspect this intake wouldn't work as well on a smaller engine but as cubes (and budget) increase, this intake would have to be a solid consideration. Also the larger the engine the more you can give up torque and trade it for horsepower....I could barely keep my 383 hooked up in my C5 Vette and that engine made 523 peak TQ on this same dyno (at 5500 RPM).....a figure even the MSD makes here at 4200 or so with this larger 416 combination. With larger motors especially, giving up some TQ for HP just helps the car hook a little better and rip your head off shortly after planting.
That being said my initial recommendations are that any stroker with a cathedral probably gets the nod to go with one of my ported MSD's vs the FAST, but if you road race that stroker the FAST may still be the better choice (in fact would be in that application). Stock cube builds....probably the FAST to help make that TQ you are limited in producing being light in cubes but more aggressive stock cube builds with well sorted out optimized valve gear might really benefit from the MSD if your cool with (guessing) around a 76-7700 shift point. This is short travel lifter territory only btw, OR a low lash mechanical which is another application this intake starts to make more sense assuming the shortblock can run reliably with higher RPM.
Bottom line....this is good stuff....having this option is good for the community and while if I had to guess how many FAST I will port the rest of this year versus MSD would probably favor the FAST, I think alot of folks will start rethinking their builds because of the opportunity presented here.
Sorry for the long winded post but this is potentially the most exciting topic (IMO) that I have covered in a long time and I wanted to be thorough as possible so you guys could grasp all the good (and the bad) associated with considering this manifold.
Looks like both intakes get to wear the crown.....it just really depends on your application and approach to your build!
Regards,
Tony
PS....Wanted to thank Matt Roundtree and his Dad who were a pleasure to spend some time with and who also allowed me to test this manifold on his engine. Matt actually purchased the MSD from me will all of us in agreeing he could afford to lose a little TQ for that significant gain in power and RPM. In fact at 7300, the MSD is still making more power than the 650 horses the FAST peaked at 800 RPM earlier.....that's impressive!!
PSS....I know I could have coaxed a couple more ponies from the MSD intake given more time....it was more of a "Hey....lets try this" at the end of a long day mounting and running the engine and optimizing it with the ported FAST. I could tell the Westech boys just wanted to start breaking down the engine and really I saw all I needed to see (although gaining 15 HP over the best cathedral intake on the planet sounds sexier than 13.....LOL)
(Warning: This is going to be a looong post so sit back with your favorite cup of Java....lots going on here!)
So has the King finally been slayed??? Has the "Gold Standard" finally lost its luster??
Clearly I reference the utter domination FAST has had in the cathedral segment of the market now for the last decade. While many other companies have tried, most have failed to outperform the FAST. Turns out MSD threw their hat in the ring last year and in stock trim the FAST was still King but the MSD (also in stock trim) gave it at least a run for it's money. The short story there was down a bit on TQ and close on power.....Richard Holdener did the test a few months back.
Knowing that fact and almost a subconscious allegiance to the FAST after having successfully ported hundreds with good results, I didn't really look much further myself after reading about the results of the MSD that Richard reported (mimicking another I also heard about). Lets move the clock a few months to the the right. Very recently a potential customer of mine was intent on trying the cathedral MSD and intent on having me port one. After my recent success over the last four to five months with my ported MSD LS7 intakes (simply the best front mount OEM style intake on the planet for an LS7 right now), my curiosity was certainly more piqued about the cathedral situation and this particular customer wasn't taking no for an answer anyway.
What did I find when the MSD arrived??....quite a different approach to the port design when compared to the FAST.....the "good" was shorter and straighter runners....a much more direct air path to the intake port. The "bad" (besides all the production transition issues and steps common to both manifolds), was I felt there was some less than ideal cross sectional areas in the runners (too small) and the injector boss area was also suspect IMO. After looking it over carefully I felt I had something potentially good to work with that (assuming I didn't put a hole in it first), I could potentially eliminate or minimize most of the shortcomings of the production piece leaving me with something that just might work really well.
