Who cares if it was on 100 octane gas I feel alot safer tuning on the high octane gas rather than ******* up my motor!

 

So you are going to pump 100 octane every time you pump gas? I was trying to point out the facts.

 

Who gives a **** about the facts. If your going to push the limits on a stock bottom end you better at the least put good fuel. And BTW ya I have a 55 gal drum of torco mach 100. What does it matter? I mean I dont see the problem here. Is it a fact I made 650 RWHP on race gas and pump gas? Ya but what does it matter. Im just not sure where your going with this.

 

You are right and I am wrong. Sorry but I am not a keyboard warrior. Have a great day.

 

Bro your taking this the wrong. I am not a keyboard warrior. I back up my comments in real life. But making 600+ RWHP on a stock bottom end involes a great tune and for safety purposes I would say run a race gas mix. Whats wrong with that? I have two tunes for my car. One on all pump with a max timing of 16 to 17 degrees and on full race gas mix 60 race 40 pump is 23 degrees. And I went from 599 rwhp to 650 with just adding the timing @ 11 psi on 100 degree day with my iat's @ 127 f .

 

Hmmmm... A powerband with an actual "curve" or a straight line going up with less area under it?

I'll take the first, thank you... Let the flame wars continue.

 

James you should know brother... we have been out and run them together. Your SC will hand me my **** on a twisty road.... I cant keep up. But from a dig or straight line... I think I could pull you a little. (old setup) Like you said though bro... Different builds for different reasons (I want a 1/4 mile car, you want a X car)

Completely agree... that could apply to either SC or Turbo. That was the exact reason I did it!

I dont disagree that a SC works.... I prefer turbo. My response was due to the overall flame and claim of the lack of capability of a rear mount. Any of you agree that a rearmount dosent work worth ****?

 

To get good launches with turbo cars you need a two step in a manual car and torque converter in auto car.Thats it. Without them you won't build much boost at the line. I do wonder why it seems no one makes anitlag for the f bodies in software that option can build like 30psi off the line in my dsm!

Both centrifical supers and turbos seem to be pretty close in track results. Reason is centrifical when launched higher up on the rpm band stay at high boost. They don't put out as much boost at lower rpm as most turbos can and area under the curve is going to be smaller as is torque at lower rpm.This can actually help the traction situation out especially on the street where turbos can really blow the tires off and make the car more of a handful.
Both work well and both are neat power adders. I do wish we could get like a kenne bell super for our f bodies they seem to work really well and combine a lot of features of a turbo powerband with supercharger instant response.
You will usually have to gear down in either a turbo or ati car to get the best response. This is not a big deal if you can gear down.example you are in third around town you bang down to second ditto on the highway you go down from fifth to fourth or third.This can give minimal turbo lag and more boost on either centrifical or turbo. A slow roll on in higher gears don't work that well in either setup. Downshifts are the key with these things.
I have had rides in two sts cars..ls1 and lt1.They ran very well and were decently fast even at only like 5psi levels.The sts does work.I don't like some of the things about it.Ground clearance takes a hit, don't like single tailpipe ,don't like the pretty loud oil scavenger pump setup. But do like the pretty easy install ,the way the engine compartment is nice and untouched basically.
I still am going front mount in my 99 over rearmount. But fronts can be more expensive for sure.
All the power adders work.nitrous ,heads,cam/headers bolt ons, supers and turbos.
They can all turn in great track times and work fine on the street. Pick any of them or a combo and have fun.
And don't believe the sts doom and gloom guys. I have had my *** kicked in my 96z with a otherwise bone stock lt1 with the sts at 5psi and the rev limiter set to like 5500rpm as he didn't have enough fuel to rev it to much higher on his stock injectors.
Still kicked my 96z's ***! His was same heavy vert also.So it wasn't weight although the guy had tenth on me since he was 100 pounds lighter.

Sts does lie a bit about what you do need.You should get 42s and a inline or intank pump. You will need tuning and monitoring like wideband, scantools to watch your knock and stuff. You will want intercooler and or meth injection systems to run more boost or simply to be able to optimize the tune and safety factors.
And things do add up quick. STS is basic setup for a lot of money since you still need
things like blow off if its a manual car, injectors,pump,intercooler.None of this stuff is included.
I almost bought an sts but the price stopped me. 1000 bucks off the list and it would be a not too bad a deal.They used to be think 1000 bucks less when they came out.

