TFS 245 vs. TFS 260
03-09-2019, 02:50 AM
#61
Most intake manifold castings reduce cylinder head airflow by 10 to 15 percent, which may give you cause to rethink your overall airflow and cylinder head requirement for achieving optimum VE. Proper intake manifold selection does not include choosing the best flowing head and then handicapping it with the most convenient manifold selection options. Complementary components and the attending mathematics are compulsory for top performance and you may find it worth while to return a poor performing manifold for a refund if it doesn’t pass the flow test with your high-dollar heads and carburetor(s) -TB. In many cases flow problems can be addressed and corrected with various modifications, but this may not be cost effective and a different manifold may provide a better solution.
Last edited by Smokey B; 03-09-2019 at 09:36 AM.
03-09-2019, 06:27 AM
#62
Guys, just stick to the GM LS3 or LS7 heads. (Unless you are running high boost then get LSA or LS9 heads)
Why waste your money on those expensive aftermarket heads when they wont be much better?
A CNC LS3 and LS7 will make crazy power and plentiful torque.
Plus top end power is unmatched by anything else out there.
As long as you use the right bore size everything will be golden.
Why waste your money on those expensive aftermarket heads when they wont be much better?
A CNC LS3 and LS7 will make crazy power and plentiful torque.
Plus top end power is unmatched by anything else out there.
As long as you use the right bore size everything will be golden.
03-09-2019, 09:32 AM
#63
Facts are for all castings the aftermarket is pretty cheap. The 11degree ls3 heads (you guys talk about) with the 255cc runner is $429.oo EACH BARE. Brodix Ls7 heads go for $675.oo for the BR7 & ($750.oo for BR7 -BS > BigSpring) Each bare, Ready for custom port work.
Google search of (Liberty Performance Ls3 heads) will show where guys get there castings from.
Google search of (Liberty Performance Ls3 heads) will show where guys get there castings from.
03-09-2019, 03:55 PM
#65
Never that, but if i had a 379 cfm head i'm looking at the best available intake that will meet those requirements. That simple. Not a 350 cfm intake. Out think the heads, you've got x amount invested in. Asked Darth about intakes with a limited amount of cfm Vs the heads used and All the Wasted hp. Hood clearence is understood also. When not made.....ole timers say, Make it, if reasonable in cost and you feel a gain can be made. How does a bigger TB sound on a low profile sniper? More is generally better with a TB for instance 4500 vs a 105 tb if the air can be used or needed. Sheet metal can be welded to fix any problems. With a cheap base cost can this intake match observed flow of the great heads offered with limited cost? What if you could get the 10 to 15% lost with the intake attached down to 5% or match what your heads provide for CFM? Mr Morgan said that's what he's here for, induction specialist with metal fab if needed. You want race heads but flake out on the intake? Hood clearance is understood, fact still remains your shooting yourself in the foot. Isn't a engine just a air pump with 4 strokes basically. Take no losses for basic stuff is where hp is found.
03-09-2019, 07:35 PM
#67
With you on all that KCS 
Inductions 101.Yet if 320 cfm is observed with the intake on from a 380 cfm head and all the info listed is correct.
Work is still needed. My thought is the most straight runner possible that would take as much air as possible. From observations and asking a intake can be port matched to meet the needs of most heads if material is available. CID and Hi Ram are primary examples in as cast form. Sniper (is the bomb) has the potential with shorter runner length but limited in the amount of air that's tooken cause of tb size vs any carb tb which has more air potential because of size. The Ls3 intake test showed what having more air available does dual tb vs 105mm with a as cast intake. Not sayin get dual TB's but having more potential air available from a larger Tb blade size or area isn't a bad thing. We're not making intakes just workin with what's out here fixed runner lengths. You need a intake with at least the possibility of being able to supply the demand, that's 1st with intake choice and if and how much work can be done & at what cost. Your heads are getting better & better yet only high raise intakes make hp? Holley sniper low pro is close and feel it could do better with more air available with a larger TB also this is metal not plastic. KCS what you said should or would be taken into consideration with intake choice with it's possibility of potentially being able to supply the cylinder heads needs.
