STS Turbo Kit
11-12-2007, 08:57 PM
#21
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location:
Posts: 860
RE: STS Turbo Kit
447rwhp and 480 ft lbs. torque at only 7.5 psi is what the STS kit makes withan intercooler and a remote mount turbo, so if there is any lag its not showing up with those numbers...so I don't follow your logic based on what facts I have seen about the STS kit...heat causes detonation, which is exactly what you are doing running the turbo straight into the intake, cramming a bunch of hot air into the motor...lets see what kind of power the car makes with that configuration...I don't see any dyno numbers yet to prove their setup is anymore efficient...
11-12-2007, 09:57 PM
#22
3rd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Providence Forge, VA
Posts: 750
RE: STS Turbo Kit
Lag doesn’t have anything to do with hp and tq numbers on the dyno. Lag effects the drivability based on turbo spool up. What I am talking about is basic physics, with the STS setup the exhaust gases have restricted flow and temps by the time they reach the rear mounted turbine and it will not spool as quickly as a turbine mounted at the exhaust header. Then the compressor has to push the pressurized air all the way to the front. This all takes time, which is why I say the THP or any front mount turbo is more efficient than a rear mount.
Earl
Earl
11-12-2007, 10:08 PM
#23
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 2,090
RE: STS Turbo Kit
ORIGINAL: Black05StangGT
447rwhp and 480 ft lbs. torque at only 7.5 psi is what the STS kit makes withan intercooler and a remote mount turbo, so if there is any lag its not showing up with those numbers...so I don't follow your logic based on what facts I have seen about the STS kit...heat causes detonation, which is exactly what you are doing running the turbo straight into the intake, cramming a bunch of hot air into the motor...lets see what kind of power the car makes with that configuration...I don't see any dyno numbers yet to prove their setup is anymore efficient...
447rwhp and 480 ft lbs. torque at only 7.5 psi is what the STS kit makes withan intercooler and a remote mount turbo, so if there is any lag its not showing up with those numbers...so I don't follow your logic based on what facts I have seen about the STS kit...heat causes detonation, which is exactly what you are doing running the turbo straight into the intake, cramming a bunch of hot air into the motor...lets see what kind of power the car makes with that configuration...I don't see any dyno numbers yet to prove their setup is anymore efficient...
447rwhp and 480 ft lbs. torque at only 7.5 psi is what the STS kit makes withan intercooler and a remote mount turbo, so if there is any lag its not showing up with those numbers" LOLZ
Andrew
PS: Why do you think the guy was selling that setup??
11-13-2007, 07:17 AM
#24
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location:
Posts: 860
RE: STS Turbo Kit
No i wasn't suggesting that hp/tq numbers suggested an inference for whether or not lag existed, my point was simply that the power numbers peaked in the same area of the curves asother kits that I have looked at, so spool up came in around the 3200 to 3800 rpm range depending on the turbo sizing...I mean the only way to completely prove what you are saying is to examine the heat register from the turbo, that would be the only way to tell ifits working harder as you suggested...but that can be done by looking at the IAT's...if the turbo is working harder then IAT's should increase to suggest such a situation, which in turn would make less power...regardless the dyno charts don't suggest the lag you are talking about because the spool up and peak power are inline with theother kits dyno graphs...also I'd really like you to find me an example of someone running a turbo in the front of their without an intercooler and is running 9#'s of boost and is actually making the power that 9#'s of boost should be making? You run that setup for any length of time and the turbo will fail, show me someone reliably running that kind of setup...front mount turbo with intercooler, best way to go, I agree, running a turbo in a front configuration without an intercooler, bad way to go, running a turbo remote mount compared to a front mount with no intercooler, better way to go than the aforementioned configuration...I would really like for you to show me what the IAT's are at 9#'s on a front mounted turbo with no intercooler? I have yet to see you provide any imperical evidence to back up anything you are saying...if you look at the STS website and other turbo kit's manufacturers websites their hp curves are inline with each other...it almost sounds like you are basing your claims of 9#'s as being a magic number because thats what Powerdyne and Vortech suggest you stay under with their front configuration superchargers without intercoolers...Which is completely different than a front mount turbo configuration...exahust gasses can reach temperatures of more than 800 degrees, which through heatconduction will cause the IAT to rise especially if you run the car longer...super cooling the turbo itself wouldn't be smart unless you want to crack the housing...so how is the front configuration, non-intercooled solution a good idea? The only thing you keep jumping up and down about is lag, but if the lengthy piping are not creating lag as you suggested, because the hp curves are not suggesting this scenario...where is the upside to a front mount non-intercooled turbo configuration at any level of boost? Are you suggesting that the EGT's for boost levels below 9#'s are not creating exhaust gases above or near 800* F? Hydro lock could possible be a real concern, except that I haven't heard anyone post anything regarding this situation...also the real concern wouldn't be hydrolock it would be cracking the turbine housing from water supercooling the turbo when its been run hard...if I had any concern that would be the biggest...Also you keep touting that I am saying this is the end all best configuration, thats far from what I am saying...I am saying that in comparison to your suggested "better" configuration, the STS setup without an intercooler would have an advantage...but I believe both kits should at least have a meth injection kit installed if an intercooler will not be utilized...thats what I was really going after by my original post when this whole discussion started...Also I am definitely not trying to beargumentative, I am trying to discuss something, so laughing out loud is a little childish in my opinion...
