STS Turbo in rear?

What is the verdict on the turbo.

STSTURBO>COM

:shock: do a search :think: ;)

There is no verdict on the STS, only lots of opinions. Do a search, theres already tons of info on here to help you form your own opinion.

I'm having a sts turbo installed at the moment. I will let you know what I think about it - Mike

We are puttin one on my buddys LS1 now also. Should be done in the week. Ill post results.

STS kits are pretty good. I've done a couple (Lt1's, LS1's, GTO's, Denali's, etc.) and they're quite the bang for the buck! A '02 firehawk with a T76 upgrade, boost controller and FMIC put out 490RWHP (at just 6.5psi) before losing fuel at the top ... fuel pump upgraded but not redynoed yet. Lots of sceptics but I'm sold!

All the sceptics say "wow, wit hthe turbo that far back, the lag is insane:"

oh really?

put your hand on one end of a garden hose and blow into the other. you feel any hesitation in your breath coming out?

didnt think so.

put your hand on one end of a garden hose and blow into the other. you feel any hesitation in your breath coming out?.

:lol: riiiiiiiiiight..... :lol:

Not to start a war, but I don't see too may f-body STS cars out there putting down the power of a front mount. There is no comparing a kit like the PTK Gen 2 to some rear mount STS. Apples and Oranges. Im not saying STS sucks,blah blah, just that the argument that a rear mount even approaches the efficiency and power of a front mount isn't even worth discussing. STS kits are good in their own right.

put your hand on one end of a garden hose and blow into the other. you feel any hesitation in your breath coming out?



That depends on the diameter and length of the hose.

Seriously, what aids in spooling of a turbo is the rapidly expanding gasses exiting the head. When the turbo is placed in the rear, the gases are condensing somewhat and the volume is reduced. The turbo will be a hair slower in ramping up to boost. Combine that with the compressor side having to fill a longer intake tube before pressure is realized. In any case, it's not going to matter as much with a V8 as it would with a smaller displacement motor that moves less air. All this happens in fractions of a second, so in reality lag isn't bad. Besides, doubtful that you want full boost right away. It's hard getting traction with a N/A car, let alone under boost.

Oh geez not this discussion again....lol. Yes lag is alot more with bigger units.... period. We have already done back to back testing with front and rear mount turbo. This has been discussed to many times to count. Do a search and you will see.

Well, i am well versed in dealing with turbo cars, but this will be my first turbo v8, and my first rear mount kit. I know what to expect from lag from regular front mount turbo cars, so ill compare it to lag from this STS kit when the car is running again.

Local guy got one on his lt1. He made mistake of buying electronic boost controller and put thru 12psi on stock pistons..took out two ringlands on them and rebuilt motor now with forged pistons,about a point lower compression than stock. Running 5 psi now. The car seems to still have fairly high knock on my scantool and recommended he upgrade right away to bigger pump,bigger injectors,timing retard system ,colder plugs,tuning. He plans on running 10 to 12psi.

I have lots of experience with turbo stuff,own two dsms one of which was highly modded and the new one shortly will be . I have had factory yamaha turbo motorcycles.

I was also skeptical about the sts at first but after a ride and drive have changed my mind. The sts works quite well. Is pretty easy to install and lag was very minimal on the basic turbo. I think it comes on at about 2500 and is full in by 3000 or 3500.Didn't pay tons of attention to that but it hits decent even at 5psi when it comes onlline. It sounds fantastic I think. I like it keeps the engine bay clutter free. I was almost ready to plunk down my money for my 99 trans am for an sts but think the price is a bit too much. It was 3000 when it came out and is now 4000 retail. About a thousand or more too high if you ask me. And you still need to buy extra stuff to really get it to shine.
Meth injection or intercooler ,whatever.

I still say those of you like 5.0 that say the sts is junk either haven't ridden in one or driven one like I have. They dyno decent and some sts cars and trucks are starting to turn some decent times. They do work and like I said quite well. I still believe a front mount is slightly better and am most likely going that route on my 99 ta but I would not hesitate to buy and sts used for a good price. New well up to you but front mounts are not cheap either.

Anyway you guys that are so down on this turbo need to seriously give it a rest. Go ride or drive a car with one actually on it. You might be surprised. And all your theory about heat and lag and all that dont' mean a hill of beans when a sts car smokes your Na or supercharged car. I expect some great track times out of some of these sts cars.The sts gto have hit 10s,sts trucks have gone pretty quick too.

