Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit???
Thread Starter
Teching In
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? Guys,
I have been watching turbo buildups for about 2 years now and I was one of the original Incon depositors, but I pulled out when everyone started having problems, etc.
Question:
Do you think Rob's kit if tuned properly and run exactly according to his specification will be a reliable power adder? I love the efficiency of a turbo car and I am not looking to make more than 450-500 rwhp....but I want to be 100% reliable and streetable.
Will his kit do this for me?
Thanks for your advice,
Dan
I have been watching turbo buildups for about 2 years now and I was one of the original Incon depositors, but I pulled out when everyone started having problems, etc.
Question:
Do you think Rob's kit if tuned properly and run exactly according to his specification will be a reliable power adder? I love the efficiency of a turbo car and I am not looking to make more than 450-500 rwhp....but I want to be 100% reliable and streetable.
Will his kit do this for me?
Thanks for your advice,
Dan
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Silver TT:
<strong>Question:
Do you think Rob's kit if tuned properly and run exactly according to his specification will be a reliable power adder?... I want to be 100% reliable and streetable.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've run proportionally much larger turbos with much smaller displacement engines with great success. Remember, you're not adding that much power (the rule-of-thumb is 20% added stress when one doubles the HP). 450-500 is a relatively small goal, and turbos are very gentle on the shortblock compared to Nitrous and ESPECIALLY S/Cs.
I'm doing Rob's Stage II with 10 PSI and SMC Alky injection on a daily driver. My Talon was WAY more stressed out with a 2.0L huffing 22PSI on 93 pump gas, and it was a 140 mile/day driver.
No fears...
SC
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
<strong>Question:
Do you think Rob's kit if tuned properly and run exactly according to his specification will be a reliable power adder?... I want to be 100% reliable and streetable.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I've run proportionally much larger turbos with much smaller displacement engines with great success. Remember, you're not adding that much power (the rule-of-thumb is 20% added stress when one doubles the HP). 450-500 is a relatively small goal, and turbos are very gentle on the shortblock compared to Nitrous and ESPECIALLY S/Cs.
I'm doing Rob's Stage II with 10 PSI and SMC Alky injection on a daily driver. My Talon was WAY more stressed out with a 2.0L huffing 22PSI on 93 pump gas, and it was a 140 mile/day driver.
No fears...
SC
<small>[ June 18, 2002, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: Houston / Dallas
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SS00Blue:
<strong>I've run proportionally much larger turbos with much smaller displacement engines with great success...
SC</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On a motor that had been designed for boost from the factory! That is like saying a 2JZ-GTE on 15 psi is less reliable than a stock LS1 on 8 psi.
<strong>I've run proportionally much larger turbos with much smaller displacement engines with great success...
SC</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">On a motor that had been designed for boost from the factory! That is like saying a 2JZ-GTE on 15 psi is less reliable than a stock LS1 on 8 psi.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: the moon
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? Nitrous is the toughest environment for any engine to handle.
I don't see how a turbo is any easier on a engine than a supercharger,especially a belt driven centrifugal.
I don't see how a turbo is any easier on a engine than a supercharger,especially a belt driven centrifugal.
Trending Topics
TECH Regular
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SJH:
<strong>That's not an issue until you really begin to push the boost and blower speeds though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Superchargers "Yank on the Crank" in more than one way.
1. They require more Rpm to make power , where a turbo makes the power at considerably lower RPM.
Rpm = more wear.(Less longevity.)
2. Blowers also as mentioned stress the front bearing at the usually at the position where the blower is mounted. (Ie 10' o clock position etc.)
It can be better with a better tensioner setup though.
As far as the front bearing wear not being an issue until you really begin to push the boost and blower speeds. I don't know about that.
I have seen a setup wear the guy had the blower mounted at a 10' oclock position and he was having problems with the bearings getting eatin up at that same position when he took the engine apart. And he was not running crazy boost.
He did fix the problem by I think building his own custom tension setup though.
Anyways it is pretty well known that a blower stresses the engine more than a turbo.
