when comparing the 2 graphs

the supra is a smaller motor, yet it spools to peak tq at 65% of its redline.

the much larger (and therefore should spool quicker) LS1 spools to peak tq at 69% of its redline.


so basically, the ls1 is slightly laggier than the supra, even though it has practically double the displacement.

 

but the ls1 graph what turbo is he using? could be a bigger turbo being used which would cause the lag. of the few guys running the sts kits i havent heard of lag on em.

 

they were both t67's..........the fact is, that ls1 LAGS for how big his motor is, compared to the puny supra motor.

 

not to make excuses or anything but in a later post the owner does say that the dyno wasnt loading the engine enough to build high boost properly, but like i said from a roll i dont think thered be much lag, off the line maybe. the owner seems to like it as do the sts kit owners who have posted results.

 

Given identical turbos and identical engines, the STS kit will almost always exhibit more lag than a traditional style turbo setup will.

 

yeah that it should. but it isnt as bad as it seems id think. well its not as bad as a supercharger.

 

Not to make excuses but that sounds like a RICER EXCUSE..

 

Would lag matter if you bring the boost up while waiting to launch with an auto...doubt it

 

yeah, but I'd be more concerned with how it would perform during street driving, and from a roll where you cant stall it up to build boost.

are comparing the lag of an STS turbo to that of a supercharger????

 

why is it a ricer excuse? im just pointing out what the owner stated??? seems like the only guys who have problems with this kit is on here.

on the street from a roll you shouldnt have much lag at all. the stall is used from a stop to load the engine which helps build boost. from a roll you should already have the engine loaded.

well we all know superchargers have lag, you dont hit peak boost till 4500-5000 rpm. im just comparing it to turbos in generall.

 

boost with a sc peaks at rpm peak.

 

first off, go read corky bell's book on turbocharging.... especially where it talks about boost threshold and the definition of the term "lag"

second.... on what evidence do you base the claim "on the street from a roll you shouldnt have much lag at all." You've been making alot of statements that seem to be nothing but pure opinion as far as the STS kit is concerned. Why wont the STS kit exhibit "lag", maybe that's a better question. The turbo must first pressurize how many feet of piping before boost reaches the engine? On a standard turbo design the answer is likely far less.

 

The 'lag' issue is a dead horse. It was repeatedly beat to death last year in the 20 page STS thread. The guys from Las Vegas had the best and final say when STS went there for the SEMA show. They said that the basic kit cars were hitting full boost in about .75 seconds on the street during 'normal' driving (ie just punching the throttle).

As for 'pressurizing' the pipe etc: do the math 350ci of engine doesn't have to do too many revolutions to move more than enough air to pressurize 8' of 3" pipe.

BBB

 

who cares that "those guys" whoever they are said................that dyno graph is hard evidence that its laggier than it should be on this size engine.

now, the lag might be a fair tradeoff for someone who just wants a kit thats very easy to install, so its not totally bad.

btw, since theyre only getting up to 5-7 psi, it should be even quicker to spool.
id hate to see the lag going to 12-15psi.

 

So your opinion and a dyno graph matter more than what goes on in the real world?

Welcome to 'Reality Internet', where the fantasies of the uninformed become the science of the web.

BBB