It usually isnt ...

 

One of my posts from a WHILE ago..... http://web.camaross.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359288

 

I'm #407 9 psi in 1st, 11psi in 2nd - 3rd, 13psi in 4th, i need a stronger spring.



Don't make me explain the affects of altitude and weather. I live in Las Vegas. It's 117 today.

 

Zombie, just wanted to jump in again, I agree with your above post. Its funny how so many others with slower cars love to discredit a faster setup. I have been traping 125+ with the base STS system with meth for a while now, but someone always has something to say. I simply haven't gone for ETs because the car is a steet car and haven't set it up for the track yet, but maybe soon with a rear I can let it loose with some stutter box action . Its all in the tune.

 

i'm in the same boat with the rear end. I keep my 60 fts at 2.0 because i have a stock rear end.

People will always discredit this setup not because it doesn't perform well, but because they don't like they way it looks. That and they just usually don't have a clue (especially about weather and track altitude).

 

Yep. I never said my car is fast, and I'm still within my right to tell people that STS is a sub-par turbo kit.

How many STS owners use the "I'm having tuning issues" excuse. I swear to God I've never heard more BS excuses out of a particular group. Oh my car isnt setup for this and that. Plenty of turbo cars out there (particularly 6 speed f bodies) arent "set up" for drag racing, yet still they manage to throw down awesome ETs with front mount kits, to go along with their awesome trap speeds. Seriously, put up or shut up. Why cant we ever just hear: "I ran my STS car at the track, here is what it ran..." Instead after that we hear how bad the tune is, how horrible the 60 foot was, how high the crosswind, how the track was uphill, how I only had spare tires on the back of the car so traction was horrible, etc etc. People have used the 1/4 mile as a performance benchmark for ages, but with STS owners it suddenly doesnt matter. Somehow I bet it mattered before they got the kit, and then after they run it at the track the story becomes "well, the point is that I'm happy with the car, and it runs good, and looks at those peak dyno numbers!" Kudos to F8LZ71 and the owners of the quick STS GTOs. They made it work... hopefully they can help the STS F body contingent.



Are you from Utah? You're not one of those people that thinks Utah has it bad are you? Utah doesnt have **** on Colorado for High DAs and ****ty conditions to run in... And while altitude does indeed even have an affect on turbo cars, it isnt going to be as pronounced on turbo cars.



* Extra heavy duty ultra wiz bang flame suit armed and ready *

 

5.0THIS why dont' you give it a rest already.
The sts kits work in trucks and work in GTO's and they obviously work in f bodies.
I have ridden in one and owned and been in lots of fast cars .They work well in fact. They are a bit too much money and require a few mods that I personally didn't want to make like cutting up my kenny brown subframe connector,giving up my b and b catback,ground clearance issues..etc. But THEY WORK!!
That sts car running 14 flat at 100 has something major wrong. Buddies sts was getting massive spark retard even at 5 psi. He even had lower compression forged pistons in his lt1 but we had to go to bigger fuel pump and msd 6 btm to get rid of it even on 94 octane. I think problem might have been his factory pump or maybe sts lied about it working fine on stock lt1.

But it rips now.no timeslips yet but it will easily blow my mildly modded 96z28 away and soon will try my fairly modded 99 trans am against it. And he will likely come down to track. But it isn't an optimized track car,stock suspension ,no stall and its auto and street tires not drag types. And it blows the tires off big time and will be lucky to get a good 60ft and without a stall not likley to come off the line very hard.
You have to optimize the car for good numbers ,turbo cars more so. They need the tuning,the octane ,a two step launch device in m6 or stall in an auto.They need the drag tires or suspension work. They need intercooler or water/alco injection so they don't get start getting knock retard when things heat up.

But you keep hammering on the fact these turbos suck so bad and you don't have one of course and mabye have never even rode in one or driven one like I have. I had my doubts being old school turbo guy but it works back there and the lag wasn't bad at all full in by 3000 or 3500 on stock sts turbo. And how can it not make power ,its there on the dyno ,the curves look pretty good mabye fall off at top with stock valve springs or stock type non optimized cam. And sure a front mount might be better ,still plan on front mount single or twin for my 99 taws6. But can't believe all the sts bashing.
Bash them for being overpriced since they were 3000 when they came out and now are 4000 retail .Thats valid.They should be more like 2000 to 2500 and for 4000 should come with pump,injectors,tuning,etc. But they darn things work!!

