Raced a Rear mount Turbo Z28 with my 03 cobra... He a member of these boards?
10-19-2011, 11:39 AM
#41
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eh...some LS1's are known to pop at only around 4 psi, where others run forever at 8-9 psi. Guess it has a lot to do with the tune, but an actual LS1 isn't the best motor to run boost in with stock internals. I'd much rather build one all motor. Prob be more respectable than that turd.
11.6 at 121 trap is pretty respectable if you ask me. Good tires and 60ft and that could be a low 11 run.
And good runs to the OP. I have always hated those STS kits with a passion. Just seems like a terrible idea to run a turbo at the back of a car with loads of lag, boost loss, exposed to the elements, etc...not to mention exhaust heat and velocity is what spools a turbo. How hot is it going to be by the time it gets to the back of the car?? I'm kinda surprised thier still in business honestly. I personally have never seen an STS F-body run worth a damn myself. They make loads of noise and whistling and whining, but never seem to go anywhere or do anything. Kind of like lesbian sex. They just never pull anywhere near as hard as a front mount car.
11.6 at 121 trap is pretty respectable if you ask me. Good tires and 60ft and that could be a low 11 run.
And good runs to the OP. I have always hated those STS kits with a passion. Just seems like a terrible idea to run a turbo at the back of a car with loads of lag, boost loss, exposed to the elements, etc...not to mention exhaust heat and velocity is what spools a turbo. How hot is it going to be by the time it gets to the back of the car?? I'm kinda surprised thier still in business honestly. I personally have never seen an STS F-body run worth a damn myself. They make loads of noise and whistling and whining, but never seem to go anywhere or do anything. Kind of like lesbian sex. They just never pull anywhere near as hard as a front mount car.
10-19-2011, 03:42 PM
#46
Launching!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just sayin i raped the last 500 rwhp termi i raced over and over. But defiently dont think i would jog away from a 520 rwhp fbody.
This is a hard one to figure out. The fbody went 11.7 an an unknown mph with just bolt ons and cam. Had to be a minimum of 360 rwhp to do that. Then 4 psi adds a minimum of 80 rwhp.
440 rwhp would trap around 120 mph in an fbody.
I dont know.. Damn this is retarded. But ill tell the truth.
Back in 2006 i owned a 04 auto vette with intake/exhaust/no cats/diablo tune/ls6 heads/224/224 camshaft. 380 rwhp sae
Friend had an sts turbo 02 camaro. All it had was the sts turbo kit makeing 400 rwhp.
We raced numerous times at the drag strip and both ofout best evers were 12.8s at 111 mph.
Stock i did 13.5 at 103 and he went 13.7 at 103
I was hopeing his kit was just a fluke or he just couldnt drive but it would seem the sts is just a flawed system
This is a hard one to figure out. The fbody went 11.7 an an unknown mph with just bolt ons and cam. Had to be a minimum of 360 rwhp to do that. Then 4 psi adds a minimum of 80 rwhp.
440 rwhp would trap around 120 mph in an fbody.
I dont know.. Damn this is retarded. But ill tell the truth.
Back in 2006 i owned a 04 auto vette with intake/exhaust/no cats/diablo tune/ls6 heads/224/224 camshaft. 380 rwhp sae
Friend had an sts turbo 02 camaro. All it had was the sts turbo kit makeing 400 rwhp.
We raced numerous times at the drag strip and both ofout best evers were 12.8s at 111 mph.
Stock i did 13.5 at 103 and he went 13.7 at 103
I was hopeing his kit was just a fluke or he just couldnt drive but it would seem the sts is just a flawed system
10-19-2011, 04:29 PM
#47
Just sayin i raped the last 500 rwhp termi i raced over and over. But defiently dont think i would jog away from a 520 rwhp fbody.
This is a hard one to figure out. The fbody went 11.7 an an unknown mph with just bolt ons and cam. Had to be a minimum of 360 rwhp to do that. Then 4 psi adds a minimum of 80 rwhp.
440 rwhp would trap around 120 mph in an fbody.
I dont know.. Damn this is retarded. But ill tell the truth.
