Hello

I was just wondering if anyone has the STS Turbocharger system which is installed instead of the muffler at the back of the car instead of under the hood in order to keep temperatures down.

Is it a good system? Is it worth the $4,000? How hard is it to install?


Thanks

Just going by what I hear, and have seen in a couple vids online.
They don't seem to perform.
Possibly boost dropoff from all the piping? Don't know, try doing a search on google.

I have not really seen any cars with that system perform all that great. I guess it works OK, but does have some short comings.

I'm sure it works however a turbo system also uses the heat energy to spin the turbo so I can't imagine how much heat there is left at the end of the exhaust. The turbo I had on my Mustang was bolted directly on the header and that kit (HP performance) was awesome. The heat under the hood was nasty though!

If you think this is how turbos work, then you need to do a little research.

ORIGINAL: jacksonjw81

If you think this is how turbos work, then you need to do a little research.


Educate me.

not tryin to stir poo into the air but just to educate anyone that would like to understand how turbos work heres a terrific site www.howstuffworks.com .along with other automotive things discussed here it is somewhat helpful

They are trying to run a turbo on compressed air at the end of the exhaust pipe, but that is not really how a turbo works. It needs to be installed as close as possible to the exhaust valves, where there is maximum heat, gas velocity, and pressure. That is why you don't see factories using turbos at the end of tailpipes.

STS kit to me is more for sound then performance. :p

ORIGINAL: jacksonjw81

If you think this is how turbos work, then you need to do a little research.



Hmm, I've been doing this all wrong for the last 10 years of working on turbocharged cars I guess.....

I agree with most of the responses in here though. I've never understood why people think a turbo mounted that far downstream (after a huge loss in heat and velocity) is a good idea. Uneven, Log-type manifolds that mount the turbo right off of the heads aren't near perfection or great for performance either, but the STS kit is at the opposite end of the spectrum.

Give me a nice, thick-wall, SS, even-length, set of tubular headers and I'm happy.

Hey guys, just stumbled across this forum topic and thought I'd add a few points.

First, I've been for a drive in a STS equipped car - so I am quallified to add my views.

The turbos are far from being just for sound - the systems REALLY perform well. The lag is minimal, less than lots of factory turbo's I've driven.

Boost is progressive and controlable under gradual throttle, and fantastic under wide open throttle, with a real kick in the pants. Don't be fooled just because it sits under the rear of the car, full boost is right there at 3000rpm!

How can anybody argue with dyno results?
50 to 60% increase in HP......... 60 plus % increase in torque...... you do the math and figure it out. And all the increases are with a standard turbo kit, standard headers or manifolds, and the cats still fitted, and running on low boost - but can be increased to around 16lbs (with injectors/fuel pump upgrade and tune)!

They have a seperate oil scavenging pump, dont need water cooling due to lower heat, and are amazingly reliable for that same reason.

The pipework is almost the same volume as a large intercooler, and acts as an intercooler itself, with heat being disipatred through the tube wall.

Bang for buck, you shouldn't go past it, and don't knock it till you've tried it!

ORIGINAL: z28pete

They are trying to run a turbo on compressed air at the end of the exhaust pipe, but that is not really how a turbo works. It needs to be installed as close as possible to the exhaust valves, where there is maximum heat, gas velocity, and pressure. That is why you don't see factories using turbos at the end of tailpipes.


1/ exhaust gasses are not, nor were they ever 'compressed'.

2/ heat does not spin a turbo impeller, exhaust gas velocity does.

3/ Velocity is created as the gasses enter the turbo. There is still the same ammount of gas at the rear of the exhaust syatem as there is at the front (just like a vacuum cleaner on 'blow') - only differnce is the gasses cool down as they go - they speed up again as they enter the turbo (like a venturi) and spin the impellor.

Factories dont run turbos on the rear of cars because it's not the 'norm'. Thats not to say it doesnt work...... just that it's not YET accepted as the 'thing to do'. Remember when all cars were rear wheel drive? Who would have thought!

Cheers

ORIGINAL: hookedonboost


ORIGINAL: z28pete

They are trying to run a turbo on compressed air at the end of the exhaust pipe, but that is not really how a turbo works. It needs to be installed as close as possible to the exhaust valves, where there is maximum heat, gas velocity, and pressure. That is why you don't see factories using turbos at the end of tailpipes.


1/ exhaust gasses are not, nor were they ever 'compressed'.

2/ heat does not spin a turbo impeller, exhaust gas velocity does.

3/ Velocity is created as the gasses enter the turbo. There is still the same ammount of gas at the rear of the exhaust syatem as there is at the front (just like a vacuum cleaner on 'blow') - only differnce is the gasses cool down as they go - they speed up again as they enter the turbo (like a venturi) and spin the impellor.

Factories dont run turbos on the rear of cars because it's not the 'norm'. Thats not to say it doesnt work...... just that it's not YET accepted as the 'thing to do'. Remember when all cars were rear wheel drive? Who would have thought!

Cheers


You've just re-iterated they techno-babble that STS uses on their site to tip-toe around the shortcomings of the rear-mounted design.

Basic turbocharging physics alone will let you know that while this turbo setup *will* work, it is by no means the "Correct" or best performing way of going about it. I've yet to see many positive results from these systems other then "ass dyno" opinions from people with limited turbocharger knowledge. A "50%" increase in power (about 100 wheel horsepower in these cars) really isn't something to brag about with a turbocharger setup (I've seen higher dyno figures from turbocharged 4 cylinders by just tweaking the original setup). Wth other setups I've seen almost 600 whp at 9psi--do the math on that one.