NA LS6 -- Where to now?
05-04-2015, 01:11 AM
#41
Race Director
That is the information pipeline called the Internet talking right there....and Im sure you meant well with your post sharing information you likely read, but that is more of a wives tale created by the guys that dont want to spend the extra money on the manifold in an effort to justify not purchasing it....real world results would prove otherwise more times than not.
A properly ported FAST 102 in front of a high flowing set of heads (which always pays you the most dividends with a manifold swap because the stock manifold then represents an even greater restriction) is worth a solid 25 RWHP even in a stock cube application with a conservative camshaft. While its not an inexpensive mod by any stretch, it adds measurably to power output and also offers a ton more part throttle response as well. In total, the mod feels like you picked up twice what the dyno shows you because torque gets a nice bump.....horsepower gets a nice bump, and the responsiveness of the engine gets a nice bump......from the drivers seat all these things add up to an upgrade that is almost a prerequisite if you have already committed financially to a great set of heads.
Speaking of heads, OP.....if you don't own the AFR 210's yet you should look into my most recent design that I'm marketing under my own Mamo Motorsports brand. Call it a 3rd revision to the AFR if you like (my newest port design is CNC ported in an AFR casting), but either way have a look at my new 220 head.....I designed it specifically for the 5.7 and 6.0 liter crowd. There is an informative thread with more info if you take the time to search under my new screen name or simply type MMS 220 into the search bar.
Guys.....the FAST 102 is NOT overkill on a stock 346.....this isn't an old school ride where you had to worry about too large a carb (which wouldn't atomize fuel as well). You cant have too much air....getting more in and out is the primary target of all our modding endeavors.....and the fuel injectors cover the fuel atomization concerns. With its better plenum and runner design a FAST 102 is a much better extension of the intake port (a ported version even better doubling the gains from the swap if handled properly)....because no matter how good that intake port is, if you place a restrictive stock intake in front of it you have limited your potential a great deal.
If you cant afford one at the time you handle the heads install save it for the next round of mods but it should be clearly the next thing you install once you have committed to a better set of cylinder heads.
-Tony
A properly ported FAST 102 in front of a high flowing set of heads (which always pays you the most dividends with a manifold swap because the stock manifold then represents an even greater restriction) is worth a solid 25 RWHP even in a stock cube application with a conservative camshaft. While its not an inexpensive mod by any stretch, it adds measurably to power output and also offers a ton more part throttle response as well. In total, the mod feels like you picked up twice what the dyno shows you because torque gets a nice bump.....horsepower gets a nice bump, and the responsiveness of the engine gets a nice bump......from the drivers seat all these things add up to an upgrade that is almost a prerequisite if you have already committed financially to a great set of heads.
Speaking of heads, OP.....if you don't own the AFR 210's yet you should look into my most recent design that I'm marketing under my own Mamo Motorsports brand. Call it a 3rd revision to the AFR if you like (my newest port design is CNC ported in an AFR casting), but either way have a look at my new 220 head.....I designed it specifically for the 5.7 and 6.0 liter crowd. There is an informative thread with more info if you take the time to search under my new screen name or simply type MMS 220 into the search bar.
Guys.....the FAST 102 is NOT overkill on a stock 346.....this isn't an old school ride where you had to worry about too large a carb (which wouldn't atomize fuel as well). You cant have too much air....getting more in and out is the primary target of all our modding endeavors.....and the fuel injectors cover the fuel atomization concerns. With its better plenum and runner design a FAST 102 is a much better extension of the intake port (a ported version even better doubling the gains from the swap if handled properly)....because no matter how good that intake port is, if you place a restrictive stock intake in front of it you have limited your potential a great deal.
If you cant afford one at the time you handle the heads install save it for the next round of mods but it should be clearly the next thing you install once you have committed to a better set of cylinder heads.
-Tony
you accuse the poster before or spreading misinformation yet post zero to back up your claim. if you have solid testing done on a stock engine where both tests were done the same day with the same air and oil temps and nothing changed it could be helpful. fudged dynos with hot timing curves on the FAST or a bag of ice on the manifold are typical vendor tactics to try and scam people out of money. many of us know this.
most marketing in aftermarket car parts by smaller companies is slanted and dishonest. there is no reason to assume you're any different unless you prove it
05-04-2015, 02:15 PM
#42
Le Mans Master
Based on your comments and goals, one thing I would do is ditch the idea of using the FAST 102 and a 102 mm throttle body. With your particular parts/cam selection that is mucho overkill for a stock cube LS engine.