11-13-2007, 11:41 AM
#26
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location:
Posts: 860
RE: STS Turbo Kit
I'm going to give it a try...I'm not afraid to try new and different things, but I may end up going a different route later if I decide to make a lot more power, who knows...I won't really know the exact limitations of the setup until I get it on my car...but it should suffice for what I am trying to do in the near term...
11-13-2007, 12:52 PM
#28
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location:
Posts: 860
RE: STS Turbo Kit
As far as I know, from what I've seen in the installation it uses the factory oil pressure sender/sensor? I know it doesn't require punching a hole in the oil pan though...I should have the kit sometime this week and then I can quit speculating on everything and know for sure what all will be involved in the installation and then I should be able to look at any concerns I may have with the kit...
11-13-2007, 11:26 PM
#29
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location:
Posts: 2,090
RE: STS Turbo Kit
ORIGINAL: Black05StangGT
No i wasn't suggesting that hp/tq numbers suggested an inference for whether or not lag existed, my point was simply that the power numbers peaked in the same area of the curves asother kits that I have looked at, so spool up came in around the 3200 to 3800 rpm range depending on the turbo sizing...I mean the only way to completely prove what you are saying is to examine the heat register from the turbo, that would be the only way to tell ifits working harder as you suggested...but that can be done by looking at the IAT's...if the turbo is working harder then IAT's should increase to suggest such a situation, which in turn would make less power...regardless the dyno charts don't suggest the lag you are talking about because the spool up and peak power are inline with theother kits dyno graphs...also I'd really like you to find me an example of someone running a turbo in the front of their without an intercooler and is running 9#'s of boost and is actually making the power that 9#'s of boost should be making? You run that setup for any length of time and the turbo will fail, show me someone reliably running that kind of setup...front mount turbo with intercooler, best way to go, I agree, running a turbo in a front configuration without an intercooler, bad way to go, running a turbo remote mount compared to a front mount with no intercooler, better way to go than the aforementioned configuration...I would really like for you to show me what the IAT's are at 9#'s on a front mounted turbo with no intercooler? I have yet to see you provide any imperical evidence to back up anything you are saying...if you look at the STS website and other turbo kit's manufacturers websites their hp curves are inline with each other...it almost sounds like you are basing your claims of 9#'s as being a magic number because thats what Powerdyne and Vortech suggest you stay under with their front configuration superchargers without intercoolers...Which is completely different than a front mount turbo configuration...exahust gasses can reach temperatures of more than 800 degrees, which through heatconduction will cause the IAT to rise especially if you run the car longer...super cooling the turbo itself wouldn't be smart unless you want to crack the housing...so how is the front configuration, non-intercooled solution a good idea? The only thing you keep jumping up and down about is lag, but if the lengthy piping are not creating lag as you suggested, because the hp curves are not suggesting this scenario...where is the upside to a front mount non-intercooled turbo configuration at any level of boost? Are you suggesting that the EGT's for boost levels below 9#'s are not creating exhaust gases above or near 800* F? Hydro lock could possible be a real concern, except that I haven't heard anyone post anything regarding this situation...also the real concern wouldn't be hydrolock it would be cracking the turbine housing from water supercooling the turbo when its been run hard...if I had any concern that would be the biggest...Also you keep touting that I am saying this is the end all best configuration, thats far from what I am saying...I am saying that in comparison to your suggested "better" configuration, the STS setup without an intercooler would have an advantage...but I believe both kits should at least have a meth injection kit installed if an intercooler will not be utilized...thats what I was really going after by my original post when this whole discussion started...Also I am definitely not trying to beargumentative, I am trying to discuss something, so laughing out loud is a little childish in my opinion...