You have just heard from some cars that have the trap speeds to back it up.
Buddies car also was slow as heck at first and it was discovered his cat was super clogged up. Made a huge difference fixing just that.

5.0THIS why don't you change your sig and get off this sts bashing crusade you are on. I don't own one but I at least have kept an open mind and had the opportunity to ride in and drive one and you guys are absolute idiots if you keep persisting in saying the rear turbo don't work. I guarantee buddies lt1 at 5psi tuned reasonable will absolutely destroy your current car in your sig 5.0 THIS. And especially at altitude where our NA cars really slow down.
My local track is 1700 feet so I feel some of the altitude problems here and we get pathetic density air. The turbo and super and nitrous cars have a definite edge here.
And how can front mount put out more power if both turbos are same size used and both are putting similar airflow thru the engine then mabye the sts will spool up a bit slower than front mount but playing with a/r does help that and a bit slower spool can help not to blow tires off sometimes and be a good thing and you can usually downshift manual car or get bigger stall to help auto cars.

I think we will see quite a few great times out of the sts cars this season.And I will be willing to bet on that.

 

You remember those people I said who don't have a clue about weather and altitude.... you're one of them. Drive my turbo car from Las Vegas down to the Pacific coast highway and watch it magically make another 50 rwhp on the same day.

What really kills us in las vegas is the heat. Our density altitude today is, you ready for this??? 6400 feet. Denvers DA is 8800 today. Our real altitude is 2200, denvers is what? 5300?

We have it really bad, denver is worse though of course.

 

Not compared to a front mount with the same turbo.

Yeah, trap speeds is all we ever hear about. It's like a damn Supra forum in that respect. I've never said the STS cars lacked trap speed.


I've ridden in an STS LS1 car. I was not impressed. lag actually wasnt that bad, but the threshold was extremely high. Performance was lacking. Oddly enough it had monstrous PEAK dyno numbers, go figure....

You're always going to have a downside to messing with the exhaust housing on these cars. You cant go much bigger or you will increase the already too high boost threshold. If you start going smaller to lower your threshold and spool time, you lose top end flow.

I've been racing at this altitude for years. I know plenty about racing at altitude. And I'm not talking about taking my weekend fun car (my Z28) to the dragstrip every now and then.... Did you even read what I said above? I said that altitude does affect turbos, but it is a lesser affect than on an NA car (unless the turbo is maxed out before it comes to altitude)...

 

Yes there are trade offs with play with housings..you can get more top end or sacrifice some for spool at lower rpm..etc. You play with housings with front mounts too.

Not sure know what you mean by threshold.The sts car I was in spooled fine for street and came in at decent rpm and that was an auto with no stall converter ,3.23 gears. It was already enough for street tires. He needs nittos now for sure.

And not sure what you mean if the trap speeds are good then the power is there.Et depends on driving and traction.

Main reason I am not buying an sts is price.They are overpriced in my opinion.

 

High trap speeds doesnt necessarily mean the power is there. It depends on what you look at. Supras can trap very high mph, but if you look at a supra with a gigantic turbo, it has a very narrow power band, which contributes heavily to lackluster ETs and increased traction problems as the boost comes on so high in the rpm band. I believe Jose already showed some dyno graph comparisons that showed that an LS1 motor with an STS with x turbo spools almost identically the to the same turbo on a 3 liter supra motor. So the kit performs as if the motor was effectivly half the displacement with a front mount setup.

FWIW, the LS1 car I rode in was a 3.23 auto car.

 

Are you for real?? I haven't looked at the dyno graphs for a Supra, but even if that was true, just because the boost characteristics of the turbo's are the same, that doesn't mean the power is. The way you worded that, it sounds like you are saying the STS kit actually reduces the power the LS1 makes...which is absurd.

 

I dont know if you missed my point or what.. Two dyno graphs were posted. One motor was an LS1, one was a supra 3 liter motor. They both used the same turbo headunit. The dyno curves were almost identical, as far as when they created boost, and how wide the powerband was. So the STS LS1 (at 5.7 liters displacement) was spinning up the turbo no more effectivly or quickly than a 3 liter supra motor. Just speaks to design efficiency.