Inductions 101.Yet if 320 cfm is observed with the intake on from a 380 cfm head and all the info listed is correct. Work is still needed. My thought is the most straight runner possible that would take as much air as possible. From observations and asking a intake can be port matched to meet the needs of most heads if material is available. CID and Hi Ram are primary examples in as cast form. Sniper (is the bomb) has the potential with shorter runner length but limited in the amount of air that's tooken cause of tb size vs any carb tb which has more air potential because of size. The Ls3 intake test showed what having more air available does dual tb vs 105mm with a as cast intake. Not sayin get dual TB's but having more potential air available from a larger Tb blade size or area isn't a bad thing. We're not making intakes just workin with what's out here fixed runner lengths. You need a intake with at least the possibility of being able to supply the demand, that's 1st with intake choice and if and how much work can be done & at what cost. Your heads are getting better & better yet only high raise intakes make hp? Holley sniper low pro is close and feel it could do better with more air available with a larger TB also this is metal not plastic. KCS what you said should or would be taken into consideration with intake choice with it's possibility of potentially being able to supply the cylinder heads needs.
03-09-2019, 11:19 PM
#70
If you've got cubes or know how to cam & gear a car correctly i'll take rpm. That was a stock cubed Ls3 not! a stroker or big bore build. Ask Hammer or Darth would they switch? That same Ls3 intake test. Would a shorter duration cam help make more tq with the sniper low pro but lose a bit on the top? So what's your point? We get the best heads possible then get a intake that will best display what we got with our head choice? The cam plays Quarterback and controls all the plays? Do we not want the most flow under the curtain for any given lift & runner size CSA? If what we asked for in heads is now hindered because of flow from the intake that's something to ponder. With a shorter runner i'd want as much air as possible in a shorter duration, i ask would this make tq, with any stroke size if tq is wanted or needed? I understand what's being said...but you don't get the point of: Give the engine what it wants and needs are. We can approach tq for a lower rpm band with the quarterback or cam selection. The sniper lets me know flow is there with peak hp & rpm with the shorter runner. Begin from there got metal not plastic. I ask how well did the shortest runners do?
Factor in cost as well. You can port plastic only so far factor this in cost also.
Factor in cost as well. You can port plastic only so far factor this in cost also.
Last edited by Smokey B; 03-09-2019 at 11:28 PM.
03-10-2019, 07:21 AM
#71
Plastic intakes do not suffer anywhere near the amount of heat soak the metal ones do so that's a plus.
Secondly the FAST and MSD are great intakes for most applications and they flow more than what you need for most wild street setups.
You don't lose any low end torque and they flow better than the factory intakes to around 7000rpm.
Using those fancy metal intakes that make higher peak hp at a higher RPM on a street car is a waste due to the heat build up and the big loss in torque in the low- mid range.
Unless you have a really big motor like a 468 CID+ then by all means go ahead and fit one and the torque will still be plentiful.
03-10-2019, 09:51 AM
#73
Basic engine with a basic test. For a sniper a small change in cam would Help Tq if* needed and if 3.42's are used a 3.73 - 4.10 rear gear would work better the Tq loss is not Noticed. Basic engine combination 101 with drivetrain. E85 kills heat soak. CID intake is cool to touch after driving. FACT. You done went and F'ed off the church money now. So you mean to tell me that a friend with a 7500 peak rpm with ported Ls7 heads can be supplied Enough air under the peak with a MSD or FAST intake. Get the bugle out boys...
That sounds like a 800hp engine being capped of because of Tq and it's not needed. BTW this is a street engine talked about. I don't think some get it. Friend has a 13.5 pump gas iron head gen1 sbc @ over 4000lbs drove it Everyday (typically over 100 miles) no problems with non of the problems of what you stated. With a carb and 93 octane mine you. Ask yourself how big is the cam/stall/rear gear to do this everyday for over 20yrs and no major problems.
Summit price: $987
Construction: composite
Throttle opening: 3.984 inches
Throttle body size tested: FAST 102mm
Fuel rail: FAST Billet
Injectors: FAST 89 lb/hr
Peak power: 585.8 hp at 6,600 rpm
Peak torque: 533.9 lb-ft at 5,400 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 470.9 hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 488.2 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 487.9 lb-ft
FAST Adjustable LSXR (medium runners)
Summit price: $362 (plus the cost of the intake)
Throttle opening: 3.984 inches
Throttle body size tested: FAST 102mm
Fuel rail: FAST billet
Injectors: FAST 89 lb/hr
Peak power: 593.4 hp at 6,800 rpm
Peak torque: 512.8 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 459.7 hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 474.4 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 463.2 lb-ft
FAST Adjustable LSXR (short runners)
Summit Price: $362 (plus the cost of the intake)
Construction: composite
Throttle opening: 3.984 inches
Throttle body size tested: FAST 102mm
Fuel rail: FAST billet
Injectors: FAST 89 lb/hr
Peak power: 603.1 hp at 7,000 rpm
Peak torque: 496.4 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 449.1hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 462.7 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 447.4 lb-ft
****For this test, we replaced the standard LSXR upper intake section with the larger LSXRT intake. Often referred to as the truck intake, the LSXRT top simply offers increased plenum volume on this adjustable intake application. This combination was still equipped with the short runners used in the previous test. Equipped with the short runners and FAST LSXRT top, the LS3 produced almost identical power to the standard LSXR top. The plenum volume changed the power output very little on this application. Equipped with the FAST adjustable LSXRT intake (with short runners), the 6.2L still produced 603 hp and 495 lb-ft of torque.
