The results are the results...Well, there are about 1,000 other results that would disagree with your claims. I have a G5X4 cam and picked up 23 rwhp from the FAST over the LS6 intake. So you expect everyone to jump on board and agree with your conclusion? If your results are in fact true, then I think your conclusion is wrong. Something else is probably going on.

 

The test is subjective. A and B. what is is that you don't understand about the results.Oh wiat the DCR calcs say the engien is at 6.7:1 based on cam specs.But the power figures don't say that.Hmmm

 

there is no claim the Car LOST POWER. Period.

 

OK, even if that's true, I'm certainly not going to come to the conclusion that the FAST intake has a problem because one car lost power when everyone else on planet earth is gaining power.

 

Guys, you're all letting one little shop with an intake manifold leak try to disprove thousands of people across the US and a dozen of magazines who switched from an LS6 to a FAST 90/90 and ALWAYS picked up power?

C'mon, guys

 

Actually everyone is questioning WHY you lose power on every single car you put a FAST 90 on? That is pretty much what I thought you were saying previously.
There are a few shops here that have done back/back testing on them including myself. I have yet to see a car lose power with one.Believe me,if they didn't work I'd be right there with you saying they are crap

Now that you are really unknown on this forum and present to be a shop that specialize with these cars,I would think you will jump onto being a Sponsor here to maybe get alittle respect

 

I still have one fundemental issue with what you are saying, any acoustic harmonic should have well formed and distinct frequencies associated with it. When I look at the two curves, I see two curves almost identical in shape with one having an offset downward on the power scale such that they essentially parallel. I am really struggling here to understand what you are identifying is the issue. The scaling between the two charts is also helping to exaggerate any dips in the FAST curve so that is difficult to pick out as well. Do you have them cross-plotted on the same sheet that can be posted?

 

I can see what i can do about that. It looks to be a harmonic due the exagerated dip. I did zoom in the scales a bit to help make it more clearly ledgable on the computer screen. What exactly would you like to see there is a long run history on the car as it sits ?Which data are you most intrested in ?I donot think that the software for the mustang supports what your asking of it to do.

 

If you have both curves and can put them both on one plot that would be helpful. If not, better copies of each with possibly the same scaling on the ordinate and abscissa.

 

I stipulated further back in the thread that one car we have seen a fast 90/90 on actually picked up power. Here is is that car.I also tranposed that Vehicle about which this dissussion is about into the graph. The vehicel the bottom 2 power graphs is a top shelf LPE H/C Road racing GT something or other i do not know which cam and head package to be totally honest. I know its there top of the line 243 head with one of the largest GT series cams avaiable. This car was tunned and tunned and tunned best spark wound up being 29btdc and AF was happy at 13.1:1 with 110 race fuel. The 215 engine is happy at 27btdc and 12.5 I left out the AF lines they just muddied up the page to much. To date this is the only FAST intake car that made more power But we had a large weather change due to it being late spring and the correction factors as most of us have to admit are not even close to being perfect.I just wanted you guys to see how much the power difference was. The LPE car was 347 11.5:1 race motor with a drysump. The ET headed Car was a 10.1:1 street car.Its difficult to say weather or not it was the huge barometer swing was 31inches in the morning and dropped to 28 in the afternoon. I left off the test sheet notes. That alone could easily explian the power difference.there was about a 5hr gap between the pulls which is why up till now i had not posted them.

 

I find myself reading this thread and I feel like I'm somewhere in the twilight zone....(where FAST intakes obviously dont work well).

Think about this for a minute.....How many really high powered LSx engines on this board that we have read about, seen dyno, run hard at the track, etc....how many aren't running a FAST 90/90 (ported or otherwise)?? I mean seriously....are there any??

How many guys have we seen do the swap only to show the typical stronger dyno numbers and (most) better track times? (more than we could count and yes some might show slightly less TQ from an uported intake at very low RPM's on a stock displacement build).

Hell....I wish there was a better alternative currently....maybe my 383 could muster 550 RWHP (with a low 240's duration and a wide LSA for better idle quality and drivability).

Anyway....I can respect anyone who's willing to step up to the plate in light of a lot of controversy and opposing sentiment and pleading their case (kinda like three years ago when I was trying to convince everyone a legit 300 CFM port with a small cross section would make big power on a 346)....but the bottom line is there has simply been too many independent results by tuners, shops, and average Joe's that refute the data Collin's is so emphatically trying to share with us. Maybe he is just someone thats messing with everyone to get a rise out of the board....I dont know but Im thinking that's not the case which leaves an even weirder scenario (why arent the FAST intakes showing the same results for him??)....LOL

This thread has certainly been interesting at the very least....but like I said....seems a little like something from the hot rod twilight zone.

Don (Slowhawk) is about ready to bolt on an LS2 intake though....I can tell

Tony M.

 

I'll have results from a fast 90/90 to an edlebrock I think next spring on a healthy compression/cammed 402 with ET 240 heads to see what that intake can do with an elbow.... as for these claims of the fast not working, I'm sre that there's no way my motor would have made power to 7400 if I had the ls6 on it, it would have choked off at 6000 and that would have been it.

 

No i am dead serious. I think the bigger issues is comparing apples and oranges . We are not talking about dynojet HP generated numbers which I have stated at least sevral times in this thread as being at least 15-18% higher then Mustang numbers.If you generically rescale the Mustang numbers up using the most conservative 12% difference this thing is silly. I wish i was joking but I am not going to let people who are not in the loop on this particular project just spout random comments. There are sevral issues with the FAST vs the LS6 comparison.I would say not all engine will respond well and I would definately agree that CAM timing could play a critical role in why. But what does that really say overall about the performance of the FAST when the CAM timing is constant and no other changes are made Aside from trying new spark and fueling values ? It paints an interesting picture which should be openly discussed.The FAST may not always be the best choice.

As for the 240 with a wide LSA are you guys getting this kind of power out of a 347 ? Not saying this to be rude just asking a question.Never forget LSA should be the last thing decided upon in a camshaft design.Thats how that mountian of 347 TQ got put down.

As for the small cross section 300cfm port. I might be able to retest this car with different heads. Care to throw a set into a comparison ? I have seen your head on the flow bench it definately flows 300cfm. Just haven't used a set yet.

 

Got a copy of that sheet ?

 

wow, I can't believe this is still going on I think you are the only person in the world that has lost power. Matt Powell, gained 20rwhp and 15rwtq switching to the fast over an LS2 on his heads cam car and he had a G5X3.

Thomas

 

I am not FAST Bashing. I posted up a sheet about a car that picked up power. Lets ask this question was the manifold swap done on the car Same day etc weather not withsatnding ?

 

yes I do.. I don't have it on my computer, but I'll try to get it on here tomorrow for you if it will disprove your theory.

 

Its not a Thoery. thoerys are ideas that require testing to prove/disprove/ Here we have factual evidence collected statiscally with one particular vehicle that does not add up.I wanted to see your dyno sheet for comparison so we can collect more data to figure out what is the problem.

 

I will get it tonite and try scanning it in and post it up. A dyno sheet from a car with a th400 and 6000 converter really doesn't mean a whole lot #'s wise.. but you can tell where the power carried to, probably all you are really intrested in.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abscissa

They already are the second set of HP and TQ curves is just down that much in power.