Fire breathing, turbocharged C5 Corvette rolls out
11-27-2013, 10:25 AM
#61
Wow, it's getting pretty serious in here. lol
Ryan (RPM) and I went for a ride in a customer's car (black GTO 408, th-400GV, that's all he told me) from georgia a couple years ago on the I40. Car pulled pretty damn hard. Started around 65 and maybe seconds later we were at 140. I was pretty impressed with the car. He told me that it was an STS 76 setup that they had to redo/"tweak". I didn't believe until I looked up the bumper.
Being that it had gear vendor, I can't imagine it making more than 900, but that's still impressive.
Cool vette.
Ryan (RPM) and I went for a ride in a customer's car (black GTO 408, th-400GV, that's all he told me) from georgia a couple years ago on the I40. Car pulled pretty damn hard. Started around 65 and maybe seconds later we were at 140. I was pretty impressed with the car. He told me that it was an STS 76 setup that they had to redo/"tweak". I didn't believe until I looked up the bumper.
Being that it had gear vendor, I can't imagine it making more than 900, but that's still impressive.
Cool vette.
11-27-2013, 10:30 AM
#62
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Federal Way, Wa
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been driving around the car for the last two weeks. All i know is i never have to wait for the turbo to spool. its there when i want it. If there is lag i dont feel it anywhere. We sized the turbo for a fun street car expecting to make 700 max. Kit blew that out the water. Now we think it has closer to 900 on pump and meth. The car drives better and runs harder then i ever thought it would. Sounds like sex too! I dont care about thermodynamics. I believe this would spool faster then most front mounts due to the extra steps we put in that no one else does. Only a front mount as well thought out as ours will spool faster. I bet it wouldnt be by much.
I also wanted weight over the rear and no extra heat under my hood. If i had a f body id be front mount. But for a vette this is much more viable option.
I also wanted weight over the rear and no extra heat under my hood. If i had a f body id be front mount. But for a vette this is much more viable option.
11-27-2013, 10:43 AM
#63
On The Tree
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chattanooga, tn
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been driving around the car for the last two weeks. All i know is i never have to wait for the turbo to spool. its there when i want it. If there is lag i dont feel it anywhere. We sized the turbo for a fun street car expecting to make 700 max. Kit blew that out the water. Now we think it has closer to 900 on pump and meth. The car drives better and runs harder then i ever thought it would. Sounds like sex too! I dont care about thermodynamics. I believe this would spool faster then most front mounts due to the extra steps we put in that no one else does. Only a front mount as well thought out as ours will spool faster. I bet it wouldnt be by much.
I also wanted weight over the rear and no extra heat under my hood. If i had a f body id be front mount. But for a vette this is much more viable option.
I also wanted weight over the rear and no extra heat under my hood. If i had a f body id be front mount. But for a vette this is much more viable option.
11-27-2013, 01:02 PM
#67
ASSuming On The Tree
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SO thermo dynamics wins races..... GOT IT....
01MagRedC5, Ricky's car does not meet the thermodynamic requirements for this thread.... So lets leave bottom bottom 9 sec stick cars with a 346" engines with stock heads/intakes/baby cams out of this.... His boost obviously comes in waaayyy too late for this thread.
01MagRedC5, Ricky's car does not meet the thermodynamic requirements for this thread.... So lets leave bottom bottom 9 sec stick cars with a 346" engines with stock heads/intakes/baby cams out of this.... His boost obviously comes in waaayyy too late for this thread.
11-27-2013, 01:51 PM
#68
7 Second Club
11-27-2013, 01:57 PM
#69
this...
Uh oh, are you going to leg-hump on a rear turbo mount, too?
Face it: rear mount turbos are for the people that don't want to put the effort into a mid or front mount turbo. And don't give me crap about space, I have seen people fit front mount turbos on a c5. And even if you want to be lazy, you could do something similar to UPP or APS, but single turbo.