So I went to work taking more plastic out of any single composite manifold than ever before (FAST, MSD etc...). In fact here are a couple of so-so camera phone pics along the way....the first is looking down the stock runner and what you actually see regarding the "port window".....this is what the air "sees" initially as it enters the bellmouth and starts making it way down the runner approaching the head.
This was not a finished piece but a pic I also took along the way in the 1st port I started working on....while not that easy to see here, looking thru the actual part sitting right in front of you was quite eye opening....after enlarging the CSA in the areas I fell needed to be addressed you could really see almost the entire bowl of the intake port now. At some point I may try to take better pics of this but for now this is all I have. The port is clearly wider, taller, and actually even straighter with the extensive porting work
I should add that I also radically altered the injector boss area but some "tricks" and approach to port design are better left as proprietary....the customers that buy one from me pay for the privelidge to inspect things but you would had to have seen one stock to appreciate....LOL
I'm sure by now you guys are getting the feeling this new ported piece may just be the best thing since sliced bread and you visualize the former King bloodied on the floor in his castle (in Tennessee....LOL). The truth of the matter is they are BOTH winners in their own regard. Application and the rest of the combination (especially as it relates to valvetrain stability) will ultimately decide which manifold is best but I was excited by the results of my heavily reworked MSD as it made a good bit more peak power on a 416 I just recently finished and dyno tested at Westech earlier this week.
Obviously the black line is the curve with the MSD and the green line with the FAST. Lets get the obvious out of the way immediately....the ported FAST dominated the ported MSD down low but after 6K the MSD really makes a move increasing peak power by 13 HP, as well as moving it 3-400 RPM higher and carries past peak insanely flat at RPM's cathedral port builds have simply never been able to achieve before. The average power gains are significant if your willing to shift the combo with the MSD (in this particular combinations) at 7500 RPM noting that the FAST would be best shifted 500 RPM earlier.
Summary....IS the MSD the new King?? Yes and no....yes perhaps for a smaller percentage of the market place. A few other things also need to be considered here....would the crossover point be even higher on a 346?? Past experience tells me yes and that would dictate even more RPM required on a smaller motor to take as much advantage however this is pure speculation on my part. At some point in the near future I suspect we will find out for real. Valvetrain....clearly a huge factor here. Most folks that have dealt with me or read about my builds I know I'm a stickler for all the details, especially valvetrain related cause once you start losing valve control it wont make a difference how much time and money you have in your heads and the rest of the combo....its over....power will start signing off immediately. This engine was built by myself, has short travel Johnson lifters and custom length pushrods netting all the same optimized preload, and of course my Pro 10mm Yella Terra rockers I use on all my builds which will handle this type of RPM with aplomb compared to a stock rocker. In fact this engine had a 1.8 ratio with .662 lift and the power curve looked like a solid roller engine with absolute perfect control till the point we terminated the test (7300). This is an important consideration if your considering the MSD.....you better have a serious well thought out valvetrain or valvetrain instability/float will all but eliminate the big gains you might have saw up top with the MSD.
This test leaves me with more questions than answers....most of which surrounding how this intake will work on larger as well as smaller combinations. Unless you have a serious 346 and a dialed in valvetrain, I suspect this intake wouldn't work as well on a smaller engine but as cubes (and budget) increase, this intake would have to be a solid consideration. Also the larger the engine the more you can give up torque and trade it for horsepower....I could barely keep my 383 hooked up in my C5 Vette and that engine made 523 peak TQ on this same dyno (at 5500 RPM).....a figure even the MSD makes here at 4200 or so with this larger 416 combination. With larger motors especially, giving up some TQ for HP just helps the car hook a little better and rip your head off shortly after planting.
That being said my initial recommendations are that any stroker with a cathedral probably gets the nod to go with one of my ported MSD's vs the FAST, but if you road race that stroker the FAST may still be the better choice (in fact would be in that application). Stock cube builds....probably the FAST to help make that TQ you are limited in producing being light in cubes but more aggressive stock cube builds with well sorted out optimized valve gear might really benefit from the MSD if your cool with (guessing) around a 76-7700 shift point. This is short travel lifter territory only btw, OR a low lash mechanical which is another application this intake starts to make more sense assuming the shortblock can run reliably with higher RPM.
