rear mount vs. traditional turbo
#61
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Gainesville, Florida
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by MIGHTYMOUSE
..its gone over in chapter 1 of any thermodynamics book why 'conventional' is better...maybe chapter two ![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
I'd imagine the pistons are doing more of the work themselves, pushing against the higher static pressure in the exhaust manifold. So it would be more like a supercharger in that sense. Certainly less of the energy pulse generated at blowdown reaches the turbine, so its more of a constant-pressure system as opposed to a pulse system. From what I understand, constant pressure systems usually include smaller turbines. Supposedly they are more effecient, but this is offset by the lower amount of energy available to the turbine.
Don't some STS kits come with a T04B 60-1 compressor? IMO this is waaaaay too small. Hell 60-1s were a bit too small for 3.0L Supra motors.
IMO, YMMV.
#62
I AM A MOTHERF*CKER
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Grant B
...so its more of a constant-pressure system as opposed to a pulse system. From what I understand, constant pressure systems usually include smaller turbines. Supposedly they are more effecient, but this is offset by the lower amount of energy available to the turbine.
Maybe we should have read on to chapter three or switched text books and thought a little outside the 'conventional' box.
![Devil](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_devil.gif)
Originally Posted by White Fire
I don't it's coincidental that the only people promoting the STS turbo are the one's who own it.
Just do a search on STS and see who complains about it.
Last edited by TurboBerserker; 03-23-2005 at 08:14 AM.
#63
LS1Tech Sponsor
iTrader: (10)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I don't see how you could actually debate this. A convetional system will yeild a better result. Its like debating weather or not a heavy vehicle can beat a light vehicle in a race if they have the same powertrain. Then stating, if we were racing down a big enough hill.........
#64
I AM A MOTHERF*CKER
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
One thing I learned teaching college: You can show someone fact after fact, theory after theory, but if they don't want to see, they will continue to spout whatever they want to believe. (and yes, this cuts both ways)
Actually TJ, the your analogy would be better if it were debating whether a heavy vehicle can beat a light vehicle with the same powertrain -- oh and we forgot to mention that by same powertrain we mean the light vehicle will have a 6.7L while the heavy vehicle is a 5.3L.
Let's see this comparo of a front mount with the same size turbo as an STS. Show me the front mount GT67 GTOs running 10s. Or the front mount z71s with intercooled GT35s running 12.3s. Oh wait.. we can't do that, can we? We have to go back to arguing about thermodynamics dont we LOL
I guess I have to beat Parish despite his bigger turbo, eh? Everyone start holding your breath!!
Actually TJ, the your analogy would be better if it were debating whether a heavy vehicle can beat a light vehicle with the same powertrain -- oh and we forgot to mention that by same powertrain we mean the light vehicle will have a 6.7L while the heavy vehicle is a 5.3L.
Let's see this comparo of a front mount with the same size turbo as an STS. Show me the front mount GT67 GTOs running 10s. Or the front mount z71s with intercooled GT35s running 12.3s. Oh wait.. we can't do that, can we? We have to go back to arguing about thermodynamics dont we LOL
I guess I have to beat Parish despite his bigger turbo, eh? Everyone start holding your breath!!
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
#65
Launching!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Gainesville, Florida
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by TurboBerserker
More efficient turbine offsetting a lower amount of kinetic energy (and vice versa). Hmm... Sounds like if you designed your system with that in mind, that maybe your close-to-constant pressure system could actually net little or no loss of efficiency over a 'conventional' kit.
Tons of aftermarket parts have compromises due to packaging. I don't see why this is any different?? Its just a trade-off, that doesn't mean it won't make good power.
Originally Posted by TurboBerserker
Show me the front mount GT67 GTOs running 10s.
To the guy who said "PRESSURE PRESSURE...",
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/dynpress.html
Notice the formula for dynamic pressure is density * velocity^2 / 2. So you need a big increase in pressure to make up for a loss of velocity.
tannji,
Your forgetting that heat=velocity in a pipe. As heat energy decreases, the dynamic pressure lowers. Heat is desired, it wasn't just "unavaoidable".
Face it guys, 2-valve pushrod motors are less effecient, therefore they won't run fast. Rear-mount turbos are even worse. Put them both together and you'll be lucky to run a 14
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
Last edited by Grant B; 03-23-2005 at 09:06 AM.
#66
I AM A MOTHERF*CKER
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Grant B
According to "Automotive Supercharing and Turbocharging Systems" by John Humphries, the pulse system provides more energy to the turbine even with a lower effeciency. This is why it is used more widely. He says a pulse system is less effecient because the exhaust pressure varies so wildly between pulses.