No i wasn't suggesting that hp/tq numbers suggested an inference for whether or not lag existed, my point was simply that the power numbers peaked in the same area of the curves asother kits that I have looked at, so spool up came in around the 3200 to 3800 rpm range depending on the turbo sizing...I mean the only way to completely prove what you are saying is to examine the heat register from the turbo, that would be the only way to tell ifits working harder as you suggested...but that can be done by looking at the IAT's...if the turbo is working harder then IAT's should increase to suggest such a situation, which in turn would make less power...regardless the dyno charts don't suggest the lag you are talking about because the spool up and peak power are inline with theother kits dyno graphs...also I'd really like you to find me an example of someone running a turbo in the front of their without an intercooler and is running 9#'s of boost and is actually making the power that 9#'s of boost should be making? You run that setup for any length of time and the turbo will fail, show me someone reliably running that kind of setup...front mount turbo with intercooler, best way to go, I agree, running a turbo in a front configuration without an intercooler, bad way to go, running a turbo remote mount compared to a front mount with no intercooler, better way to go than the aforementioned configuration...I would really like for you to show me what the IAT's are at 9#'s on a front mounted turbo with no intercooler? I have yet to see you provide any imperical evidence to back up anything you are saying...if you look at the STS website and other turbo kit's manufacturers websites their hp curves are inline with each other...it almost sounds like you are basing your claims of 9#'s as being a magic number because thats what Powerdyne and Vortech suggest you stay under with their front configuration superchargers without intercoolers...Which is completely different than a front mount turbo configuration...exahust gasses can reach temperatures of more than 800 degrees, which through heatconduction will cause the IAT to rise especially if you run the car longer...super cooling the turbo itself wouldn't be smart unless you want to crack the housing...so how is the front configuration, non-intercooled solution a good idea? The only thing you keep jumping up and down about is lag, but if the lengthy piping are not creating lag as you suggested, because the hp curves are not suggesting this scenario...where is the upside to a front mount non-intercooled turbo configuration at any level of boost? Are you suggesting that the EGT's for boost levels below 9#'s are not creating exhaust gases above or near 800* F? Hydro lock could possible be a real concern, except that I haven't heard anyone post anything regarding this situation...also the real concern wouldn't be hydrolock it would be cracking the turbine housing from water supercooling the turbo when its been run hard...if I had any concern that would be the biggest...Also you keep touting that I am saying this is the end all best configuration, thats far from what I am saying...I am saying that in comparison to your suggested "better" configuration, the STS setup without an intercooler would have an advantage...but I believe both kits should at least have a meth injection kit installed if an intercooler will not be utilized...thats what I was really going after by my original post when this whole discussion started...Also I am definitely not trying to beargumentative, I am trying to discuss something, so laughing out loud is a little childish in my opinion...
Andrew
11-14-2007, 05:13 AM
#30
5th Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Redding, CA
Posts: 4,552
RE: STS Turbo Kit
From someone with the STS kit, I can chime in on "lag" from the kit. You can't say lag is non-existant on a turbo system because you can never get rid of it. You can reducelag with proper sizing of turbos, reducing the length of piping from the motor to the turbo, and by keeping the exhaust gases as hot as possible, which keeps them moving faster, to get the turbo to spool faster. IfI had to estimate how long it took for the turbo to spool, it's so fast it's hard to tell. I would have toput it somewhere between the power band of a twin screw and a centri blower. I haven't been in a twin screw powered car,but I will take it at everyone's word how fast the power comes on. The centri's are ok.
As far as for size of piping. The most important thing, with the air moving through the exhaust pipe, is the velocity it travels at for turbo spooling. The larger it gets the slower the exhaust gases and the less back pressure you get. This isn't always the case but they way they have it set up, it works great. Now smaller isn't always bad, but bigger isn't always better. Turbosneed back pressure to perform properly. The STS kit attempts to give the best of both worlds. They keep exhaust gases moving at a rapid pace by ceramic coating all of the piping, keeping heat in the exhaust portions and heat out of the intake air including the piping in the engine bay. Heated air continues to expand which causes it to move faster and faster down the exhaust piping.
My kit is the single and the 2800 rpm range I saw earlier,that's dead on for when the power just begins to scream. Twin obviuosly would be better than a single, but not always within the means of most of us.
Before making accusations of the lag in the kit or guessing what it does, talk to the owner that have the kits and see what they say. I have ridden in a single kit with STS that later was turned into a twin and also my car. I couldn't tell the difference between the single and twin except for being alot louder.
Compare the power graphs of some other turbo kits and see the differences. From the ones I've seen, the power comes on within a few hundred RPM's on all the turbo kits.
Having the trubo as close to the engine as possible is obviously the best case scenario. But just because something is different, doesn't mean it's wrong or bad.
As far as for size of piping. The most important thing, with the air moving through the exhaust pipe, is the velocity it travels at for turbo spooling. The larger it gets the slower the exhaust gases and the less back pressure you get. This isn't always the case but they way they have it set up, it works great. Now smaller isn't always bad, but bigger isn't always better. Turbosneed back pressure to perform properly. The STS kit attempts to give the best of both worlds. They keep exhaust gases moving at a rapid pace by ceramic coating all of the piping, keeping heat in the exhaust portions and heat out of the intake air including the piping in the engine bay. Heated air continues to expand which causes it to move faster and faster down the exhaust piping.
My kit is the single and the 2800 rpm range I saw earlier,that's dead on for when the power just begins to scream. Twin obviuosly would be better than a single, but not always within the means of most of us.
Before making accusations of the lag in the kit or guessing what it does, talk to the owner that have the kits and see what they say. I have ridden in a single kit with STS that later was turned into a twin and also my car. I couldn't tell the difference between the single and twin except for being alot louder.
Compare the power graphs of some other turbo kits and see the differences. From the ones I've seen, the power comes on within a few hundred RPM's on all the turbo kits.
Having the trubo as close to the engine as possible is obviously the best case scenario. But just because something is different, doesn't mean it's wrong or bad.