local debate about rear mounts
05-26-2007, 02:31 AM
#1
local debate about rear mounts on local boards about how bad sts sucks..they have a terrible powerband that only makes a small range of power, and they normally run like crap...and that they are unefficient that waste a lot of energy by being in the back...
what is yalls opinions...
what is yalls opinions...
05-26-2007, 05:28 AM
#4
The STS kits look like a good deal, here is a list of my opinion of them, and why I don't sell them anymore:
1. STS claims that heat is not required to help spool the turbo, that exhaust velocity does the job.
Major retailers of the STS kits sell the kits with exhaust wrap, to help spool the turbo. We have done this at our shop, and it helps quite a bit. It is obvious that the closer to the engine the turbo is mounted, the more efficient it is going to be.
I copied this from the STS website.
"Doesn't heat create the velocity in the exhaust gasses to spool the turbo?
No, heat doesn't create velocity. Heat creates volume. If you look at any of the physics laws for gasses, you will find that pressure and volume and heat are related. PV=NRT is a popular one, The V isn't for velocity, it is for Volume.
The turbine housing is what creates the velocity. The scrolling design that reduces the volume of the exhaust chamber as it scrolls around causes the gasses to have to increase in velocity and pressure to maintain the same flow rate.
Hotter gasses have more volume, thus requiring a higher A/R which in effect means that it starts at say 3" and scrolls down to approximately 1". Lower temperature gasses are denser and have less volume, so they require a lower A/R housing which would start at the same 3" volume, as the turbine housings use standard flanges, and scroll down to say 3/4".
Now if you were to reverse the housings in application, the conventional turbo would spool up extremely quick, at say around 1500 rpm but would cause too much backpressure at higher rpms because the higher volume of gas couldn't squeeze through the 3/4" hole without requiring a lot of pressure to force it through. On the reverse side, the remote mounted turbo with its cooler denser gasses, wouldn't spool up till say around 4000 rpms but once spooled up would make efficient power because it doesn't require hardly any backpressure to push the lower volume of gas through the larger 1" hole."
So I take it the exhaust wrap should not make a difference?
2. You don't want to run catalytic converters with a rear mount turbo. Years ago a guy brought in a Ferrari to us that had a rear mount turbo. One of the catalytic converters internals came apart, as they sometimes do, and parts of it lodged into the turbo, ruining it. I predict that this will be happening to the STS turbo customers.
3. The oil return line is routed into the passenger side oil cap on the STS kits. This line has a habit of coming loose, and spraying oil into the engine compartment. It happened to us, and I have read where it has happened to other people.
These engines already have enough oil returning down through the heads, they don't need more! This is a bad design, and many people are rerouting the oil return line to the oil pan, where it should be in the first place. The problem with running the line to the pan is now you have to drill or punch a hole into the oil pan to run the oil line, unless you remove the oil pan. We recently removed the oil pan on a customer's car, and welded a bung into the pan for the oil return line.
4. The turbo hangs without brackets supporting it, and will sag over time. We add a bracket when we install these kits, I don't link seeing the turbo dangling there.
5. The air filter is in a bad location, as is susceptible to dust, water, dirt, etc. STS offers a cover that goes over the filter, but we found the cover seriously hinders performance. We proved that on our chassis dyno.
6. On the F Body STS kit, a driver side subframe connector cannot be used. STS claims their plumbing that is routed down the driver side does the job of a subframe connector. We find that humorous, at best!
7. The plumbing underneath the car hangs too low in my opinion, and you don't want a lowered car with an STS kit on it.
8. The silicone couplers that are provided with an STS front mount intercooler are thin, and we had two of them blow apart. The intercooler plumbing that was provided with the front mount intercooler option that we ordered for a customer's car was poorly routed, we ended up using our tubing from our front mount kits that we sell.
9. The oil lines sure have a long way to run, from the front to the rear, and back up front. If a leak developed, it could be a quick way to ruin an engine.
10. It would be relatively easy for someone to slide underneath the rear of an STS equipped car, and steal someones turbo.
11. The boost line running back up to the engine from the turbo has silicone couplers at various points along the way, and can blow apart.
