DVS99TRANS

iTrader: (7)

So this is the LSX-R manifold that will fit in the TBSS also? From the pics I have seen of it, the mouth opening seems a little more raised. I would love to put that thing on my TBSS.

hymey

How would it go compared to a ported LS6 Ron?

As we see from your LS3 testing the stock LS3 manifold works pretty good even on bigger stuff.

98Aggie

iTrader: (19)

Any clearance issues with the C6 hood. Do you still have to modify the firewall to fit? Just wondering have several people interested in one.

redtan

iTrader: (5)

Just goes to show how shitty the stock LS2 intake is if it picked up so much on a cathedral port engine vs square port and LS3 intake.

BigRich954RR

iTrader: (1)

Any one flow one of the new fast to see how much more it flows?

I have a 427 with tfs 245 heads. Would love to see a Dyno run close to this before I buy it . Or if anyone wants to give me one at a great deal or free I'll do some Dyno testing. For myself

clebmotors

iTrader: (2)

Just buy it! I am and only got a 408, should be money well spent

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

I have some results I should be posting soon flowing the manifold while perched on top of a set of our cylinder heads (a prototype AFR 245 head which we are about to finally release btw).

The proper way to "flow" an intake is to see how much it hurts an intake port....it doesn't matter how good or how bad it may look simply bolted to a flowbench. What's important is only how well it serves the intake port its intended to be placed in front of (the less it hurts flow the better it's design). Essentially the intake manifold is an extension of the intake port and should be treated as such when evaluating its performance. And there is a right and wrong way to test an intake....the right way guarantees all the air being drawn thru that runner is coming from the TB opening only just like it would be on an actual operating engine.

Im getting over 320 CFM NET flow thru a ported 102 mm FAST I reworked using a 355 CFM head (our new 245 cathedral offering) for a baseline. Pretty impressive numbers for sure and a bit better than I have seen in other FAST intakes I have ported and ran some extensive R&D on. I like the new design alot but it needs a good bit of work to get the most from it in a high flow application such as this.

Look for a full write up with some pics soon....I just need to find the time to put this in a coherent thread. I wont hijack this thread with that information.

-Tony

PS....I hope others see similar dyno gains including myself! (this is the intake I will be bolting up to my upcoming 447 project). Based on what I have seen against other LS2 intakes (with properly ported FAST 90/92 intakes) these results look to be about 10 RWHP better. I would be extremely pleased if that proves to be the case!....even half that is nice improvement and alot better than a poke in the eye!

GregRexAdams

Very informative guys!

My next question centers on this graph, particularly the high RPM. The unported FAST catches and passes the ported one, albeit at very high RPM. If someone had a larger c.i. engine or a very high RPM engine, would this become more pronounced, and thus porting not as beneficial?

06blackGTO

iTrader: (20)

Just curious, what about us 06' gto guys with fly by wire t.b's. We are kind of stuck with a 90mm t.b. would we be better off just running the ported 92mm fast. I just figured that since the tb is limited in size, that going bigger on the tb mouth openening wouldn't make a diff. I plan on having the stock 243's ported, but just trying to figure out which intake to go with. thanks for the help.

Ron@Vengeance

iTrader: (51)

The testing above was done with a stock/ported GM LS2 90mm TB... That being said Nick Williams offers 92/96/102mm DRIVE BY WIRE TBs for GTOs/Vettes etc

GregRexAdams

This test was using a ported LS2 throttle body. This is showing gains without swapping them out.

06blackGTO

iTrader: (20)

I did not know that, time to save up, 102mm it is. thanks...