Ragnadude

What point are you making in the context of this thread here?

clemsondave

Am I the only one here that just wants a VERY fast street car that can toast 95% of the competition? I have none of the skills required to mount a front turbo. I have NO desire to rip into my reliable street car's block and start replacing things. I have NO desire to get into the game of being the fastest car on the drag strip. I just want to be one of the fastest cars on the street and still be able to log 35k miles on it per year comfortably. I also want to be able to sell this car in about a year without having to spend days removing the FM turbo, FMIC, etc, etc.

If I was going to the strip, I certainly would entertain FM turbo. It just is not my goal. I want an easy 450-500 rwhp and that's it. Is the STS system the absolutely most efficient method of power, it does not matter to me. It works and works well.

Different objectives = different solutions.

engineermike

Saying that Joe Bob's 'vette run's mid/low 9's with an STS is pointless. There will ALWAYS be a car out there that runs good with a handicap. Pro Stock cars go 6's Naturally Aspirated, so NA must be better than FI, right??? Side by side comparisons (as the one that already took place) are the only way to know if something is better.

Ragnadude

I don't think anybody is making an argument that the front mount won't be optimized better for all out performance. To blanketly suggest one thing is "good" while another "less good" might be a bit glib.

I consider the STS kit to be a brilliant engineering technique, one that trades several low points (lag, lower power, etc) with several high points (ease of install, cooler turbo temps, cooler intake temps). I think the 9.22 second corvette example just goes to show that anyone claiming the kit 'isn't done right' is somewhat biased.

Optimization of power surely works in benefit of a front mount.. Anyone who argues that simply needs to analyze the data better. The kit is still kick ***. I absolutely love the way it sounds, too. :O

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

And your assuming that you cant or couldnt accomplish that with a front mount???Who says you have to rip into your stock block?Who says it wouldnt be reliable?My car will maybe see the track once a year and i went front mount,and im no where near the first.You assume that the STS is simplier but forget the extra work needed(oil vacuum pump,all the piping,more vacuum lines to run,problems if you have or want subframe connectors).Front and rear mounts both have their ups and downs but you cant just assume 1 is easier to do or will make more power than the other.

This isnt directed at you,but that whole post about how the comparision wasnt fair that Jose did because you should want a different turbo since its a rear makes no sense whatsoever.How would you be able to say its a fair comparision if the STS setup gets to pick its turbo but the front mount doesnt.....Say you wanted to do that,let the STS pick a GT67 or a T70.....and the front mount picks its turbo, ie a T76GTS or a T88 now the front mount walks all over it.But wait its not fair because the STS doesnt have a form of cooling!Ok so add either meth or an FMIC to both setups...front setup now makes WAY more power.Everything had to be equal in that comparision and it was....front mount won.Im not knocking the STS setup as its been proven to make power,no doubt.But adding up the cost to make big power with it and you could've made more power with a front mount.And there would be less piping and lines to run with the front mount vs the rear as well making the front a simpler install.End of story

longrange4u

iTrader: (2)

JZ... Thanks for the call and the good info!!!

MTBDOC

iTrader: (1)

Given all of the crap [and a bunch of it is sensitive electronic crap] under the hoods of modern cars, I am not so sure that a front-mount is such an easy install. My STS took a good bit of work, but that's because they really didn't have a kit for the LS2 cars. Had to fabricate the Y-pipe [and work out a few other issues] myself.

BUT: it is also a given that the turbo is driven by exhaust gas, and a lot of energy is lost from that flow by the time it gets to the rear of the car. A more efficient and quicker responding compressor is going to result from a shorter distance from the exhaust port to the turbo. The rear mount entails compromise...but for many of us, we are comfortable with this compromise. For an all-out racer, or an older car with an open engine bay => go front mount.

Some of this internet battling gets a bit old...let's just enjoy our boost!

fastlt1

iTrader: (4)

What do you have to do to a front mount to make it sound like a rear mount?

JZ 97 SS 1500

iTrader: (2)

Cut out on the downpipe and vent the gate to ATM.

nitrorocket

iTrader: (12)

Efficiency is the key with a street car. A stock cube LS1 with a front mount can easily make about 800 rwhp on 93 octane.

What have people been running with the STS on pumpgas. NO METH!

I have not seen much on this.

longrange4u

iTrader: (2)

What motor are we talking here? I was good at 500 or so with pump gas on a stock block. I havent seen anyone running 800 on anything other then built motors like 370's or 402/8's. It is a good question, I hope to answer that myself. A good guy to ask would be Billy (TRTurbo) as he just helped build a STS F-Body with a 402 inside it... I think its close to those numbers.

Again... I dont think ANYONE is saying that a STS is as effiecent as a front mount. I think what is being said is that overall value to the individual is based upon goals, budget, and design pref.

My car is far from the fastest out there... hell there are allot faster. But I have yet to see a front mount car drive an hour to the track and race me. Maybe I am still waiting for that experience... It is fun to race any way around for me... win or loose... even if you gotta put your gutted car back on a flat to tow after we are done.

ddnspider

iTrader: (26)

I would like to direct you to the boosted list as a sticky in this section of this forum.As an example,id like to show you a video of a member you may know by the name of cablebandit.go to http://incontt.net/videos/ and scroll down til you see the vid called stocklike.He's making over 700rwhp if not more on a stock 10 bolt,its his DD and runs 9's.

longrange4u

iTrader: (2)

Very nice!!! I am amazed that he can keep it together on a stock 10bolt. Would love to race a guy like that.... in a couple months

trtturbo

iTrader: (25)

Candlebandit is actually a proponent of STS. He has helped "quicksilverado" run low 11's in a full size truck with the STS with very little done. He would be the first to tell you how well the kit works.
Having installed countless STS kits, I know what kind of limitations it has. When it comes down to it, as long as the buyer is educated and the seller asks questions to better help them, then the buyer will be happy with the purchase.
I knew longrange was going to the track at times, but he also wanted a good driver.
Except that we should have gone with a 60lb injector from the beginning, I think he got exactly what he wanted.
Better or not, just be aware of what you want and make the purchase accordingly.

nitrorocket

iTrader: (12)

I am talking a 347" ls1.. My motor makes about 800 rwhp on pump and Exotic Performance built almost the same setup too. I think they made about 790 rwhp on a mustang dyno with a very conservative tune.