I didn't buy one so far on my 99 for reasons of price,it was overpriced.I didn't want to give up my b and b catback and cut off my kenny brown double diamond subframe connnector on drivers side and didn't like the single tailpipe much either . But still might say heck with it if one came up used at the right price.

Local guy got one on his lt1. He made mistake of buying electronic boost controller and put thru 12psi on stock pistons..took out two ringlands on them and rebuilt motor now with forged pistons,about a point lower compression than stock. Running 5 psi now. The car seems to still have fairly high knock on my scantool and recommended he upgrade right away to bigger pump,bigger injectors,timing retard system ,colder plugs,tuning. He plans on running 10 to 12psi.

I have lots of experience with turbo stuff,own two dsms one of which was highly modded and the new one shortly will be . I have had factory yamaha turbo motorcycles.

I was also skeptical about the sts at first but after a ride and drive have changed my mind. The sts works quite well. Is pretty easy to install and lag was very minimal on the basic turbo. I think it comes on at about 2500 and is full in by 3000 or 3500.Didn't pay tons of attention to that but it hits decent even at 5psi when it comes onlline. It sounds fantastic I think. I like it keeps the engine bay clutter free. I was almost ready to plunk down my money for my 99 trans am for an sts but think the price is a bit too much. It was 3000 when it came out and is now 4000 retail. About a thousand or more too high if you ask me. And you still need to buy extra stuff to really get it to shine.
Meth injection or intercooler ,whatever.

I still say those of you like 5.0 that say the sts is junk either haven't ridden in one or driven one like I have. They dyno decent and some sts cars and trucks are starting to turn some decent times. They do work and like I said quite well. I still believe a front mount is slightly better and am most likely going that route on my 99 ta but I would not hesitate to buy and sts used for a good price. New well up to you but front mounts are not cheap either.

Anyway you guys that are so down on this turbo need to seriously give it a rest. Go ride or drive a car with one actually on it. You might be surprised. And all your theory about heat and lag and all that dont' mean a hill of beans when a sts car smokes your Na or supercharged car. I expect some great track times out of some of these sts cars.The sts gto have hit 10s,sts trucks have gone pretty quick too.

I didn't buy one so far on my 99 for reasons of price,it was overpriced.I didn't want to give up my b and b catback and cut off my kenny brown double diamond subframe connnector on drivers side and didn't like the single tailpipe much either . But still might say heck with it if one came up used at the right price.

80TA Does make a point here. You cannot judge these STS systems without actaully driving or getting a ride in one. These rear mounted turbo systems was even voted BEST performance product of the year at the SEMA show. Why would these systems be voted BEST performance product if they were junk???????? I think these turbo systems look wicked in the rear. Once I get my 12 bolt and can run slicks. I will challenge any front mounted turbo system producing around the same amount of power - Mike

Local guy got one on his lt1. He made mistake of buying electronic boost controller and put thru 12psi on stock pistons..took out two ringlands on them and rebuilt motor now with forged pistons,about a point lower compression than stock. Running 5 psi now. The car seems to still have fairly high knock on my scantool and recommended he upgrade right away to bigger pump,bigger injectors,timing retard system ,colder plugs,tuning. He plans on running 10 to 12psi.

I have lots of experience with turbo stuff,own two dsms one of which was highly modded and the new one shortly will be . I have had factory yamaha turbo motorcycles.

I was also skeptical about the sts at first but after a ride and drive have changed my mind. The sts works quite well. Is pretty easy to install and lag was very minimal on the basic turbo. I think it comes on at about 2500 and is full in by 3000 or 3500.Didn't pay tons of attention to that but it hits decent even at 5psi when it comes onlline. It sounds fantastic I think. I like it keeps the engine bay clutter free. I was almost ready to plunk down my money for my 99 trans am for an sts but think the price is a bit too much. It was 3000 when it came out and is now 4000 retail. About a thousand or more too high if you ask me. And you still need to buy extra stuff to really get it to shine.
Meth injection or intercooler ,whatever.

I still say those of you like 5.0 that say the sts is junk either haven't ridden in one or driven one like I have. They dyno decent and some sts cars and trucks are starting to turn some decent times. They do work and like I said quite well. I still believe a front mount is slightly better and am most likely going that route on my 99 ta but I would not hesitate to buy and sts used for a good price. New well up to you but front mounts are not cheap either.

Anyway you guys that are so down on this turbo need to seriously give it a rest. Go ride or drive a car with one actually on it. You might be surprised. And all your theory about heat and lag and all that dont' mean a hill of beans when a sts car smokes your Na or supercharged car. I expect some great track times out of some of these sts cars.The sts gto have hit 10s,sts trucks have gone pretty quick too.