12. Any exhaust leaks will diminish the efficiency of a rear mount turbo.
They can be made to work, we have. But in my opinion there are much better kits out on the market, and once you fix all the items that need to be made better, the cost of the STS kit gets quite high. Bob
1. STS claims that heat is not required to help spool the turbo, that exhaust velocity does the job.
Major retailers of the STS kits sell the kits with exhaust wrap, to help spool the turbo. We have done this at our shop, and it helps quite a bit. It is obvious that the closer to the engine the turbo is mounted, the more efficient it is going to be.
I copied this from the STS website.
"Doesn't heat create the velocity in the exhaust gasses to spool the turbo?
No, heat doesn't create velocity. Heat creates volume. If you look at any of the physics laws for gasses, you will find that pressure and volume and heat are related. PV=NRT is a popular one, The V isn't for velocity, it is for Volume.
The turbine housing is what creates the velocity. The scrolling design that reduces the volume of the exhaust chamber as it scrolls around causes the gasses to have to increase in velocity and pressure to maintain the same flow rate.
Hotter gasses have more volume, thus requiring a higher A/R which in effect means that it starts at say 3" and scrolls down to approximately 1". Lower temperature gasses are denser and have less volume, so they require a lower A/R housing which would start at the same 3" volume, as the turbine housings use standard flanges, and scroll down to say 3/4".
Now if you were to reverse the housings in application, the conventional turbo would spool up extremely quick, at say around 1500 rpm but would cause too much backpressure at higher rpms because the higher volume of gas couldn't squeeze through the 3/4" hole without requiring a lot of pressure to force it through. On the reverse side, the remote mounted turbo with its cooler denser gasses, wouldn't spool up till say around 4000 rpms but once spooled up would make efficient power because it doesn't require hardly any backpressure to push the lower volume of gas through the larger 1" hole."
So I take it the exhaust wrap should not make a difference?
2. You don't want to run catalytic converters with a rear mount turbo. Years ago a guy brought in a Ferrari to us that had a rear mount turbo. One of the catalytic converters internals came apart, as they sometimes do, and parts of it lodged into the turbo, ruining it. I predict that this will be happening to the STS turbo customers.
3. The oil return line is routed into the passenger side oil cap on the STS kits. This line has a habit of coming loose, and spraying oil into the engine compartment. It happened to us, and I have read where it has happened to other people.
These engines already have enough oil returning down through the heads, they don't need more! This is a bad design, and many people are rerouting the oil return line to the oil pan, where it should be in the first place. The problem with running the line to the pan is now you have to drill or punch a hole into the oil pan to run the oil line, unless you remove the oil pan. We recently removed the oil pan on a customer's car, and welded a bung into the pan for the oil return line.
4. The turbo hangs without brackets supporting it, and will sag over time. We add a bracket when we install these kits, I don't link seeing the turbo dangling there.
5. The air filter is in a bad location, as is susceptible to dust, water, dirt, etc. STS offers a cover that goes over the filter, but we found the cover seriously hinders performance. We proved that on our chassis dyno.
6. On the F Body STS kit, a driver side subframe connector cannot be used. STS claims their plumbing that is routed down the driver side does the job of a subframe connector. We find that humorous, at best!
7. The plumbing underneath the car hangs too low in my opinion, and you don't want a lowered car with an STS kit on it.
8. The silicone couplers that are provided with an STS front mount intercooler are thin, and we had two of them blow apart. The intercooler plumbing that was provided with the front mount intercooler option that we ordered for a customer's car was poorly routed, we ended up using our tubing from our front mount kits that we sell.
9. The oil lines sure have a long way to run, from the front to the rear, and back up front. If a leak developed, it could be a quick way to ruin an engine.
10. It would be relatively easy for someone to slide underneath the rear of an STS equipped car, and steal someones turbo.
11. The boost line running back up to the engine from the turbo has silicone couplers at various points along the way, and can blow apart.
12. Any exhaust leaks will diminish the efficiency of a rear mount turbo.
They can be made to work, we have. But in my opinion there are much better kits out on the market, and once you fix all the items that need to be made better, the cost of the STS kit gets quite high. Bob
06-18-2007, 12:28 PM
#5
Teching In
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Damn Bob...that's not what I want to hear. (I just bought one, and now considering selling) I haven't even had a chance to put the damn thing on yet, but I sure don't want to now. I think I may sell it and go with Heads/cam combo.