I hope you are not refering to racing me with your car! I, like you, also have a 100% street car, all steel(over 3800 lb. raceweight!), stock interior. I drive to to track and all over town. My converter let loose at half track, otherwise my car should have trapped close to 150 mph on 93 octane citgo. It still went 137 mph. Unfortunatly I have to wait till spring to do it run again.

ALL turbos are great power adders. And like you say, it is all what you want to do with the car. I chose front mount, cause for me it was cheap, and I wanted to build the most efficient pumpgas setup possible.

bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

I'm not against the STS kit, but I'd like to address some comments whose main contentions were that the front-mount was maybe more efficient, but optimized efficiency would be the only reason to run a front-mount. This is false... why can't someone, somebody interested in the design qualities and advantages of a front-mount, choose to have one in a street car WITH AC? That's what I'm doin'...

Also, for the same very concerns regarding STREET CARS that some of you raised, MAYBE if I had a race car, I would compromise appearance, viz. I'd never run a STS on a street car. For our street cars, we all have varying tastes, but we must agree taste is more of an issue here than with a race car. So, I fail to see for our STREET cars (not race cars), how an owner could be happy with the appearance of the STS. Keep in mind, this is an appearance-only argument, not performance related (we should have level of regard for appearance, being street cars, over race cars, right?).

To relate an example, I have an interest in home theater. I change set-ups about every 3 years or so. I carefully plan how it's going to look because I take pride in how it does. Would you rather have a set-up with the wires running in between furniture, or carefully hidden in walls so no one sees it? Yes, to do it through the walls takes longer.

This is just an example, but I take my car to meets and I take pride in how my car looks because its a street car, as many of you mentioned you have, too. I never could walk up to my car seeing that thing sticking out of the rear bottom of an F-body. I work to hard to keep mine looking tasteful because I drive it on the street often and with the top down. I am in love with my car like the first day I bought it. I'd rather have a SC than for my car to look this way. Maybe this is not an issue for people with trucks or different STS equipped vehicles, but I have yet to see one decent picture of a hard to see STS turbo. I don't want to say STS F-body owners don't care about the way their car looks, but I will say--- you don't care as much as me, at the least I'll say that.

Back to performance... Either way, STS offers good performance... exactly like a front-mount? No. Does that mean it offers little performance? Hell, no. I'll take the performance of an STS LS1 over a centrifugal SC'd LS1, anyday.

longrange4u

iTrader: (2)

bboy.... I dont agree with you simply because we have different views on what is attractive. I like the look... I often get flagged down and get positive comments on the look as well. But to each their own, I would not try to convince you otherwise!

Nitro.. Wow...Nice car, and yea I would love to race you (I dont mind loosing) as long as when I complete my setup what ever it may be... you give me a rematch! Mine is 3845 with me in it so we should be close. I dont have the forged bottom end cause I think I could be well over 700RWHP with my current setup if I was... Bob knows his stuff and I am sure he built you a bullet proof ride... I would still love to run ya!

bboyferal

iTrader: (9)

longrange4u: Dude, that was TOTALLY just an opinion (just mine, of course). I should have that made that more clear. I know some of my friends who like that look, too. I was just presenting my opinion a little humorously. When it comes to appearance, there are too many opinions. Who has a right to criticize? Ultimately, it's the owner that makes the payments, so it's the owner who has to like, and the owner only. In a way, then, we are both in agreement.

BUYAMERICAN

That Cartek car with the STS T at 13 psi ran 9.33 at 149.
Nick's PTK car is at 18 PSI. I cannot remember his boost for his high nine run, 14 PSI if I recollect.
Cartek has several other front and lower mounts that go fast as well.

They all make power. I know this because Synergy has worked on both setups. The fact is the STS T's and TT's are putting down a little more power per psi with a lot less heat soak. They are leave the line harder.

I don't buy into the motivated Bullchit.

I personally think/know all the TT kits can easily push nines on a built 346 out the box, on properly setup car. It is just to early in the product cycle for some kits.

Whether its the PTK kit, TTI kit, Cartek Twin kit, Cartek STS T kit or the STS TT kit. Some others kits will hit this marker as well.

I pesonally like the STS TT due too

1) Much less heat in the engine compartment (no turbo's and no restriction of airflow in the engine compartment).
2) Fuel Temperature is less.
3) Stock look and no movement of engine components.
4) Weight of the turbo's behind the IRS (Take a look at Sleath's 1.3.. Sixty). Vs. extra turbo weight on the nose.
5) Install time is a lot less.
6) I just sold my exhaust to recoup cost.
7) You can use the stock manifolds.
8) Better balance.
9) You can put turbo's on in various sizes from T3/4, T4 on up.
10) CARB approval accross the board on all their products in Spring.

Brent

JZ 97 SS 1500

iTrader: (2)

Umm, I guess you missed the post where we dynoed a STS and Front mount kit back to back. What I would like to see is Cartek's car with Nick's kit....car would already be in the 8's.