This is for anyone who is wondering how an sts fairs against a superior front mount setup. I am running a gt70 vs his t76, both m6 cars. We are running similiar style cams, his may be a little more aggressive, its in his dyno graph, I run a 220/226 with 561 lift. We both have forged 346 motors aftermarket heads etc. I run a 9" with locker, not sure what he runs. My graph is in my sig and his is the link below...bare in mind he would make about 20 more rwhp and rwtq on a dynojet then that graph since its a mustang dyno. So its pretty stout. I would say we peak about the same. But he aint close to me on power, even if you factor in the 20-25 less HP you see on a mustang dyno. My car also keeps pulling right to 6500 were i let off. This is fact people. This car also went 12.2 @ 125, guess that means the front mount sucks huh? You all get my point I hope. Not saying STS is better then a front mount, just saying they can be built to compete with one easy enough. This is for information purposes for people on the fence, its not a debate thread. Once again my graph is in my sig below

FRONT MOUNT DYNO Link

 

Sounds as if he has some issues. Chad, a local here who custom built his own conventional mount made:

Turbo 12psi 10.55@139 1.78 60 ft
737.4 horse 724.2 torque 12 psi and a 75 shot 829.8 hp 808.3 tq
Custom built turbo setup with single t-76 gts trim, forged bottom end, custom grind cam,
stock heads minus valvesprings, stock ls1 intake etc.

HUGE difference from what your buddy made.

 

On the sheet, it says "turbo tech" where the mods are listed. I hope it's not refering to the old POS turbo technologies kit. That kit was a joke.

 

If you look at the torque curve for the front mount it takes a sharp turn around 5000rpm and has a nice linear downward slope. It looks to me like some component hit its limit at that point.

I wonder what kind of exhaust he is running. It would also be nice to see head flow numbers for both cars.

 

Now you know good and well those are not typical #s for a turbo. Hell, my little p600b made more power than that and ran waaay better track times. I guess Prochargers smallest blower is better than a t76 turbo.

 

Seems like every LS1 turbo kit that is coming out these days is making those numbers on a stock motor. 500+rwhp that is. So that car linked with the T76 isnt anything special at all, even if it had a stock motor.

-forged shortblock, stock top end minus valve springs, 10 psi, T72 LS1

http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...ight=LS1+turbo

-Here's a built 348 LS1 that made 675rwhp at 10psi on pump gas, also on a T76 turbo!

http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthread...hreadid=131075

And if you look at the first person to reply to the above post, it's Elmer. His stock motor with an Incon kit puts down 497rwhp at less than 10psi if I remember correctly

Rob Raymer made 775rwhp on the stock shortblock with a QMP kit.

Jees, the more I research this. It would seem that the built LS1 in the original post is one of the weaker built LS1 motor turbo car I have ever seen.

 

Found another one:

http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread...ighlight=turbo

mixed gas, 12 psi, 618rwhp, stock LS1 motor, PTE70 turbo

651rwhp on race gas and 13.5 psi, still stock motor.

 

Ya you left out the price on the speed inc car kit $7400.

Again peaking all peaking around 5k like mine minus the car with the stock cam, also I run 14 degrees timing not 20 like these time bombs, your not helping your whole cause here, keeping posting graphs of cars with larger setups then mine barely making more power if at all and making it at around the same peak. And I cant even believe you brought up robs car LOL!!!!!!!! Anyone who knows the story with the car is gonna laugh at you...hey hows his company doing now?

 

LOL 12.1 a/f ...ya nice and he still made barely more then me and he peaked at 4400 with race gas

"Thank you. Yes, I went through Redline Motorsports. Base kit starts at $6999 installed and dyno tuned. Custom taylored race kits start at $7550. If you call Scot @ 970-221-4805 he will give you more indepth info."

Um ya 7k thats 2900 more then my kit LOL!

Heres your own post Mr Mod

"Wow, very impressive. I take it those numbers are with a ~1.22 correction factor? Interesting to see how long that motor lasts"


LOL!!! Again, gotta alotta faith in the kit eh, hows it impressive when the f@cking car aint gonna last and you even know it yourself. I can push mine to the limit too but guess whats its safe as can be.

 

The TTI single and QMP kits both use log manifolds, and are known to have back pressure issues. They are not representative of a proper front mount system.

 

You missed my entire point. I wasnt comparing any of tohse cars to yours, I was comparing it to the front mount car you were comparing yours to. My point was that for a front mount car with a built motor, it isnt very healthy. And it isnt. I understand why you picked that car for a comparison though, it does indeed make your car look that much better. And stop argueing cost. Idont care how much more the other kits are here, let's just argue the performance aspects One more thing to keep in mind about these other car's dyno sheets. they were probably done on dynojet dynos. As you probably know, for many turbo cars, dynojet dynos do not spool the turbo as quickly as it would on the street. so their graphs would likely be better if they were on mustang dynos, at least as far as the curves were concerned.

And also, you dont have to argue my faith in any particular kit. That is totally beside the point, why you brought that up in the last line of your post is beyond me. My lack of faith resides on how much a stock motor can take boost wise. It has nothing to do with the turbo kit and you know it. And who cares what timing they are running, or what rob raymer's business practices are. I dont. We're talking about turbo system performance, so stop sidestepping the issue at hand. Once again, my initial point was that you should pick a different front mount car to compare yours to.

 

Thats smokinghawks car, the mod on ls1tech FI section. Theres NOTHING wrong with his car, ask him yourself. Whats you friggin point about the dynojet? Mine was on a dynojet as well. That had no point? Are you serious about the timing? Do you even have a clue how much more power I would make at 20 degrees and race gas as well. Look man I called you on everything, you look like a fool right now. Everything you posted only proved me right even more. As for arguin cost your the one who brings it up more then anyone else??? Man your just making it all the better now. Please keep posting out your @ss, the bullsh1t is getting deeper and deeper. I love how I post all valid stuff and all you guys do is make MORE f@cking excuses. Pathetic just pathetic.

 

http://www.ls1.com/forums/showthread.php?t=538946

Smokinhawk didn't have much good to say about that kit. Just like i said earlier in this thread. Anyone "in the know" about turbos knows that log style kits are horribly restrictive. Sure, some make impressive power... but they hit a wall much sooner. Backpressure issues get real bad at higher boost levels... which is most likely why his tq curve took a dive on top end. There's a few members on here that's experienced with the TTI kit and have noted the rediculous backpressure issues.

I guess the distinction should be made.... a PROPERLY designed front-mount kit has true headers. And i wouldn't go as far as calling the TTI a "superior" kit, like you did (and i know you were just being sarcastic WRT rear vs front mounts). FWIW, i'd take the STS over a log style setup just cause of the backpressure problems. At least the STS won't kill you with BP when turning the boost up.

 

A fully built turbo motor only running 125mph in the 1/4??? And your claiming there nothing wrong with it. Whatever dude...

 

please note the graph you are comparing to was pulled in 2002.... and back then 512 on a mustang dyno on pump gas was exeptionally good.

i have come to understand a dynojet is worth about 50 horse over a mustang dyno.