RONIN LSX

iTrader: (44)

In for the goodness


Question... What intake and TB setup is being suggested to feed these hungry hungry Mamos?

Gluemaker

iTrader: (12)

Ported FAST 102 is what was recommended to me. Hadn't made it to picking a TB at this point. Still traveling down the worm hole of other parts (rockers, lifters, pushrods)

Tuskyz28

Also I believe Tony prefers to use Nick Williams throttle bodies.

RONIN LSX

iTrader: (44)

The FAST... really?! I would of thought something like that 2 piece intake that Kerry (I think that is his name) designed, I think MAST sells it, or the new MSD Air force intake.

Tuskyz28

The MSD intake didn't live up to all the hype as what most people expected..... A ported fast by Tony would run all over the MSD intake in my book.
See results here.... https://ls1tech.com/forums/dynamometer-results-comparisons/1779388-ls7-fast-102-vs-msd-airforce-comparison.html

RONIN LSX

iTrader: (44)

WOW! How disconcerting! I was one, out of the very few, that liked the look of the MSD, just something different. Too bad it doesn't stack up.

The Vararam intake would be an option... if it ever comes out!

KCS

iTrader: (20)

How do you come to that conclusion? The MSD in that comparison was almost 10whp better than the FAST without losing any average power or torque.

Tuskyz28

10 hp isn't much....
seen a old thread somewhere on here where a mamo ported FAST gain 20 rwhp plus torque threw the entire power curve vs a out the box FAST intake.

On a personal preference note the MSD intake looks ugly and bulky. I'm not too big on the out the box fast intake either but they can look good when painted/hydrocoated. Not only do I like to go fast but I like to look like a pimp while I'm doing it

KCS

iTrader: (20)

10whp over a FAST isn't much? Seriously? Companies have been trying to outdo the FAST intake for over a decade and pretty much everyone of them have failed. What do you think is going to happen when the MSD gets ported considering it's already 10whp better than a FAST?

If you think 10whp isn't much, how would you feel about a Mamofied FAST being only 10whp better than an unported MSD?

spawne32

iTrader: (2)

what page is the pricing on

Gluemaker

iTrader: (12)

Page 1

Gluemaker

iTrader: (12)

Here ya go

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Guys,

Regarding choice of induction there is none at this point.....at least not for a cathedral head. The ported FAST is still the only game in town. MSD is talking about the end of the year but I never listen to manufacturer's promises on delivery dates. Its not that they dont mean well.....just that "Murphy" comes up at every twist and curve and something that looked like 6 months on paper can stretch out to 3X that occasionally. I dealt with that alot at AFR and know alot of folks in the industry at other well respected big companies that all experienced similar. I think good intentions are there.....they just take longer to pan out more time than not

And just for the record, nothing would make me happier than a design that was similar in price and ease of install and provided better results than the FAST.....I dont work for FAST and could just as easily port the next best thing in LS intakes. Regarding the MSD LS7 another test I was privied to showed less than the one linked above so the jury is still out but my gut says it might be a little better than a FAST LS7 piece but a long cry from the original claims made which I always felt were very optimistic. I think that was a bad marketing move personally.....over hyping is good for the short term to drum up alot of initial interest but you have to deliver to keep the momentum going. In another few months more independent results will set the record straight and perhaps see a new suitor finally enter the mix (the Vararam piece) but I don't think the cathedral is the front runner in there design launch either.

Ryan....keep me posted on your travels down the wormhole....LOL....your heads are going to be finished soon btw.....I will be in touch!

-Tony

RONIN LSX

iTrader: (44)

I was digging those 2 piece composite carb style intakes, that AFR has, until I realized they were for the SBC. Tony, do you know if there is a plan for Titon to make intakes for the LSX?

jhshnh

Tony, what kind of power are we talking about with a ls1 max effort? My car sees more strip time and I'm looking at going radical for a street car: 4000+ stall, bigger cam, etc. Long as it runs on 93 ethanol free gas I'm game.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

AFR has discussed an intake for the LS engines but I know for a fact its still at least 18 months away.....might be longer. They have alot of irons in the fire right now.

Easily 500 RWHP if someone were to follow my recipe on how to get there to the letter.....problem is that type of numbers is a leave no stones unturned type of build.....its expensive and even the weight of your rims and tires and choice of clutch come into play at that level.

Bottom line....in 2004 I made 475 - 480 RWHP with an old school XER 224/228 cam and a set of AFR 205's that flow flow 20+ CFM less than the new head we are discussing....that exact same combo with just the addition of my MMS 220's would bring the output close to 500 RWHP and a small bump in cam easily clearing that number. I think I could see 500 with a cam still under 230 duration and my new MMS 220 head....again comparing it dorectly to what I accomplished before with less cam and alot less airflow.

BUT....everything must be ported/optimized to make that happen and perfect valvetrain control is a must as well. Is it easy....no...not at all.....is it achievable.....most definitely with the budget and fortitude to see it thru.

What would be really awesome is getting there with a cam that is still nice to drive and offers the end user a very explosive package with a wide power curve.....not just a peaky 5-7K type of powerband that a much larger cam would create that had poor driving manners and soft low/midrange grunt....that would be very impressive and my 2004 combo would have done just that with a better head and a 227 or 229 intake lobe on a more modern lobe design.



Cheers,
Tony

Racinrik88

Exactly the kind of numbers I'm looking for out of my 383 build.

Tony @ Mamo Motorsports

Its even easier with a 383....but by no means a walk in the park (still requires all the optimized airflow and valvetrain mods). The larger engine is more forgiving on cam duration and naturally makes more torque due to the increase in displacement (by far the leading contributor in torque output).

You still need to get the valve control right (the correct lifters, pushrods, rockers, springs and valve weight), and cam it correctly....but assuming you do and all else the same, the 383 will see 500+ at a lower more usable RPM than the same combo in a 346.....with more low/ midrange and peak torque contributing to higher average torque and higher average power.....win/win.

You just have to be willing to pay the 383's higher entrance fee.....LOL



-Tony

Racinrik88

I'm just a few hrs north of you in Monterey . You lay out the plan, I'll follow.

Gluemaker

iTrader: (12)

Wormhole is terrible. Everything I thought I knew, is wrong. LOL