Bottom line....this is good stuff....having this option is good for the community and while if I had to guess how many FAST I will port the rest of this year versus MSD would probably favor the FAST, I think alot of folks will start rethinking their builds because of the opportunity presented here.
Sorry for the long winded post but this is potentially the most exciting topic (IMO) that I have covered in a long time and I wanted to be thorough as possible so you guys could grasp all the good (and the bad) associated with considering this manifold.
Looks like both intakes get to wear the crown.....it just really depends on your application and approach to your build!
Regards,
Tony
PS....Wanted to thank Matt Roundtree and his Dad who were a pleasure to spend some time with and who also allowed me to test this manifold on his engine. Matt actually purchased the MSD from me will all of us in agreeing he could afford to lose a little TQ for that significant gain in power and RPM. In fact at 7300, the MSD is still making more power than the 650 horses the FAST peaked at 800 RPM earlier.....that's impressive!!
PSS....I know I could have coaxed a couple more ponies from the MSD intake given more time....it was more of a "Hey....lets try this" at the end of a long day mounting and running the engine and optimizing it with the ported FAST. I could tell the Westech boys just wanted to start breaking down the engine and really I saw all I needed to see (although gaining 15 HP over the best cathedral intake on the planet sounds sexier than 13.....LOL)
__________________
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
www.mamomotorsports.com
Tony@MamoMotorsports.com
Anything worth doing is worth doing well. Build it right the first time....its alot cheaper than building it twice!!
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 06-07-2016 at 03:28 PM.
The following users liked this post:
tcgrmt (10-14-2020)
06-05-2016, 10:14 AM
#7
Tony,
What kind of differences do you think is left on the table for a 90% streetdriven LS3 416 w/MMS 235 s/MMS spec'd cam with a stock FASt 102/102TB vs. Mamofied FASTintake.?
would it be worth the $500 or so ?
What kind of differences do you think is left on the table for a 90% streetdriven LS3 416 w/MMS 235 s/MMS spec'd cam with a stock FASt 102/102TB vs. Mamofied FASTintake.?
would it be worth the $500 or so ?
Trending Topics
06-05-2016, 10:15 AM
#8
Tony,
I've heard good things about your ported MSD LS7 manifolds, so do you see any thread like this for that?
I've heard good things about your ported MSD LS7 manifolds, so do you see any thread like this for that?
06-05-2016, 10:43 AM
#9
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
Insanely informative post. For clarification that was literally an hour or two apart for the intake swap and minimal tuning changes?
You also mentioned in your post that the motor behaved like a solid roller motor. For a smaller cube engine, if you plan to take full advantage would you recommend solid lifters to support the higher RPM?
Last comment - rule of thumb has been to go rectangular ports above 408 CI. Nice to see a big cube cathedral putting the power down!!
You also mentioned in your post that the motor behaved like a solid roller motor. For a smaller cube engine, if you plan to take full advantage would you recommend solid lifters to support the higher RPM?
Last comment - rule of thumb has been to go rectangular ports above 408 CI. Nice to see a big cube cathedral putting the power down!!
06-06-2016, 07:30 AM
#11
Great information as always Tony. I've meant to ask you this before and this thread gives me the perfect opportunity to do so. Have you ever shortened the runners in a FAST intake? I know there have been threads regarding FAST offering three optional runners (short/race version, medium length version, and the original/longer). Based on what I've read, they are not going to be offered for the cathedral port FAST intakes, which is a shame because I feel there is a market for them. Anyway, I was just curious if you've messed around with shortening the runners, and if so, what type of results did you see. For my application, I'd really like to try the FAST 102mm intake with the medium length runners.
06-06-2016, 05:27 PM
#16
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
06-07-2016, 12:57 AM
#19
TECH Veteran
Great info as always. Now time to do cylinder heads on a 427ci motor.... MMS 250cc heads vs MMS LS7 Heads.