Whatever they do work.

 

Here is where I went wrong. I meant to say that the 600 rwhp run was on super high boost (more than was is considered safe on a stock bottom end)and 100 octane. Nothing but love for you, you know that.

 

LOL!

 

But you expect me to accept the opinion of one as a general consensus? Hello pot, meet kettle. Who's doing the spinning? From what I have read on this post, almost everyone shows the good and bad (some say falsehoods) of STS and end up saying the front mount design is better; and further state they would abdicate a simpler design in trade of a better performing complex one. I have a solution! Do a poll on this Forced Induction thread and pose the following question:

What makes more power and throtte response?

1. Front mount turbos

2. The rear mount STS

If it turns out that I took the "opinion of a few" only to spin it to reflect the majority, I will withdraw my statement.

 

Hahaha your funny... nice spin yet again!! Did you miss my statement I made that suports the arguement that your making (No idea here who your making it against as your fighting a one sided battle)
As for:


Who and what were their setups? How did they compare to a S/C setup? S/C guys have similar problems that rearmounts do https://ls1tech.com/forums/forced-induction/564760-blower-car-comes-into-boost-3k-higher.html ... and $ for $ (in my experience) a rear mount makes more power for less money.

Hahaha.... Ya think? But you are not covering the total story... how does it compare to the rearmount in cost? What do you scarifice with a front mount vs: rearmount (AC, Fabbed brackets, Alt relocation). For someone on a budget FI TURBO build, the rear mount is cheaper and effects the stock setup of the car less. But has less overall performance capability if your shooting for 650+ or more RWHP.

Now to adress the threads questions (As best as I can):

First... I would always reccomend a intercooler regardless of S/C or Turbo
S/C setups like Urbans and STS setups are both very reliable... the stock block is capable of holding ~500RWHP IMHO safely. If you exceed that your engine is on reduced or borrowed time.

Tunning is nessessary no matter what F/I setup you choose. If you dont tune... Forget my answer for #1 cause you are on borrowed time.

For an STS setup I would reccomend 60# injectors with the 67 trim turbo. I am not qualified to speak for S/C but I would go no less then 42#'s

Several people... but you could also run 500RWHP with the STS setup and Intercooler from somone like TRT Performance and no fear of running out of Meth.

Do a search... there are allot of folks that have posted theirs up.

Any FI setup you do will risk your rearend if you ever put sticky tires on it.

 

11 quotes on that ***. This has to be an ls1tech record in regards to how many quotes someone has put in one reply. Yeah boyyyyyyyyyyy.

 

Seems like as more and more STS kits find their way onto cars the cons as well as the pros are coming to light. For a while all I saw was "omg greatest kit evAr!" on the vette boards.

Fyi, my procharged car with a low compression shortblock and nothing more than a set of headers feeding the stock mufflers is extremely smooth, linear and extremely powerful (600rwhp). I have been told by someone that had they driven my car prior to going TT, they would probably have gone the blower route, which is something I never EVER expected to hear. I have yet to rip a belt or have any other blower related issues either, and the car sounds like a 747 taxiing when at low speed, which I love.

+1 for a well sorted procharger here.

 

Hahah that took some work bro...

 

Good question... Doesn't the industry know that tons of LS1's run turbos nowadays?

 

I run 91 octane and it was tuned that way.

 

I prefer the linear power curve. With a supercharger you can run higher SCR than a turbo car for the same amount of boost. This results into better throttle response, tip in, power, and better all around drivability in what seems like a daily driver for this guys M6 car.

I believe turbo's have their place and they do an excellent job at some things. They definitely have their shortcomings though. Having to run a taller gear just to be able to build boost is one of them. Who wants to run a 2.73 rear gear? Not me! I'd rather take advantage of torque multiplication and outrun yer behind.

On the street and at the track, if both cars are setup with the same intended goals, the supercharger with its less average hp will win.

Let the flame war continue

Nate

 

Hmmm... That's not good enough to excuse the powerband. Almost, though...

I'd rather blow by a car in one or two gears with area under the curve than to be hitting redline shifting a bunch of times on my greatest area of the powerband, i.e. my last 800 rpms... Yuck...

For the record, I'm just messing around in this thread.