<small>[ June 20, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Rpm2800 ]</small>
<strong>That's not an issue until you really begin to push the boost and blower speeds though.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Superchargers "Yank on the Crank" in more than one way.
1. They require more Rpm to make power , where a turbo makes the power at considerably lower RPM.
Rpm = more wear.(Less longevity.)
2. Blowers also as mentioned stress the front bearing at the usually at the position where the blower is mounted. (Ie 10' o clock position etc.)
It can be better with a better tensioner setup though.
As far as the front bearing wear not being an issue until you really begin to push the boost and blower speeds. I don't know about that.
I have seen a setup wear the guy had the blower mounted at a 10' oclock position and he was having problems with the bearings getting eatin up at that same position when he took the engine apart. And he was not running crazy boost.
He did fix the problem by I think building his own custom tension setup though.
Anyways it is pretty well known that a blower stresses the engine more than a turbo.
<small>[ June 20, 2002, 11:32 AM: Message edited by: Rpm2800 ]</small>
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
On The Tree
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
From: IL
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? Actually turbos make more power at higher rpms i thought and, superchargers works more at a lower rpm. Turbos do have a down side as well, they require more tuning then a blower in my opinion.
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: the moon
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? Well I have been using centrifugals since 85.
Have rebuilt many many motors and seen very little to no extra wear on the front bearings.
I have torn down my 98 ls1 twice now and the front mains looked perfect each time. Might be a problem at huge drive loads but any modern centrifugal with the proper belt drive won't see this problem.
The guy trying to get 20psi out of a 6rib with a belt tighter than a piano string may, but that's just a poor setup.
Any centrifugal builds boost at a non linear rate to impeller speeds.
So a supercharged motor running 12psi at 6000rpm may only have 3psi at 3000 rpm.
Whats harder on the motor? 12psi from 3000rpm up as a turbo can do, or 12psi building gradually with rpm? The low end boost of a turbo can easily create so much cylinder pressure it over stresses parts and lifts heads if you over do it. Much like using nitrous at to low of an rpm will do.
A turbo also adds a lot of exhaust backpressure and retained heat in the heads which can have further effects.
Personally I do not think either has any advantage concerning engine stress at the power levels we are talking about here.
If you want to talk about running 1200hp on a 346 then maybe we can find some real stress level differences but not at 600 or 700hp IMO.
This is just a matter of preference for the individual whether he enjoys a turbo motor or a supercharged combo.
Nitrous is harder on parts then either turbo or supercharger also.
It's more finicky and nothing hits the engine harder. Except for Nitro.
Steve
Have rebuilt many many motors and seen very little to no extra wear on the front bearings.
I have torn down my 98 ls1 twice now and the front mains looked perfect each time. Might be a problem at huge drive loads but any modern centrifugal with the proper belt drive won't see this problem.
The guy trying to get 20psi out of a 6rib with a belt tighter than a piano string may, but that's just a poor setup.
Any centrifugal builds boost at a non linear rate to impeller speeds.
So a supercharged motor running 12psi at 6000rpm may only have 3psi at 3000 rpm.
Whats harder on the motor? 12psi from 3000rpm up as a turbo can do, or 12psi building gradually with rpm? The low end boost of a turbo can easily create so much cylinder pressure it over stresses parts and lifts heads if you over do it. Much like using nitrous at to low of an rpm will do.
A turbo also adds a lot of exhaust backpressure and retained heat in the heads which can have further effects.
Personally I do not think either has any advantage concerning engine stress at the power levels we are talking about here.
If you want to talk about running 1200hp on a 346 then maybe we can find some real stress level differences but not at 600 or 700hp IMO.
This is just a matter of preference for the individual whether he enjoys a turbo motor or a supercharged combo.
Nitrous is harder on parts then either turbo or supercharger also.
It's more finicky and nothing hits the engine harder. Except for Nitro.
Steve
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Black LS1 T/A:
<strong>SC harder on a motor than Nitrous?
I think NOT! <img border="0" alt="[barf]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never made this comparison. Read the post.
