OK, your not saying its a bad product. Therefor it must be a good product. It needs to be more efficient. OK, how much efficiency can you get in one day? Sure you can get more efficiency, but at what cost of time, money and fabrication? In the applications I have seen, they are matching the performance of systems that are more complicated to install and cost as much or more
.
No matter what you have, an argument could be made that you could have had more. Its just time and money. If you have a 350, you could have had a 383. It you have a 383, you could have had a 454. If you have a 454, you could have had a 502. etc. You can't make the argument that a 350 is bad because its not a 502. The numbers STS is getting are very respectable.

If you will indulge me, I am curious. How would you make their product more efficient? If it is by moving it into the engine compartment, the price just went through the roof.

my72vette454,
That's a beutiful set up you have. You must have a lot of skill, equipment, time and/or money. Would you tell us how much time and money it took? I'm willing to bet, it took more than one day.

 

good answer.

 

Boost is boost, the sts system may not be perfect but I bet it will still put a smile on your face when you nail the throttle. I talked to several of the leading turbo mfgs and they all told me it would cost 10-12 thousand to build what I wanted and I decided I could do it way cheaper than that myself. I had a rajay from a tractor that was new and I did some checking around and found out that if I had another one to go with it that they would support around 800 hp together. The turbo companys told me that diesel turbos wouldnt work at all but I guess they were wrong as this thing is a beast. I spent from october to march a couple of winters ago putting it all together, it kinda turned into an obsession and I spent every spare minute working on it. My hot side is all mild steel for now but I will redo it with stainless when I get to do the body off makeover. I spent approximately 4500 dollars on it, I bought good stuff but shopped for bargains. The stainless steel air boxes for the air filters ended up costing me 525 dollars and the fiberglass sidepipe covers were 300 which is part of the 4500. Boost comes in around 22-2500 rpm and immediately goes to 11 lbs or 15 if I turn up the boost controller and it pulls hard to 5600 rpms which is what I have for a rev limit module. With 15 lbs boost it will blow the tires off at anything under 65 to 70 mph but with normal driving it putts around like a mild low compression big block and I still get around 14 mpg on the freeway with 3.08 gears and a 4 speed.

 

I have never fiddled with turbos - but have driven some powerful turbo cars - the Skyline we use for the Cannonball is 650 + bhp out of 2.8 litres, and the organisers Supra is 750 bhp with a large single turbo on 3 litres.

The engine bays are too full and cluttered. I like the idea of a rear turbo for many reasons, but that aside, the main gripe here seems to be the heat lost from the pipework to the turbo.........

Wrap the bloody pipe in asbestos or similar

Regardless, I detect STS bashing by people with cars in bits.

For the time and money - I would go for STS on a street car.

OK, if certain detractors are right, you only get 600 bhp instead of 650 or 675............still will whoop the *** off most big dollar engine work.

And its transferable.

 

I didn't say it was a good product, nor did I say it was a bad product. I haven't seen one so I can't say one way or the other. Stop attempting to put words into my mouth.

Judging by your posts, you either work for the company or are trying to justify the fact that you bought one of their systems.

 

Roots blowers are not efficent, yet there are many manufacturers to choose from and they've been selling them for decades. They talk about how the blower heats the incoming air which looses HP, yet there are many people that have them and swear by them

Is there more efficent ways to boost HP, yes, but that usually comes at the cost of fabrication, complexity, and $. For someone that is simply looking to boost (forced induction) their engine for some fun on the street, then the STS may be a great option. For someone that is racing and making a living by winning, then maybe investing in a more efficent method would be beneficial.

 

All this concern about "loosing efficiency" doesn't make sense. My system makes more boost than my motor could ever handle. There is no mythical lag problem, and the turbos aren't too cold to function. I hit 597rwhp during a "conservative" test on the dyno on my stock block and couldn't be happier with my STS kit. I've never seen anyone, who actually bought, installed, and owns one, say anything but how much they like it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but my positive opinion is based on personal experience and fact, not speculation. Bashing because it may or may not be a tad more efficient up front simply becomes mute when I can turn the boost dial up higher than the motor or drivetrain could withstand. There are many real advantages to rear mount. The turbos can easily run 30 lbs of boost, my motor can run 10 of it. There's more power there than i could ever use even when I decide to forge my motor.

