Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

There has been so much speculation as to whether the FAST 102 would gain any power over a ported LS3 intake on a 6.0-6.2L engine with a stock long block, I decided to conduct my own scientific test. By scientific, I mean that only the manifold gains or losses alone would be shown.

We started off with a 2009 Pontiac G8 with a 6.0L L76 engine with AFM/DOD, stock 90mm throttle body, American Racing 1 7/8" headers with dual cats, Vararam Cold Air Intake, ASP UD pulley, Yella Terra 1.85 rockers, and Comp 26918 beehive valve springs (so we could have better valve control above 6000 rpm). Stock cam, stock torque converter. All runs were same day, same dyno. The manifold swap was performed on the dyno.

The red run featured a Stage 2 ported LS3 intake manifold by an LS1Tech sponsor. This combo was super-tuned for best overall power. The blue run is with the FAST 102. It too was super-tuned. As you can see, even with the mildest of engines available with an L92/LS3 head, the FAST 102 intake manifold gains nicely over the most expertly ported factory intake. If you were to add significant airflow from a camshaft or increase cubes, the gains would only be larger. Remember, this is the smallest, mildest motor that come with rectangular port heads.

For those who can't read the dyno sheet, the ported intake made 389.3rwhp/387.6rwtq. The FAST 102 made 393.7rwhp/390.6rwtq. Although the peak gains were only 4.4/4.0, the gains at other rpm were much higher.

01 ss vert

iTrader: (1)

Interesting read, thanks for sharing!

tektrans

iTrader: (23)

Patrick Patrick, say it isn't so. Say this isn't ANOTHER Fast 102 intake comparison using a 90mm tb??
I was sooooooooo excited that it was you posting the comparison but in the end, this comparison is much like the others, meaning not performed with the tb it was designed to work with.

06blackGTO

iTrader: (20)

Well my mind is made up. I be going the fast 102 route, but I will buy it's made for companion... The NW 102 dbw t.b.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

In a 6.0L, the 90mm TB is not the choke, it's the runners. There have been plenty of dynos showing gains of the FAST 102 on cammed L92/LS3 combos and stroker L92/LS3 combos. Very few tests exist of a 6.0L with stock AFM/DOD cam. There is no reason for me to upgrade to a larger TB until I have more cubes. Very few fly-by-wire throttle bodies are out in 102mm configuration. If you want to see some results for a bigger TB, do like I did...put down your own cash and conduct your own test.

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

It comes back to that doesn't it.

69LT1Bird

iTrader: (1)

Good writeup Patrick.

Makes me glad I bought someones ported intake for my 6.0L instead of the FAST.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

On another positive note, I've seen my fuel economy increase 1mpg above the factory intake. It took a 1mpg drop with the ported intake vs stock, but the FAST got it up 2 mpg over the ported intake (hence the 1 mpg gain over stock). I know these are inconsequential gains for many on this board, but for a daily driver, any time you can gain some power and get better fuel economy, that's good news.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Unless you dynoed before and after with your ported intake, you have no guarantee that it's going to gain. For example, here is an overlay of my first ported intake vs stock. The stock intake is in blue (361rwhp) and the ported Stage 2 intake (353rwhp) is in red. That's right, I lost 8 rwhp vs. stock. Had I not dynoed the before and after while sitting on the chassis dyno, I would have never know the new ported intake was junk. The intake that I tested against the FAST 102 was the second manifold from the same sponsor. All I can say is, when it comes to ported factory intakes, your gains are not always guaranteed.

69LT1Bird

iTrader: (1)

Point taken, good information to have.

I bought Kevin's ported L76 intake, I don't think I will be able to do a back to back so I will just cross my fingers and see what it will do.

WKMCD

iTrader: (2)

Here is the graph with the only change being stock L76 vs LS2portworks ported L76. I think I remember Ed saying he got better results on the 6.0's with the ported intake. Still loosing 8-9 Kpa at the time of these graphs.

Schwanke Engines

iTrader: (1)

Nice write up Pat. What is the fuel mileage are you getting with that car?