Holley Sniper (low)Summit price: $545
Construction: fabricated aluminum
Throttle opening: 4.090 inches
Throttle body size tested: Holley 105mmel rail: Holley
Injectors: Holley 83 lb/hr
Peak power: 608.7 hp at 7,000 rpm
Peak torque: 501.1 lb-ft at 5,500 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 453.6 hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 466.9 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 449.0 lb-ft
That sounds like a 800hp engine being capped of because of Tq and it's not needed. BTW this is a street engine talked about. I don't think some get it. Friend has a 13.5 pump gas iron head gen1 sbc @ over 4000lbs drove it Everyday (typically over 100 miles) no problems with non of the problems of what you stated. With a carb and 93 octane mine you. Ask yourself how big is the cam/stall/rear gear to do this everyday for over 20yrs and no major problems.Summit price: $987
Construction: composite
Throttle opening: 3.984 inches
Throttle body size tested: FAST 102mm
Fuel rail: FAST Billet
Injectors: FAST 89 lb/hr
Peak power: 585.8 hp at 6,600 rpm
Peak torque: 533.9 lb-ft at 5,400 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 470.9 hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 488.2 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 487.9 lb-ft
FAST Adjustable LSXR (medium runners)
Summit price: $362 (plus the cost of the intake)
Throttle opening: 3.984 inches
Throttle body size tested: FAST 102mm
Fuel rail: FAST billet
Injectors: FAST 89 lb/hr
Peak power: 593.4 hp at 6,800 rpm
Peak torque: 512.8 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 459.7 hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 474.4 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 463.2 lb-ft
FAST Adjustable LSXR (short runners)
Summit Price: $362 (plus the cost of the intake)
Construction: composite
Throttle opening: 3.984 inches
Throttle body size tested: FAST 102mm
Fuel rail: FAST billet
Injectors: FAST 89 lb/hr
Peak power: 603.1 hp at 7,000 rpm
Peak torque: 496.4 lb-ft at 5,300 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 449.1hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 462.7 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 447.4 lb-ft
****For this test, we replaced the standard LSXR upper intake section with the larger LSXRT intake. Often referred to as the truck intake, the LSXRT top simply offers increased plenum volume on this adjustable intake application. This combination was still equipped with the short runners used in the previous test. Equipped with the short runners and FAST LSXRT top, the LS3 produced almost identical power to the standard LSXR top. The plenum volume changed the power output very little on this application. Equipped with the FAST adjustable LSXRT intake (with short runners), the 6.2L still produced 603 hp and 495 lb-ft of torque.
Holley Sniper (low)Summit price: $545
Construction: fabricated aluminum
Throttle opening: 4.090 inches
Throttle body size tested: Holley 105mmel rail: Holley
Injectors: Holley 83 lb/hr
Peak power: 608.7 hp at 7,000 rpm
Peak torque: 501.1 lb-ft at 5,500 rpm
Ave HP (3,100-7,000): 453.6 hp
Ave TQ (3,100-7,000): 466.9 lb-ft
TQ at 4,000 rpm: 449.0 lb-ft
03-10-2019, 10:32 AM
#74
Yes it does KCS. But can it supply what's needed from todays heads is the question but seems better than a normal FAST intake in terms of potential. Not trying to reinvent the wheel, brothers. If x porter say's he's got x amount of flow observed we need to get a intake that has x amount of flow to use a 100% of the heads no matter runner length for rpm or intake choice. Isn't that the goal? I understand limited intakes for hood clearance, but you go back to the point of if you've purchased high flowing heads your losing 10 to 15% of your heads potential with a intake that can not supply the demand.
