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.
Is a ported FAST 90 to 92 MM the same as a FAST 92 ?
Originally Posted by k0bun
Have any shops/members done any back to back testing of a FAST90 vs a FAST92? If so what was the outcome?
If tests were performed with only a FAST 92, what was the hp/tq difference compared to average FAST 90 results?
Please give detailed description of the mod set up on the car as well as ported/unported FAST.
Thanks
I have a FAST 90 which has been opened up to 92mm. Whats the diifference if any. I think the FAST 92 is simply a 90 opened up to 92 mm. Im not sure if thats the only difference though. We dont even have a posting of a non ported FAST VS PORTED FAST. You pose a unique question and I wish SPINMONSTER or COREY HARRIS would
weigh in on at least some aspects of this question.
From: NJ..."the way I saw it, everyone takes a beating sometimes."
Originally Posted by LSCHLEM
I have a FAST 90 which has been opened up to 92mm. Whats the diifference if any. I think the FAST 92 is simply a 90 opened up to 92 mm. Im not sure if thats the only difference though. We dont even have a posting of a non ported FAST VS PORTED FAST. You pose a unique question and I wish SPINMONSTER or COREY HARRIS would
weigh in on at least some aspects of this question.
I'll have to check my magazines but I recall an article stating that there is still quite a bit of material within the 92 for porting. It is not just a ported and renamed FAST 90.....or so I thought.
I've got a SPIN-FAST 92 (Spin ported, firewall mod & painted), also installed by Spin. No dyno comparison but there is a definite hp/tq increase vs. my CH ported stocker.
The FAST 92 vs 90 - the 92 has larger 92 mm throat, some SS hardware and brass inserts, I believe those are the only real differences between the two units.
I hope this info helps.
An article I read said that the differences in the tb opening is only 2mm. However, overall plenum volume is up by 20% according to the article. IIRC the bolted on a unported FAST 92 onto a cam only LS1 and saw and increase fo 20whp/22wtq. That is unheard of for an unported FAST over an LS6 unit at the 380-390whp level. The initial pull was 390 and the after pull was 410. No loss in tq anywhere.
I'll have to check my magazines but I recall an article stating that there is still quite a bit of material within the 92 for porting. It is not just a ported and renamed FAST 90.....or so I thought.
I think you're right. There should be at least some slight internal differences on top of that extra 2mm in the opening.
I know one notable change was in the mounting/sealing area of the throttle body, there are now threaded inserts instead of the former screw & bolt type set up and there is a more secure seal as well.
Of course it says "FAST 92mm" on it now as well.
An article I read said that the differences in the tb opening is only 2mm. However, overall plenum volume is up by 20% according to the article. IIRC the bolted on a unported FAST 92 onto a cam only LS1 and saw and increase fo 20whp/22wtq. That is unheard of for an unported FAST over an LS6 unit at the 380-390whp level. The initial pull was 390 and the after pull was 410. No loss in tq anywhere.
Hope that helps.
Dougie
I think we can all agree that there is a 2mm difference in the FAST units. I think the article was comparing the OEM manifold showing a 20% increase in plenum volume for the FAST. They werent saying the 92 has 20% more plenum over the 90. The brass inserts mentioned by
ls1lt1 ane another subtle difference along with the 2mm. I would still like to find out if there is some internal differences. For me PORTED
FAST 90 to 92 W Boltons only 412 RWHP / 408 RWTQ. Tremendous midrange 2000 - 6100 RPM.
I think we can all agree that there is a 2mm difference in the FAST units. I think the article was comparing the OEM manifold showing a 20% increase in plenum volume for the FAST. They werent saying the 92 has 20% more plenum over the 90. The brass inserts mentioned by
ls1lt1 ane another subtle difference along with the 2mm. I would still like to find out if there is some internal differences. For me PORTED
FAST 90 to 92 W Boltons only 412 RWHP / 408 RWTQ. Tremendous midrange 2000 - 6100 RPM.
Not a lot of differences from my standpoint. No real changes in runner design that I can tell. Plenum looks the same. I've had 5 or 6 come through lately and none were actually 92mm bores until I made them larger. The hardwear and insert upgrades are nice, though. If I had a FAST 90 I would not sell it just to "upgrade" to the 92 version.
And they still didn't take the time to make it bolt-on LS2 friendly.... AAARRRGGGHHH! Spin and others have shown that a modified top-half is all it takes. Yet they did not take the opportunity to integrate the relatively minor redesign of the top cover. Wasted opportunity.
Last edited by Cory@LS2PortWorks; May 21, 2008 at 08:25 AM.
Not a lot of differences from my standpoint. No real changes in runner design that I can tell. Plenum looks the same. I've had 5 or 6 come through lately and none were actually 92mm bores until I made them larger. The hardwear and insert upgrades are nice, though. If I had a FAST 90 I would not sell it just to "upgrade" to the 92 version.
And they still didn't take the time to make it bolt-on LS2 friendly.... AAARRRGGGHHH! Spin and others have shown that a modified top-half is all it takes. Yet they did not take the opportunity to integrate the relatively minor redesign of the top cover. Wasted opportunity.
We dont even have a posting of a non ported FAST VS PORTED FAST.
I will be making a thread for this in the near future. I have been scratching my head on this one for a long time as porting is 200-500 bucks depending on who you use. I want to know is it really worth it. I have a H/C C6 with untouched FAST 90 and am looking to have it ported by a pro to see if their port work really is worth the extra dollars. I use the same dyno everytime and am willing to run the car on the dyno again, unbolt and pack the unported right off the dyno, have it ported and put the car right back on the dyno with the ported. This will give the closest comparison of SAE gains possible as it will all take place within a matter of days for both dyno times.
And they still didn't take the time to make it bolt-on LS2 friendly.... AAARRRGGGHHH! Spin and others have shown that a modified top-half is all it takes. Yet they did not take the opportunity to integrate the relatively minor redesign of the top cover. Wasted opportunity.
I really thought they would've considered the C6 (it does fit without modification on other LS2 vehicle applications, ie: GTO etc.) fitment issues when making a new/improved version of their otherwise awesome intake manifold.
I wonder if the rectangle port/LS3 version (if it ever comes out LOL) will still require such modification to fit a C6.
From: NJ..."the way I saw it, everyone takes a beating sometimes."
Originally Posted by CHarris85Vette
Not a lot of differences from my standpoint. No real changes in runner design that I can tell. Plenum looks the same. I've had 5 or 6 come through lately and none were actually 92mm bores until I made them larger. The hardwear and insert upgrades are nice, though. If I had a FAST 90 I would not sell it just to "upgrade" to the 92 version.
And they still didn't take the time to make it bolt-on LS2 friendly.... AAARRRGGGHHH! Spin and others have shown that a modified top-half is all it takes. Yet they did not take the opportunity to integrate the relatively minor redesign of the top cover. Wasted opportunity.
Do you or your customers have any dyno numbers from the ported FAST 92? I know it wont be a true back to back comparison but we can at least see how it stands next to the average gains seen with the FAST 90.
Do you or your customers have any dyno numbers from the ported FAST 92? I know it wont be a true back to back comparison but we can at least see how it stands next to the average gains seen with the FAST 90.
I have not had any 92mm dyno results sent back in to me. But as I've said... there is no apparent difference to warrant a gain in power. A bigger TB opening is meaningless on all but the most powerful combos running 92 or larger TB's. There is no reason for there to be a gain on a 90mm TB car.