TurboBerserker

iTrader: (1)

This is interesting info, P Mack, and the first discussion of this that doesn't make me laugh at the arguement.

So here are my real questions: Will a hot turbo have a different ratio than a turbo that is much cooler? How much does ambient conditions effect the ratio?

Jose, it seems to me that the only people who want to "argue" about STS kits these days are the people who want to discredit them I seem to remember you saying something about doing an efficiency comparo between a front mount and an STS specific turbo -- were you ever able to do this? I'm not asking for opinions here, but real data.

I've never seen an STS owner say the STS kits are as efficient as a full race front mount (but there are plenty who say they probably aren't). They only people who bring this up are making the counter agrument to the ether... which used to make me laugh but now just kinda makes me tired.

mongse

iTrader: (2)

Flamesuits...activate!!!

Anytime you mention STS and poor choice in the same senten...hell para...hell THREAD we all know where it leads.

TurboBerserker

iTrader: (1)

LOL riiiiight. It's the STS owners that cause all the trouble. That one's actually funny.

gogogadgetcar

good stuff p mack

JZ 97 SS 1500

iTrader: (2)

Its is coming. The first dyno has already been done with the STS system and the front mount system is being finished up. Both with a 76GTS and .96 A/R. We tried the STS system with a .81A/R housing as well. Just to compare. Should be interesting. I am hoping to get the raw data #'s sometime within the next week or 2.

Jose

bradyb

The STS is not the best set up but it is what it is you guys; most of the benefits of turbo at the price of a supercharger. A full on race set up is a gutted car with a freaking huge turbo sticking out the front bumper with a giant liquid/air intercooler in place of the passenger seat but most guys don't want that. Most guys also don't want their car ripped apart for a front mount system so they go with a STS kit and bolt it on in 4-6 hours. STS gets most of their customers from the supercharger market.

But, I do have a dealer who is building a '67 Charger with a 500 something ci mopar motor and a 106 millimeter turbo. They are looking for 2500 horsepower, we'll see how well a rear mount turbo works on that application.

Zombie

iTrader: (2)

My only question on that one is why? There is plenty of space under the hood.

TurboBerserker

iTrader: (1)

Man I really can't wait. I appreciate you guys going to all that effort.

When you say the STS system, does that include a turbo from their engineering house or is it the same GTS76?

TurboBerserker

iTrader: (1)

So any answers to these? Any guesses?

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

talk to teh hand! I gotz two chrome thumpers in my hatch yo and it OWNZ.

these guys need to mount flamethrower kits before their turbos....duhhh

PurEvl

iTrader: (2)

kinda like the pic in your sig

JZ 97 SS 1500

iTrader: (2)

Just the standard 76GTS from PTE with .81A/R and .96A/R housings. As for their turbos, their is nothing different about them except for using smaller exhaust housings. They use small p-trim wheels to curtail the lag, but the p-trim wheel flows ALOT less if you are wanting to make hp. To me the results will be interesting.


Jose

tannji

OK, I dont have an STS yet.... for that matter, I dont have an LS1 yet.... and when i do, it wont be in an American car. Personally, I dont care about the ratios, or the efficiency differences. The stock LS1 has more HP than I NEED, and my problem with the STS will be configuring my setup for both daily drivability AND high perf when I want it. I figure that if I took arctic air @20 degrees below zero, and forced enough of it through a turbine, the turbine would eventually spin and feed my intake better than the stock system. The LS1 puts out enough Volume of exhaust regardless of temp or inefficiency to spin the STS turbo in my car, which is not intended to be a dragstrip queen. The problem for all current and future owners of STS systems is that somehow it works well enough to bother "purists".... who are therefore compelled to quote fluid flow and thermal dynamic theory to show how we should be searching for that extra few percentage points of efficiency at $X.xx cost, and with hours of labor, and extensive modding of our engine bays. The most inefficient product on this planet is the internal combustion engine.... and yet at the risk of bringing on the next ice age or world-wide drought... we use the thirstiest engines in the least efficient bodies to produce our jollys.
I suspect that certain fools among us will be hitting the tracks this spring with F-bodies and even trucks, and producing both good numbers and expanded criticism of the STS system. I imagine that PureEvil will be posting better numbers than any number of "conventional" setups out there.... and will not be telling anyone that their "efficient" setup sucks, or was too expensive, or pays too much lip service to accepted theory and practice. In my opinion, there are NO apple-to-apple comparisons to be made here. It is a different way to do something we all apparently enjoy. If someone wants to remote-mount a turbo on a moped... just laugh and marvel... and continue to do your thing your way. (and pray that the moped never beats you to the 1/4 mile marker.)

