STS Concerns
02-03-2010, 03:07 PM
#101
I don't understand how anybody can argue against physics in these rear mount vs front mount discussions. Front mounts will always be capable of more power on a given turbo, are more efficient, and will spool faster with everything else being the same. No, that doesn't mean that rear mounts don't work and it doesn't put an artificial ceiling on power numbers.
02-03-2010, 03:38 PM
#102
I can make 900 on any dyno you can strap me on... I made mid 877 on 16psi and pump gas... This is with a 29.5" tire with 3.73 gear,4l80 with the converter unlocked.. btw... its in a fullsize truck 4525lbs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lSp8gAtrC0 that pass was on 875hp or so... but its slow... out of the gate 1.60 .60 foots ... I am going to re dyno this week on a mustang dyno... doing to ditch the pump gas and turn off the meth... and I will post up my 1000hp info ...
02-03-2010, 07:44 PM
#103
I don't understand how anybody can argue against physics in these rear mount vs front mount discussions. Front mounts will always be capable of more power on a given turbo, are more efficient, and will spool faster with everything else being the same. No, that doesn't mean that rear mounts don't work and it doesn't put an artificial ceiling on power numbers.
Oh yea, this chase3 guy is annoying with his false information.
Oh yea, this chase3 guy is annoying with his false information.
02-03-2010, 07:55 PM
#104
TECH Addict
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't understand how anybody can argue against physics in these rear mount vs front mount discussions. Front mounts will always be capable of more power on a given turbo, are more efficient, and will spool faster with everything else being the same. No, that doesn't mean that rear mounts don't work and it doesn't put an artificial ceiling on power numbers.
Oh yea, this chase3 guy is annoying with his false information.
Oh yea, this chase3 guy is annoying with his false information.
i am not saying that a RM does not work or will not make big power, i was arguing about the efficiency side of it
02-03-2010, 08:01 PM
#105
TECH Addict
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I agree with alot of what you say but just because a turbo is closer to the heat source doesn't mean it will make more power. These debates about front mount vs rear mount get redundant, I rear mount isn't as efficient but neither is a supercharger, look at the parasitic loss of driving a supercharger. They sell a bunch and their customers are happy.
02-03-2010, 08:21 PM
#107
i think you are getting me and mike mixed up in some of the replies, but i will agree 100% that a rear mount is not as efficient. But as i have said before making a fun street car who really cares if its everything it can be. if it was a race car then ok. But to me its all about preference. a rear mount is DEFINETLY less work to install. and to me its not worth losing the ac and having to make so many under the hood adjustments. But this post is going no where on something that is preference. 
02-03-2010, 08:23 PM
#108
And you are 100% correct.And what NicD said was the truth also. Except the false info. I dont know what he meant by false info.
02-03-2010, 08:25 PM
#109
TECH Addict
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Its not just him and you... 
I've done alot of thought as well LOL
HOT air!! LOL Think about that for a sec, when it comes to moving something whats better? something light and thin or some thing heavy and thick? Cold air is heavy and thick. Will do more work to move the turbo then hot thin air. Hot air does expand, but is also much thinner. Think about how your engine makes power in the cylinders.... is hot thin air better to make power or cold dense air?????? Intercoolers make more power why?
I've done alot of thought as well LOLHOT air!! LOL Think about that for a sec, when it comes to moving something whats better? something light and thin or some thing heavy and thick? Cold air is heavy and thick. Will do more work to move the turbo then hot thin air. Hot air does expand, but is also much thinner. Think about how your engine makes power in the cylinders.... is hot thin air better to make power or cold dense air?????? Intercoolers make more power why?
hot air will move at a higher velocity threw the exhaust pipes then cold thick air and that spools the turbo, not cold heave air pushing slowly down on the exhaust wheel.
why do you think there is not a single production car with the turbo mounted in the back ? i know some smart guy mentioned a Porsche 911, but the motor is in the back to so it does not count
you want cold dense air going in to the motor because it is more compact, that means more air can travel threw the intake runner in the period of the intake valve opening and that means more fuel can be added an that makes more power.
you got any more thoughts you want me to set straight for you ?
02-03-2010, 08:49 PM
#111
TECH Addict
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Elias799 validates my point about theory vs experience, he is correct you would want or be able to have your car build boost as early as possible as long at it didn't affect high rpm breathing, a front mount should be better all things being equal. Experience says that since I'm running a high stall convertor it doesn't need to build boost as low in the rpm.
Is elias799 right? Yes but it's something that should be compensated for when putting together a combination. Also I think Paul Major uses rear mount turbos for both weight and packaging, those are some big tubes and turbos to try and have in the engine compartment. elias799 brings up some good points in theory but many of them are compensated for just like in any build, turbo, supercharger, na, nitrous.