Back in 2006 i owned a 04 auto vette with intake/exhaust/no cats/diablo tune/ls6 heads/224/224 camshaft. 380 rwhp sae
Friend had an sts turbo 02 camaro. All it had was the sts turbo kit makeing 400 rwhp.
We raced numerous times at the drag strip and both ofout best evers were 12.8s at 111 mph.
Stock i did 13.5 at 103 and he went 13.7 at 103
I was hopeing his kit was just a fluke or he just couldnt drive but it would seem the sts is just a flawed system
This is a hard one to figure out. The fbody went 11.7 an an unknown mph with just bolt ons and cam. Had to be a minimum of 360 rwhp to do that. Then 4 psi adds a minimum of 80 rwhp.
440 rwhp would trap around 120 mph in an fbody.
I dont know.. Damn this is retarded. But ill tell the truth.
Back in 2006 i owned a 04 auto vette with intake/exhaust/no cats/diablo tune/ls6 heads/224/224 camshaft. 380 rwhp sae
Friend had an sts turbo 02 camaro. All it had was the sts turbo kit makeing 400 rwhp.
We raced numerous times at the drag strip and both ofout best evers were 12.8s at 111 mph.
Stock i did 13.5 at 103 and he went 13.7 at 103
I was hopeing his kit was just a fluke or he just couldnt drive but it would seem the sts is just a flawed system
380rwhp minimum for 11.7s.. Full bolt ons with a nice converter will net you extremely close to that, within .2, if not hit it in some good air.
I make 370rwhp and RW is over 3400#.. I would be very very close to 120mph. Next trip to the track, with around 385rwhp, I would expect to hit 120+ in the 1/4.
Did everyone in this thread miss the link I posted? Sts cars can run good.. They have one in the 7s, quite a few in the 9s, and plenty in the 10s. The system isn't a fluke, the people building the setup aren't doing it properly.
10-19-2011, 04:58 PM
#48
Well just saying that if wanted boost I'd go another route, and it would include forged internals. Otherwise I just don't see the point, when those times (granted 121 trap is nothing to sniff at) can be obtained without a half-assed boost setup. Like you already said, I'd rather go with an all motor build over that type of set up.
10-19-2011, 09:07 PM
#50
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Liberal land
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meant the aluminum block LS1 itself doesn't normally like boost. Not LSx motors in general. I know the 5.3's have been proven to run hard on stock internals (thats why I have a boosted one lol). But like I said, a lot has to do with the tune. Just generally you hear of a lot of people popping actual LS1 engines with not much boost into them. I guess they aren't as forgiving as other motors.
10-19-2011, 11:39 PM
#53
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lolololol at ricer math.
380rwhp minimum for 11.7s.. Full bolt ons with a nice converter will net you extremely close to that, within .2, if not hit it in some good air.
I make 370rwhp and RW is over 3400#.. I would be very very close to 120mph. Next trip to the track, with around 385rwhp, I would expect to hit 120+ in the 1/4.
Did everyone in this thread miss the link I posted? Sts cars can run good.. They have one in the 7s, quite a few in the 9s, and plenty in the 10s. The system isn't a fluke, the people building the setup aren't doing it properly.
380rwhp minimum for 11.7s.. Full bolt ons with a nice converter will net you extremely close to that, within .2, if not hit it in some good air.
I make 370rwhp and RW is over 3400#.. I would be very very close to 120mph. Next trip to the track, with around 385rwhp, I would expect to hit 120+ in the 1/4.
Did everyone in this thread miss the link I posted? Sts cars can run good.. They have one in the 7s, quite a few in the 9s, and plenty in the 10s. The system isn't a fluke, the people building the setup aren't doing it properly.
I meant the aluminum block LS1 itself doesn't normally like boost. Not LSx motors in general. I know the 5.3's have been proven to run hard on stock internals (thats why I have a boosted one lol). But like I said, a lot has to do with the tune. Just generally you hear of a lot of people popping actual LS1 engines with not much boost into them. I guess they aren't as forgiving as other motors.