06-18-2007, 12:46 PM
#7
We have worked with several customers that run the rear mounts. They just don't perform like a front mount plain and simple. Narrow power bands and LOTS of backpressure. Not a reciepe for going fast. I think its been said on here MANY times by many people, but the proof is starting to reveal itself. I'm still wanting to know what moron voted STS the SEMA award for great design.
Trending Topics
06-18-2007, 01:24 PM
#8
I have this customer of mine, well not really personal customer but a contracted customer through another shop that insisted on arguing and trying to convince me that his rear mount turbo setup is better than a front mount and has no additional lag, no efficiency loss, etc. He has a 427 ci engine with a rear mount T-76 and it fully spooled about 200 rpm later than my front mount T-76 setup... with a little stock cube 346. There is no doubting that they work especially with an auto behind it, but they just don't work nearly as well.
06-18-2007, 02:15 PM
#9
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i think everyone here has valid point, yes there is some loss of efficiency in the STS system and yes there are short coming in the kit. but all kits have some problems associated with them. many front mounts have clearance problems around the k-member and with keeping ac . its not for everyone but it has proven to be a good kit that makes decent power. i see guys on here that are well into the 600 rwhp range at 15psi .. now if your looking to make 800+ i agree the front mount is the way to go. but this kit isnt as bad as it is being made out to be. Bob i value your opinion but i also can see where being a procharger vender might sway your opinion.
For what its worth IF i had to start all over again i will probably go procharger or front mount but i love my snail in the tail right now.
For what its worth IF i had to start all over again i will probably go procharger or front mount but i love my snail in the tail right now.
06-18-2007, 02:27 PM
#10
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ok
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, I love this topic so I hope you don't mind me hijacking your post!
You hit the nail right on the head. More below.
This is only half true. Heat creates neither velocity nor volume. The volume of a gas expands only when there is sufficient space. When space is combine, the gas tries to expand however is confined. In scope of the subject of exhaust gasses confined in an exhaust pipe, heat creates pressure. No need to argue this one. We all know a gas will expand and to occupy a larger volume when unconfined.
Since the gas is comfined heat equals pressure.
You cannot increase both velocity and pressure without adding energy. The turbine housing is a venturi. Venturis increase velocity at a cost of pressure. This is what causes and airplane's wing to exhibit lift. The turbine extracts energy from the exhaust flow by mechanical impact of the exhaust against the turbine blades. The turbine extracts energy more efficiently from a high velocity gas than a low velocity gas. Since we have a given amount of energy, the more efficient process is to use a venturi to accelerate the exhaust which has an effect of dropping pressure. The secondary flow driver is the simple pressure differential between turbine housing inlet and outlet. Everything in nature tries to maintain an equal state and the hot energetic exhaust flow under pressure is trying to flow to the lowest pressure zone; hopefully behind the turbine. If you don't believe me, put on your best suit, shake up a two litre of Dr. Pepper as hard as you can and open it. That dissolved C02 will help you understand some fundamental physics.
Incorrect logic here. Forgive me as I'm going to write a book. Hotter confined gasses do not have more volume, they have more pressure. But lets forget about heat for the sake of heat and examine this from an energy perspective. Be default, you are moving the same mass on both ends however the closer you are to the engine; this is obvious (although the sts kit leave much more room for leaks). The difference is, the closer to the engine, the more energetic the mass is. At the most fundamental level, turbos are driven by energy. Nothing more.. The energy is delivered by a gas moving across the turbine as explained above.
Thinking back to grade school physical sciences, you will recall the concepts of potential energy (store static energy doing nothing) kinetic energy (the energy of motion). Imagine a tube filled with air. Lets we confine that air and heat it up, we raise it's energy level by causing it to expand. But wait?! There is no additional volume to expand too!! WTF DO WE DO NOW??? Well, we increase in pressure. Now the pressure in the tube is higher than that outside the tube which causes a pressure differential. Let's now cut one end off the tube: what happens? The higher pressure heated air in the tube rushes out to equalize with the surrounding atmosphere.
