Thoughts on a STS turbo? |
Thoughts on a STS turbo? |
Sep 25, 2009 - 10:32 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined May 29, '09 From Lake Ariel, PA Currently Offline Reputation: 4 (100%) |
Has anyone tried or seen one of these before? Would it be hard to run the oil line back there? any comments are much appreciated.
http://www.ststurbo.com/ -------------------- Representing the Convertible Crew since 2008 |
Sep 26, 2009 - 11:40 AM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Dec 8, '03 From Lancaster CA Currently Offline Reputation: 6 (100%) |
they work good on V8's but i dont think its worth it on a 4 banger
-------------------- 2001 Celica GT-S Turbo
1997 Supra TT 6speed 1997 Celica 3MZ/1MZ swap 1990 Celica All-Trac |
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:14 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Aug 13, '09 From MD Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
it can work but will be horrible compared to a manifold mounted turbo.
where did you plan on putting the air filter? |
Sep 26, 2009 - 1:27 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jun 18, '09 From Orlando Currently Offline Reputation: 8 (100%) |
Pretty sure it's impossible to push enough exhaust to make this system effective on a 4-banger.
-------------------- '97 ST \ Eibach \ KYB \ Kenwood \ Alpine \ Cusco \ OEM+ [sold 10/18]
'93 MX-5 LE |
Oct 1, 2009 - 7:11 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jan 28, '09 From Austin, TX Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
remote mounted turbos are okay if you're tight on space in the engine bay. The celica has plenty of room for a good turbo setup directly in the engine bay. See here for our new kit: http://www.6gc.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=69593
-------------------- |
Oct 4, 2009 - 9:56 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jul 29, '07 From Quebec, Canada Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
On a 4cylinders it would be very long to compress: exhaust to the turbine wheel (to much pressure "elasticity" at this distance)
and very long to recompress: air from the compressor wheel to the intake manifold Results: Much lag and especially a lot of energy loss when BOV open to put out all the air you compress on the 8feet long pipe, so from gear to gear you would have to recompress all the air into that piping. what a bad idea for 4 cylinders, also for 6-8-10-12-16 cylinders engine, what a crappy idea (superchargers don't produce heat at all) .....and what a good idea to put a turbo under a fuel tank This post has been edited by domyz: Oct 4, 2009 - 10:00 PM |
Oct 22, 2009 - 12:16 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Aug 13, '09 From MD Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
superchargers don't produce heat? perhaps you should read more.
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 12:56 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined May 22, '03 From NOVA Currently Offline Reputation: 16 (100%) |
he's from Canada, superchargers work differently there :rofl:
STS turbo is an inefficient and more costly way to turbo. WIll it work? yes.....is it the best idea/way to do it? NO |
Oct 22, 2009 - 1:08 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jul 7, '06 From Los Alamos, NM Currently Offline Reputation: 1 (100%) |
what if i wanted to twin charge my mini?
-------------------- 2015 Subaru WRX. World Rally Blue/Black
2001 Honda S2000. Spa Yellow/Black |
Oct 22, 2009 - 1:10 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined May 24, '03 From Andrews TX Currently Offline Reputation: 1 (100%) |
i have seen quite a few sts powered f-bodies here and the way they compensate for the distance to make up for the elasticity it a smaller turbine so it will spool...
but basically everyone is right i have raced a few sts f-bodies in my z28(motor+spray) and smoke them the few people with twin or single underhood turbos on f-bodies take me most of the time... so it is easIER in a car without room under hood but at the cost of performance... so it might seem eisier but but the time you factor in all piping, oil lines, and a scavenge pump for the oil line and alot more little extras it slowly becomes alot more hassle... -------------------- If anyone is missing NASCAR and it's not on Speed Channel, take a fistful of Skittles, throw them in the toilet and hit the flush handle. Instant NASCAR!!!
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 1:40 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined May 22, '03 From NOVA Currently Offline Reputation: 16 (100%) |
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 2:04 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Aug 31, '02 From Philadelphia, PA Currently Offline Reputation: 8 (100%) |
I dont know why people think its easier to try to bolt a turbo to your gas tank than it is to your exhaust manifold.
