You were spinning the tires on the dyno at 280rwhp? Were the rollers made of ice or am I missing something here???

 

Gotta remember we're in Utah. 100F last week and snowed this week. Weird. Probably frost on the rollers! LOL. Shop didn't have good anchors to pull the car down onto the dyno. Just held it forward and back mostly with a little downforce. We were just kinda messing around anyway. Shop nearby just put a dyno in, kind of a old one with dials instead of computer. He asked if we would bring the car in and run it as they are interested in installing and selling our kits. Free dyno run? Sure! There are a couple nice dynos here in Utah but they aren't close or free. Gotta like free once in a while. Actually was curious how smaller turbine housing was going to effect top end. We'll get back up to the track and let you know how it goes.

Production LT1 kits should be coming out in a month or two. Want to get through prerelease testing first and make sure kits are solid and test well.

Thanks, Rick @ STS

 

+100 RWHP meaning your stock LT1 made 180RWHP?
The car spun it's tires on the dyno at 280RWHP?
Stock the car ran 15.0?
With Turbo the car runs 14.2?
Your Turbo LT1 is as fast as modified N/A 3.8L F-bodies?

I can't hold it in anymore. This has got to be the most questionable FI kit I've ever heard about. Your numbers, data, and theory just don't add up. When I first read this topic I thought it was a BS story or joke because it's so far out there. (I hope it still is)

This is even worse than the leaf blower FI and the Tornado.

 

Utah is like 6000ft above sea level....go take a 15.0 and convert it to sea level and see what time that is

 

Stock LS1s run mid 14s here. Stock LT1s run 15+. Sorry if you don't like the fact that we are on a mountain. If you want to test the BS factor you can drive up here and teach us a lesson in driving skills. I run a not particularly fast 95 LT1 that you can give a try. Heads up?

You can FEEL your car lose power on the drive from Southern Cali to here. If you know anything about air density we regularly have readings at the track of 10,000ft +. Our track has an elevation of about 4500 ft. In other words we have the worst air quality for racing in the country. The air density at the track when the 97 car was last run was 7900'. I dyno at about 350hp (dynojet that automatically gives an altitude compensated #)here yet I run a 13.7. Look around at the board and see what a car runs that makes 350 at sealevel.

The #s being posted are not bs. As for the reference to the 3.8 car, they run 17+ here.

BBB

 

All you guys that live at sea level, count your blessings. One of the coolest experiences is to drive your car down to California and feel the incredible power and throttle response that you get down there. It is alot like sticking NOS on. I moved here almost 20 years ago and it took me about 6 months to figure out what the crap was wrong with my car. The only way to really understand it is to experience how bad stuff runs up here.

There are a lot of people that live above 4000 feet, and they all envy you guys!

Thanks, Rick @ STS

 

A few years ago I drove my (at the time) 98 Regal GS through Denver and Albequerque. The car lost about 3lbs of boost and dropped power big time.

Right then and there I decided I would kick my own *** before I moved somewhere that was at a high altitude.

 

For all those wanting to experience the horror of it all without a road trip. MAP sensor readings on a good day here are 24. So watch your MAP readings or your vacuum guage and give it just enough gas to keep your map under 24 or your vacuum at about 6" and FEEL THE POWER - OOOO!!

At 5 psi boost, you guys at sea level get a FI system. With 5 psi boost here, we just get an altitude compensator.

You guys probably don't know this but I'll let you in on some economic secrets. This is the reason that houses in California cost so much more than houses in UTAH! Its not about houses and property or high paying jobs........ Just like everything in life, IT IS ALL ABOUT CARS!

