TST_brah

I was set on the FAST 92 but now that I'm ready to buy one I'm not sure. Looking at the following:
FAST 92
FAST102
TSP sheet metal w CNC runners
BTR Trinity

I have an LS2 DBW TB that I got off a buddy for cheap, wanted to try to avoid having to buy another one if possible as the 102s are a little pricey but would get one if necessary. Rest of my mods in sig. I don't plan on ever boosting the car but if the oil ever gets glittery would rebuild and bump the comp.

Goal is mid range power, I don't track the car just beat it on the way to work and gym mostly. Haven't had it on a dyno yet, running on a Pat G tune, but I'd be happy with 400+ rwhp when I take it after this mod.

So what suggestions do y'all have for my situation? TIA.

jasons69chevelle

You’re going to want a long runner. Of those listed the fast intakes would have the longest runners.

G Atsma

^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^

02EBC5Z06

iTrader: (1)

I would stick with the Fast 92 or the 102.

Full Power

.
.
.
There is NOTHING in aftermarket that will perform AS WELL as the stock plastic truck manifold at your stated horespower goal

01CamaroSSTx

iTrader: (3)

Maybe so but one thing for certain here is that a FAST intake has the potential to out perform factory stock manifolds. Which one allows more air to enter the induction system 78mm or the 102 or 104mm throttle bodies? It's a no brainer and everyone knows that more air and fuel=more power. A turbocharged engine with a stock plastic truck intake can make some good power but turbocharged with a FAST setup and the right components to support it will make even more. Truck intakes are tall but may not fit under the hood so there's that too.

Full Power

You can DEFINITELY push more money through a 4 inch hole FASTER than through a 3 inch hole, yes.
As far as AIR Flow to make 400 Horsepower..... Well, go ahead and buy parts, that's what you are going to do anyway.

Y2K_Frenzy

I’m probably too new to make this assumption but all of the intake manifold dynos that I’ve seen were all between something like 10-20 horsepower on H/C/I combos. Which isn’t exactly “make or break” kind of power. If I had to spend $1k for twenty horsepower then I’d be twenty horsepower less.

01CamaroSSTx

iTrader: (3)

Fast, cheap and reliable..You can only choose two.

01CamaroSSTx

iTrader: (3)

Let me just break that down..

10-20hp for 1K well lets just say 20hp for 1K that's $50 per horse. Now how much power on average does a turbocharger produce 75-150 hp or how about a Procharger say 200hp? Yes they can make even more but now you're spending on even better components.

$50 x 175=$7,500
$50 x 200=$10,000

I think the bottle would be the cheapest way to make power but how reliable is it to not...

Y2K_Frenzy

Everything is expensive now. Entry level Prochager kits I think are $8k-$9k and then you’d still need the fuel stuff. If you don’t do a pcv delete the chances of blowing out all of the gaskets & seals and rings is pretty high. My ‘95 mustang suffered that fate. All of the “hard parts” are still good but I think seals are blown from top to bottom after about ten years and less than 5k miles and a handful of 1/8 mile passes. It was only a 6-8 psi kit as well.
I don’t have experience with nitrous but it doesn’t sound very practical for a street car and it seems like filling the bottle would get expensive.
But yeah, I’d rather save $1k than to run a few tenths of a second faster in the 1/4.

TST_brah

This. I just want to put good stuff in it, be reasonably fast, and rely on it as a daily when the weather's good.

Floorman279

iTrader: (11)

NNBS truck intake is good to about 6500 rpm. yea id say the new truck intake is pretty similar to the fast until about 5500 rpms. your choice.

GMRL

LS6 intake hits all that criteria......or swap in a crate LS3 lol
​​​​​

JimMueller

iTrader: (9)

It's been many years, but I don't recall gaining much at all by switching from a LS6 intake to a FAST 92 intake on a HC LS1. IMO, not worth the price of admission for your application. Be honest with yourself on your application(s) and future mods.