The comparison was turbo to SC or nitrous. I agree that Nitrous is TOUGH on the engine because of it's binary nature.
WARNING:
The following statement will spark a HUGE war...
Centrifugal superchargers combine the worst aspects of roots-, screw- and whipple-type superchargers with the drawback of turbos.
As Steve (SJH) already stated, centrifugal S/Cs have the boost curve of a turbo. That, combined with the added stress and horsepower loss inherent in driving a supercharger. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" />
GENTLEMEN, Let the flame war begin!
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
<strong>On a motor that had been designed for boost from the factory! That is like saying a 2JZ-GTE on 15 psi is less reliable than a stock LS1 on 8 psi.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here's the original statement, by me:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SS00Blue:
My Talon was WAY more stressed out with a 2.0L huffing 22PSI on 93 pump gas, and it was a 140 mile/day driver.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't say I understand your post, but if you're suggesting that it is NOT a more stressful environment for a smaller displacement FI engine to knock out the same HP numbers as a larger displacement FI engine, then I strenuously disagree.
Forces within the engine are present whether one designs an engine with cast or forged pistons, cast or steel crank, 4340 or stryrofoam rods. So your statement is entirely irrelevent.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SJH:
<strong>The low end boost of a turbo can easily create so much cylinder pressure it over stresses parts and lifts heads if you over do it. (italics, mine).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />
So your comparing a properly designed supercharger system to an improperly designed turbo system and stating that the S/C system is gentler on an engine. I agree with this statement, but it is meaningless.
With a properly designed turbo system, one can have very linear stresses on a shorblock, in fact they can be identical to the centrifugal S/C, as the centrifugal S/C impellers and compressor housings are a direct theft from the turbo, just mechanically (belt) driven. The turbo has the added tuning advantage of having, not only impeller/compressor housing options, but also turbine/exhaust housing options. This makes the turbo FAR IN A WAY more tunable and versatile than the centrifugal S/C could EVER be.
One designs the power from a turbo by the size and characteristics of the turbo, the intake plumbing and by tuning the wastegate for the required boost. I can set up a turbo system to have little or no effect until 10k RPM. So you're only comparing a poor turbo system to an ideal S/C system.
You're also stating that high torque at low RPM can disperse the oil wedge at the main and rod bearings. An undeniable fact, which NEVER happens with our (LS1) applications. Our bearing tolerances and oil pressures allow for alot more low end torque than we can produce with the stock pistons and rods, and that's a fact.
SC
My statement is this:
Turbos are King of reliable street going cars!
The draw back, of course is this complicated and expensive exhaust and intake routing. But the prices for complete kits are at, or near, S/C prices now. This gives little or no advantage at all to using the centrifugal S/C.
I would like to also add that I can think of thousands of tweeked factory turbo cars going anywhere from 1 to 5 seconds quicker than stock in the quarter mile with little investment. I can't think of any factory S/C application (with the possible exception of the L and maybe now the Cobra) that can make the same performance statement. This fact should demonstrate the inherent reliability of a turbo system from the standpoint of a given engine's internals and also from the standpoint of tremendous tuning flexibility. The S/C just can't perform at the levels of a sound turbo system design, and never will. Especially in the case of centrifugal S/Cs.
<small>[ June 22, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
<strong>SC harder on a motor than Nitrous?
I think NOT! <img border="0" alt="[barf]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_barf.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I never made this comparison. Read the post.
The comparison was turbo to SC or nitrous. I agree that Nitrous is TOUGH on the engine because of it's binary nature.
WARNING:
The following statement will spark a HUGE war...
Centrifugal superchargers combine the worst aspects of roots-, screw- and whipple-type superchargers with the drawback of turbos.
As Steve (SJH) already stated, centrifugal S/Cs have the boost curve of a turbo. That, combined with the added stress and horsepower loss inherent in driving a supercharger. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="gr_tounge.gif" />
GENTLEMEN, Let the flame war begin!
