I know the LS1 works great with the sts and I've seen a couple of 10 sec. GTO's but I have the LT1 which has less hp. I've read that most are 12sec. cars with no modifications and the only 11sec. cars have a lot of mods because they can't hook up.

Thanks

 

To be honest, it doesn’t matter what vehicle you use for comparison. Use an LS1 for example (since an LT1 will get similar results, but just less overall hp/tq). Compare people’s results with Prochargers and with sts kits. LS1tech has a lot of documented stuff in the dyno section and in the FI section.

 

 

well i have seen 2 F/I cars run at the track. 1 ls1 M6 with STS and 1 ls1 TA M6 with procharger. i know the sts kit was running 5-6 lbs, and the procharger was at 8 lbs.
STS car only went a best of 13.6@104, all 104 traps.
S/C car, i watched 2 passes and it did low 12@115-118 somewhere in that area.
the STS guy i talked to and he said he was having tuning issues, but dynoed 385.
just sharing info FWIW

 

Hey 5.0This, I guess 475 rwhp just "feels" fast. 11 second timeslips just "feel" fast. Okay. I just don't understand your point.

 

That LS1 STS car had to be having some serious tuning issues. So far it seems that the biggest disadvantage to going with STS is that it seems to be harder to tune. When I first got my kit on, with no tuning, I too was running low 13's, but at 110 (5 psi). My last trip back at 8 psi, I got a 12.2@116. That was traction limited, and I'm STILL having tuning issues. There is no doubt the Procharger will make some great power, but with some patience, I think people will start to get some good results with the STS kit. Tine will tell.

 

8 psi on a 95,XXX motor? Prochager looks like its the way to go because you can run more boost and it's intercooled (if it holds). The sts has more potential but 5 psi and nonintercooled is questionable. Also it looks like the sts doesn't make that much power at 5psi. Also does anyone know what octane they are using to get the results on any of the sts pages?

Prochager seems to be the best way.

Thanks!

 

You have a vote here for the Procharger, I have seen a handful of STS car not perform well and live up to the money invested D1SC it and be done with it

 

Supras feel incredibly fast, but go to the track and cant do ****. All I ever hear from STS people is... "I am having (insert excuse here) issues with my car, but it will be much faster here soon once I get (insert random solution here) taken care of." And yet you never hear any follow ups or track times At least the GTO guy can get it to work, although I think the heavy weight of that vehicle might actually be helping the turbo to spool, but who knows....


with 475 rwhp 495 rwtq?? I'd be dissappointed with that ET and trap speed at that power level.

 

5.0This, first off, I am not satisfied with a 12.2 time, but just by changing some suspension stuff, I was already able to cut well over a second off of my previous best. Second, I guess the fact that a Lambo runs mid 12's, but can hit 200 mph, that car is slow too??

The GTO guys, and Angie @ Thunder have already figured this stuff out. And I feel I'm right behind them. You see the results coming out, and you still doubt the system. What times do you have to see for you to concede that the kit actually works?

 

Remember, a supercharged engine needs to make more flywheel hp to make the same rwhp as a turbo engine due to the SC robbing engine hp. Here is an example with madeup #'s:

In order to make 450rwhp...

S/C engine needs to make 550 flywheel hp
Turbo engine needs to make 500flywheel hp

This is an example to show how much harder the engine needs to work to produce the same rwhp. I would guess the 550hp motor would blow up before the 500hp motor given equal conditions/tune.

Base on the info i showed you, it shows that a rear mount turbo with similar compressor size when compared to the S/C should make more rwhp at a given psi.

 

Once again no one is talking about Lambos here and what they can do, they are overpriced pices of italian junk.
As far as puttin down 475rhwp and running 116mph, that just proves how sts does not perform.
heres a little example
my car with 12psi and few other problems only made 480rwhp, its a lt1 that weights around 3500lbs, Its a 6 speed car with a stock 10bolt rear and auto rear at that 3.23s(if you know superchargers you need to build rpm faster to build boost faster) and i cannot build nothing untill after the 60ft. I made 2 passes down the track with 480rwhp,
1st pass left at idle and half throttled it throug 1st.
11.7@122mph with a 2.0 60ft
2nd pass
same launch (afraid of snapping the 10 bolt in half)
11.50@125mph 2.060ft
Suspension is bone stock
stock lcas/stock panhard rod/stock 12 year old struts and shocks/Stock tourque arm.
Same car with issues worked out still on stock 10 bolt and suspension

6.9@109.1mph 1/8th, 1.84 60ft(no boost), spun as soon as the boost hit about 12psi and lifted and got back in it to gain traction back, pass was aborted due to intake tube blew off the TB after the 1/8th coasted to 11.04@114mph and got kicked out because i did not have a proper safety equimpent.

 

Of all the STS cars, I wouldnt use the car at Thunder Racing as an example. There's a lot you dont know about that car.

Second, a stock motored LT1 6 speed car with a PTK front mount turbo went 11.0@130mph... again, stock motor (I think it had roller rockers). STS LT1 cars cant do that with fully built motors. In fact, the one car with over 500rwhp and a built motor is still over a full second off that ET wise, and still cant match the trap speed either. When an STS turbo car can even run in the same ballpark as a front mount car all other things being equal, I'll concede that it works.

 

I guess Angie is a liar then huh? You know more about the car then anyone else? Feel free to share…

Please...130mph in stock lt1...its heresay at best. I have nothing against Jose, but until those numbers are repeatable i dont buy it. Lots of big cubed LT1's with blowers are having trouble getting more than that, but a stock heads/stock cam LT1 car can with 10psi?

Once again your in here to try and get attention for yourself. Read the title of the thread...STS versus Procharger...nobody said sts versus FM turbo kit.

 

And you're right....this thread is about STS vs. Procharger. I guess you just skipped over this post right?

"Once again no one is talking about Lambos here and what they can do, they are overpriced pices of italian junk.
As far as puttin down 475rhwp and running 116mph, that just proves how sts does not perform.
heres a little example
my car with 12psi and few other problems only made 480rwhp, its a lt1 that weights around 3500lbs, Its a 6 speed car with a stock 10bolt rear and auto rear at that 3.23s(if you know superchargers you need to build rpm faster to build boost faster) and i cannot build nothing untill after the 60ft. I made 2 passes down the track with 480rwhp,
1st pass left at idle and half throttled it throug 1st.
11.7@122mph with a 2.0 60ft
2nd pass
same launch (afraid of snapping the 10 bolt in half)
11.50@125mph 2.060ft
Suspension is bone stock
stock lcas/stock panhard rod/stock 12 year old struts and shocks/Stock tourque arm.
Same car with issues worked out still on stock 10 bolt and suspension

6.9@109.1mph 1/8th, 1.84 60ft(no boost), spun as soon as the boost hit about 12psi and lifted and got back in it to gain traction back, pass was aborted due to intake tube blew off the TB after the 1/8th coasted to 11.04@114mph and got kicked out because i did not have a proper safety equimpent."