10-20-2011, 01:43 AM
#54
Launching!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can say that again Heater. I remember when i thought cobras were awesome. Back in 03 i was driving a supercharged v6 fbody and a 12.8 at 111 was amazeing by stock cobras. But as time went on i saw that the modded vettes with 50 less rwhp were as fast or faster. Went to the dealership in 04 and looked at the 03 cobra and then 04 vette. Hard choice but i got the vette and never looked back. Always have a soft spot for cobras but after eating the cobra in my viper even though we were the same rwhp.... Well they do seem a lil over rated now. Guess its the weight but they just dont seem to perform that well for the rwhp. Ls1 fbody anyday of the week> cobra
10-20-2011, 10:19 AM
#56
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm starting to like your humor lol
I feel like hes another person who would be interesting in person lol Ju1ce being another.
I feel like hes another person who would be interesting in person lol Ju1ce being another.
10-20-2011, 12:36 PM
#58
9 Second Club
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Joliet,IL and Las Vegas 50/50
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I meant the aluminum block LS1 itself doesn't normally like boost. Not LSx motors in general. I know the 5.3's have been proven to run hard on stock internals (thats why I have a boosted one lol). But like I said, a lot has to do with the tune. Just generally you hear of a lot of people popping actual LS1 engines with not much boost into them. I guess they aren't as forgiving as other motors.
The problem is the rear mount turbo design. It takes longer to spool the turbo the further it is from the exhaust ports as the gas is given more time to expand and lose velocity. The STS is the easiest kit to install on a fbody, why don't you see that many of them then? Because they suck compared to a proper front mount turbo. Even if he's on very low boost I could see a cam car being a bit quicker in the 1/4 just because those rear mounts spool for ****. Especially on a 6mt car where you lose spool between shifts. So in short it is believable that a car with less power can take a rear mount turbo fbody. Go front mount, forge the bottom end, drop compression a little, put a stalled auto in there and it will be a total different animal.
10-20-2011, 02:33 PM
#59
I meant the aluminum block LS1 itself doesn't normally like boost. Not LSx motors in general. I know the 5.3's have been proven to run hard on stock internals (thats why I have a boosted one lol). But like I said, a lot has to do with the tune. Just generally you hear of a lot of people popping actual LS1 engines with not much boost into them. I guess they aren't as forgiving as other motors.
Stock ls1's yes. Forged ls1's with lower compression not so much. Many guys are hitting 800+whp on a forged ls1. Guys go with the 5.3 if they are building from scratch because they are cheap and a little stronger in stock form.
The problem is the rear mount turbo design. It takes longer to spool the turbo the further it is from the exhaust ports as the gas is given more time to expand and lose velocity. The STS is the easiest kit to install on a fbody, why don't you see that many of them then? Because they suck compared to a proper front mount turbo. Even if he's on very low boost I could see a cam car being a bit quicker in the 1/4 just because those rear mounts spool for ****. Especially on a 6mt car where you lose spool between shifts. So in short it is believable that a car with less power can take a rear mount turbo fbody. Go front mount, forge the bottom end, drop compression a little, put a stalled auto in there and it will be a total different animal.
The problem is the rear mount turbo design. It takes longer to spool the turbo the further it is from the exhaust ports as the gas is given more time to expand and lose velocity. The STS is the easiest kit to install on a fbody, why don't you see that many of them then? Because they suck compared to a proper front mount turbo. Even if he's on very low boost I could see a cam car being a bit quicker in the 1/4 just because those rear mounts spool for ****. Especially on a 6mt car where you lose spool between shifts. So in short it is believable that a car with less power can take a rear mount turbo fbody. Go front mount, forge the bottom end, drop compression a little, put a stalled auto in there and it will be a total different animal.
10-20-2011, 03:06 PM
#60
9 Second Club
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Joliet,IL and Las Vegas 50/50
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Ls1 blocks can hold a nice bit of power.
Properly set up rear mount lag is extremely small. Set it up with pacesetter LTs/6 speed/etcetc and sure, it will take 5 seconds to spool.. Build something like Zombies, you won't be able to hardly tell a difference between his and a front mount.
Properly set up rear mount lag is extremely small. Set it up with pacesetter LTs/6 speed/etcetc and sure, it will take 5 seconds to spool.. Build something like Zombies, you won't be able to hardly tell a difference between his and a front mount.