I make more power Without the FAST in the first place. How do you like those apples. I don't need an Aftermarket intake to make power becuase I spend time designing camshafts for the needs the customer has not the other way around. I don't design intakes for a living i was making a point about the exspense of the intake and that you could almost have one made for the same price by any competent CNC shop for around the same price and have a better product if the design was done properly.

why don't you stop talking outa your ***. Anytime you wanna try to run the rollers thinking you can out power that ls6 intaked 347 motor with your FAST 347 engine feel free to drop in. I'll even pull it for free Mr big mouth.

 

Get the right camshaft in any LSx motor and the factory intake works fine. For the record You might wanna compare the output of the engine in question with the TPIS on the Engine dyno which is running STP. Just something to think about.

 

How impressive, not only can you design intakes, but you also design camshafts to boot. Funny, I've never heard of you and from the general consensus on this thread, niether has anyone else.

I see, you race dyno's......

I just realized, you have been on the board for 1.5 months and you have over 260 post's. Biz must be a bit slow these days?

 

I can't believe you just said that. Of all the 4 valve events, IVO is 2nd or 3rd on the list to being the most important. Anybody who designs cams knows that intake valve CLOSING point (IVC) is the most critical of all the valve events. Hopefully you just made a typing error...otherwise you are not showing this board your grasp of internal combustion in a 4 stroke application.

FWIW, the attached dyno sheet shows my car going from an LS6 intake with epoxy-ported TB to a Mamo-ported FAST 90 with a Nick Williams 90mm TB. Same dyno, similar weather, 1 day apart. My car had AFR 205 heads, a 215/230 117LSA cam, plus stock exhaust manifolds, stock cats and factory catback.

 

I was going to start digging up dyno graghs (like the one up above) to help put an end to the charade but I knew I would be wasting my energy (and time) so why bother.

To be fair to anyone viewing this (correct me if I'm wrong Pat) this gragh did include a swap to a larger 85 mm MAF, but most people who have documented this change (by itself) have seen little gains, not to mention at this power level (low 400 RWHP) it would be even less. Obviously in the low 500's, a swap to a larger MAF would yield greater results because airflow is at a premium. My guess is the MAF was worth three at best here....even giving it five which is probably generous and unrealistic, the gains from the intake are awesome and are representative of what a lot of others I have helped have seen as well.

The only reason Pat forgot to include this info is this test was done close to two years ago ....and the only reason I remember is someone called me on it a few months back (discussing specifically Pat's results) so its fresher in my mind.

Tony M.

 

The reason there is no gain with the fast is probably because the cam is a reverse split.

 

Based on the graph I've already posted, if it weren't such a drive, I'd be more than happy to bring the 347 I posted the dyno graph on to your shop. Its in a C5, and it has a FAST intake. I also did A-B-C testing of an LS6, TPIS modified LS6 with Oval TB, and a FAST. With a conventional split cam (4 and 8 degree splits @ .050) I made the most power with a FAST intake.

You may have optimized the camshaft for use with an Ls6 intake, or you may have simply bottleed up the exahust so the incrementals aren't there. One thing I've found is you cannot assume anything in testing. You need to examine all aspects of your testing methodology.

Let me cite two example.

I know someone who did some A-B testing of an LS6 and a FAST intake in a F/I application. He saw no increase in power switching intakes. He posted up thsoe results. He called Keith Wilson on it, etc... Guess what. He pulled his airfilter off the car and all of the sudden there was a huge jump in power. The airfilter was restricting airflow into the motor so any change was negligible, as the motor was out of airflow.

I know another car that did some testing and got to ~900 crank Hp, and nothing they did seemed to make any difference. They traced it back to the intercooler. They swapped intercoolers and went well over 1000HP.

Those are just two examples I am aware of. The point here is, don't be myopic in your testing methodology. I'm not saying your results are bad, or that you don't have a strong combo. All I am saying is to make a blanket statement as you have when there are plenty of respected tuners who all have results to the contrary brings your findings into question. You may not care, and you may be totally satisfied with your results. You customer may be thrilled also.

All I am saying is I've done a LOT of testing on the dyno and at the drag strip, and I've only gone faster with a FAST intake.

One last thing. Before you get ugly with Erik, you might want to go back and understand that he has CONSIDERABLE history with the LS6 intake. Erik and the guys at SAM were some of the first guys to cut an LS6 into little tiny pieces and totally re-work it. If there is an intake system for the LS series motor, I think Erik and Judson have probably had it on the Orange car and tested it...

As for Tony's results. I posted up, my results were with one of Tony's intakes...

 

Amen and well put. That was the point I was trying to make 5 pages ago. In other words, we are not questioning your results but we ARE questioning your conclusion.

I am another example of a FAST 90 and NW 90 picking up power over a LS6 intake and ported stock MAF. Here is the graph. Only changes were an untouched FAST 90, NW 90 TB, and a Mezzier Electric H2O Pump. Same dyno, numbers are SAE corrected. Cam is the G5X4, which apparently is a standard split cam, duration in the 240's, lift over .600 on a 111 LSA. BTW, my car is on stock bottom end, stock heads untouched, weighs over 3300 lbs with me in it and runs 10.8's @ 123. Where's my cookie?