03-10-2019, 11:58 AM
#75
Yes it does KCS. But can it supply what's needed from todays heads is the question but seems better than a normal FAST intake in terms of potential. Not trying to reinvent the wheel, brothers. If x porter say's he's got x amount of flow observed we need to get a intake that has x amount of flow to use a 100% of the heads no matter runner length for rpm or intake choice. Isn't that the goal? I understand limited intakes for hood clearance, but you go back to the point of if you've purchased high flowing heads your losing 10 to 15% of your heads potential with a intake that can not supply the demand.
the bottom line is you keep turning this into a debate about how long runner style intakes are inferior to any aftermarket sheet metal intake. So you are telling the op that despite his 7000 rpm max, he should still not run a plastic intake because at that rpm the sheet metal will gain 15 hp? If he were to run a sheet metal then everyone would ask why are you running that, you ar losing 30 average torque across the board for gains that are seen from 6300 rpm? Then you would be like just run a smaller cam to gain the torque mostly back, but wait that would lower your peak numbers more.....isn't that what we are calling a sacrifice? You would then tell the op he needs to spin higher rims say 8000 to take advantage of that intake, but wait, the cam you species to gain the torque back is gonna be falling off at 7000 anyway, so there goes the high end hp numbers you are seeking. There just is no winning here. A cam can certainly be adapted in many ways for anything, because it is the most customizable part of our engines, but saying the intake is one of the most cruscial is a moot point until you are over 7500 Rpms, that's my opinion. Not sayin slap a stock ls7 on it, but im saying the right person can make a plastic intake hang in pretty well at the 7000 rev range.
still trying to figure out your logic of a shorter and or mid length runner metal intake on a motor around the 7000 number, especially when the op said that was his number. Proven fact, aftermarket plastic intakes will create more average torque for a street car by a mile.
03-10-2019, 02:31 PM
#76
Not just for 7k as the op needs but in general.
Some don't get it that you can gear a car & most if not all would like a intake with the Most air available. For the test which is Basic the ls3 with the sniper intake would it not have benefited or made more Tq with a shorter duration cam but lose some up top vs the plastic intakes & cam used. 7k rpm was the test limit. That simple! We can go lower in camming for both intakes for more Tq. Newer GM ports are getting larger and larger? How is it that a bigger engine 454ls with more compression and same general cam spec's makes just at peak or avg 30 more feet pound with a ported msd but lose almost 60hp at the same 7500 peak vs a smaller 430ish lsx engine with less compression? Air potential that's available? Who wouldn't take a CID if it fit under the hood? What's the closest thing that fit's? This is what i seen from tests more air helps. Who am i to say change but if i've got a 400+cfm head a MSD nor FAST would be in my thought process for intake choice. Hell may as well look for a limited head to match my limited intake so as to get 100% out it.
Good read some like huge ports with the idea that tq can be made With camming.
https://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/s....php?t=2560831
Some don't get it that you can gear a car & most if not all would like a intake with the Most air available. For the test which is Basic the ls3 with the sniper intake would it not have benefited or made more Tq with a shorter duration cam but lose some up top vs the plastic intakes & cam used. 7k rpm was the test limit. That simple! We can go lower in camming for both intakes for more Tq. Newer GM ports are getting larger and larger? How is it that a bigger engine 454ls with more compression and same general cam spec's makes just at peak or avg 30 more feet pound with a ported msd but lose almost 60hp at the same 7500 peak vs a smaller 430ish lsx engine with less compression? Air potential that's available? Who wouldn't take a CID if it fit under the hood? What's the closest thing that fit's? This is what i seen from tests more air helps. Who am i to say change but if i've got a 400+cfm head a MSD nor FAST would be in my thought process for intake choice. Hell may as well look for a limited head to match my limited intake so as to get 100% out it.
Good read some like huge ports with the idea that tq can be made With camming.
https://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/s....php?t=2560831
03-10-2019, 06:17 PM
#77
Not saying you don't know anything, but I'm telling you, your logic is wrong for a street car. Doesn't take a genius to see that. The analogy about the cam you made above has some truth to it, but a short/mid length metal intake by design can never out torque a fast or msd, assuming both have cams specced for each. I will continue to waste my money on the Mamo msd, paired with the mamo heads, and making very close to sheet metal horsepower but 10% more average tq, and 5% more average hp. Assuming I assemble it all right......fingers crossed lol
03-10-2019, 09:22 PM
#79
I feel what your...you got nascar flowing heads but a $2k bottle neck for a intake. You'd take tony's 454 i'd take john's M/C 427 with 700rwhp. Here a funny one on your heads. They just need minor port work if bought cnc'ed to get those flow numbers some call it a hand job.