P Mack

iTrader: (6)

By ratio what do you mean, temp ratio, pressure ratio, AR ratio?

Third Gear

iTrader: (3)

I wouldn't have minded a traditional setup... except getting it smogged would be a PITA, and it cost quite a bit more. If I lived somewhere else I'd probably take the time to do a twin, or big single set up.

Pressure and volume formulae aside, the STS works well. I say pick your poison and go with it - ProCharger, Vortech, STS, Front mount... pick one and go with it. You'll be faster than 98% of the cars out there. Although I consider the STS a step up from a supercharger since there isn't any power lost due to driving the compressor.

Easy guys...

TurboBerserker

iTrader: (1)

Given:

let me restate my questions:

If we use the same turbo as mentioned above, and place one in the engine compartment and assume we get the ratios mentioned above (3:1, 1.256) and then take that turbo and hang it out back where the air is cooler (both on the turbo housing and the turbo exhaust pipe), would the exhaust temp ratio remain constant or change due to the lower ambient temperatures cooling the turbo housing and the exhaust pipe?

Or, would the efficiency of the turbo change due to the same differences in ambient temps?

If the answer to these questions is no, then it would seem that the exhaust temp decreases are not as big as people would have us believe, or the STS ratio is much closer than in the example, since there are people making big hp (Purevl for instance), that would be making INCREDIBLE hp by moving that STS turbo up front? I'm having a hard time believing that, but might not be seeing it ( (TB == AI Whiz) && ! (physicist || engineer) ).

I have no problem believing he might have better hp, but how much better? And how much of the increased hp is sacrificed to engine heat reducing PCM measures, KR, and IATs (I suppose the IAT issues can be partially mitigated by ICs, but hotter in = hotter out). Again -- I am asking these as questions, so feel free to educate me here (P Mack, Jose, Bueller... )

BTW Jose, I think those results will be plenty interesting. I'd love to see the same thing with the STS turbo tho (both up front and out back, same turbo) and then compare the two sets of results. Any chance you can swing that too?

P Mack

iTrader: (6)

If we're talking about a simple loss of heat I believe you would still see 3:1 and 1.256:1 and the efficiency would also stay the same.

I feel i'm going out on a limb saying that because another difference between the setups is total pressure loss due to the friction in the extra length of exhaust. If we were only talking about a difference in temperature, like a stainless vs mild steel header it would be simpler. If the frictional losses significant, you see less than 3:1 total pressure ratio, which would cause the 1.256 to go down as well. But I have no data to say whether the total pressure lost due to friction is significant, or if the heat lost in the longer exhaust is significant either. For all I know we might only be talking about 20 degrees and .1 psi.

JZ 97 SS 1500

iTrader: (2)

Erik, if I can get my hands on a GT67 then yeah it wouldn't be a problem. I will see what I can do. Its just a standard T67 with a p-trim wheel and smaller A/R housing. Thats all STS is using. Their's no special magic turbo they use.

Jose

Wildman

I don't get it. This looks like a "it will never work" thread. Or a "it will never have high horsepower".
I still have seen ANY threads from STS owners that have said,
"Yo, my shiznit is da bomb, it goes crazy fast an I can keep up wit da big dawgs".
I have a lot of respect for Dave and Harlan, and even for Joze for their accomplishments.
I think most of us understand that we give up efficeincy at some point to have a turbo in back.
BUT IT WORKS, get off your fricken high horse, better than thou attitudes.
So if one goes down the track, has a good 60' and a good run, will you then shut up about it will never work.
Why is it that your mandate is to discredit rear turbos? I think I know why Joze does it.
I don't get the hate from Harlan and Dave. What is your motive? Cause it goes against physics? So if someone finally goes down the 1/4 with a good time, will all the cheap shots end? Probably not.

P Mack

iTrader: (6)

Are you talking to me?