And they're inferior, too. Tell me one good thing, other than "ease of setting up 40ft of pipes and ****". If he made that power, imagine what he could have done with a nicer setup.
There is no, "doing it right" with half-***. Only, "as best as one can half-*** it".
Even those who initially supported the hell out of rear mounts have moved on. Why? Because it is inferior. Why?
•extra weight of the 10,000 feet of pipes, oil lines, oil pump, etc.
•heat loss through 10,000 feet of hot side piping.
•worse spooling times, due to extra piping. This is where the, "OMG, mine is totally okay" BS starts. Switch your exact setup to a front mount, tell me how much better it is.
Face it: rear mount turbos are for the people that don't want to put the effort into a mid or front mount turbo. And don't give me crap about space, I have seen people fit front mount turbos on a c5. And even if you want to be lazy, you could do something similar to UPP or APS, but single turbo.
And they're inferior, too. Tell me one good thing, other than "ease of setting up 40ft of pipes and ****". If he made that power, imagine what he could have done with a nicer setup.
There is no, "doing it right" with half-***. Only, "as best as one can half-*** it".
Even those who initially supported the hell out of rear mounts have moved on. Why? Because it is inferior. Why?
•extra weight of the 10,000 feet of pipes, oil lines, oil pump, etc.
•heat loss through 10,000 feet of hot side piping.
•worse spooling times, due to extra piping. This is where the, "OMG, mine is totally okay" BS starts. Switch your exact setup to a front mount, tell me how much better it is.
A rear mount turbo has to sized properly,..piping sized properly, everything,..guess what, JUST LIKE A FRONT MOUNT. It's all about velocity. My top mount spools a HAIR quicker then lets say,..a rear mount kit but....again, ALL DUE TO PIPING SIZE AND AR housings.
What happen to car people? In the old days people would see a kickin car like Zglass and want to check it out run it, give props to the owner and enjoy a killer car, Love the American flag btw.
Now, especially on a GM board, people want to throw others under a bus or come up with, your stuff aint as good as mine/whom ever's stuff.???? (We expect that from FORD guys, lol) but geeezz, the young not real car people show up here in force!!
Go ZGLASS, GO Fast, Go Real Car People.
Now, especially on a GM board, people want to throw others under a bus or come up with, your stuff aint as good as mine/whom ever's stuff.???? (We expect that from FORD guys, lol) but geeezz, the young not real car people show up here in force!!
Go ZGLASS, GO Fast, Go Real Car People.
Personally, I think the vette in question is sick. On the street people...the rear mount turbo setup, is and can be a top contender. For the dumbass's that do not think so....the Tejano Blue Corvette from LMR,..is a twin rear mount setup. Just an FYI. That's from a company that CAN do what they want on a build but, chose the rear setup. Why? Cause boost is boost.
11-27-2013, 02:45 PM
#73
Ok...well, show me. Inferior on what level? On the street, there is NO SUCH THING. It's like saying a NA cam isn't good for boost but,..it ******* works...even though, everyone would like to tell you it wouldn't, the fact of the matter is, does. data is there to back it up. People like you, said my gear set wouldn't work....guess what...it worked so well, people try to copy it and that **** works,....
You guys can tell me this, or tell me that,...until you ******* do it, show me some DATA to back it up other then your opinion based assumptions cause you read it on the internet somewhere...ain't gonna cut it.
Again,..sizing,..on everything, is critical, on ALL setups.
I like front mounts,..I prefer them,..but to say you can't get a rear mount to perform,....or downplaying it,..cause it's in the back,...your in for a rude awakening one day. I'm not talking about a box stock STS kit dude...we're speaking about a custom made, rear/mid turbo setup, designed piece by piece.
Anyways, you guys can play peepee touch about whos opinion beats whos opinion.