Have a good weekend guys, Rick @ STS

 

i see your point totally, however, we're not talking side draft carb to FI here, we're talking about putting a turbo 6 feet from it's heat source. not to mention the 6' back to the intake. if it works, great, and if it gets the the " if ya cant beat them join them" stage, i'll start to believe. until then, there's a reason we stick with basic design for the most part, it's because it works.


and they all work with a turbo mounted close to the engine compartment. GM engineers didnt sesign it that way for no reason. im not saying here that they do everything with performance in mind, but holy crap man, the GN's run in th 9's w/ a factory designed turbo system! if this was such a great idea, why didnt they do it from the get go?

im not easily impressed. gmmicks are above all one of my biggest pet peeves. not to mention overpriced ones...

concern. read some of the comments here. there's 8 pages now.
speaking of fires waiting to happen, i got an idea, hey lets mount a 1200* heat source right under the gas tank.

the packaging concerns are completely justified on one of these cars. there are however, better locations than the rear to put a turbo IMO.

very true, however, being that im not mediocre, my mind is driven to smash the traditionalisim that is bound by the past and to keep those of us on that forward thinking track from taking 2 steps in the wrong direction.

 

I gotta take exception to a couple things You just said VentsWoker...

<Soapbox mode on>

First thing is your asking why the factory's didn't do it like this in the first place? Umm.. can you say tooling, or because they didn't have to? It sure helps when you can redesign the car around the mod and not the other way around. Do the brakes in a GN look ANYTHING like the non turbo models? not a chance. They suck, granted, but they still had the ability to alter just about anything they wanted to make it work/fit.

Also, take the Turbo TA for example. No, they didn't just drop in the exact same turbo 6 in the TA. It was the 3800 series (not the same as the GN's 3.8, although many think it is), also, they had the cash/resources to redesign the heads to accomidate the setup better. And again, much less footprint than a V8=more room to work. Wanna see a horrifying "factory" engineered setup? Go look at of the old turbo T/A's from the early 80's. A 301 pontiac with a turbo that couldn't get out of it's own way! Turbo mounted nice and close to the motor. Still sucked. Bad.

As for a GN running 9's with a factory designed turbo setup, you need to lay off the crack in a BIG way. You show me a Garret TO4 with a stock cartridge/downpipe/wastegate combo running 9's and I'll kiss you butt in main street. The fact that someone throws a T100 in the same "location" as the factory one is a whale of a different story. As for the factory putting the turbo closer to the motor, thats a no brainer. ROOM TO WORK. If you pull the intercooler out of a GN, you can stand on the swaybar and work on the motor. Simple physics on that one.

As for the temp problem, a simple two layer (with air gap of course) sheet metal heat shield over the turbo would be MORE than enough to insulate the tank. Hell man, a stock Z has a 600+ degree cat less than two inches from the floorboard and you'de be hard pressed to tell that it's even there with just a single heat shield.

I personally like it when someone thinks "out of the box". It makes the rest of us stand up and take note. I personally would rather see a turbo setup that bolted up where the cat "used to be" and came right off the y-pipe. That would be the bomb to me. Quick spool, and easy to plumb, but it would lead to inevitable ground clearence problems. I mean if I didn't like different thinking on things, then I wouldn't have a Weiand mini blower on the way right now (more on that hopefully later).

</soapbox mode>

No flames intended at all. Really. Just another expression of opinion..

OBTW, the kit looks pretty damn interesting so far..

Dave C.

 

Dave,

no offense taken ;D i can respectfully dissagree,

good point, however, if you had a mod to design a car around, would you put the turbo 6' from the intake? do you realize that this is going to effectively make the intake manifold on this motor six and a half feet long?

i hate to say it, but lets compare apples to apples here. sides i havent studied up on factory GN brakes

not my fault if the pontiac boys cant get it right i think that reguardless of where the turbo was mounted on those, it still would have sucked. poor engineering, and a lack of invested time will net those results.

how so? ask any respectiable GN guy,(hate to do it again but,) Rob raymer, and turbobuicks.com holds up that end of the deal quite nicely. i'll let ya slide on the butt kissing comment ;D

i dont notice them there either.. oh wait, i dont have any.
similarly, the heat comment was intended as sarcasam, and i've seen a setup like this in the passenger footwell, kinda scarry. take a look at a set of header collectors on a lowered car and you'll understand why. now, you want to put a 2000 dollar turbo where?