I didn't buy one so far on my 99 for reasons of price,it was overpriced.I didn't want to give up my b and b catback and cut off my kenny brown double diamond subframe connnector on drivers side and didn't like the single tailpipe much either . But still might say heck with it if one came up used at the right price.

80TA Does make a point here. You cannot judge these STS systems without actaully driving or getting a ride in one. These rear mounted turbo systems were even voted BEST performance product of the year at the SEMA show. Why would these systems be voted BEST performance product of the year if they were junk??????? I think these turbo systems look wicked in the rear. Once I get my 12 bolt and can run a type of drag radial I will challenge any front mounted turbo system producing around the same amount of power - Mike

Yep i love the kit cost the same as a supercharger kit so im going to get one, and pluss all i here is bad things about superchargers all the mantance and sounds like they are always braking and you never here of people ripping off their turbos to have them serviced.

I have ridden in them, driven in them and I come from the home of STS and talked to Rick and came down to his shop to check it out when it was on the first and only (at the time) Camaro.

I'm not impressed with their performance in Fbody's but a couple of the GTO's are getting good times as well as a few trucks. None of the STS cars I have watched race have performed near what a similar HP N/A, S/C or nitrous car will. For instance a local LS1 just put down 530+ HP and at the track last weekend ran a best of 14.X @ 102. Now this is a 4000+lb car but something just isn't adding up. His is just the latest in a series of STS cars I have personally seen not nearly live up to the dyno #'s they put down.

But to each his own....whoever wants to spend their money on their car and is satisfied with the product can do what they want. More power to them.....I just wouldn't spend the money on that turbo setup as there are better setups out there IMO. But of course it always makes me feel good when my little H/C LT1 beats an STS turbo LT1 on the freeway when he's running 12psi :D

And with that I'll probably wait another three months before posting in another beat dead horse STS thread.

no friggin way did a car that put down 530hp to the wheels only trapped 102. I could see the 14.x, if the driver sucked, or let off the gas or whatever. Going balls out though, that car either had a problem, or the driver let off for some other reason.

What was the elevation of the track that the 530 RWHP car ran a 14. something @ 102?
I have quite a bit less rwhp than that and I trap 116-117 @ 1500 ft.

Ghost, the area under the curve of the STS systems is what lacks, that is part of the reason for their lack luster performance.

JZ

For instance a local LS1 just put down 530+ HP and at the track last weekend ran a best of 14.X @ 102. Now this is a 4000+lb car but something just isn't adding up.

:lol: That was hilarious! Ever think maybe something is wrong with the car or he let off for some reason :think:

Even the haters of the sts system should realize that 102mph is funny.

"add an sts kit to your LT1 and you'll be as slow as stock!".........rrrrrright.

I have ridden in them, driven in them and I come from the home of STS and talked to Rick and came down to his shop to check it out when it was on the first and only (at the time) Camaro.

I'm not impressed with their performance in Fbody's but a couple of the GTO's are getting good times as well as a few trucks. None of the STS cars I have watched race have performed near what a similar HP N/A, S/C or nitrous car will. For instance a local LS1 just put down 530+ HP and at the track last weekend ran a best of 14.X @ 102. Now this is a 4000+lb car but something just isn't adding up. His is just the latest in a series of STS cars I have personally seen not nearly live up to the dyno #'s they put down.

But to each his own....whoever wants to spend their money on their car and is satisfied with the product can do what they want. More power to them.....I just wouldn't spend the money on that turbo setup as there are better setups out there IMO. But of course it always makes me feel good when my little H/C LT1 beats an STS turbo LT1 on the freeway when he's running 12psi :D

And with that I'll probably wait another three months before posting in another beat dead horse STS thread.


It also turns out the driver of that car was a 16 year old kid that just got his lisence.

:lol: That was hilarious! Ever think maybe something is wrong with the car or he let off for some reason :think:

Even the haters of the sts system should realize that 102mph is funny.

"add an sts kit to your LT1 and you'll be as slow as stock!".........rrrrrright.

It is funny for an LT1, but even funnier that he's talking about an LS1!!

I trapped 116 at 8 psi, which should be somewhere in the 120's. But I am still tuning, so to say that an LS1 trapped 102 is just ridiculous, and even more ridiculous to think it has anything to do with the kit.

Hey, i heard if you put an STS kit on, AND spray a 50 dry shot to innercool the charge, youll trap at 98mph!



