OHSIXCTSV

i agree with the water issue but only if ur going through large pudles/deep water
as rain mist wont effect the system. the oiling issues may be do to bad choices and workmanship. as far as the lag and less power...u might want to research that...also consider an efficient front mount isnt an option with our car. i could be wrong but a maggie makes only 9-11 or so hp per pound of boost while an sts turbo system makes 12-14 per lb...but it is expencive...do to labor figure 10-12g's with radiator and intercooler/labor charges do to extensive fab wrk...but once done, it will perform much better than the maggie or pro charger.

NiceTry

iTrader: (1)

STS = Crap box.....

OHSIXCTSV

always a h8ter... =p

NiceTry

iTrader: (1)

Not a hater... I just know what I'm talking about. I have had the unfortunate experience of installing SEVERAL STS kits when I was at MTI. I have made lots of power with them, look at the blue GTO I built that was in the Motor Trend issue. It had a STS kit, made lots of power and was very fast (i have been well over 200mph in the car) but at the same time the only things that were from the original STS kit that i didn't have to custom make where the turbo and two foot inlet pipe to the throttle body. There are so many BETTER options that create far fewer headaches.

OHSIXCTSV

honestly i think thats where the sts works..phuk the kits as a whole...ur
better off just utilizing the housings and putting together a system thats works for
that specific application...most kits are junk and need modification after the fact. w/
with that being said, would u agree the sts sytems are capible of serious reliable
power...with meth injection added to the mix as well?

let me add as well the shop i use custom fabs all the piping
for thier projects and uses meth injection for safer /power apps.
i wanted to know what u think about thier work(page 2 has hyperlinks)
and give your opinion as some could benifit from this thread.

NiceTry

iTrader: (1)

I only got o see a couple of the pictures (I am on an intervention vessel in the gulf right now and the internet isn't exactly blazing) but the work seemed to be quality.
My whole point in this thread is to keep it simple with these cars. I don't think that the thread started understands what he would be trying to do. You will truly have a lot more fun with a luxury car that you enjoy driving and have no problems with than one that has turbo oiling problems, overheating issues etc etc etc. Parts are so cheap now to just build a big motor that it really isn't worth not going that direction. Like i said previously I built several 427 V's that made a conservative 500-530 rwhp and I had so much more fun in it on the street than most of the 1000 plus hp vettes that i put together. If you want a king of the hill car go viper or vette etc. Keep the V reliable and yet plenty fast the take on the pesky M5's and M6's. That being said though I stayed away from buying a V because I would be doing the same thing... making a 1000 4 door luxury car lol. I could see myself going through a rear end every week.

CTSV_510

iTrader: (1)

Maggies make 20 rwhp per lb of boost at sea level.

OHSIXCTSV

You said it... and are 100% right! this car "isnt" a tuners high horse wet dream, do to it's soul purpose being a luxury sport sedan segmented vehical. it would suffer with big hp mods and lose it's basic everyday reliability/appeal...not to say it's not worth pursuing for some, but anything over 550rwhp and you can say hello to heartbreak and big money down time.
so i guess i'm in agreement with the 550hp law and our rear end issues making
the cts-v not a good choice for 4 door hp champ/king of the road.
for some there will be denile (de-nile aint just a river in egypt) and like i always say, "the only difference between champ and chump is"... "u"

thanks for the imput nicetry.

OHSIXCTSV

O.k. let's break down the numbers...just so we all understand fact, and
not a biased opinion.

05 GTO before Maggie = 325 rwhp, with Maggie setup (Maggie tune,injectors & boost-a-pump) 7.5 psi = 411 rwhp 411 - 325 = 86 rwhp divided by 7.5 psi = 11.46 rwhp per psi of boost

06 GTO before STS twin turbo = 325 rwhp, after twin turbo with Mongillo Tune and methanol = 480 rwhp at 6 psi 480 - 325 = 155 rwhp divided by 6 psi =25.83 rwhp per psi of boost

Procharger is about 20 rwhp per psi of boost.

icecream

when I installed my maggie my numbers were 325rwhp before and after 460rwhp that was my high average was around 454rwhp

OHSIXCTSV

so u got 17.2 hp per lbs of boost...if at 7.5 psi.
what other mods do u have to the car?

CTSV_510

iTrader: (1)

My bad, I was quoting what Magnuson says a maggie generates at sea level - 20 rwhp per psi. Reality may show a little less, but not half like you were saying (9-11 hp per psi). Most maggies using the standard pulley are only getting 6psi by the way and few get 7.5 or higher unless they switch to a smaller pulley.

'05 GTO: 86 rwhp / 6 psi = 14.3 hp/psi

You're also comparing the conservative magnuson tune to a custom dyno tune by mongillo (who are known to get 40-50 hp tuning LS2 CTS-Vs that are stock). People have fairly consistently seen 30+ hp by dropping the magnuson tune and getting a custom tune. Maybe that '05 GTO could have gained 116 rwhp instead of 86. That changes the numbers a little bit, huh? Especially when you remove the 7.5 psi and put in a more accurate 6 psi.

