I was just wondering why most be dislike the sts kit?.I am puting the sts kit on my 97 ss is there somthing i should be worried about thanks

 

Try a search

 

everyone wants to talk smack about the sts kit saying its not a good performer. they say it has horrible lag and dont make much power. they also say that its not good quality. I have the STS kit on my car and i love it. there is only 2 problems i have with it which can be fixed very easily and once i do that il give sts a call and let them know... 1.) the pipe that connects from the "u" pipe over the rearend to the subframe pipe hangs down a lil low and when you raise the car the LCA hits the pipe. 2.) the turbo itself really doesnt have a solid mount it relies on the last "I" pipe hanger and the turbo intake pipe hanger. this lets the turbo sag down a lil and even if you adjust it later on it will sag again. there return pump kinda sucks but its not that bad really i taped into the rear of my valve cover for the return so it wont be seen (new motor is in car il let everyone know how this goes). like i said il fix those problems and let sts know how to fix it. its up to them to actually fix it. anyone can dog out anything so dont listen to the b/s. im dead set to prove the sts kit can be a performer.

 

Hey bro...not one person has bashed the STS Turbo other than yourself ..now why did you think that people would bash the STS kit?

 

The main reason people bag on the STS is that it doesnt have the same performance potential as a traditional front mount turbo. That being said, the STS would easily achive most peoples power goals, there are allready lots of people making lots of horsepower with them. There is a tradeoff involved with the STS: Front mount = more potential, lots of hassle/higher cost, STS = Easy install/cheaper, less power potential. I belive I have seen people making over 600 RWHP with the STS, maybe more.

 

Even with the high dyno numbers produced with these systems I haven't seen one produce a good number at the track yet. That is the only issue I've come across (and one that could very likely not be in fault with the STS system anyway.) Hopefully some good track numbers will show up when the weather warms. Then it will quell the few doubters here.

 

kre i just stated what i saw were issues...... now you want me to talk **** about a frount mount? how bout a supercharger? its easy anyone can do it. i dont care if the car made 1000 HP on pump gas with a frount mount i could still find something stupid to say about it and im sure everyone else could too. i like any kind of power adder rather it be a CAI or a all out H/C package or even a huge turbo motor. nothing is perfect though. you will never see me get on a thread and totally talk smack about anything i will state what iv seen but will never say "DONT BUY IT, ITS A POS". thats what pisses me off about some people on here sometimes. anyways we are hijacking this thread so im gonna stop. PM me if you want to say anything else

 

Thats the problem, most M6 tranny STS cars arent putting down good numbers. Auto cars can rip when setup right.

 

Ok I'm going to put this as politely as possible. I never once bashed the STS kit. YOU are the one bashing STS. Most people who are serious about their 1/4 mile times would stay away from STS, because of the reasons YOU stated. Yes STS turbo kits often require modification to install, ground clearance issues, water damage, poor 1/4 times, boost lag, ETC ETC...but again, I don't need to address these issues because you allready did. STS turbo's are great for the mechanically novice because they are easier to install than a front mount turbo...A front mount turbo will allways make more power and produce better 1/4 mile times. It seems not many people will argue against this.

 

dude you are a dip **** shut the **** up. lag isnt a problem with the sts hell i had a stock engine and got full boost at like 3200 rpm thats damn good if you ask me. im not basing the kit i own one.... like i said everything has a flaw and im sure the frount mount and supercharger guys can give flaws on the kits they own. once again the guy wants to know why people bash them. im saying its a waste of time to call them junk. now if you have some more to say keep it to yourself if you have valuable info by all means put it out there.

 

I cant speak for the rest of the people that own an STS, but i didnt get the kit because im a mechanically novice, i got the kit because i didnt want to deal with the lack of space in the engine bay. I do all my own work too, minus engine building, and how mechanically inclined do you have to be to drop your car off at a shop and fork out the money to let someone install a turbo for you??

 

STS= higher boost threshold, narrower powerband as a result. Less energy to spin the turbine. You have to compromise the turbo size, to make up for the shortcomings, which in turn makes the system more restrictive on both the exhaust and compressor sides... Lack of being able to run a subframe connector (the pipe DOES NOT replace a subframe connector like STS claims it does)... Vulnerability of the pipes, especially at the back. Vulnerability of the system to ingest water (it has happened before with the kit).

 

First of all, your not gaining anyones respect by coming on here and running your mouth. No one likes an internet tough guy.

Everything has a flaw...we all know this. With a blower, its the parastic loss..But seems that most the guys that run blowers never cry about the parasitic loss, because they are proven performers and are consistent. Yes STS has cons, they just out-number the pros

To each their own. Based on personal preference, I would never go STS. Seems you've hopped on the STS bandwagon, so why don't you do this. Go back to turbo school, and stop believing everything you read on the STS website. So go ahead, why don't you educate me and everyone else in the FI forum about why STS is best.

 

Ofcoarse there are cons with STS but turbo sizing can be smaller and still flow equally, you don't need as much surface area to flow X amount of airflow at the about as you do in the front, this is because as the gasses travel to the rear they cool down, hotter gasses need a bigger pipe to flow the same as they expand, cooler gasses don't, thats why you put tinny exhaust tips in the back and you don't see much if any loss, you put same size piping in the front and you're loosing HP like crazy.

Keep that in mind as well, heat promotes spool but it also asks for a bigger turbo to flow, less heat in the back doesn't help spool if turbo sizing is kept the same, now you make the turbo smaller to make up the spool but it can be smaller because gasses are cooler to flow the same.

Gasses travel super fast, when you actually get on it, there isn't much energy loss by the time it gets to the back.

For water build something to prevent splashing, again I'm not saying it's better then front mount by any means, its just not nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be, most STS guys run M6 cars so they don't perform well at all, but when did ANY turbo car every perform better with an M6 over an AUTO?

 

Are you saying this is good or bad thing about the STS kit?