:p

 

Why am I the only one that noticed that none of the pictures of the turbo are actually installed on the Car? and he has no sales or previous feedback. Also that is Soul Assasin's car in the picture which was mentioned before, I really don't know where in the rear you would mount this turbocharger, I mena to be able to keep a muffler at all... would be tight. I personally think the whole thing is a sham... a scheem. I also think that turbo LAG WOULD BE HUGE!

 

i just looked at their site...they have some good comments from a few people that know what they are talking about. I don't think they made it up...Maybe this is not a good idea for the rotary(but who knows) but it seems like it has a place on piston motors
here is the article in TURBO mag
http://i.b5z.net/i/u/1473169/f/Press/STS_THP.pdf

lets keep an open mind...after all..our motors are completely diff then all others and it is still not accepted as a good motor...the rotary tends to have a bad rep with some folks....you guys get the idea of what I am saying..maybe this new turbo idea just needs a little time to catch on!

 

I don't get it. With what is available to our cars already, what is the benefit of this system?
-John

 

i'm the first to go with a new idea, but this is just dumb. theres a difference between a new idea like a rotary engine and a new idea like a rear mount turbo.

there is just no practical advantage, so why do it?

pat

 

they installed one of these on a camaro on two guys garage. they did a base line run of 260 hp at the rear. then they bolted it on did a run and got 410 hp and about that in tq at the rear wheels! this was at 5 psi with no tunning. then it has a switch you flip which alows 7 psi then they did a run and go 100 more hp and about 115-120 more tq. this is all from memory of about 3 weeks ago. the power numbers may be off by a couple. the guys that are complaining about it would be too loud, whats up with that? i love the sound of a screaming turbo.

 

I don't think that this auction has any affiliation with STS. The phone number listed in the auction is a New York area code and STS is in Utah. Secondly, where are you going to put the turbo. There is no unused space under an FC.

I think that the rear mounted turbo concept works, but its only practical in a car such as an F-body where the engine bay is cramped or the engine is burried halfway under the windshield. As far as the heat issue goes, you can just install a smaller turbine housing.

 

From what I recall from one of those shows on rear mounted turbos, it takes .04 seconds, or something stupid like that, for the exhaust to get from the engine to the end of the exhaust.

 

under hood temps would also be kept down, theres another advantage. and i really don't think it would be as terribly lagging as you guys think. on the other hand i'm not really a turbo guy, or an engineer. (nz, chime in any second)

i'm just saying don't knock it till you've tried it. turbo magazine reviewed an sts system, to my recolection they found it to be quite functional. and i'm pretty sure that turbo magazine is a credible source. they've been around for longer than any of the spo-com mags. if i had the money i'd actually like to try a setup like this, for ***** and giggles. plus i'd really like to know what it sounds like too

 

I remember watching that show and just shaking my head the whole way through. Sam, Dave and the other guy just don't seem to know what they are doing. Half of what they said was just plain wrong. And have you seen the useless products they plug? What annoyed me the most is that they said dyno tuning was "optional". Uh huh. They also said that there was no need for intercooling. I'd like to see them prove that with an intake air temp sensor. As we all know, air heats up significantly when you compress it, and that long pipe leading back to the intake has very little surface area for heat transfer to the outside air...

At any rate, it's obvious that the rear mounting approach DOES work. But does it work better then on a manifold directly connectd to the engine? Certainly not. The ONLY advantage of the rear mount design seems to be that it's easier to install. Considering the massive amount of plumbing involved (LONG air and oil lines, oil pump, etc.) it seems less reliable in the long term. And the exhaust supports are not designed to support the weight of a turbocharger (though that's easy to fix). You also don't want to hit any large bumps or potholes with this specific setup.

Basically, we have a HUGE amount of engine bay space, so there's no point in not using it and moving the turbocharger into a much less then ideal position.

 

The reason that it works is because its on a 5.7 V8 with n/a compression( i think 10.1:1 but dont quote me) so there isnt really much turbo lag. The points that aaron is making def seem true to me as well. On a na rx7 which doesnt make nearly the tq and hp as an LS1 it would take a lot more to get it moving. I guess you would really have to rev the crap out of it from a dig and I would say an intercooler should be nec above a low psi setting like 5 or 6.

 

OK, I didnt feel like reading all this thread so if I repeat something that has already been said, sorry.

That is pretty much just like a STS turbo setup and its just as INEFFICIENT as that shitty STS turbo setup. You need your tubo to be WAY closer to the exhaust ports, and what makes them think you can use NO intercooler just because it is mounted in the rear of the car. That is not true, the air heats up the same because it is being compressed, the fact that the EGT's arent as hot doesnt make any difference on the intake temp, althought the fact that the EGT's are cooler and they use no IC does effect the performance and efficiency of the turbo. Heat is energy, you should have your turbo mounted anywhere from about 6-18 inches from the exhaust ports, depending on your application.

here is a similar thread in local forum I am in here in Birmingham, Al, go to the 5th page, thats where the "argument" started.

http://forums.bhamracing.com/showthr...1&page=5&pp=10