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by TrahnZam WS6:
<strong>On a motor that had been designed for boost from the factory! That is like saying a 2JZ-GTE on 15 psi is less reliable than a stock LS1 on 8 psi.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Here's the original statement, by me:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SS00Blue:
My Talon was WAY more stressed out with a 2.0L huffing 22PSI on 93 pump gas, and it was a 140 mile/day driver.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I can't say I understand your post, but if you're suggesting that it is NOT a more stressful environment for a smaller displacement FI engine to knock out the same HP numbers as a larger displacement FI engine, then I strenuously disagree.
Forces within the engine are present whether one designs an engine with cast or forged pistons, cast or steel crank, 4340 or stryrofoam rods. So your statement is entirely irrelevent.
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SJH:
<strong>The low end boost of a turbo can easily create so much cylinder pressure it over stresses parts and lifts heads if you over do it. (italics, mine).</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"><img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />
So your comparing a properly designed supercharger system to an improperly designed turbo system and stating that the S/C system is gentler on an engine. I agree with this statement, but it is meaningless.
With a properly designed turbo system, one can have very linear stresses on a shorblock, in fact they can be identical to the centrifugal S/C, as the centrifugal S/C impellers and compressor housings are a direct theft from the turbo, just mechanically (belt) driven. The turbo has the added tuning advantage of having, not only impeller/compressor housing options, but also turbine/exhaust housing options. This makes the turbo FAR IN A WAY more tunable and versatile than the centrifugal S/C could EVER be.
One designs the power from a turbo by the size and characteristics of the turbo, the intake plumbing and by tuning the wastegate for the required boost. I can set up a turbo system to have little or no effect until 10k RPM. So you're only comparing a poor turbo system to an ideal S/C system.
You're also stating that high torque at low RPM can disperse the oil wedge at the main and rod bearings. An undeniable fact, which NEVER happens with our (LS1) applications. Our bearing tolerances and oil pressures allow for alot more low end torque than we can produce with the stock pistons and rods, and that's a fact.
SC
My statement is this:
Turbos are King of reliable street going cars!
The draw back, of course is this complicated and expensive exhaust and intake routing. But the prices for complete kits are at, or near, S/C prices now. This gives little or no advantage at all to using the centrifugal S/C.
I would like to also add that I can think of thousands of tweeked factory turbo cars going anywhere from 1 to 5 seconds quicker than stock in the quarter mile with little investment. I can't think of any factory S/C application (with the possible exception of the L and maybe now the Cobra) that can make the same performance statement. This fact should demonstrate the inherent reliability of a turbo system from the standpoint of a given engine's internals and also from the standpoint of tremendous tuning flexibility. The S/C just can't perform at the levels of a sound turbo system design, and never will. Especially in the case of centrifugal S/Cs.
<small>[ June 22, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: the moon
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? I am not arguing a turbo in the right hands(and minds)is not superior to a belt driven centrifugal.As you stated there is a bit more you can do with a turbo.No argument from me.
BUT look around and you'll find most guys can't even pull their own plugs let alone setup a good running turbo car.
I happen to like belt driven blowers though. Something about them I just like.
I like having a normal exhaust system.
The response is faster as there is no spool up.
Now before you jump all over that..I run an auto with enough stall that the lowest rpm I EVER see when I punch it is 5000rpm, so I INSTANTLY jump to 7 or 8psi and then rise to 11 by 6300.
Hardly a weak curve.
Sitting at the line I don't need to spoolup the turbo.Just punch it and wham we got boost.
I can completely unbolt the blower and go back to N.A. in 30 minutes if I choose.
And let's face it, either blower or turbo these days can push a 346 to 1500+hp in a full race scenario.
Yep I'll always like a belt driven blower better but that's "just me" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
And this has nothing to do with Robs Turbo kit and I don't know why I am even in this thread <img border="0" alt="[angel]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_angel.gif" />
Steve
BUT look around and you'll find most guys can't even pull their own plugs let alone setup a good running turbo car.
I happen to like belt driven blowers though. Something about them I just like.
I like having a normal exhaust system.
The response is faster as there is no spool up.
