She looks old enough to be J-Rods mum.....great to meet J-Rod while he was at the track then back in Adelaide...top bloke

 

And for those of you that might think our turbo selection could have some lag, then check this out, rolling over the start line, pinning the throttle, and lighting the tyres for the first three gears....man that was slippery work!
http://www.oz8.org/gallery/albums/GarethSS/Raptor2.wmv

 

nice vid martin.you dont have vid for it on the rod.

 

I'd like to see a 346 with stock heads, stock cam, stock redline, and stock intake do that. You'd be lucky to make boost under 4500rpm. It'd be like an STS kit all over, just a dyno-queen Supra.

I'm not doubting the kit or anything about it, as I've said before I'm very interested if there is a kit produced that meets what I'm trying to achieve. I also think the product and service so far are top notch. But I didn't say the turbos will lag on a built 408 with a huge cam and CNC ported heads, I said it would lag really badly on a stock engine, and there's no doubt in my mind it will.

I really look forward to seeing a street kit, engineered for the smaller displacement stock engines, that provides stock drivability with 500whp.

 

You guys just keep getting me more and more interested in this kit Love the video

 

if u only want 500 why not do heads/cam/spray.easier and cheaper.

 

good point ^^^

 

First I don't want the ill affects of heads/cam. I do not want to tear into the internals of my 12,000 miles LS1. I also do not want the lopey idle that goes along with heads/cam. Lastly, I want this motor to last long. And the amount of power isn't what kills motors in my opinion (If kept reasonable and tuned), it is RPM/oiling. And in order for heads/cam to make 500whp on a LS1, you have got to turn it past 6,000rpm, and I'd rather not do this. Lastly, I hate nitrous. It is unreliable, expensive in the long run, a b!tch and a half to use reliably, and God knows what else. I love turbochargers. I love the sound, I love saying twin turbo, I love the exponential increase in power output with respect to RPM, and I love how they'd enable the LS1 to hit 500whp, while conserving stock idle characteristics, near stock gas mileage, and overall great drivability. I also like roots/twin screw blowers for the exact same reasons, however have not been able to find a product I like yet.

 

If your looking to save your stock engine then a turbo system is not the way to go. I dont know where you get your info but a h/c setup is not even close to as damaging to an engine as turbos are, i dont care how much boost your running. If you go turbo, be prepared to be replacing parts, its ineveitable no matter what anyone tells you.

 

Only if you either get greedy....

or do it wrong.

For 500rwhp, a turbo setup should be 100% reliable. Its not exactly rocket science.

 

you might want to do a lil more research.....a 100% stock motor plus boost is a no no.you need to do valve springs and pushrods at the least for it to last a long time like u want it......ie youre tearing into your prescious 12k motor

 

I respectfully disagree. A turbocharger system is NO MORE damaging to an engine than a normally aspirated setup, assuming the same output, inlet air temperatures, internal power loss, and rpm. In this case, all power is is the amount of air you get in, the amount of fuel relative to that, and getting it out. So if the engine makes the same amount of power, the same amount of air/fuel must be going in and out of the system. Thus there is no way a turbocharger system is more detrimental. Now my assumes aren't exactly the case, as turbochargers do cost power to use, but it isn't much considering the amounts cost elseware, the amounts you're making, and what the engine can handle. Secondly, boost has nothing to do with this equation. CFM does. And if the motor is under the same assumptions as before, then in order for power to be equivalent, then CFM must be equal as well. Thus no engine can have more dynamic compression than the other, which is what you say kills motors (Which in my experience has never happened anyways).

And I'm ok with replacing parts. I'm totally fine with changing manifold gaskets, changing a water pump, etc. And I can rebuild my engine. It's a matter of desire. I'd much rather replace the parts that would eventually fail on my turbocharger system than replace my crank and bearings because I spun a rod.

How so? The LS1 has the best ignition characteristics of any pushrod engine GM has ever put in a production vehicle for its time period and before. It is the BEST suited pushrod engine for boost they've ever made for its time period and before. And I'd love to know why I'd need valve springs and pushrods for a turbocharger. Just because there is more air going in? That doesn't mean they magically fail. So yes they may be a worthwhile investment for a built, high pressure motor, but for a relatively low output, low boost application, the stock pieces are more than adequate.

 

i dont care what books youve read,ill take my real world experience over a book any day.if you do a search there have been posts for a LONG time with people asking why is my motor down on power or why wont it rev to 6k etc etc and 99% of the time its traced back to either pushrods or valve springs.you neglect the added forces on the valvetrain.for example when the valve starts trying to close there is alot of air trying to force it open....and the stock springs dont like that.again thats just one example.

EDIT....i will however agree that turbos are generally more kind to shortblock components than a blower/nitrous/agressive heads cam....and that is because the cylinder pressures are usually more linear with fewer spikes and such.

 

Let's look at those added forces on the valvetrain. The intake valve is trying to close, and would have 6-10psi of force trying to hold it open. But assuming 100% VE, there would be 6-10psi pushing it closed as well! However since there's no way a stock LS1 will hit 100% VE obviously, it would depend on how much boost we actually get into the cylinder. A safe assumption on most pushrod motors is 85%. So now the intake has 10psi trying to hold the valve open, but there would theoretically be 8.5psi on the other side trying to close it. And 1.5psi difference is negligible with the amount of pressure even the stock springs have.

Now for your edit, I disagree again. The reason turbochargers aren't detrimental to a shortblock if properly implemented, is not at all because of cylinder pressures. It is because they can make the same amounts of power (IE roughly the same amount of cylinder pressure), at much lower RPM levels. It takes GM 7,000rpm to make a LS7 make 505 crank hp. It'd take me 6,000rpm to get an LS1 to make 500whp. And an extra 1,000rpm is HELL on an engine's valvetrain and shortblock, much more detrimental than cylinder pressures (Within reason of course).

 

Just get a ds1c and be done with it if your not crazy about the twin turbo setup

 

I'm even less crazy about centrifugal superchargers. I hate the linear boost ramp with RPM, it's the same as the STS kit, a dyno queen Supra.

 

lets keep in mind that this thread is for a twin turbo race setup for more than 500whp, therefore all this talk of a street kit vs. race kit vs. heads/cam/nitrous vs. procharger d1sc is pointless... as of right now he is selling just the RACE KIT the street kit is not out yet so I don't think LS1 Turbo wants this debate starting on his thread, if i am wrong i apologize

 

I agree, just trying to express my interest in a Street Kit.

 

if ud like i can show u straight out of a book since real world experience isnt good enough for you agreeing with my edit.and i can quote you thread after thread proving my first part of the post.if u wanna continue this take it to pm's cause im not gonna hijack street tunas thread.