116rwhp / 6 psi = 19.3 hp/psi.

That is, just my biased opinion.

Is Mongillo giving you comission yet?

rand49er

Where on earth did this come from?

And why would a pound of boost be that much different in generating rwhp whether it's being generated from a supercharger or a turbocharger?

My maggie, with headers and a tune and a standard pulley, runs maximum 5.8 psi boost. That equates to a shade under 30 rwhp per pound of boost on a Mustang dyno or roughly 32 rwhp/lb on a DynoJet. Take away the headers, and it's about 26 rwhp/lb (Mustang) or 28 rwhp/lb (DynoJet). "9-11 or so" is total fabrication for an LSx motor.

Both forms of forced induction, supercharging and turbocharging, have parasitic losses associated with them with maybe a slight edge going to the turbo for having slightly less ... otherwise a pound of boost is a pound of boost assuming similar intercooling effectiveness and IATs.

jerrad

iTrader: (5)

Because a turbo is more efficient and usually the IAT's are much lower with a turbo.

rand49er

Wrong. Wrong.

Turbo may ... just MAY ... be a bit more efficient, but still bottles up the exhaust from flowing out of the ports, in other words, more back pressure. In that sense, there is a parasitic loss involved. A supercharger does not create any hinderance to exhaust flow. Instead, it drives directly off the crankshaft hence the parasitic loss. BOTH create parasitic losses in order to improve the overall efficiency of the otto cycle engine.

At an equivalent boost level and with equally effective intercooling, there is absolutely no difference in IATs. The heating of the air comes from compressing it, and if both are compressing it the same amount, how can there be lower IATs with a turbo?

I love turbos! But, let's not reinvent physical laws.

jerrad

iTrader: (5)

The exhaust restriction isn't as drastic as being driven off the crank. It's a fact. Also, an air to air is going to be more efficient than an air to water unless you get one of the huge 5 gallon tanks with ice water that have 3 inch pipes running from the blower to the IC. And on a roots the IC is under the blower so basically you're heating the water with the motor and blower and the little heat exchanger and IC pump can't come close to keeping up.

Look at all the cobra's with turbos vs the ones with whipples/kenne bells. The turbo will make more power at the same boost level. Go to muscle mustangs and fast fords and look at thier turbo vs blower comparisson. The turbo at the same boost on a test motor will make a little less tq at like 2200 rpm then after that the turbo destroys the blower.

jerrad

iTrader: (5)

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...ion/index.html

Link to the article. Great read.

OHSIXCTSV

thanks jerrad...saved me alot of type time. lol =]
and no commision from mongillo...i'm just in a position to learn
a thing or two. that mathmatical equation is dead on ***** accurate
for any forced induction application...numbers don't lie, people do.

so are we all in agreement that maggies (allthough a nice beginner out of box
system for dum dums) are roughly the same price
(as procharger or turbos for half the horse?)(with turbos factor in cost of exhaust and headers that you will not need $2800...off the top)
okay, enjoy ur day!

05 GTO before Maggie = 325 rwhp, with Maggie setup (Maggie tune,injectors & boost-a-pump) 7.5 psi = 411 rwhp 411 - 325 = 86 rwhp divided by 7.5 psi = 11.46 rwhp per psi of boost.
also consider the actual out of box 5.5 to 6.0 psi in kit trim...
(my 9-11 hp per psi is correct)

OHSIXCTSV

im just being a dick...
u could easily bring those numbers up with meth injection do to
more agressive timing...the point is for the money u could get more
out of the other 2 systems as stated in jerrads MM artical (nice read btw)
now, i dont want to sound like a hipocrit as like stated above...550(dd) is the rwhp limit on this car...so really there is no point in the need for the possible added power on the 2 other systems (but it's nice to know u can).
fair enough? =]

CTSV_510

iTrader: (1)

I'm not questioning your mathematical equation, I was simply adjusting your input numbers.

You're right - numbers don't lie. Randy gave you his numbers @ 5.8 psi. 26rwhp/psi.

Maggies = $6k - $7k installed + custom tune = $6500-$7500. 450 rwhp No one said you needed headers.

Procharger = $8,400 installed from EPP + $7,500 for MADMAN rear end to hold the power = $15,900. 600-800 rwhp

Turbo = only custom kits, so no prices, but they'd surely be at least $7k.

So if you factor in the added cost of going beyond about 550 rwhp in a CTS-V (new rear end), though you are getting more power with the procharger, you're also paying a higher price for it.

Don't forget the FLAT torque curve of the maggie that makes a huge difference in everyday driving when you're not revving much past 3000-3500 rpm. You're turbo is likely not going to make comparable power in those lower rpms.

Okay, enjoy your day!

I still don't understand what you're saying and why you're using this GTO as an example when we have plenty of CTS-V examples showing greater gains at a lower psi.

...and those cost/hp numbers are not exact, they're just close estimate so you don't have to try to correct me on them.