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Depends on whether I have a headwind or tailwind. In calm winds, I'm getting 26-27mpg at 70-75mph. A tail wind raises it closer to 29 and a head wind drops it closer to 24 mpg. The mileage varies more in 4 cylinder mode because it doesn't make near the power as all 8. A 20mph head wind really taxes the motor in 4 cylinder mode compared to when it's running on all 8.

tektrans

iTrader: (23)

Yeah thanks for the advice but I spent all my car money this year already.
Season hasn't even started yet.

You really think those nice gains you're talking about is worth the $900+ for that inake on that combo? I know it's your money that was spent, you made that very clear but perhaps some members who want to get the most hp per dollar would disagree that the intake gains "nicely" considering what it costs. I know I do.

I appreciate most of the threads and research you do and post up one here as I'm sure many other members do also, it's good for a read. I personally have not applied any of the info you have provided over the years on my own car but that's irrelavant.

Thanks for bolting an intake on and posting the dyno graph Patrick.
You're a pioneer.

69LT1Bird

iTrader: (1)

Thanks Kevin,
I have seen plenty of dyno graphs from here, CF, LS1GTO and others to know the LS2portworks one works on the little engines. Even the Fastproms one that is used here does well on engines that breathe and rev. The bang for the buck helps too.

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Keep in mind, the dyno overlay is of FAST 102 gains over what some consider the finest hand ported factory intake. If you look at the gains vs a stock LS3 intake, the gap widens further at higher rpm. The FAST 102 is in red and the stock unported intake is in blue. There's over a 20rwhp gain at 6200 rpm. Just think how much it would gain with a cam bigger than my 200/208 .479/.478 116LSA stock cam.

NA$TY-TA

iTrader: (21)

So what your saying Pat is If your not going to go with a FAST intake, don't port your L76/LS3 intake............... ??

cam

iTrader: (9)

Good test and interesting results indeed. I fell partly responsible for setting the fires that led to this I have to say.

That said Its still very pricey $per/hp ratio to me and not convincing enough for my build to require one at this time. It still seems clear that concerning L92 heads and FAST intake its a case of

"the bigger the cubes, the bigger the rewards"

So when i build bigger cubes in a couple years I'll look into it then. $1000.00 buys a lot of stroker parts

Patrick G

iTrader: (14)

Pretty much. Hand porting the factory intake is hit or miss as far as gains are concerned and you'll never know it unless you to a back to back dyno comparison.

I don't think that you necessarily need more cubes, just more airflow than what the measly stock AFM cam allows you to pull through the motor. There are plenty of 6.0 and 6.2L engines with stock L92/LS3 heads that make 480rwhp or more. For engines like this, the FAST 102 would make WAY bigger gains.

Remember, the old FAST 90 only made nominal gains when bolted up to a stock LS1 with stock LS1 heads and stock LS1 cam. Of course, few will deny how essential a power producing component the FAST 90 was for the LS1s once you added better heads and larger cam.

For the 6.0L and 6.2L engines with L92/LS3 heads, we already have really good heads, we just need better cams to make big power gains. When you get to this point, the FAST 102 LSXR will again be a must-have component for staying ahead of the competition.

Tony Mamo @ AFR

iTrader: (13)

Pat,

Long time no talk to!

Just stumbled across this thread and have to say good job as always documenting the info which helps many of the members of this board make some decisions of their own.

The new FAST, as you mentioned, would likely show better gains on a more aggressive package with higher flowing reworked heads. I also think there are a few more ponies to be found with some porting of that piece (), but honestly even that work would be somewhat wasted on a mild package with that head and manifold configuration.

FWIW, I have reworked a handful of the cathedral 102's lately and they need/require more work than the rect port L92 or LS7 seem to require to be optimized....meaning there are more gains to be had from doing the porting to the cathedral version of the FAST than the square port versions although a few of my LS7 guys have seen 20+ over their OEM intakes which is impressive IMO (without the huge TB btw).

I will post some pics soon of a cathedral 102 R&D piece I have been testing (bolted to our new 245 heads) with some before and after pics of the intake. Quite a bit of plastic shards when Im done with one of those but Im actually seeing 325 CFM net at the cylinder when bolted in front of a new 245 AFR that flows in the mid 350's (killer cathedral #'s obviously).....and thats very good for a long runner bolt on design with a common plenum. It just needs a good bit of work to get there (even getting over 300 CFM net is an accomplishment here guys).

Down the road when the power bug in the G8 keeps biting lets get together on that manifold!

-Tony