:rolleyes:

Here it is from the driver for those of you who just can't fathom an STS car not performing up to its dyno:

"Well not as good as I was looking for. Tongue

Here is one Time slip the others won't scan.

The 1st Run was going so so, until I grabed 5th instead of 3rd and realised I left the traction control on. Smoked the crap out of the Clutch. Lame Old Driver anyway. Sad The 2nd Run I over staged backed up and got the lights. Then I was slow getting it up to 3,000 rps when the tree started. I bogged bad out of the hole and the gear change to 3rd went badly again.

1st Run: RT...1.227, 60'...2.227, 330...5.979, 1/8...9.039, MPH...77.50, 1000...11.817, 1/4...14.185, MPH...94.49

2nd Run: RT....0.861, 60'...2.838, 330...7.331, 1/8...10.58, MPH...72.81, 1000...13.637, 1/4...16.305, MPH...86.83

3rd Run: RT...0.484, 60'...2.365, 330...6.272, 1/8...9.389, MPH...78.56, 1000...12.017, 1/4...14.201, MPH...102.92"

Not 16, he's in his 40's. And I agree something isn't right with the car but as I said, I have yet to see an STS car perform anything near it's dyno #'s.

WS Sick....our DA is usually between 7-11K. Actual elevation is 4400ft and stock LS1's usually run mid 14's.

Jose....which is exactly why I'm going with a PTK :D

I'm not bringing this up to start more STS drama or to hate on his car. He has a couple of B1C's that are completely done as the Utah Highway Patrol Camaro's are and were done which brings him near or over the 4Klb mark.

He's a nice guy and I love all of his cars, the point of my post was that I am a person who has ridden in and driven STS cars and if I would have dumped the money, I would have had the second ever Camaro STS kit on my car. Unfortunately I found Rick to come across like a used car salesman and I didn't care for his product.

More power to the people (GTO) who are able to make the STS perform well. Unfortunately there are more viable options for the same price or less that will outperform a compareable STS setup. It's a great product for those who are in its target market, unfortunately I'm not one of those and more than one here in the home of the almightly STS are looking to sell their kits because they didn't meet their expectations.

Do what you want to do to your own car....more power to you, just responding to the person who said that the "haters" have never driven in or driven an STS car.

One other thing in defense of the driver....I believe this was his first time down the track with the new setup. Not the first time ever down the track, just the first after the STS install.

Here it is from the driver for those of you who just can't fathom an STS car not performing up to its dyno:

"Well not as good as I was looking for. Tongue

Here is one Time slip the others won't scan.

The 1st Run was going so so, until I grabed 5th instead of 3rd and realised I left the traction control on. Smoked the crap out of the Clutch. Lame Old Driver anyway. Sad The 2nd Run I over staged backed up and got the lights. Then I was slow getting it up to 3,000 rps when the tree started. I bogged bad out of the hole and the gear change to 3rd went badly again.

1st Run: RT...1.227, 60'...2.227, 330...5.979, 1/8...9.039, MPH...77.50, 1000...11.817, 1/4...14.185, MPH...94.49

2nd Run: RT....0.861, 60'...2.838, 330...7.331, 1/8...10.58, MPH...72.81, 1000...13.637, 1/4...16.305, MPH...86.83

3rd Run: RT...0.484, 60'...2.365, 330...6.272, 1/8...9.389, MPH...78.56, 1000...12.017, 1/4...14.201, MPH...102.92"

Not 16, he's in his 40's. And I agree something isn't right with the car but as I said, I have yet to see an STS car perform anything near it's dyno #'s.

WS Sick....our DA is usually between 7-11K. Actual elevation is 4400ft and stock LS1's usually run mid 14's.

Jose....which is exactly why I'm going with a PTK :D

I'm not bringing this up to start more STS drama or to hate on his car. He has a couple of B1C's that are completely done as the Utah Highway Patrol Camaro's are and were done which brings him near or over the 4Klb mark.

He's a nice guy and I love all of his cars, the point of my post was that I am a person who has ridden in and driven STS cars and if I would have dumped the money, I would have had the second ever Camaro STS kit on my car. Unfortunately I found Rick to come across like a used car salesman and I didn't care for his product.

More power to the people (GTO) who are able to make the STS perform well. Unfortunately there are more viable options for the same price or less that will outperform a compareable STS setup. It's a great product for those who are in its target market, unfortunately I'm not one of those and more than one here in the home of the almightly STS are looking to sell their kits because they didn't meet their expectations.

