Fiber Tuned Intake Review with pictures
05-01-2009, 06:36 AM
#341
Here's the latest news from this Wednesday night.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-raci...-07-128-a.html
Long story short. I went 10.07@128 on a bone stock LQ9 longblock with this intake and a turbo setup that we built in a couple of friends garages in just over a month. This is also with way too much stall converter and gear.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-raci...-07-128-a.html
Long story short. I went 10.07@128 on a bone stock LQ9 longblock with this intake and a turbo setup that we built in a couple of friends garages in just over a month. This is also with way too much stall converter and gear.
05-01-2009, 08:00 AM
#342
Here's the latest news from this Wednesday night.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-raci...-07-128-a.html
Long story short. I went 10.07@128 on a bone stock LQ9 longblock with this intake and a turbo setup that we built in a couple of friends garages in just over a month. This is also with way too much stall converter and gear.
https://ls1tech.com/forums/drag-raci...-07-128-a.html
Long story short. I went 10.07@128 on a bone stock LQ9 longblock with this intake and a turbo setup that we built in a couple of friends garages in just over a month. This is also with way too much stall converter and gear.
05-01-2009, 08:42 AM
#343
Not good.I have real data showing that the Fibertuned moves more air as posted earlier on in this thread based on it's performance at higher RPM . While the Fast has better velocity as can be seen by it's performance up to 6200 or so RPMs. This was very evident on my buddies solid roller nitrous motor as well (used for the engine dyno testing in this thread). On motor, the car was running 10.60's with this intake vs 10.20's with the FAST. Once the spray was introduced, it was a different ball game. We are having to run 5-6 lbs of additional fuel pressure on his dedicated system with the same exact jetting when using the Fibertuned and are seeing almost 1/4 sec better performance from the Fibertuned on the jug. The point that I am trying to make is that since I am forcing air thru the intake, I have all the velocity that I need plus the benefit of the increased air volume.
05-01-2009, 09:48 AM
#344
I see what you are trying to say but I don't totally buy it. I think if Vinny wants to really sell this intake he should possibly pay for you to test it against a Ported FAST in your forced induction setup. It has already been proven that the FAST is better for 95% of the people that are Naturally Aspirated.
05-01-2009, 10:55 AM
#345
When I finally complete my solid roller 447 N/A monster with our new 240 head (3-4 months targeted), I will get with Vinny and see if he would allow me to test his new intake on the engine dyno. While I have ported many a FAST intake for myself and others, I hope the fibre tuned kicks my butt in this application because if a solid roller heavy breathing 447 CID motor cant realize its benefit, the reality is nothing probably will. I expect a big dip in torque on the bottom but Im hoping the fibre tuned is better than the ported FAST on this large an engine by 5500 or so and hopefully really shines past 6500 where the longer runner FAST design would be more out of its element on this many cubic inches. Thats all theory of course....the actual data may not support that but I certainly hope it does.
IMO, the fibre tuned is not an effective intake for the masses which the ported FAST has certainly shown to be, but in some applications, on paper that design has alot of merit and it would be nice to see it shine given the right combination that could take advantage of it.
Carlos is just done swapping intakes at this point but Im sure others will hopefully carry the torch. If I could do some testing on the engine dyno (a better venue where you can control more variables) that would be some key information to share which I happily will if I have the opportunity.
-Tony
IMO, the fibre tuned is not an effective intake for the masses which the ported FAST has certainly shown to be, but in some applications, on paper that design has alot of merit and it would be nice to see it shine given the right combination that could take advantage of it.
Carlos is just done swapping intakes at this point but Im sure others will hopefully carry the torch. If I could do some testing on the engine dyno (a better venue where you can control more variables) that would be some key information to share which I happily will if I have the opportunity.
-Tony
Last edited by Tony Mamo @ AFR; 05-01-2009 at 11:02 AM.
05-01-2009, 12:24 PM
#349
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see what you are trying to say but I don't totally buy it. I think if Vinny wants to really sell this intake he should possibly pay for you to test it against a Ported FAST in your forced induction setup. It has already been proven that the FAST is better for 95% of the people that are Naturally Aspirated.
Offer's on the table.
-Drew
05-01-2009, 12:41 PM
#350
Yes, the divider was still installed but ended up breaking loose under 13lbs of boost the intake was also flexing. TTI, me and my wallet made the decision not to continue with the R&D. This intake required a lot of modification to get it to fit correctly in a C5. In the end between tune and modification it cost me around 2k not including the cost for the intake which Vinny refunded.