Now let's repeat but instead of cutting the whole end off, let's stick a venturi in the end the instant the tube is opened. Inside the venturi, the pressure drops vs the pressure of the tube. But wait?????? If the pressure drops doesn't that mean a net loss of energy? We all know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed so what happens to the energy??? Simple! The energy is converted from the potential energy of pressure to the kinetic energy of the movement of the escaping gas (in the scope of the conversation). Account for some friction losses across the surfaces, etc and you will find a net net energy across the conversion.
So let's wrap this back into turbo speak. Let's take that same venturi and wrap it into a spiral, cut a slit in the middle and stick a fan in the middle. Fans are driven by the movement of the air (velocity) and not the pressure since pressure in and of itself does nothing. We take a net loss in pressure coupled to a roughly equal net increase in velocity and get the gas moving well. Then we find a fine balance of mass in motion and slam it into the fan to make it spin.
Now we understand how to think of driving turbos in terms of energy, not false physics. The STS setup is inefficient because of the loss of energy caused by heat radiating from the gas to the exhaust pipe and into the surrounding air. When the gas finally does arrive at the turbine housing, it's lost a significant portion of it's energy. Said in the above terms, there is less pressure for the venturi to use thus you get less of an increase in velocity which ultimately translates to the same mass hitting the turbine 'less hard'. They try to compensate with this by using a smaller a/r housing. Within a small range, the smaller housing will convert more pressure to velocity. This is somewhat fool hardy because a more dense mass traveling slower does not work as efficiently to spin the turbine.
...
I would love to see a link to this. If that doesn't say it, nothing will.
At the end of the day, yes, they will pressurize the intake on your car. They just don't do it particularly well.
Originally Posted by Exotic Performance Plus
The STS kits look like a good deal, here is a list of my opinion of them, and why I don't sell them anymore:
1. STS claims that heat is not required to help spool the turbo, that exhaust velocity does the job.
Major retailers of the STS kits sell the kits with exhaust wrap, to help spool the turbo. We have done this at our shop, and it helps quite a bit. It is obvious that the closer to the engine the turbo is mounted, the more efficient it is going to be.
I copied this from the STS website.
1. STS claims that heat is not required to help spool the turbo, that exhaust velocity does the job.
Major retailers of the STS kits sell the kits with exhaust wrap, to help spool the turbo. We have done this at our shop, and it helps quite a bit. It is obvious that the closer to the engine the turbo is mounted, the more efficient it is going to be.
I copied this from the STS website.
Originally Posted by STS
"Doesn't heat create the velocity in the exhaust gasses to spool the turbo?
No, heat doesn't create velocity. Heat creates volume. If you look at any of the physics laws for gasses, you will find that pressure and volume and heat are related. PV=NRT is a popular one, The V isn't for velocity, it is for Volume.
No, heat doesn't create velocity. Heat creates volume. If you look at any of the physics laws for gasses, you will find that pressure and volume and heat are related. PV=NRT is a popular one, The V isn't for velocity, it is for Volume.
Since the gas is comfined heat equals pressure.
Originally Posted by STS
The turbine housing is what creates the velocity. The scrolling design that reduces the volume of the exhaust chamber as it scrolls around causes the gasses to have to increase in velocity and pressure to maintain the same flow rate.
Originally Posted by STS
Hotter gasses have more volume, thus requiring a higher A/R which in effect means that it starts at say 3" and scrolls down to approximately 1". Lower temperature gasses are denser and have less volume, so they require a lower A/R housing which would start at the same 3" volume, as the turbine housings use standard flanges, and scroll down to say 3/4".
Thinking back to grade school physical sciences, you will recall the concepts of potential energy (store static energy doing nothing) kinetic energy (the energy of motion). Imagine a tube filled with air. Lets we confine that air and heat it up, we raise it's energy level by causing it to expand. But wait?! There is no additional volume to expand too!! WTF DO WE DO NOW??? Well, we increase in pressure. Now the pressure in the tube is higher than that outside the tube which causes a pressure differential. Let's now cut one end off the tube: what happens? The higher pressure heated air in the tube rushes out to equalize with the surrounding atmosphere.