Do what you want to do to your own car....more power to you, just responding to the person who said that the "haters" have never driven in or driven an STS car.

INB4REALQUICKSAYSITSALLBULL**** ;)


If I had posted that I'd get flamed so hard my PC would be smoking :eek: :D

the driver sucked
Ever think maybe something is wrong with the car
he let off for some reason
It also turns out the driver of that car was a 16 year old kid that just got his lisence.
Jeeesh, can you guys come up with any more excuses. Sound like a bunch of ricers. The point is, for as many people who own STS turbos and speak how great they are. NOBODY can produce any timeslips. Only nutswinging on one person who USED to own one. When some times finally do get posted the excuses start flowing..

Hey, i heard if you put an STS kit on, AND spray a 50 dry shot to innercool the charge, youll trap at 98mph!
Naa, youd gain about 5mph from the nitrous :D

I trapped 116 at 8 psi, which should be somewhere in the 120's.
:think: What the hell is that supposed to mean??
I trapped 130 at 12 psi, which should be somewhere in the 140's :bs:

Jeeesh, can you guys come up with any more excuses. Sound like a bunch of ricers. The point is, for as many people who own STS turbos and speak how great they are. NOBODY can produce any timeslips. Only nutswinging on one person who USED to own one. When some times finally do get posted the excuses start flowing..


Naa, youd gain about 5mph from the nitrous :D


:think: What the hell is that supposed to mean??
I trapped 130 at 12 psi, which should be somewhere in the 140's :bs:
:lol: :lol: :Owned:

Here it is from the driver for those of you who just can't fathom an STS car not performing up to its dyno:

"Well not as good as I was looking for. Tongue

Here is one Time slip the others won't scan.

The 1st Run was going so so, until I grabed 5th instead of 3rd and realised I left the traction control on. Smoked the crap out of the Clutch. Lame Old Driver anyway. Sad The 2nd Run I over staged backed up and got the lights. Then I was slow getting it up to 3,000 rps when the tree started. I bogged bad out of the hole and the gear change to 3rd went badly again.

1st Run: RT...1.227, 60'...2.227, 330...5.979, 1/8...9.039, MPH...77.50, 1000...11.817, 1/4...14.185, MPH...94.49

2nd Run: RT....0.861, 60'...2.838, 330...7.331, 1/8...10.58, MPH...72.81, 1000...13.637, 1/4...16.305, MPH...86.83

3rd Run: RT...0.484, 60'...2.365, 330...6.272, 1/8...9.389, MPH...78.56, 1000...12.017, 1/4...14.201, MPH...102.92"

Not 16, he's in his 40's. And I agree something isn't right with the car but as I said, I have yet to see an STS car perform anything near it's dyno #'s.

WS Sick....our DA is usually between 7-11K. Actual elevation is 4400ft and stock LS1's usually run mid 14's.

Jose....which is exactly why I'm going with a PTK :D

I'm not bringing this up to start more STS drama or to hate on his car. He has a couple of B1C's that are completely done as the Utah Highway Patrol Camaro's are and were done which brings him near or over the 4Klb mark.

He's a nice guy and I love all of his cars, the point of my post was that I am a person who has ridden in and driven STS cars and if I would have dumped the money, I would have had the second ever Camaro STS kit on my car. Unfortunately I found Rick to come across like a used car salesman and I didn't care for his product.

More power to the people (GTO) who are able to make the STS perform well. Unfortunately there are more viable options for the same price or less that will outperform a compareable STS setup. It's a great product for those who are in its target market, unfortunately I'm not one of those and more than one here in the home of the almightly STS are looking to sell their kits because they didn't meet their expectations.

Do what you want to do to your own car....more power to you, just responding to the person who said that the "haters" have never driven in or driven an STS car.

Kind of funny the driver left traction control and missed his thrid gear shift and put it in 5th gear, yet that was his best run. He got his best ET in that run. The third run he gained 8.5mph over the first, but was still .1 slower. Maybe that should tell you something...

I guess since thast the only one you saw, you'll base your opinions on it. Thats fine for you...

5.0this - any time slips yet for those dyno numbers??


CJ - looks like alot of us were right about the driver. If you dont get it, try rereading ghost's post. Common sense goes along way...

:think: What the hell is that supposed to mean??
I trapped 130 at 12 psi, which should be somewhere in the 140's :bs:

Easy bro...my point was that, with issues, my otherwise stock LS1 is trapping 116. The fact that another stock LS1 with this kit trapping 102 is not normal. It would be nice if you would ask for clarification before jumping on someone's case.