11-27-2013, 03:30 PM
#76
Did you read what I wrote? I said you can get rear mounts to perform. Paul major went 6.60s with a rear mount setup. I do like your analogy with the cams, it perfectly supports my argument. You can make good power with an NA cam in a turbo car, but a turbo cam will still be better. A rear mount setup will always be heavier and spool slower than a comparable front mount. What part of this can you not wrap your head around?
11-27-2013, 04:24 PM
#77
Did you read what I wrote? I said you can get rear mounts to perform. Paul major went 6.60s with a rear mount setup. I do like your analogy with the cams, it perfectly supports my argument. You can make good power with an NA cam in a turbo car, but a turbo cam will still be better. A rear mount setup will always be heavier and spool slower than a comparable front mount. What part of this can you not wrap your head around?
I don't need to wrap my head around it dude...your not reading, and don't get all butthurt cause your ***** is getting caught in a door....
PROPER SIZING IS KEY....as in,..tube diameter,..as in A/R housing...do you understand what I mean by that? If you want something to SPOOL quicker, you reduce the diameter...among other tricks. They're IS a method,..they're IS A SCIENCE.
I bet you whatever you want,...that we can make a REAR MOUNT TURBO setup spool as FAST AS A FRONT MOUNT without the use of nitrous. How about that?
You can try and sound as smart as you like with theories or opinions bro...the fact of the matter is,..your mostly incorrect.
My argument isn't directed towards you per say...it's directed to opinions on setups,..and how everyone is a ******* idiot that projects opinion/stories to why they think something is the ****...when in reality,...they have never built ANYTHING like it, they got they're idea from they're own thought process, they formed off the internet somewhere.
On another note: Street setups, are a different breed of animal. Especially for guys that are roll racing. You CAN get away with setups that, are, well, out of the norm. "Outside the box" so to speak. Cams that "don't work." Gears that "don't work". Turbos "too big, will never spool"... Turbos "too far back, rear mount"...etc. LOTS of this, go out the window with a properly GEARED setup,..and in the end,...falls into the TOTAL PACKAGE of a STREET car,...for THAT PERSONS setup.
Everyone is different, to each they're own,..who the **** are you, or anyone else,..to say otherwise? Again, I say to that the community....
..build your ****,...compete, and give props where they are do.
11-27-2013, 04:47 PM
#78
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Federal Way, Wa
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you read what I wrote? I said you can get rear mounts to perform. Paul major went 6.60s with a rear mount setup. I do like your analogy with the cams, it perfectly supports my argument. You can make good power with an NA cam in a turbo car, but a turbo cam will still be better. A rear mount setup will always be heavier and spool slower than a comparable front mount. What part of this can you not wrap your head around?
Single hotside pipe stainless 3 in. Single charge pipe aluminum much lighter. Same amount of piping as pretty much any duel exhaust. But half the piping is far lighter. All other pieces are basically the same as any other kit turbo intercooler, wastegate, blow off valve. Only extra weight really is the pump. 80% of the added weight is over my rear axle anyway. Right were id want to add weight.
11-27-2013, 04:51 PM
#79
Yet it's like you all are still not grasping what I'm saying. If you take this corvette and move the turbo to the font you're going to drop some weight and increase spool time. This is what I meant when I said comparable front mount setup. The car runs good, I'm not trying to take anything away from it. I'm just simply comparing rear mount to front mount. You keep rocking on with your rear mount and I'll keep my front mount kit that spools a slightly bigger turbo faster with the same displacement and no divided housing or spool valve.
11-27-2013, 05:13 PM
#80
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Federal Way, Wa
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yet it's like you all are still not grasping what I'm saying. If you take this corvette and move the turbo to the font you're going to drop some weight and increase spool time. This is what I meant when I said comparable front mount setup. The car runs good, I'm not trying to take anything away from it. I'm just simply comparing rear mount to front mount. You keep rocking on with your rear mount and I'll keep my front mount kit that spools a slightly bigger turbo faster with the same displacement and no divided housing or spool valve.