Now let's repeat but instead of cutting the whole end off, let's stick a venturi in the end the instant the tube is opened. Inside the venturi, the pressure drops vs the pressure of the tube. But wait?????? If the pressure drops doesn't that mean a net loss of energy? We all know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed so what happens to the energy??? Simple! The energy is converted from the potential energy of pressure to the kinetic energy of the movement of the escaping gas (in the scope of the conversation). Account for some friction losses across the surfaces, etc and you will find a net net energy across the conversion.
So let's wrap this back into turbo speak. Let's take that same venturi and wrap it into a spiral, cut a slit in the middle and stick a fan in the middle. Fans are driven by the movement of the air (velocity) and not the pressure since pressure in and of itself does nothing. We take a net loss in pressure coupled to a roughly equal net increase in velocity and get the gas moving well. Then we find a fine balance of mass in motion and slam it into the fan to make it spin.
Now we understand how to think of driving turbos in terms of energy, not false physics. The STS setup is inefficient because of the loss of energy caused by heat radiating from the gas to the exhaust pipe and into the surrounding air. When the gas finally does arrive at the turbine housing, it's lost a significant portion of it's energy. Said in the above terms, there is less pressure for the venturi to use thus you get less of an increase in velocity which ultimately translates to the same mass hitting the turbine 'less hard'. They try to compensate with this by using a smaller a/r housing. Within a small range, the smaller housing will convert more pressure to velocity. This is somewhat fool hardy because a more dense mass traveling slower does not work as efficiently to spin the turbine.
Originally Posted by STS
Now if you were to reverse the housings in application, the conventional turbo would spool up extremely quick, at say around 1500 rpm but would cause too much backpressure at higher rpms because the higher volume of gas couldn't squeeze through the 3/4" hole without requiring a lot of pressure to force it through. On the reverse side, the remote mounted turbo with its cooler denser gasses, wouldn't spool up till say around 4000 rpms but once spooled up would make efficient power because it doesn't require hardly any backpressure to push the lower volume of gas through the larger 1" hole."
Originally Posted by EPP
6. On the F Body STS kit, a driver side subframe connector cannot be used. STS claims their plumbing that is routed down the driver side does the job of a subframe connector. We find that humorous, at best!
At the end of the day, yes, they will pressurize the intake on your car. They just don't do it particularly well.
Last edited by Speed; 06-18-2007 at 02:47 PM.
06-18-2007, 04:09 PM
#12
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Washington
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rufretic
I like to look at track results more than anything. If you look at the top 50 FI list, I only saw two sts set-ups, that says something if you ask me.
im not against the D-1 its a great setup i just think the perception is way to negative for a starter forced induction set up . its wasnt designed to run with big boy turbos, if you understand that and accept it as your build platform then you wont by disappointed.
06-18-2007, 04:34 PM
#13
I like mine, but as stated above, there are issues that can develop and a traditional front mount setup is better for making power.
I like mine as a DD and it was pretty simple to put on compared to a front mount IMO. I new right away reading your original post that you were from TX. They have Vendettas against these things, but they do work, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I'd give you a ride in mine if you're up on my side of the metroplex.
Keep in mind, I'm in a full weight Vert at approximately 3950lbs with me in the car (approximately of course). On my best pull, I made 466hp and 475tq.
I have beat 450+rwhp/470+tq Cobras, C5 Z06s with moderate to aggressive cam and full bolt ons at 405+rwhp (weighs about 600 or more less than me), numerous other F-bodies, motorcycles and Vettes, etc.
Keep in mind, this is all on the street. At the 1/8mile, I ran a wickedly awesome 8.7X at 89mph
. You can make them track cars, but IMO, they're more or less street cars that are fun to drive. I make boost around 2800rpms with a 67mm and .81 exhaust housing. It just gets exponentially faster from there on up 
.
Bottom line, there are downsides to the kit but to each his own. They do work and I'm completely satisfied with my purchase.
I like mine as a DD and it was pretty simple to put on compared to a front mount IMO. I new right away reading your original post that you were from TX. They have Vendettas against these things, but they do work, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. I'd give you a ride in mine if you're up on my side of the metroplex.
Keep in mind, I'm in a full weight Vert at approximately 3950lbs with me in the car (approximately of course). On my best pull, I made 466hp and 475tq.