Besides, I think it's gotten to the point where no matter what an STS kit does performance wise, the haters will continue to hate, and the supporters will continue to support. What a lot of people fail to mention is that other types of setups have years and years of trial and error before they started to produce solid results. The STS kit is still relatively new, and it takes time for people to figure this stuff out. It doesn't happen over night. Time will tell.

I guess since thast the only one you saw, you'll base your opinions on it. Thats fine for you...

CJ - looks like alot of us were right about the driver. If you dont get it, try rereading ghost's post. Common sense goes along way...

Where do you figure this is the only one I've seen. Might want to read my first post again....I have ridden in and driven a few STS cars.

I've also worked on the Safety Crew at the local track and at National events with Safety Safari since 99 so I've seen just about every STS car that has hit the track here in Utah as well as having raced a few of them myself. And being Utah is the home of STS, we get quite a few at the track.

You're right....common sense goes a long way might want to read everything someone has to say but if the last post was the only post of mine you read in this thread, you'll base your opinions on it....that's fine for you.

His car isn't the first STS car I've seen run 14's here nor, I think, will it be the last.

Easy bro...my point was that, with issues, my otherwise stock LS1 is trapping 116. The fact that another stock LS1 with this kit trapping 102 is not normal. It would be nice if you would ask for clarification before jumping on someone's case.

Besides, I think it's gotten to the point where no matter what an STS kit does performance wise, the haters will continue to hate, and the supporters will continue to support. What a lot of people fail to mention is that other types of setups have years and years of trial and error before they started to produce solid results. The STS kit is still relatively new, and it takes time for people to figure this stuff out. It doesn't happen over night. Time will tell.

Stock LS1's won't break 100mph at our altitude. Usually around 96-98.

It has also gotten to the point that no matter how many instances of STS not performing up to their dyno's you'll have the swingers continue to swing.

As I said before, there are a few GTO's out there running great numbers as well as some trucks but I have yet to see an even marginal percentage of the STS Fbody's run near what they should considering the dyno numbers.

It's a great kit for the beginning enthusiast and for those who are willing to put quite a bit of money into their setups to have an "outside the box" idea perform well.

To each his own...I won't hate on people who use this kit. I just don't care for the kit.

5.0this - any time slips yet for those dyno numbers??
.

Not sure why you care, but the car will hot lap 13.1s at 106-107 at sea level. Did that last year.

Not sure why you care, but the car will hot lap 13.1s at 106-107 at sea level. Did that last year.

Because in every post about sts you ask what they run. I figure if your that crazy about track numbers, put yours in your sig...

Stock LS1's won't break 100mph at our altitude. Usually around 96-98.

It has also gotten to the point that no matter how many instances of STS not performing up to their dyno's you'll have the swingers continue to swing.

As I said before, there are a few GTO's out there running great numbers as well as some trucks but I have yet to see an even marginal percentage of the STS Fbody's run near what they should considering the dyno numbers.

It's a great kit for the beginning enthusiast and for those who are willing to put quite a bit of money into their setups to have an "outside the box" idea perform well.

To each his own...I won't hate on people who use this kit. I just don't care for the kit.

If you've seen a lot of these cars at the track, what is the normal trap speeds and times that you are seeing? Instead of focusing on one instance where there was some obvious issues, what is the norm at your elevation?

I know what causes most of the STS cars to not perform correctly, a tune thats not optimal.

I've seen a gain of 3 mph at the track by simply getting the tune where it needed to be and it wasn't that far off to begin with! Most tuners just don't know what they are doing when it comes to a turbo car. They can be tricky beasts to get tuned correctly.

My personal car is a 2000 Camaro SS. 224/224/112 cam, slp LT's, ls6 intake, T67 p-trim .81 a/r housing, front mount intercooler, 255HP walbro, mototron 60's, SMC progressive alcohol kit. STOCK MOTOR

My car made 430 rwhp on 6.5 psi before I intercooled it. After the intercooler it now makes 510 on 10 psi. When I run it at the track I put 100 octane in it for safety and turn the boost up to 13-14 psi (only hits 10-12 psi in 1st - 3rd due to the wastegate spring being to weak, i need a stronger one). I would guess that at 13 psi my car is making around 550 rwhp SAE corrected. I say that because when I dyno'd 510 on 10 psi my uncorrected numbers were 460 rwhp.