Now before you jump all over that..I run an auto with enough stall that the lowest rpm I EVER see when I punch it is 5000rpm, so I INSTANTLY jump to 7 or 8psi and then rise to 11 by 6300.
Hardly a weak curve.
Sitting at the line I don't need to spoolup the turbo.Just punch it and wham we got boost.
I can completely unbolt the blower and go back to N.A. in 30 minutes if I choose.
And let's face it, either blower or turbo these days can push a 346 to 1500+hp in a full race scenario.
Yep I'll always like a belt driven blower better but that's "just me" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
And this has nothing to do with Robs Turbo kit and I don't know why I am even in this thread <img border="0" alt="[angel]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_angel.gif" />
Steve
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: the moon
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
You're also stating that high torque at low RPM can disperse the oil wedge at the main and rod bearings. An undeniable fact, which NEVER happens with our (LS1) applications. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess you never saw the pics of what happened To Redhawks(Brooke) motor with a 300shot out of the hole when he was shooting for 9's a couple years ago?
EVERY ROD BENT OR BROKE AND MOST PISTONS SHATTERED.
It happened only about 30 ft out from the starting line.
To this date about the worst damage I have ever seen..
Steve
You're also stating that high torque at low RPM can disperse the oil wedge at the main and rod bearings. An undeniable fact, which NEVER happens with our (LS1) applications. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I guess you never saw the pics of what happened To Redhawks(Brooke) motor with a 300shot out of the hole when he was shooting for 9's a couple years ago?
EVERY ROD BENT OR BROKE AND MOST PISTONS SHATTERED.
It happened only about 30 ft out from the starting line.
To this date about the worst damage I have ever seen..
Steve
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SJH:
<strong>I happen to like belt driven blowers though.
I like having a normal exhaust system.
Yep I'll always like a belt driven blower better but that's "just me" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Steve</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Steve: First, let me say that I'm glad that you seem to have taken my reply in the spirit in which it was intended. I am passionate sometimes, and so come across on e-mail as rather harsh. Thanks for that.
Also, I agree. The one huge advantage of a centrifugal, even with a A/W I/C, is the ease of installation. It works great with the incremental bolt-ons that so many do. Especially the header/exhaust combo. I have to sell the intake and header/Y on my car because the Turbo doesn't use it. And there is something great about an open exhaust with forced induction. It just sounds ANGRY! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
The turbo system is VERY complicated to install. This can be seen in the $1500 most fully equipped shops charge. Even at an obscene $75/hr, that's still 20 hours labor! And that's with air tools, lifts, and assistants!
As for RedHawk. Yeah, that can be seen as support for the violent and binary nature of Nitrous. With the proper tune I wouldn't expect to ever see that violent of an expiration in a well designed FI system. In defense of the LS1 oiling system though, I would be more inclined to agree that a rod bent and a piston fragged, than the bearings welding to the journals.
OBTW, all this time, I never realized you were Just Me. I remember talking to you years ago when you were just a bolt on guy! The LS1 scene has come a long way since then... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
SC
<small>[ June 23, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
<strong>I happen to like belt driven blowers though.
I like having a normal exhaust system.
Yep I'll always like a belt driven blower better but that's "just me" <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="gr_images/icons/wink.gif" />
Steve</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Steve: First, let me say that I'm glad that you seem to have taken my reply in the spirit in which it was intended. I am passionate sometimes, and so come across on e-mail as rather harsh. Thanks for that.
Also, I agree. The one huge advantage of a centrifugal, even with a A/W I/C, is the ease of installation. It works great with the incremental bolt-ons that so many do. Especially the header/exhaust combo. I have to sell the intake and header/Y on my car because the Turbo doesn't use it. And there is something great about an open exhaust with forced induction. It just sounds ANGRY! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
The turbo system is VERY complicated to install. This can be seen in the $1500 most fully equipped shops charge. Even at an obscene $75/hr, that's still 20 hours labor! And that's with air tools, lifts, and assistants!