I have beat 450+rwhp/470+tq Cobras, C5 Z06s with moderate to aggressive cam and full bolt ons at 405+rwhp (weighs about 600 or more less than me), numerous other F-bodies, motorcycles and Vettes, etc.
Keep in mind, this is all on the street. At the 1/8mile, I ran a wickedly awesome 8.7X at 89mph
. You can make them track cars, but IMO, they're more or less street cars that are fun to drive. I make boost around 2800rpms with a 67mm and .81 exhaust housing. It just gets exponentially faster from there on up .Bottom line, there are downsides to the kit but to each his own. They do work and I'm completely satisfied with my purchase.
06-18-2007, 04:48 PM
#14
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ok
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll give it up to admit I thought it was a clever idea when I first heard of it. I would have never thought of it and if I had, I would have never done it because it really doesn't require an exponential increase in effort to build one up front imho. But it obviously has a nitch market.
I have only two problems with STS. The first is that they are turning into the RIAA by going around and threatening to sue everyone who builds their own rear mount system. As I understand it, a patent doesn't protect an individual from making a similar product for their own use. In one hand, I understand his need to protect his idea but in the other, chasing people posting threads about their own rear mounts seems silly.
My second and bigger problem with STS isn't the inefficient design, it's the mislogic and half truths they use to justify why their system is as good as any others. It's not. But it's priced accordingly so why all the BS surrounding it? Why not sell it for what it is? A clever design that is somewhat easy to install. It went from being clever to the turbonator air twister...
I have only two problems with STS. The first is that they are turning into the RIAA by going around and threatening to sue everyone who builds their own rear mount system. As I understand it, a patent doesn't protect an individual from making a similar product for their own use. In one hand, I understand his need to protect his idea but in the other, chasing people posting threads about their own rear mounts seems silly.
My second and bigger problem with STS isn't the inefficient design, it's the mislogic and half truths they use to justify why their system is as good as any others. It's not. But it's priced accordingly so why all the BS surrounding it? Why not sell it for what it is? A clever design that is somewhat easy to install. It went from being clever to the turbonator air twister...
06-18-2007, 05:19 PM
#15
12 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
its all about what you really want and what your willing to give up to get it.
it might not be a monster on the track compaired to a front mount kit but its still a BLAST to drive and will hold its own at the track.
it might not be a monster on the track compaired to a front mount kit but its still a BLAST to drive and will hold its own at the track.
06-18-2007, 05:41 PM
#16
On The Tree
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: ALABAMA
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like my sts car. I will give you this it doesn't spool up as fast as a front mount would. But, this turbo kit in my eyes is just a starter kit to get your toes wet for a turboed LS1. I have never driven a turbo car period before I drove mine with the kit. I plan on going front mount later on down the road. Just really didn't want start off losing all my engine bay just for a damn turbo. It has it's problems and I talked to acouple turbo guys about them and they tell me there junk. But, if you wanna have your car as a weekend warrior or even a dd this is a good kit for ya to start out with. But, don't try making alot of power out of them because it probably aint gonna happen. Unless you got alot of $$$$$$! Also my car is full spooled by 4000-4100 aint bad in my eyes. But it is only 5 p.s.i. also.
Jimmy
Jimmy
06-18-2007, 06:52 PM
#19
9 Second Club
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Fredneck, MD
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by smoke20
only 7 D-1 and only one in the top ten , there is one rear mount in the top ten so you cant judge a top 50 list only.
im not against the D-1 its a great setup i just think the perception is way to negative for a starter forced induction set up . its wasnt designed to run with big boy turbos, if you understand that and accept it as your build platform then you wont by disappointed.
im not against the D-1 its a great setup i just think the perception is way to negative for a starter forced induction set up . its wasnt designed to run with big boy turbos, if you understand that and accept it as your build platform then you wont by disappointed.
06-18-2007, 07:13 PM
#20
Originally Posted by daniel6718
on local boards about how bad sts sucks..they have a terrible powerband that only makes a small range of power, and they normally run like crap...and that they are unefficient that waste a lot of energy by being in the back...
what is yalls opinions...
what is yalls opinions...