Humphries argument boils down to front mounts make more energy despite being less efficient. So the argument is the amount of peak power in pulse based design is higher that the peak power in a constant pressure design. True. But the power from a constant pressure system does not drop between pulses, so how does the average power compare? Bet the same argument doesn't apply there...
Originally Posted by Grant B
Tons of aftermarket parts have compromises due to packaging. I don't see why this is any different?? Its just a trade-off, that doesn't mean it won't make good power.
Originally Posted by Grant B
People use a single T04R 67/84mm compressor on 6L engines? Man, thats a mid-sized turbo on a stock 3.0L Supra engine, which probably flows half as much air as a LS2, even with DOHCs.
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
#69
12 Second Truck Club
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 5,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Boostaholic
My question is why would anyone in their right mind spend money on a STS kit when a traditional mount setup can be had for less with no relocation issues.
Again, this has been answed a 100 times also.
Phamspeed JUST came out with their ultra cheap kit. Prior to them everyone was MUCH more expensive than STS. Also for those worried about SMOG, STS is close to getting certified and even if they don't it is VERY easy to remove the turbo and go back to stock to smog.
We wont gho into how many front mount companies go out of business and you are stuck with cracked manifolds and such. That's why I'd be looking into people like PTK for front mounts.
#70
TECH Addict
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Boise, ID
Posts: 2,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by F8L Z71
Again, this has been answed a 100 times also.
Phamspeed JUST came out with their ultra cheap kit. Prior to them everyone was MUCH more expensive than STS. Also for those worried about SMOG, STS is close to getting certified and even if they don't it is VERY easy to remove the turbo and go back to stock to smog.
We wont gho into how many front mount companies go out of business and you are stuck with cracked manifolds and such. That's why I'd be looking into people like PTK for front mounts.
Phamspeed JUST came out with their ultra cheap kit. Prior to them everyone was MUCH more expensive than STS. Also for those worried about SMOG, STS is close to getting certified and even if they don't it is VERY easy to remove the turbo and go back to stock to smog.
We wont gho into how many front mount companies go out of business and you are stuck with cracked manifolds and such. That's why I'd be looking into people like PTK for front mounts.
#71
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Boostaholic
My question is why would anyone in their right mind spend money on a STS kit when a traditional mount setup can be had for less with no relocation issues.
hellbents10
TECH Enthusiast Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 578
I am not holding my breath for record shattering 1/4 times. Just don't see a rear mount going 9's, 8's, or 7's for a reason.
Very good point, and I fully agree with ya. Unlike some of the 2Fast 2Furious folks who think a fart can and graphics will make them 1/4 mile gods I never expect to have my 5300# ECSB pickup running those kind of times. A second or two improvement and keeping up with the F-bodies and Mustangs is plenty for me....
![Chug! Chug! Chug!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_chug.gif)
#73
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by Boostaholic
Dodge people DO have other options, getting a crosspipe and other hot parts fabricated for most vehicles will not cost that much, then its just standard turbo stuff.
Way to go DC, it really makes me miss my Silverado.....
#74
I AM A MOTHERF*CKER
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by hellbents10
I am not holding my breath for record shattering 1/4 times. Just don't see a rear mount going 9's, 8's, or 7's for a reason.
![EEK !!](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_eek2.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
#75
I AM A MOTHERF*CKER
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
And BTW -- you have STS to thank for the cheaper turbo kits. They proved the market is very viable, they proved you **CAN** get great performance from a $3500 kit, and they created HUGE competition for the conventional crowd.
Without STS, you'd all still be looking for $7500 turbo kits.
Without STS, you'd all still be looking for $7500 turbo kits.
#76
TECH Junkie
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Clayton, North Carolina
Posts: 3,898
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Erik,
If we could get our two trucks together it would be a good compare. Mine has stock ex manifolds also, but the turbo is up front. Right now it has a 67mm Garrett on it. My best ET is still 12.23 @ 113 mph. At about 5500#.
Would be interesting to try drag racing from dead idle with both and maybe 40 to 80 mph punch to see how the different systems react. Currently when I drag race I brake torque to 2000rpm at about 5 psi and launch. I tried 10+ PSI launches but my trans said no to those! Currently the truck is apart with broken trans again (front pump). Looks like it may end up with the 80e in it this time.
Kurt
If we could get our two trucks together it would be a good compare. Mine has stock ex manifolds also, but the turbo is up front. Right now it has a 67mm Garrett on it. My best ET is still 12.23 @ 113 mph. At about 5500#.