I live in las vegas, our track is 2200' and our temps get outrageous. I'm not a very good driver when it comes to launching the car either. My best time is an 11.730 @ 124.76 [2.04 60'] on 13 psi in 90 degree temps. My best MPH run was an 11.8 @ 126.1 I have around 20 slips showing my car trapping 120-126 mph and about 10 more showing 117+ traps. I'm definately not good at launching and don't really care to be right now since my rear end is stock. My 2.0 60's are keeping it alive.

I feel I should also add that my car has absolutely nothing removed from it, I even have the front sway bar still on, it's not some race car. It's a 100% street car (well I am rolling around on 17" et streets now so thats one tiny compromise). I run 6 psi on low boost and 10 psi on high boost, 91 octane using water/alky. I can do 11 psi in cooler weather with no alky too but keep it for safety now. With our daytime temps 115 I can still run 10 psi and see ZERO knock!

A lot of power can be found in the tune and it's usually all area under the curve. My 510 dyno run before I had the tune all good showed me making 500 + rwhp from 5000 rpms to 6500 rpms!

I want to take my car to a sea level track on a good night just so I can say it trapped 130 mph on the stock motor with a turbo kit that makes cars run slower.

I personally feel that most of the slow times out of these kits are due to tunes that aren't optimal and people who really are not drag racers. I personally am not a hardcore drag racer and I just go for fun and to see how changes i've made affect the car. I care more about the MPH than the ET unlike most drag racers.

The 60' in a stick shift turbo car really affects it's MPH and ET drastically. When I was running 2.2 60's I was running 12.3-12.8 @ 120-122 mph. My last 3 passes I decided to do a short burn outs and then I started running 11.7-11.9 @ 123-124 MPH. The .2 drop in 60 foot was worth about .5 seconds in et and 2-4 mph. All these runs were on the same night, no changes to the car.

Not every STS car is slow.

CJ - looks like alot of us were right about the driver. If you dont get it, try rereading ghost's post. Common sense goes along way...

So whats the excuse for the 3rd run. The one he gained 8.5mph to a whopping 102. I agree that there was something wrong because those track #s do not add up at all to a car that has 500+hp. Even if he spun off the line had a slow start missed a gear and was a poor driver it still should have ran better. The point im trying to get across is that for as many STS excuses ive heard some of these people can be getting out to the track and getting some decent runs.

Easy bro...my point was that, with issues, my otherwise stock LS1 is trapping 116. The fact that another stock LS1 with this kit trapping 102 is not normal.

I agree with you there, but that wasnt a stock LS1. It supposed to be a 530hp LS1. :eek:

So what did you mean by the "should be somewhere in the 120s" comment again. :D Just messin with ya, I know that theres a lot of small issues with FI cars. Ive lost almost 10mph at the track before just because my tune was a little off. Lucky for me nobody else off this board was there to see it and make fun of me.

I know what causes most of the STS cars to not perform correctly, a tune thats not optimal.

I've seen a gain of 3 mph at the track by simply getting the tune where it needed to be and it wasn't that far off to begin with! Most tuners just don't know what they are doing when it comes to a turbo car. They can be tricky beasts to get tuned correctly.

My personal car is a 2000 Camaro SS. 224/224/112 cam, slp LT's, ls6 intake, T67 p-trim .81 a/r housing, front mount intercooler, 255HP walbro, mototron 60's, SMC progressive alcohol kit. STOCK MOTOR

My car made 430 rwhp on 6.5 psi before I intercooled it. After the intercooler it now makes 510 on 10 psi. When I run it at the track I put 100 octane in it for safety and turn the boost up to 13-14 psi (only hits 10-12 psi in 1st - 3rd due to the wastegate spring being to weak, i need a stronger one). I would guess that at 13 psi my car is making around 550 rwhp SAE corrected. I say that because when I dyno'd 510 on 10 psi my uncorrected numbers were 460 rwhp.

I live in las vegas, our track is 2200' and our temps get outrageous. I'm not a very good driver when it comes to launching the car either. My best time is an 11.730 @ 124.76 [2.04 60'] on 13 psi in 90 degree temps. My best MPH run was an 11.8 @ 126.1 I have around 20 slips showing my car trapping 120-126 mph and about 10 more showing 117+ traps. I'm definately not good at launching and don't really care to be right now since my rear end is stock. My 2.0 60's are keeping it alive.

I feel I should also add that my car has absolutely nothing removed from it, I even have the front sway bar still on, it's not some race car. It's a 100% street car (well I am rolling around on 17" et streets now so thats one tiny compromise). I run 6 psi on low boost and 10 psi on high boost, 91 octane using water/alky. I can do 11 psi in cooler weather with no alky too but keep it for safety now. With our daytime temps 115 I can still run 10 psi and see ZERO knock!

