When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Big difference in the area just after the throttle body though. The LOD has the throttle body flange much further out front and has a nice gradual transition to the plenum. The FAST does not. It has a very abrupt transition into the plenum, which can effectively reduce the throttle body area by vena contracta.
What did you expect? IT IS A DIFFERENT INTAKE hence the word TEST which proved significant gains lol this is about as dumb as cathedral vrs rectangles. I had stock ported rectangles as well.
A true test would have to be swapping just throttle bodies and then back again, or if you use a spacer with the 90mm, you would need to use one with the 102mm. I’m pretty sure this has all heen done already so I don’t think anyone teally needs to test it again.
I think the important thing to look at in the manifolds though is whether or not the throttle area is the restriction or the runner size.
Agreed on the spacer. But a 102 needs a spacer when bolted to a 90mm intake or it won't open. Blade will hit the mount.
What did you expect? IT IS A DIFFERENT INTAKE hence the word TEST which proved significant gains lol this is about as dumb as cathedral vrs rectangles. I had stock ported rectangles as well.
Well I’m not surprised. Some of us just like to understand the reason behind the results.
Agreed on the spacer. But a 102 needs a spacer when bolted to a 90mm intake or it won't open. Blade will hit the mount.
It shouldn’t be a problem on a 100mm Sniper like you suggested though, at least I don’t think it would. I think if you went 90mm throttle to a 100mm flange, the spacer would really need to have a good transition and not have any abrupt steps. I’ve learned that any small changes you make to a restriction in the intake path (ie 90mm throttle on an 8k rpm 468) can have pretty dramatic results.
Considering the runner lengths of the 2 intakes being very different. The shortest runner lost no torque down low, carried more torque to 7600 and the engine breathed more freely making a substantial difference in power. I would think that the plenum allowed the air to be more equally distributed with out the runners interfering with the flow. If you want to send me a set of short runners for the fast we can go at it again.
Considering the runner lengths of the 2 intakes being very different. The shortest runner lost no torque down low, carried more torque to 7600 and the engine breathed more freely making a substantial difference in power. I would think that the plenum allowed the air to be more equally distributed with out the runners interfering with the flow. If you want to send me a set of short runners for the fast we can go at it again.
If you do that, I hope you start a thread with the various dyno results. That would be cool. Almost like the hotrod magazine articles, but without cutting off the pull while the power is still building
For top end the TFS260 is a bit better so far for us on our 468s but they are bigger engines as well. Also many of the LS7 heads under perform because of the heavy valves so you really need lightweight valves on the intake side to see their true potential. The smaller Brodix heads have also worked well like the 262 and 273s with some of them almost hitting 700 RWHP which isn't bad with HR and MSD intakes. Tony Mamo's TFS265 is also an awesome head with the Ti intake valve for sure also making near 700 RWHP often.
Considering the runner lengths of the 2 intakes being very different. The shortest runner lost no torque down low, carried more torque to 7600 and the engine breathed more freely making a substantial difference in power. I would think that the plenum allowed the air to be more equally distributed with out the runners interfering with the flow. If you want to send me a set of short runners for the fast we can go at it again.
can we see your graph please? you didn't mention how many cubes you have....
then again, the fast shorter runners are known to lose torque, so you should have been running a longer runner (LOLOL DONT SHOOT ME IM JUST KIDDING)
the MSD clearly has shown to not just be better but far better on most applications, not sure about cathedral msd vs cathedral fast, but please dont start that debate, simply just saying.
that intake you have looks pretty legit......
side note, why does the LS7 sheet metal intake options virtually not exist vs the amount of ls3 options?
Last edited by Floorman279; 03-20-2019 at 09:12 PM.
Reason: ......
He is a stock bottom end LS3. I've helped him on a couple minor odds and ends on his car, so I can vouch for what it is. There is no MSD for LS3 applications. He had a fast mid length for LS3. Swapped on LOD at the dyno. Same day back to back, no tune changes. Sticks up through the hood and looks goofy, but it performed. I hope he daily drives it, just because.
Regarding LS7 intakes -- Possibly due to the far greater number of LS3 out there vs LS7's? Biggest issue I have with LS7 heads is the lack of intake options.
I have a SBE LS3 with .120 fly cut pistons. This compares my bolt ons to GPI 281cc heads/SS4 cam with mid runner fast to the X1 LOD Speedworks 5th gen camaro intake we modified to fit the C6
Originally Posted by Floorman279
can we see your graph please? you didn't mention how many cubes you have....
then again, the msd shorter runners are know to lose torque, so you should have been running a longer runner (LOLOL DONT SHOOT ME IM JUST KIDDING)
the MSD clearly has shown to not just be better but far better on most applications, not sure about cathedral msd vs cathedral fast, but please dont start that debate, simply just saying.
that intake you have looks pretty legit......
side note, why does the LS7 sheet metal intake options virtually not exist vs the amount of ls3 options?
For top end the TFS260 is a bit better so far for us on our 468s but they are bigger engines as well. Also many of the LS7 heads under perform because of the heavy valves so you really need lightweight valves on the intake side to see their true potential. The smaller Brodix heads have also worked well like the 262 and 273s with some of them almost hitting 700 RWHP which isn't bad with HR and MSD intakes. Tony Mamo's TFS265 is also an awesome head with the Ti intake valve for sure also making near 700 RWHP often.
Erik, not that 700whp isn’t awesome, but are you running into a situation where the heads and manifolds available for the LS7’s aren’t big enough, or can’t be ported big enough, for your 468ci engines?
Erik, not that 700whp isn’t awesome, but are you running into a situation where the heads and manifolds available for the LS7’s aren’t big enough, or can’t be ported big enough, for your 468ci engines?
Actually the heads on many LS7 deals are too big for the plastic manifold rpm aka 7000 and down and most of the better carb type intakes and say the Holley Hi Ram LS7 intake can't fit under the hood.
Then you also have the problem of the 102 TB being a limit to about 700 rwhp NA so that needs to grow as well to at least a 108-112 which I think now Nick WIlliams is starting to make in drive by wire as well although no manifolds are made to accept ot of course.
03-20-2019, 11:45 AM