Anyway, in my non bashing opinion, STS is the future. They are selling like crazy and customers are very happy with it. I know it works cuz I actually own and drive mine everyday.

 

Got pics?

 

I know they exist..but theya re not street legal, at least not here..and I don't see one like that on the STS system so theirs is not a vent to athmosphere.

 

Well jeez, you didn't mention the possibility that it just might work and he's spreading the good word. I guess that's just not possible, only cynical reasons matter here.

 

Another good factual answer.

 

Why be optomistic when you can be cynical? Cynical is so much more fun!

 

I don't own one and I don't work for them.

I don't want this to be personal, but I see an inovative proven concept critisized for so called facts that do not hold water. Their system works. They have overcome the so called problems that would render the idea ineffective. I just see creative inovative people taking heat because they have the guts to try something different and it fries my bacon. This is not a theory, they have produced a proven product and I have to ask, what have the disenters produced besides theoretical criticism?

 

Ye canna change the laws of physics! They may have made the system work and produce boost for the way they engineered it - but there is no way around the fact that there is going to be quite a bit of heat loss before the exhaust gets to the turbos. If that system floats your boat, fine. There is a reason all the high-end tuners put their turbos up front, though. That is all.

 

Those of you that are using STS, did you install twin turbos or run one pipe back and one pie forward and where and how did you mount the air filter to protect it from road dirt and possible water?
Bernie

 

Sometimes I find forums very helpful. Sometimes they amaze me.

Not sure I understand what your referencing as not legal, the waste gate or the entire kit, but usually this is reference turbo kits, and usually in glorified smog central, California. Fyi, STS is getting an EO number as we speak for their kit in California for the corvette line of automobiles. To my knowledge it will be the first smog legal TT kit in Ca on vettes. They already have EO number for GTO and related vehicles like trucks with the same motor.

ps. The wastegate on the STS kits vent directly to atmoshpere if that helps clear up any more assumptions. If Ca issues it an EO number, I guess that would make it legal.

 

I'm talking about the waste gates dumping to the atmosphere -> no mufflers...can't run open exhaust here. It has to be gas tight all the way to the back or the side. What do I care about a CARB #? I live in the Netherlands..we don't have a governator here.

The forum sometimes amazes me also...in the way that when there's some kind of debate that remotely also relates to them they seem to find it instantaneously...weird!!!

 

The kit doesn't have any mufflers, the turbos take their place and mount right where the mufflers used to be. I like the idea of forwarding the gas to the edge of the vehicle though. I guess if you're blowing off unwanted boost you're vehicle's ususally moving some, (cept on a good burnout ), and the wind moves released gas along. It would be feasable to connect the output of the wastgate to the tail pipe after the turbos just to get it to the edge of the vehicle though.

My wife wants to visit the netherlands, family history and all. Lots of covettes there?

 

yeah, largest vette club of europe here.

 

If the system produces more boost than motors can handle, why is this such a serious flaw demanding comparison to another design that also makes more boost than the motor can handle. There are many differences to front/rear mounting, and many advantages to rear mounting. If someone wants to hang their hat on a disadvantage on distance or heat loss is inferior to front mounting, so be it, but it doesn't make any difference.

Here's some trivia. The rear mount design admits to losing one pound of boost to pressurize longer tubing. At the same time, the charged air looses 100 degrees of heat during the trip up front. As confirmed on horsepower tv the other day, this 100 degress equates to 50 regained horsepower.

Since each pound of boost equals an estimated 35 horsepower, losing 35 and gaining 50, is a net gain of 15 horsepower directly attributed to nothing other than the rear mount design itself.

Even agreeing to heat loss, and loosing 1psi of boost, dialing in one more pound of boost at the turbo returns the manifold to the desired boost level up front. Boost, now being equal at the manifolds, results in a full 50hp increase (instead of just 15) over front mount.

The don't go there because of heat loss issue still seems mute to me. I'm ok with it. It does lose heat in both directions, and on the way back to the motor is gains more than it loses.