Don't attack him most of the time he's onto something, just decide if that affects your build or not.
Is elias799 right? Yes but it's something that should be compensated for when putting together a combination. Also I think Paul Major uses rear mount turbos for both weight and packaging, those are some big tubes and turbos to try and have in the engine compartment. elias799 brings up some good points in theory but many of them are compensated for just like in any build, turbo, supercharger, na, nitrous.
Don't attack him most of the time he's onto something, just decide if that affects your build or not.
what if you are stick ? what you gonna do then ? bump the idle to 4000rpm and dump the clutch ?
and everything what i sad is a FACT not a theory.
02-03-2010, 11:14 PM
#112
You are an ignorant SOB that can't see through your own bullshit. Let me spell it out for you... or rather just quote you.
Moron.
Moron.
Moron.
Stay in school because this is one of the most moronic rants I have ever seen.
A 418 with a T76 is being called efficient? MORON. What has your big bad 418 with a T76 run at the track? C'mon, I am dying to know.
Also what is this holier than thou attitude? You had an STS kit put on your car a few months ago and now you are an expert? Hell you were asking simple wastegate questions not too long ago and having other people work on your ****...
I am in a phsics class in college currently FYI and can tell you this, pressure is pressure. Sure a 12ft pipe will take longer to pressurize than a 2 foot one. But just how long? Maybe a second, and probably not that. Thats why they even step the pipe to get it up there quicker. And therefore even taking a little longer to pressurize than a front mount if it makes you sleep better at night call it a little less efficient. But who gives a **** when she said it will see the track 7-10 times annually? If it was a race car i would say a front mount.
Also what is this holier than thou attitude? You had an STS kit put on your car a few months ago and now you are an expert? Hell you were asking simple wastegate questions not too long ago and having other people work on your ****...
Last edited by NicD; 02-03-2010 at 11:22 PM.
02-04-2010, 12:41 AM
#113
You are an ignorant SOB that can't see through your own bullshit. Let me spell it out for you... or rather just quote you.
Moron.
Moron.
Moron.
Stay in school because this is one of the most moronic rants I have ever seen.
A 418 with a T76 is being called efficient? MORON. What has your big bad 418 with a T76 run at the track? C'mon, I am dying to know.
Also what is this holier than thou attitude? You had an STS kit put on your car a few months ago and now you are an expert? Hell you were asking simple wastegate questions not too long ago and having other people work on your ****...
Moron.
Moron.
Moron.
Stay in school because this is one of the most moronic rants I have ever seen.
A 418 with a T76 is being called efficient? MORON. What has your big bad 418 with a T76 run at the track? C'mon, I am dying to know.
Also what is this holier than thou attitude? You had an STS kit put on your car a few months ago and now you are an expert? Hell you were asking simple wastegate questions not too long ago and having other people work on your ****...
02-04-2010, 02:18 AM
#114
02-04-2010, 02:35 AM
#115
The STS kit is junk. Chinese turbos, and shitty scavenge pumps. Two of the most important parts of that whole kit, rendered pretty much useless.
I understand the whole dare to be different thing, but save yourself the headache and do a front mount turbo.
chase3, you are dumb as ****. And keep trying to bash one of the most prestigious LSX tuners in the south west, see how that works out for ya.
I understand the whole dare to be different thing, but save yourself the headache and do a front mount turbo.
chase3, you are dumb as ****. And keep trying to bash one of the most prestigious LSX tuners in the south west, see how that works out for ya.
02-04-2010, 04:04 AM
#116
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was this comment really necessary?
02-04-2010, 07:43 AM
#117
Yes, I am especially after your dick comment.
You fooled me, and everybody else that has a clue.
Last I checked on here it said November and you couldn't figure out basic wastegate configuration.
Yea, I knew it hadn't.
Maybe some people want to know facts instead of your obvious blind sided bias, that's what I am setting straight.
And why is it fine? Maybe because it's less efficient in the rear?
Uhh, that's working on it.
I guess if your definition of bad *** is somebody who cleans up on ********* like you with all your broke dick information then sure.
Last I checked on here it said November and you couldn't figure out basic wastegate configuration.
Yea, I knew it hadn't.
Uhh, that's working on it.
I guess if your definition of bad *** is somebody who cleans up on ********* like you with all your broke dick information then sure.
02-04-2010, 07:44 AM
#118
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Harrison Township, Michigan
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well, I see I have become a proud, but seem-to-be-hated member of the STS club. Bash away guys! Bash away! Like I said, if I owned an LS1 F-Body, I would probably do something different. But it's an LT1, and my friends and I looked over what is out there for FM systems, and they aren't anything pretty either. Futhermore, I don't have the money, nor the ability, to go FM at this point. I am not trying to be cheap, I am just trying to do what is right for me in the moment.