Would be interesting to try drag racing from dead idle with both and maybe 40 to 80 mph punch to see how the different systems react. Currently when I drag race I brake torque to 2000rpm at about 5 psi and launch. I tried 10+ PSI launches but my trans said no to those! Currently the truck is apart with broken trans again (front pump). Looks like it may end up with the 80e in it this time.
Kurt
Originally Posted by TurboBerserker
One thing I learned teaching college: You can show someone fact after fact, theory after theory, but if they don't want to see, they will continue to spout whatever they want to believe. (and yes, this cuts both ways)
Actually TJ, the your analogy would be better if it were debating whether a heavy vehicle can beat a light vehicle with the same powertrain -- oh and we forgot to mention that by same powertrain we mean the light vehicle will have a 6.7L while the heavy vehicle is a 5.3L.
Let's see this comparo of a front mount with the same size turbo as an STS. Show me the front mount GT67 GTOs running 10s. Or the front mount z71s with intercooled GT35s running 12.3s. Oh wait.. we can't do that, can we? We have to go back to arguing about thermodynamics dont we LOL
I guess I have to beat Parish despite his bigger turbo, eh? Everyone start holding your breath!!![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
Actually TJ, the your analogy would be better if it were debating whether a heavy vehicle can beat a light vehicle with the same powertrain -- oh and we forgot to mention that by same powertrain we mean the light vehicle will have a 6.7L while the heavy vehicle is a 5.3L.
Let's see this comparo of a front mount with the same size turbo as an STS. Show me the front mount GT67 GTOs running 10s. Or the front mount z71s with intercooled GT35s running 12.3s. Oh wait.. we can't do that, can we? We have to go back to arguing about thermodynamics dont we LOL
I guess I have to beat Parish despite his bigger turbo, eh? Everyone start holding your breath!!
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
#77
TECH Resident
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: detroit area
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
i like the STS kit because i can get it installed with the upgraded turbo and methenol injection for just over $4600 and because no tubing runs under the front k-member and i dont have to relocate any accesories.. i have other reasons but those three really make up my mind on it. plus isnt the ptk kit sold without the actual turbo?
#78
I AM A MOTHERF*CKER
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 427
Erik,
If we could get our two trucks together it would be a good compare. Mine has stock ex manifolds also, but the turbo is up front. Right now it has a 67mm Garrett on it. My best ET is still 12.23 @ 113 mph. At about 5500#.
Would be interesting to try drag racing from dead idle with both and maybe 40 to 80 mph punch to see how the different systems react. Currently when I drag race I brake torque to 2000rpm at about 5 psi and launch. I tried 10+ PSI launches but my trans said no to those! Currently the truck is apart with broken trans again (front pump). Looks like it may end up with the 80e in it this time.
Kurt
If we could get our two trucks together it would be a good compare. Mine has stock ex manifolds also, but the turbo is up front. Right now it has a 67mm Garrett on it. My best ET is still 12.23 @ 113 mph. At about 5500#.
Would be interesting to try drag racing from dead idle with both and maybe 40 to 80 mph punch to see how the different systems react. Currently when I drag race I brake torque to 2000rpm at about 5 psi and launch. I tried 10+ PSI launches but my trans said no to those! Currently the truck is apart with broken trans again (front pump). Looks like it may end up with the 80e in it this time.
Kurt
That would have been very cool if we were a bit closer -- but now I have a 408 and a GT70
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
![The Jester](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_jest.gif)
![Winky](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_wink.gif)
I'm trying to get up in your neck of the woods in July. If I can make I will definitely side trip to meet up and break more tranny parts
![Happy](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/smilies/LS1Tech/gr_stretch.gif)
#79
LS1TECH Sponsor
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 2,725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/ranks/ls1tech10year.png)
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 1999 SS
i like the STS kit because i can get it installed with the upgraded turbo and methenol injection for just over $4600 and because no tubing runs under the front k-member and i dont have to relocate any accesories.. i have other reasons but those three really make up my mind on it. plus isnt the ptk kit sold without the actual turbo?
Jose
#80
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://ls1tech.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I don't see why people are getting all geeked up over efficiency here. 600+rwhp is a helluva lot any way you slice it. If you can get that much out of a cheaper kit, whether front or rear mount, why not do it? Honestly, I could care less about efficiency as long as my STS system could be set up with enough power to make a Viper look slow. Just a simple man's perspective, I guess. I've ridden in a stock C5 that had, what, 310 rwhp give or take a few so I can only imagine how double that would feel. I bet I'd feel like a God of the streets with that much power, lol.