-------------------- 15PSI - 30MPG - Megasquirt Tuned
|
Oct 22, 2009 - 3:58 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Aug 11, '08 From London Currently Offline Reputation: 7 (100%) |
gonna need some extreme plumbing to get one of those fitted in the back. Great idea and nice concept though. But imagine the weight it's going to add with about 10 meters of stainless steel pipes?
|
Nov 3, 2009 - 7:29 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Aug 29, '02 From San Diego CA Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
no lag and after a good tune itll run pretty good. plus this is mainly for the guys that want to keep everything in the "sleeper Mode"
|
Nov 3, 2009 - 8:29 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jul 29, '07 From Quebec, Canada Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
superchargers don't produce heat? perhaps you should read more. he's from Canada, superchargers work differently there :rofl: STS turbo is an inefficient and more costly way to turbo. WIll it work? yes.....is it the best idea/way to do it? NO Superchargers don't produce as much heat as an exhaust bolted turbine. I wrote my post a little to quickly: It didn't mean that they do not produce heat but they produce much less heat than a turbo. For better understanding I would say that for the same boost you need a much smaller intercooler core. And the underhood temperature will be also way colder This post has been edited by domyz: Nov 3, 2009 - 8:30 PM |
Nov 3, 2009 - 8:35 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jan 28, '09 From Austin, TX Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
superchargers don't produce heat? perhaps you should read more. he's from Canada, superchargers work differently there :rofl: STS turbo is an inefficient and more costly way to turbo. WIll it work? yes.....is it the best idea/way to do it? NO Superchargers don't produce as much heat as an exhaust bolted turbine. I wrote my post a little to quickly: It didn't mean that they do not produce heat but they produce much less heat than a turbo. For better understanding I would say that for the same boost you need a much smaller intercooler core. And the underhood temperature will be also way colder SC's are less effecient than turbo's by nature. SC's have quite a bit of parasitic power loss due to how they function, they are belt driven. Turbos work on wasted energy. -------------------- |
Nov 4, 2009 - 12:10 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jul 29, '07 From Quebec, Canada Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
For racing I would choose a supercharger , because of response and underhood/charge air temperatures
|
Nov 4, 2009 - 1:23 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jan 28, '09 From Austin, TX Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
For racing I would choose a supercharger , because of response and underhood/charge air temperatures That is a pretty "blanket" statement. It really depends on the type of racing, size of motor, power level you're dealing with, etc.... SC's in the old days were superior to turbos in many ways. These days with current turbo technology and design you will be hard pressed to find any SC setups that are a better overall choice over a turbo that produces similar power. -------------------- |
Nov 4, 2009 - 2:49 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jul 29, '07 From Quebec, Canada Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
Where did I talk of power output? You only seem to be wanting to argue with me. You seem to compare old superchargers with new turbos, read more. It is obvious that a turbocharged engine get better HP efficiency and higher HP output.
Do you have driving experience with these TWO setups, or with monitoring engine bay temps? Response is quicker, more torque at lower RPM and underhood and charge air temperature are lower with a supercharger setup, end of discussion. I won't write the whole story about why I say that. My choice for street/race is a turbo engine. My choice for only racing would be a supercharged engine, based on experience and what I feel better for lapping. |
Nov 5, 2009 - 12:06 PM |
|
Enthusiast Joined Jan 28, '09 From Austin, TX Currently Offline Reputation: 0 (0%) |
I didn't say you talked of power output, and neither did I. All I meant with "turbo that produces similar power" was that comparing a turbo that produces a similar power band to an SC that produces a similar power band, you see a smaller and smaller gap in low end torque these days with new turbo technologies. It seems like you may be reading too much into my post and trying to start an arguement.
Engine bay temps are just ONE part of the equation. It's not just two setups. There are many different types of SC's and many different types of turbos. Yes, I have built and driven many different SC'd cars from mustangs to mercedes to oldschool hemi powered muscle cars. They're great and they produce a great produce great power bands. I have also built and driven many turbo cars. Properly setup turbo cars from my experience provide a great power band, are more effecient, provide more adjustability, fast throttle response, fairly low intake temperatures with a proper IC setup, and even net better MPG. All of which matter. -------------------- |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: November 29th, 2024 - 9:59 PM |