i am outside the box. this is what im trying to tell you guys. i do all my own custom fabrication work, as well as design, and parts aquisition. (big whoo...) the point im trying to make is simply that, there's nothing wrong with being outside the box, i know, but dont get so far outside it that your going in the wrong direction.

a setup like this might be fine for the average joe that wants to blow 3k on a gimmicky turbo setup, and tell all his friends how fast his car is. i on the other hand have a hard time justifying anything i didnt build myself, let alone an in-efficent system that i didnt built myself, dosent run the numbers, dosent make good power, and above all, cost me alot of money. see my point?

i have no intentions of pissing anyone off, just one man's opinion on a setup. so apologies in advance. however,when this setup runs in the 9's i'll change my mind. but until then, im still not impressed.

 

Good deal about the no offense taken Thats not why I wrote what I did. I DO like good discussions though..

If I had a mod to design the car around would I do what they are looking to do with this turbo kit? Not a chance in hell! Sure, there are MUCH better places to put a turbo than at the end of the tailpipe, BUT without some MAJOR modification, there is just no easy place to put a turbo on an F-body. Period. The majority of people who would be interested in this kit have not a clue when it comes to fabricating things (big things I mean, not some little bracket or mount plate). We can't all break out the TIG (myself included) and go great guns at it. I wish I could, and I'm working towards that with a local chassis builder who's showing me how. Still not there yet though ;( .

I used the brakes on the GN as an example of what GM will do when they have to, and what they CAN do if need be. Not using it as the same type of argument, just an example of a change in tooling/design that the biggies can do that we can't.

And the 9's in a factory turbo setup. I'll stand by it. I'm not talking about a GN with a TH downpipe and a new intercooler, and a cermic cartidge, or any of the goodies. I used to be a GN guy myself, so I know they are fast, but it takes some cash to go 9's (10's even). Chip, wastegate, downpipe, exh., etc... It's all required, and seriously oversteps anything resemling factory.

I know what yo mean about the headers and lowered car deal too (I creep over every train track in town, and there are plenty!). I was thinking that since there is already a hump in the passenger side footwell for the cat, it might make sense to see how high up you could put a smaller turbo up there. I would think that it wouldn't be any lower to the ground than current long tubes are, but yeah it would scare me to hit something with that much cash hanging down low..

At any rate, running 9's is something that a lot of people talk about and very very few actually do. Personally I'm not interested in making an f-body run 9's. I'd just do a big block rail if I wanted to go fast. I'm after doing things unique, challenging, and above all fun with my street car.

Dave C.

 

thats my whole point.

agreed, and this had crossed my mind. the engineers have reasons, constraints, budgets, ect.. that definately hold them from unleashing the absolute ideal setups on anything that comes out of the factory. this is why we dont all have 6 second daily driven production camaro's (or firebirds) that cost 5 dollars.

i think the intent of my original comment on this was missed and started something we both probably woul have agreed on in the first place. my intention was to proove the design of the setup, not that the completely stock setup would run in the 9's. does that clarify correctly? i mean why change something that works?


thats given, i dont plan on it w/ my street car, but i'll settle with low 10's. that was intended as an example of prooven setup that would run the number. not at all as a "outside the box" bashing. the effort to put out a cheaper turbo kit w/ a diffrent design here is valliant, as it's not easy to pass w/ f-body guys as critics.

nice talking w/ ya Dave.

happy rodding,

 

So what's the latest on this kit? Any further developments?

 

only thing I wanna say on this one (along with bringing it to the top for some more info) is that the GN and the TTA DID in fact have the same 3.8L HO engines in them (with a few differences). The 3800 was never used for a turbo engine in any vehicle that I am aware of.

Heres a link for some more info:

http://www.89tta.com/ttahist.htm

So, any developments on the turbo kit? I haven't heard if they went into production or what...?