LSCHLEM

Dear Members, I want to apologize for not posting the results a few weeks back when I had a long going Thread about testing my Ported 92 and Ported 102 the same Day. Now I decided to post the Dynograph
because I had received many PM's asking me to do so and I promised I
would not let you down. The results are not conclusive and only represent my Data point and experience in testing these Two great manifolds.

Here are my conclusions and opinions.
1. The 92 was overported and got me 461 RWHP about a year ago as a CAm only thru 4.10 Gears
2. In the cool april air of this year I decided to add Trick Flow 225 Heads and the dyno came in at 500rwhp. In doing so I noticed the Ports at the FAST 92 /TF Junctions were port mismatched on both the OEM and TF Heads. I managed to clean up the ports of the TF's so the match was perfect with the Fast 102 but the 92 still had a lip at the bottom. Lots of money spent with the Fast 102 only to pick up 5 rwhp
and about 10 or 12 rwtq with the Fast 102. I figured I would try the 92 first and then the 102 . Anyway here is here is what the test had shown.

ctusser

So the missmatched 92 was only slightly less. Thanks for sharing

LSCHLEM

The mismatched 92 has that lip on the bottom which I thought was a big deal enough to go out and buy a 102 and get that ported. I talked to Tf,
Formato who ported the 92 said the airflow is minimal on the Floor. Spinmonster also indicated that in another thread but he felt that the Port
match was very poor on the 92. The 102 was ported and portmatched and had no lip. By that I mean there were more areas of the manifold that got attention other than a smooth transition to the Heads.

LSCHLEM

Where did the HP go. Its amazing how much you can loose in 99 DEG or
100 Deg temp weather as opposed to 56 degrees. By taking the Car to the same dyno no changes or additions the Car comes up 20 degrees short
with either manifold of what I got in April. I will never Dyno a Car in those kind of temps again. My iat's must have been through the ceiling and pulling timing. Same goes with the Drag Strip. I will wait till Oct to track
the Car. I have a set of 305/35/18 nitto tires waiting for that occasion
since Jan. They really bite.

Justasheet

I felt your pain yesterday. Man was it hot and humid. Go and figure in S. Fl. in July, huh?

Oh well, at least it wasn't pulling any timing as per Jeremy.

Jeff

Joe_G

Those are DIN numbers. Can you post up the SAE numbers?

You won't see such a difference from April to now if the dyno weather station is calibrated.

If you don't know how to post up the SAE numbers get the .drf files for the runs and I'll post them up for you. Or get the Winpep software to do it yourself, it's free and easy to use and you can really analyze your runs with the software.

LSCHLEM

Joe I do know that about SAE, STD and the Like. The thing is when the Temp changes to 40 degrees hotter you will not make the same amount of Power when the AIR was 40 degrees cooler. I prefer STD because thats what the Car made on that day. I was hoping you would focus on the curves and see the differences and perhaps comment on that. I hope someone does not call out for a mustang dyno LOL. My main concern here is to show the differences in the best 92 pull vs the best 102 pull.

Joe_G

The curves show the 102 vs 92 to be a good mod, but not worth investing $800 IMHO if you've already got the 92.

If you had a choice of the 92 vs the 102, I'd pick the 102 all day long since it fits the car without cutting the manifold or the car. Many folks, including me, have had a ton of trouble with the rear graft not holding up, requiring me to take my intake off several times until I finally fixed it once and for all (I hope) a year ago with a metal graft.

But, frankly, even that analysis might be skewed if the numbers aren't corrected to SAE - the morning might have been 80 degrees, the afternoon with the 102 might have been 95 degrees....so the analysis on the above curves can't really be made since the numbers weren't corrected. That said...DIN might be weather corrected, so the analysis on the curves might be appropriate, but I don't know for sure. SAE correction would permit a proper analysis, generally regardless of weather and regardless of the dyno.

The SAE weather correction, assuming a calibrated weather station, takes the weather pretty much out of the calculation. So to make a good analysis, we need that data.

Leon if you will call the dyno operator and have him send me the .drf files from the two runs to joegut <at> gmail <dot> com, I will post up SAE Smoothing 5 corrected dyno graphs and show you the exact differences in HP/TQ at various RPM. Nobody will argue with you on those graphs. Anything less leave you open to argument and you've had enough of that lately buddy.

LSCHLEM

I agree and at this point in time I would not throw away my 92 and get a 102. My graft on my 92 lasted for 2 years no problems and made good
numbers quite similar to yours. I will say this the 102 is still in its infancy and the 92 is mature. Having said that you can be certain the 102 will get better as porters find what works. Jeremy has experienced much improvement from his first porting of the 102 till now and expects to find more poneys and TQ as time goes on. There are still but only a few data points out there yet. I know it cost me $1,300.00 to find out.
Ill take the 5- 10 increase knowing I paid too much for it. If I didn't
have a 92 The gain out of the Ported 102 would be phenominal.

dennis50nj

LSCHLEM

Dennis, if you knew for sure that if you went out and got a Cartek Ported 102 and it would serve up 23 RWHP and 20 RWTQ over your Ported 92 I
think you would buy the 102 in a heart beat. 5 or 10 is not enough to get your juices going. The future may prove to be pretty interesting as time goes on and more posting is done here.

LSCHLEM

Dennis do you agree on this?

dennis50nj

Hi Leon! Would have answered you sooner but didnt see this until today. I do agree, and even if it was 10 across the board over my fast 90 I would swap to the 102