Thanks again, I find it fascinating, just the idea of that pie equation being calculated so long ago is awesome, I remember reading some guy that was able to calculate the diameter of the earth so many hundreds of years ago, when you read about these guys it really is amazing. As for newton, I saw a show not to long ago that tells of his calculations and laws of physics and I couldn't believe the stuff he came up with, I always thought it was real rudimentary like--Oh the apple falls from the tree-threfore there is gravity, but in reality he won't so deep, or should i say the show I saw went so deep into his calculations that I was lost at what they were talking about. I guess living in a modern society people tend to forget how we got here and take it for granted. I imagine for many older adults things such as microwave ovens, Thin big screen TV's, computers, space travel to the moon and farther have got to be incredible. I think its funny watching old star trek movies where captin kirk pulls out his walky talky that looks like a modern cell phone/camera/GPS handheld device, where such a small device can have multiple features. Even handheld computers are far advanced. Since you've pointed it out, I imagine if it weren't for those pioneers pushing the bounds of science hundreds of years ago we would still be riding horses around dreaming of flying some day. I'll stop now since this is not what the post is about as I've wrote to much, but thanks for the input, I find it fascinating.

 

Amen,

But he e-mailed me saying the oil return pump kit by itself was $500. If I went JY twin turbo it would be another $500 for the second and my turbos would most likely be the wrong size.

That's hard to swallow and there's gotta be cheaper pumps/kits out there.....................

 

That's good to hear actually that it's 500 bucks for the kit - that means they are using a real oil scavenging pump.

You could try it with a fuel pump which would be much cheaper, but I would rather not chance it.

Chris

 

there was some discussion about the oil pump and the temperatures it would have to handle...I know some guys on the turbomustangs.com JY forum are using fuel pumps for it, but I think for reliability purposes an actual high temp fluid pump was the way to go. I've seen some of the prices on them too, they generally aren't cheap.

See, all that discussion about the STS system and we still got good info on this thread! Haters beware

 

There are pumps available that are $185:

http://www.batinc.net/files/pump.pdf

But, recently, I ran across this $92 pump:

http://www.mrturbo.com/parts/109.html

Mike

 

Dry sump it... he he

 

I Understand the argument about having the turbo so far away from the heat of the exhaust ports … but dyno numbers don’t lie.
If their numbers are correct on their web site I think it’s worth investigating. http://www.ststurbo.com/lt1_camaro_dyno


Anyway if you think about it would be an easy system to maintain and it looks like a good basic system for someone who wants more power without the complexity of the current turbo systems out there. Just my 2 cents …


I run a powerdyne system and I am thinking of trying this turbo set up and if I had listen to everyone about how this blower sucks then I would have never tried it …… sorry to say but allot of people of wrong and this blower has been very reliable With a few little problems the internal belt broke) but with no blow off valve to relief the pressure after abrupt throttle closer helped to pop the belt (but after 20k) (which is easy to fix). And for the guys who knocked the system I thumb my nose at them when I blow by them (LOL). This is buy no means a full race blower (just like the turbo system in question) but when you really think about it 99% of my driving is on the street (below 3,000 rpm) this low-tech system is perfect for people like me and offers a great bang for the buck. Oh yeah and one more thing.. For anyone who owns this system know how stealthy it is on the street.
…… So as we knock the STS system we need to take e closer look before we disregard the system as being bad because it might just fit the bill for someone and their needs…

 

Those charts look good.
It appears to me that the use of "injection" to cool the charge comes in at a lower psi than a "typical" turbo setup. (as mentioned that it would ^^^above^^^)

But who can kick on 132MPH with basically stock setup, stock exhaust, and stock 2.73 gears.

Now if the owner of one of these kits will tell us what turbo (All specs) they are using.....................It will leak out eventually......

 

I believe the 132 was a G-Tech number - I haven't seen any real track numbers yet from the kits (though they could be out there).

Chris

 

ON A G-TECH!!!!!!!!!!

im pretty sure 520rwhp that they dynoed does not equate to 132mph trap speeds


back then there wasnt much to do.......work to survive....or if you were already fincancially set (ie wealthy family) you could spend your time learning.
no tv, no internet, no video games, no porno, no nothing........today there is so much to consume our time, im not suprised that there arent really comparable people out there........i mean sure there are great engineers and whatnot, but they are merely stretching the realms of what was already discovered by these guys from many years ago........no one is really breaking any significant new ground. atleast none that the general public is aware of..........ive got a feeling that if there are modern-day equivalents to isaac newton, they are snatched up by govenments and put to work on things that well probably never know about.

 

Correct, G-Techs are not nearly as accurate as a dyno indicator. However, they can show relative change with a reasonable level of accuracy. If there is a .2 sec gain on a g-tech, it will be very very close to a .2 gain at the track. The times and speeds will be different but the net gain/loss is reasonable.

 

My brother took his tazzo to the track and on a 13 second run at around 108 it said something stupid like 12.6 @ 114.

 

Right... the accuracy of the G-Tech isn't in the 1/4 mile times (changes with altitude) but in the gains.

If you change your gears and drop .2 in the quarter, if you try that with the G-Tech you will see a .2 drop (or very very close). It can measure differences in gain/loss very accurately.

 

It was fairly close for the rest of the runs but it sometimes gives goofy results. It's no substitute for track times. I'm just saying it's really silly for a company to use "G-Tech" results as proof of how fast something is.. but i don't want to start another debate.

 

You're right. It shouldn't be used for anything except comparison to itself, to approximate changes between trips to the truck.