05-01-2009, 01:28 PM
#351
Yes, the divider was still installed but ended up breaking loose under 13lbs of boost the intake was also flexing. TTI, me and my wallet made the decision not to continue with the R&D. This intake required a lot of modification to get it to fit correctly in a C5. In the end between tune and modification it cost me around 2k not including the cost for the intake which Vinny refunded.
Also, did you try his latest rendition with the longer runner design or the original version he had a couple of months ago. Not sounding too promising based on your input....70 ft/lbs loss seems a bit excessive also....did you fuel the engine the same in both tests?
Thanks,
Tony
05-01-2009, 06:22 PM
#352
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Southern NH
Posts: 1,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok where to begin...
When we first built the 4" runner, and saw the impressive flow numbers and combined with one cars dyno results, we were quick to release it to anyone who wanted one. This proved to be a big mistake which cost us a serious ammount of money, time, and frustration. Since then, we have made many small but important changes to address durability, physical fitment (which now bolts into a C5 without any mods), and a better understanding of how it performs on different engines. And the biggest problem we still face with it is when it gets bolted up to a motor that dosen't have a valvetrain that can support high rpm's. On thoes motors, they loose low end and mid range, and never get the benifit of high RPM power because of valve float.
Over the past few months we have been trying differnt things to offer a less extreeme version for street/strip cars including different plenum designs, as well as different runner lengths in both dyno pulls and track runs. Here is a link to one of them with a new 6.5" runner which is showing promise. (there is even a cool video in post #45 in this thread)
https://ls1tech.com/forums/nitrous-o...-manifold.html
The 4" manifold that we have been selling does flow very well and makes great power on the right combination, like Carlos previously metioned about Steves car 9.2 with the FAST and 8.9 with the Fiber tuned with a 5mph gain! But the short runners really limit the manifolds ability to make power in anything short of a full race motor. The FAST is a great choice which works well on 90+% of all LS street/strip builds. Except, even though a lot of people do it, I still absolutly would never reccomend for nitrous app because of safety.
I really appreciate everyones enthusiasm, and offers to test it and I may decide to take up some more people on their offers, but since the best fit that I've seen to date has been high reving motors, combined with the ability to engine dyno direct comparisions, I will work with Tony on his project. I will contunue PM's and maybe even have a few different runner designs to offer Tony. I will also predict that the manifold that produces the highest hp on Tony's motor will be from a Fiber Tuned manifold.
Vinny
When we first built the 4" runner, and saw the impressive flow numbers and combined with one cars dyno results, we were quick to release it to anyone who wanted one. This proved to be a big mistake which cost us a serious ammount of money, time, and frustration. Since then, we have made many small but important changes to address durability, physical fitment (which now bolts into a C5 without any mods), and a better understanding of how it performs on different engines. And the biggest problem we still face with it is when it gets bolted up to a motor that dosen't have a valvetrain that can support high rpm's. On thoes motors, they loose low end and mid range, and never get the benifit of high RPM power because of valve float.
Over the past few months we have been trying differnt things to offer a less extreeme version for street/strip cars including different plenum designs, as well as different runner lengths in both dyno pulls and track runs. Here is a link to one of them with a new 6.5" runner which is showing promise. (there is even a cool video in post #45 in this thread)
https://ls1tech.com/forums/nitrous-o...-manifold.html
The 4" manifold that we have been selling does flow very well and makes great power on the right combination, like Carlos previously metioned about Steves car 9.2 with the FAST and 8.9 with the Fiber tuned with a 5mph gain! But the short runners really limit the manifolds ability to make power in anything short of a full race motor. The FAST is a great choice which works well on 90+% of all LS street/strip builds. Except, even though a lot of people do it, I still absolutly would never reccomend for nitrous app because of safety.
I really appreciate everyones enthusiasm, and offers to test it and I may decide to take up some more people on their offers, but since the best fit that I've seen to date has been high reving motors, combined with the ability to engine dyno direct comparisions, I will work with Tony on his project. I will contunue PM's and maybe even have a few different runner designs to offer Tony. I will also predict that the manifold that produces the highest hp on Tony's motor will be from a Fiber Tuned manifold.
Vinny
Last edited by 860 Performance; 05-01-2009 at 06:37 PM.