As for RedHawk. Yeah, that can be seen as support for the violent and binary nature of Nitrous. With the proper tune I wouldn't expect to ever see that violent of an expiration in a well designed FI system. In defense of the LS1 oiling system though, I would be more inclined to agree that a rod bent and a piston fragged, than the bearings welding to the journals.
OBTW, all this time, I never realized you were Just Me. I remember talking to you years ago when you were just a bolt on guy! The LS1 scene has come a long way since then... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
SC
<small>[ June 23, 2002, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: SS00Blue ]</small>
TECH Regular
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
From: the moon
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OBTW, all this time, I never realized you were Just Me. I remember talking to you years ago when you were just a bolt on guy! The LS1 scene has come a long way since then</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah it sure has! I was trying at one time to just keep this a nice street car as I had just sold my old race car and was burned out with the sport.
But it's 5 years old now and I am rebuilding it for the 2nd time in 9 months!
So much for my original plans <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
When I was thinking about switching over to forced induction from Nitrous, I did consider the t-76 turbo tech kit. But decided to go with the non intercooled Vortech and build a alky/water injection system to be a little different.
So far I am very happy with it.
Steve
But it's 5 years old now and I am rebuilding it for the 2nd time in 9 months!
So much for my original plans <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
When I was thinking about switching over to forced induction from Nitrous, I did consider the t-76 turbo tech kit. But decided to go with the non intercooled Vortech and build a alky/water injection system to be a little different.
So far I am very happy with it.
Steve
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? SS00Blue, I`m getting into the FI game next year(with a LS1 Motorsports kit to be exact)and I`m going to be a little "lost" to say the least. Judging by your posts, you know what the hell your talking about! When you go to put your kit on, I was wondering if I could come by and check it out or even help with the install. I`ll bring the beer, hell I`ll pay ya for the knowledge! (Seriously) <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" /> Let me know.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by SJH:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OBTW, all this time, I never realized you were Just Me. I remember talking to you years ago when you were just a bolt on guy! The LS1 scene has come a long way since then</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah it sure has! I was trying at one time to just keep this a nice street car as I had just sold my old race car and was burned out with the sport.
But it's 5 years old now and I am rebuilding it for the 2nd time in 9 months!
So much for my original plans <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
When I was thinking about switching over to forced induction from Nitrous, I did consider the t-76 turbo tech kit. But decided to go with the non intercooled Vortech and build a alky/water injection system to be a little different.
So far I am very happy with it.
Steve</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never say that I don't listen to people, because I've already installed the SMC Alky kit. I am waiting for the Stage II "Rob" kit, and I've already got the Full Throttle A/F gauge, EGT gauge, and Boost gauge installed, too. I can't wait. I figure I'll put it up to 10 pounds and work the next two until the alky kit is balanced with the intake restrictions... I'm shooting for 580-600rwhp/700rwtq. Woo Hoo!
SC
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">OBTW, all this time, I never realized you were Just Me. I remember talking to you years ago when you were just a bolt on guy! The LS1 scene has come a long way since then</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Yeah it sure has! I was trying at one time to just keep this a nice street car as I had just sold my old race car and was burned out with the sport.
But it's 5 years old now and I am rebuilding it for the 2nd time in 9 months!
So much for my original plans <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
When I was thinking about switching over to forced induction from Nitrous, I did consider the t-76 turbo tech kit. But decided to go with the non intercooled Vortech and build a alky/water injection system to be a little different.
So far I am very happy with it.
Steve</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Never say that I don't listen to people, because I've already installed the SMC Alky kit. I am waiting for the Stage II "Rob" kit, and I've already got the Full Throttle A/F gauge, EGT gauge, and Boost gauge installed, too. I can't wait. I figure I'll put it up to 10 pounds and work the next two until the alky kit is balanced with the intake restrictions... I'm shooting for 580-600rwhp/700rwtq. Woo Hoo!
SC
Re: Questions on Rob Raymer's Turbo kit??? sorry guys but to use your words: "a properly tuned" n2o system is way better and less stressful on engine than any turbo or SC at equal power levels.