P.S. Please don't even respond to the attacks. Just ignore it and continue the discussion with everyone else who is actually interested in why you lost power with the FAST.

 

It seems ridiculous about how much intolerance there is on this board for people with different opinions. This thread started off about a head cam car putting huge power down (which nobody seems to be giving Sean any credit for BTW), and turned into everyone saying Sean must be an idiot because he can't pick up power with a FAST 90/90!

Honestly, if it just takes some rethinking of the cam specs to get away with saving $1300, then I think he is on to something here, regardless of what you guys think of his conclusions about why the FAST doesn't work.

-Geoff

 

The issue is that it is being stated as a fact and not an opinion. I have a friend with an lsx making 553 on motor with a fast intake. And my numbers went up by 23 when I switched. The fact that he said he's seen numbers drop on multiple applications is whats throwing me off. And there are other posts saying the same thing. If there is a flaw I would love to see test results on multiple applications, and some research to say exactly why its causing power loss. Im upgrading to a 408 with ETP or AFR heads. Hopefully I wont loose power using my 90/90.

 

Go back to the first page and read this guys so called "opinions". First he says he's not going to bash the FAST intake and then when asked why he's seeing power loss "all the time" with the FAST, he blames the intake, the combo even the friggin Dyno for ****** sake!

He's looking like an idiot cause it "seems" he's one of the only people out there bashing the FAST set up IMHO.

 

Like I said, "intolerance for people with different opinions". The dyno he posted proves he is on to something - how many 346's making that kind of power on a MD1750-DE dyno? Most stock LS1's barely break 300/300 on Mustang dyno's. I have seen '98 cars come in around 275. He made 437/393 on a stock shortblock.

People can't get past the group lynching and see it, though. Those are awesome gains with a stock intake, but because he refuses to ackowledge the FAST intake, he has been villified. Hell, he saved the guy $1300! That is the kind of stuff I want to see.

The only "fact" I see is that most cars gain, but some lose. Does that make the ones that lose bad combo's? Not based on the 437/393 dyno graph on page one. He made massive power, and saved the guy $1300. That is innovation, but you guys discount it because he doesn't agree with you on the intake.

-Geoff

 

Geoff that's exactly why people aren't buying anything this guy is saying except his friends. The fact that he has found the "special" cams that make more power with the stock LS6 manifold than the FAST 90 is not lost on anyone at all. The "facts" are that some of us have dynoed hundreds of engines and cams and know it is bullshit 99 per cent.

Now you have this vendor saying you can buy his "special" cam setup and make more power and save 1300.00! It is the best marketing plan I have ever heard so far. "Buy my special cam and you don't have to buy a better manifold since you will only lose power and lose 1300.00!"

What's next - cams that make more power with unported oem heads than aftermarket heads so that if you run better heads you also lose power? I don't think people want these kinds of products since it means the cams obviously do not work. This guy already stated that stuff I have actually running in the nines and low tens on pump gas just can't be true since they have FAST 90 manifolds and wide cams over 240 degrees.

You say he has made massive power and all this mumbo jumbo but we have that same dyno and a dyno jet as well and have made numbers like that and better and it was with the cams and intakes he says "won't work!" How about 500 at the wheels with combos (346 shortblock) that "don't work" (FAST 90 and wide LSA cams) and go over 130 in the 1/4 mile?

The problem is that he is only looking at his final results and then concluding that the FAST 90 is what is to blame. Maybe HIS FAST 90 is messed up or maybe not but there is certainly nothing wrong with the FAST 90 or it's design at all over an LS6 intake.

 

Erik is the fuking man !


I know my HKE 370 with ET heads and a fast 90 is slow.

Maybe I should get this guys cam

 

Ditto!!

 

I am only saying this as I have already had two calls from guys on LS1Tech here about this thread and they want to try and get rid of their fast 90 manifolds and go back to their stockers to "make more power" like this guy. I said go for it but don't sell your FAST manifold right away! I do not mean to be overly rude to these guys but essentially they are saying that everyone else is crazy or just couldn't find the "right" cams so it's hard to listen to that for this long.

 

Some people will take anything posted on this site as gospel.

Fact is you have to weed through the BS to find most of the really good info.

I personally think the fast 90 and the ls6 will hold the ET heads back a good deal.

 

This thread rules. LMFAO!

 

Thank you Erik. Thats what I was trying to say. He is saying everyone else does not know what the hell they are talking about, and only he has the specs to the magic cam that makes more power with less air. It is pure bullshit, the fast picks up done deal.

Thomas

 

I'm too lazy to read through all this, so I don't know if this has been said, but the FAST restricts the peak torque and horsepower to 4800rpm and 6300rpm respectively.

To use a cam with VEs that fight these numbers is a recipe for producing **** poor peak and area under the curve numbers. A 244/248 114 is not going to work as well as a smaller cam with a tighter LSA installed on a tighter ICL. It will make better peak power, but only at the very end of the run while loosing a whole lot down low. Why? It wants to peak much higher than the FAST is letting it, so the curve is like a sine wave that's been squared off.

The other problem is, nobody wants to run a 244/248 on a 106+1 to produce optimal VEs for the FAST. The overlap would make it a total bitch to live with in a 346.