A lot of power can be found in the tune and it's usually all area under the curve. My 510 dyno run before I had the tune all good showed me making 500 + rwhp from 5000 rpms to 6500 rpms!

I want to take my car to a sea level track on a good night just so I can say it trapped 130 mph on the stock motor with a turbo kit that makes cars run slower.

I personally feel that most of the slow times out of these kits are due to tunes that aren't optimal and people who really are not drag racers. I personally am not a hardcore drag racer and I just go for fun and to see how changes i've made affect the car. I care more about the MPH than the ET unlike most drag racers.

The 60' in a stick shift turbo car really affects it's MPH and ET drastically. When I was running 2.2 60's I was running 12.3-12.8 @ 120-122 mph. My last 3 passes I decided to do a short burn outs and then I started running 11.7-11.9 @ 123-124 MPH. The .2 drop in 60 foot was worth about .5 seconds in et and 2-4 mph. All these runs were on the same night, no changes to the car.

Not every STS car is slow.

Thats respectable, but you do realize now that every STS nutswinger is now going to be quoting your times. :D :D

Thats respectable, but you do realize now that every STS nutswinger is now going to be quoting your times. :D :D

Thats good and bad. Good because at least one will be recognized as having good performance (at least MPH wise). and bad because i'll be labded a freak car. I wish more of these guys would get out and run their cars. It seems like most people who buy this kit never go to the track. Hell, most guys I know love to quote dyno numbers and never run at the track. We have several built cars here in town that never seem to make it to the track :( Turbo cars, supercharged cars, stroker LS1's, heads cam cars, etc. No one takes them to the track.

I agree with you there, but that wasnt a stock LS1. It supposed to be a 530hp LS1. :eek:

So what did you mean by the "should be somewhere in the 120s" comment again. :D Just messin with ya, I know that theres a lot of small issues with FI cars. Ive lost almost 10mph at the track before just because my tune was a little off. Lucky for me nobody else off this board was there to see it and make fun of me.

;) See, what you are saying about the tune is very true. When I ran 12.2@116, I had no idea how off my tune was. A few weeks later my HP Tuners got here, and my wideband. I found out I was running about 9.5:1 afr at WOT!!! I pulled my cats out after I got the car dyno tuned, and the tune went to crap! So, hopefully, once I figure out this tuning thing, I'll be able to post some good times to look at.

Because in every post about sts you ask what they run. I figure if your that crazy about track numbers, put yours in your sig...
When talking performance setups track times talk.
If I had a truck that I wanted to tow with... I'd get an STS in a heart beat. As for spending that much $$$ for a so called performance set up... no way. I'm VERY familiar with this set up AND how much $$$ it really takes to get one of these setup to run good. Spend the $$$ on a front mount set up... Someone mentioned the dyno curve earlier, excellent point as it's area under the curve not some bell shaped high peak that nets performance.
Steve...

When talking performance setups track times talk.
If I had a truck that I wanted to tow with... I'd get an STS in a heart beat. As for spending that much $$$ for a so called performance set up... no way. I'm VERY familiar with this set up AND how much $$$ it really takes to get one of these setup to run good. Spend the $$$ on a front mount set up... Someone mentioned the dyno curve earlier, excellent point as it's area under the curve not some bell shaped high peak that nets performance.
Steve...


Better be careful Steve, you might piss off some STS owners and they will want to kick your ass in a race down the 1/4... oh wait... ok... maybe just the one quick STS GTO will want to race you... :lol: :D :p

Better be careful Steve, you might piss off some STS owners and they will want to kick your ass in a race down the 1/4... oh wait... ok... maybe just the one quick STS GTO will want to race you... :lol: :D :p

How is this useful?

How is this useful?

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.

http://www.injecttech.com/camaro/timeslip.jpg

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).

Its funny how so many others with slower cars love to discredit a faster setup.

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.

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.

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!" :rolleyes: Kudos to F8LZ71 and the owners of the quick STS GTOs. They made it work... hopefully they can help the STS F body contingent.



That and they just usually don't have a clue (especially about weather and track altitude).

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 :D *

5.0THIS why dont' you give it a rest already. :rolleyes:
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.

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.

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.

the curves look pretty good .

Not compared to a front mount with the same turbo.


You have just heard from some cars that have the trap speeds to back it up.


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.



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'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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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. :eek:

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

So the kit performs as if the motor was effectivly half the displacement with a front mount setup. :eek:


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.

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.