Quick question, what happens to the STS when you run over a raccoon, lol? I have had one go under my car and smack my rear diff and poke a hole in my muffler, is that not right where a STS goes?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Opinions wanted about Turbo Vs. Supercharger
Collapse
X
-
you would have to hit it hard to do any damage and it would probaly fall offsigpic
Sold!
www.fquick.com/lozanoa11
94 Grand Cherokee (sold)
95 Accord(for sale)
99 Outback (snow destroyer)
Comment
-
you guys are ridiculious, rear mounted turbos work just fine as well as centrifugal superchargers. I believe Paul Major has been in the 7s for some time using a rear mounted turbo on his C5.
If I had to go FI I'd probably do a D1SC or F1A hands down, they flat out make much more power beyond the limits of a positive displacement supercharger and don't have the complicated oil and heat issues that most turbos have.Doing less with more

Comment
-
yes rear mounted turbos have the potentioal to put down good numbers but the kit from sts like it is dosent make crazy numberssigpic
Sold!
www.fquick.com/lozanoa11
94 Grand Cherokee (sold)
95 Accord(for sale)
99 Outback (snow destroyer)
Comment
-
People knock rear mounts all the time saying they lag and what not. Its going to spool slow if you don't know how to set one up.
Even a set up like this with a quite large 88mm turbo gets to full boost in under a second at WOT.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWU33BxKckc
And that run was something like 15PSILast edited by c0ncEpT; January 25th, 2009, 01:52 AM.
Comment
-
I dont think people say they dont work and make power.. i dont think thats the point.Originally posted by c0ncEpT View PostPeople knock rear mounts all the time saying they lag and what not. Its going to spool slow if you don't know how to set one up.
Even a set up like this with a quite large 88mm turbo gets to full boost in under a second at WOT.
And that run was something like 15PSI
The difference in lag might be a little, but without comparative measurement the average person wont knonw... since they are usually large turbos and have lots of lag anyhow. Also, lag at high RPM's is not a big issue.
The biggest problem is that people think that efficiency = HP.... and therefore the argument is that if the turbo has reduced efficiency then it cant make the HP, well thats wrong. If i put a 45% efficienct supercharger on the engine i would be able to make more hp.
I think this discussion can get very long fast...
Comment
-
This is all being over analyzed.
Only two questions need to be answered.
1. How much power do you want to make.
2. How much money do you have.
Only then can we discuss which application is more prudent.
We should almost make this part of a template that must be answered for threads like this...lol...Originally posted by Redd8407I WANT NOISE! SPEED! AN ENGINE THAT SHAKES MY INTERNAL ORGANS LIKE THEY GOT PARKINSON'S! I DONT WANT AN ENGINE THAT IS PARTIALLY POWERED BY MY LAPTOP BATTERY!Originally posted by Z28ISGR8WHY THE F*CK IS THERE A GOAT ON A FERRARI?Originally posted by DarrenI think it is because I take it in and out all the time, the rubber has just stretched out, especially at the bottom where it is really thin. It annoys me more then anything.
Comment
-
Well I want the car to still be very street worthy. Its used mostly for cruising, shows, and things like that. I wanted to add enough power to take it to about 375-400 hp or about 100-125 over stock. I know that Nitrous has jets just for those levels, but I don't want nitrous because of it being a convertible I don't have that much space in the trunk already. I thought it would be okay to put about 6-7 psi in it, but it sounds like I'm wrong. It surprises me because my old Mustang's 5.0 could handle 10-12 psi in stock form. Now before you all razz me I know the LT1 is higher compression and makes 275hp to my 5.0's 225. I'm just a little miffed because the LT1 has aluminum heads which dissipate heat better than the cast iron heads I had on my mustang. Basically I'm just looking to take the car to LS1 standards. So really even 350 HP would work. I know I can get their easily with a head and cam package, but I didn't want to tear it apart. Any other ideas ? and don't tell me yeah buy an LS1 car lolsigpic
Comment
-
Either kit will get you to those power levels very easily, but remember add about another grand to the price of the kit for misc. stuff to get it all set up and running properly and make sure you find a great tuner and go for it.Doing less with more

Comment
-
both will be plenty
the sts would probaly be easyest to install b/c there is not much under the hood and would sound cooler
but the procharger wouldnt lag..... as much. there is some lag with centrifugal's.sigpic
Sold!
www.fquick.com/lozanoa11
94 Grand Cherokee (sold)
95 Accord(for sale)
99 Outback (snow destroyer)
Comment
-
Installing a supercharger/turbo is very cool but nobody said it was really easy. You'll end up with car parts all over your garage no matter which way you go.Originally posted by ModernMuscleHead View PostI know I can get their easily with a head and cam package, but I didn't want to tear it apart.
1BADAIR- That white Z is BADD @ss!!! Nice lookin car!!
cOncEpt- you too, thanks for the vid! I really like those rear turbos
Last edited by 1quik6; January 26th, 2009, 04:22 PM.1989 TTA 23,000 miles, ran 12.42@107 with stock long block, turbo & intercooler.
Just installed Precision Dbb 6262rs, 4.1L stroker, Ported heads, dutt neck IC, and other stuff
1995 Z28, hardtop M6, edelbrock tb, sfc's, K&N intake, B&M shifter, spec 3 clutch, 4.10 gears, and other stuff
Comment
-
well I have a 96 Z with an sts and if I can give you any advice it would be go for a ride in all different combos, there are enough people on here that would probably be willing to do so. Then you can decide how you would like yours to act instead of just listening to everyone play up there favorites.
Comment





Comment