Your ported 85 mm TB, along with the Z06 manifold is plenty capable of supporting the mods you're choosing. Use that $1200 to $1500 for a McLeod RST double disk clutch and have money left over for other things.
Your ported 85 mm TB, along with the Z06 manifold is plenty capable of supporting the mods you're choosing. Use that $1200 to $1500 for a McLeod RST double disk clutch and have money left over for other things.
but I have an unported FAST 90 /90 on my stock bottom, 346 Ci., Automatic running 10.2's ...
I now wonder if I swapped into a FAST 102 if I'd better my time on the same day
Last edited by Rob Petyo; 05-04-2015 at 05:55 PM. Reason: fast 92 to 90 edit
05-04-2015, 06:25 PM
#43
at what rpm? velocity slows with a larger manifold volume. this may not be a concern with a large cam and a drag race application but the 2000-4000 zone is where you are on the street most the time. the stock manifold will produce more velocity just by design
you accuse the poster before or spreading misinformation yet post zero to back up your claim. if you have solid testing done on a stock engine where both tests were done the same day with the same air and oil temps and nothing changed it could be helpful. fudged dynos with hot timing curves on the FAST or a bag of ice on the manifold are typical vendor tactics to try and scam people out of money. many of us know this.
most marketing in aftermarket car parts by smaller companies is slanted and dishonest. there is no reason to assume you're any different unless you prove it
you accuse the poster before or spreading misinformation yet post zero to back up your claim. if you have solid testing done on a stock engine where both tests were done the same day with the same air and oil temps and nothing changed it could be helpful. fudged dynos with hot timing curves on the FAST or a bag of ice on the manifold are typical vendor tactics to try and scam people out of money. many of us know this.
most marketing in aftermarket car parts by smaller companies is slanted and dishonest. there is no reason to assume you're any different unless you prove it
The velocity in the runner isn't slowing at all....the length and cross section of both runners are similar but the 102 has a better radiused entry and has a slightly better shaped runner. The biggest difference is the opening of the intake and the fact a larger 102 is less restrictive up top than a 92mm opening. Your not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and slightly redder apples.....its just a better design from the standpoint of the execution of the intake O-ringed separate runners versus more seams and seals with the first design where the shell was actually part of the runner design.
The 102 TB gives the end user more responsiveness as well which is a perk I personally value.
Bottom line.....not a huge difference between them but if you don't own either and are wanting the best, the 102 is going to deliver on all accounts.....better structural design and slightly revised improved flow paths with a larger opening to the plenum.
Like I said.....Im not pimping or promoting MY product (I can port and modify whatever I chose to).....if a FAST 92 was legitimately better I would run one and only recommend them to the customers interested in having me port their intakes. I recommend the 102 for all the right reasons and if you had as much experience with both as I do (including a massive amount of independent customer feedback), you you would understand exactly why that is so.
Also, there is no comparison in the quality of the construction btw.....which is another perk of the 102 which is nearly 3 lbs heavier due to its more robust design features (the individual runners that are O-ringed sealed into the base is a much better design than the 90/92 mm 1st gen design).
Is it worth it for a guy that already has a properly ported 92 to move into a properly ported 102.....certainly that wouldnt be very cost effective and you would pay a premium on a $$$ per horsepower basis, but if you have the pocketbook it would still be a consideration if your looking to optimize your combination.....more importantly for the guy that has still yet to purchase either, the 102 right out of the gate makes alot more sense IMO.
For the record, on C5 applications I sometime recommend the 92 due to the ease of install.....the 102 is a very tight fit in that car and unless the guy is really committed to not leave any power on the table, I normally recommend he save himself the aggravation and have me port a 92 and go with a ported 90mm GM TB. Also considering the C5 is throttle by wire, the 102 versions of those larger TB's are a bitch to tune....both of those reason have me recommending the ported 92 to the C5 crowd more typically than the 102 where as the FBody crowd has neither issue (fitment or drive by wire finicky TB's) and I always recommend the 102's in that application due to those facts....and the fact its worth more power and responsiveness.
-Tony
Last edited by Tony @ Mamo Motorsports; 05-04-2015 at 06:27 PM.