05-02-2009, 12:24 AM
#353
We already did the engine dyno comparison with revised intake (no divider). It works way better this way. Also, Vinny made some improvements for boost apps that have been applied to mine. The only benefit that I can see possibly gaining from the FAST is maybe a faster spool. After that, it's just a numbers game on forced induction. The one the flows the most makes the most power in boost. All the fancy curves in the world wont help it flow any more. Most forced induction guys run hogged out carb intakes that have 4 (outside) long runners and 4 (inside) short runners and it's generally accepted that they flow like **** on a 3500-6500 powerband.
I made one pass tonite and went 6.43 @ 107.99 in the 1/8. Not at all lazy coming out w/ a 1.43 60'. I can drop the 60' by adding boost (couple degrees of timing on the 2 step). I just dont see how the FAST can help.
Video of the 10.07 run
http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n...BIRVids032.flv
I made one pass tonite and went 6.43 @ 107.99 in the 1/8. Not at all lazy coming out w/ a 1.43 60'. I can drop the 60' by adding boost (couple degrees of timing on the 2 step). I just dont see how the FAST can help.
Video of the 10.07 run
http://s115.photobucket.com/albums/n...BIRVids032.flv
06-23-2009, 04:53 PM
#355
This was about 2 weeks ago on the solid roller LSX422 with the 380 shot on it. We are still trying to improve the short times on this setup. It's real sluggish without spray but works incredible on the jug. Problem is that we aren't spraying on the transbrake so it wont get all the way up on it. We are going to try a small plate kit just for the transbrake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDEts...layer_embedded
FYI. We did put the FAST90 on this setup and tuned for it but it was jetted at 100 hp more. We found that the car ran a solid 4 tenths faster NA but would only run an 8.80 on the bottle. We could also tell by the fuel jets that the FAST wasn't making as much power.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDEts...layer_embedded
FYI. We did put the FAST90 on this setup and tuned for it but it was jetted at 100 hp more. We found that the car ran a solid 4 tenths faster NA but would only run an 8.80 on the bottle. We could also tell by the fuel jets that the FAST wasn't making as much power.
06-24-2009, 08:20 PM
#357
It'll be a while till mine sees high boost. So far I have only put a max of 16psi to it. Not going any higher till I forge the bottom end. I should have my torque converter back and in tomorrow. No doubt I will need to do some tuning as the converter is getting significantly tighter. Hopefully get into some boost by 3K rpm. If all goes well, I'll be at the track Friday night.
06-25-2009, 05:42 PM
#358
It'll be a while till mine sees high boost. So far I have only put a max of 16psi to it. Not going any higher till I forge the bottom end. I should have my torque converter back and in tomorrow. No doubt I will need to do some tuning as the converter is getting significantly tighter. Hopefully get into some boost by 3K rpm. If all goes well, I'll be at the track Friday night.
Looking forward to see how your car does. Thinking,..I think with my 346 setup i'd see the majority of my boost come on roughly at 4500rpms. It's be produing a few pounds prior but,..once it was there,..think I saw all of it. I think your rear gear will change things alot once you go with something a little longer. The turbo will like it more.
maybe i'll take a chic up there thats been dieing to go to PBIR. If we go i'll swing through and check out the machine. best wished with it.
And as far as manifolds go,...what other options do we really have("boost friendly") intake wise, thats affordabe? Can't really go carb style unless I get a restrctive 90 and an aftermarket hood. Wilson...like 3500 bucks,... Really don't want to use an LS2 intake. It works but,...restrivtive,..in comarison to others. But, then you theres the "just up the boost" option. I dunno. Considering finding material and having one made for a decent price.
06-26-2009, 06:59 PM
#359
And as far as manifolds go,...what other options do we really have("boost friendly") intake wise, thats affordabe? Can't really go carb style unless I get a restrctive 90 and an aftermarket hood. Wilson...like 3500 bucks,... Really don't want to use an LS2 intake. It works but,...restrivtive,..in comarison to others. But, then you theres the "just up the boost" option. I dunno. Considering finding material and having one made for a decent price.
90 turns arent restrictive when they are before the tb, not behind it. For example: Spider, Accufab 4150 and carb hat.
08-15-2009, 01:06 AM
#360
Just discovered that one of the welds that attaches the top plate of the plenum to driver's side flange (that the runners bolt to) failed at under 17 psi of boost. The material is too thin for a boosted application making any kind of serious boost. I would recommend a much (atleast 4X) material and better penetration on the welds that did not go all the way through to the inside. Perhaps a smaller plenum woud create a little more velocity for better throttle response as well.