STS / RMT for 500+ WHP goals
02-08-2010, 10:49 AM
#1
STS / RMT for 500+ WHP goals
Would you guys consider a single STS kit to be able to support 500+ whp? Assuming the proper turbo is selected (capabale of producing such flow required), and intercooler is also upgraded. Would the small 2" piping be a limiting factor to achieve such powers?
The reason I ask is because I have my own custom rear mount setup for 3 years now, now on a built bottom end. I am soon to upgrade to a larger turbo which should be able to support 500-600whp, my current one is maxed out (based on compression maps, and some calculations iv done, and also the lack of power when i increase boost).
As for my setup, I have 2" pipe from the turbo to the intercoolers inlet, after the IC everything is 3" to the intake manifold.
(If this thread belongs inside the STS thread please let me know, I figured this is a more specific question so made my own).
The reason I ask is because I have my own custom rear mount setup for 3 years now, now on a built bottom end. I am soon to upgrade to a larger turbo which should be able to support 500-600whp, my current one is maxed out (based on compression maps, and some calculations iv done, and also the lack of power when i increase boost).
As for my setup, I have 2" pipe from the turbo to the intercoolers inlet, after the IC everything is 3" to the intake manifold.
(If this thread belongs inside the STS thread please let me know, I figured this is a more specific question so made my own).
02-08-2010, 10:56 AM
#2
all on stock block with 440cc injectors, stock fuel system, and a split second box right?
i'd personally go with a turbonetics to reach your goals. straight out of the box kit.
NSFW:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t6bAZmEEIb0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t6bAZmEEIb0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
i'd personally go with a turbonetics to reach your goals. straight out of the box kit.
NSFW:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t6bAZmEEIb0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t6bAZmEEIb0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
02-08-2010, 11:05 AM
#5
yes i did read OP's post. im just teasing him. even OP realizes what the limitations and restrictions of his kit. I fear he would be going down Craigs path with the turbonetics failure trying to make big power out of a kit that just want intended to make. too much money and time invested and very little gained. OP if you were willing to be the guinea pig go right ahead and good luck. your experience may help the STS owners avoid future failure or provide a good path to more power. im gonna lean towards failure though from past experiences.
02-08-2010, 11:09 AM
#6
yes i did read OP's post. im just teasing him. even OP realizes what the limitations and restrictions of his kit. I fear he would be going down Craigs path with the turbonetics failure trying to make big power out of a kit that just want intended to make. too much money and time invested and very little gained. OP if you were willing to be the guinea pig go right ahead and good luck. your experience may help the STS owners avoid future failure or provide a good path to more power. im gonna lean towards failure though from past experiences.
What would you consider the limiting factor on the kit to be? The only thing I can think of physics wise is the piping diameter being too small to support the demanded flow for such power goals.
How does one kit differ from another? For example why would one system be able to handle higher HP vs. another, the only thing I can think of is piping diameters and the quality of bends (mandrel vs. crushed) and also the amount of bends, assuming the turbo selected is adequate for the goals as well as post turbo(downpipe) flow is enough. Correct me if im wrong plz.
Last edited by streetzlegend; 02-08-2010 at 11:18 AM.
Trending Topics
02-08-2010, 11:32 AM
#8
As for the block its a built bottom end, wiseco 8.8:1, eagles, acl bearings, HR headgasket and HR head bolts, I am not looking for anything over 600hp, just wanna be within that low 500hp range. I dont think I would push it more than that on the stock HR bolts (since we dont have concrete data as too how much they can really handle)
Last edited by streetzlegend; 02-08-2010 at 11:43 AM.
I thought you weren't teasing him. Glad that you were....
02-08-2010, 01:18 PM
#14
From what I have researched for my build I can tell you that the 2" tubing may be a bit too small.
The air velocity inside the IC piping should be below mach .4 (304 mph). This is according to good old Corky Bell. So the 2" tubing is maxed out at about 580 cfm. When you go over this air speed the resistance to flow increases greatly, and flow losses ocur.
I think the IC tubing is already near it's limit with the stock STS turbo.
I would upgrade to 2.5" myself.
This is why I chose to run the 2.75" (1100cfm capacity) over the 2.5" (900cfm capacity) for my builds.
The air velocity inside the IC piping should be below mach .4 (304 mph). This is according to good old Corky Bell. So the 2" tubing is maxed out at about 580 cfm. When you go over this air speed the resistance to flow increases greatly, and flow losses ocur.
I think the IC tubing is already near it's limit with the stock STS turbo.
I would upgrade to 2.5" myself.
This is why I chose to run the 2.75" (1100cfm capacity) over the 2.5" (900cfm capacity) for my builds.
02-08-2010, 01:30 PM
#16
From what I have researched for my build I can tell you that the 2" tubing may be a bit too small.
The air velocity inside the IC piping should be below mach .4 (304 mph). This is according to good old Corky Bell. So the 2" tubing is maxed out at about 580 cfm. When you go over this air speed the resistance to flow increases greatly, and flow losses ocur.
I think the IC tubing is already near it's limit with the stock STS turbo.
I would upgrade to 2.5" myself.
This is why I chose to run the 2.75" (1100cfm capacity) over the 2.5" (900cfm capacity) for my builds.
The air velocity inside the IC piping should be below mach .4 (304 mph). This is according to good old Corky Bell. So the 2" tubing is maxed out at about 580 cfm. When you go over this air speed the resistance to flow increases greatly, and flow losses ocur.
I think the IC tubing is already near it's limit with the stock STS turbo.
I would upgrade to 2.5" myself.
This is why I chose to run the 2.75" (1100cfm capacity) over the 2.5" (900cfm capacity) for my builds.
I guess only one way to find out, ill put in the turbo and see how it responds.
what would be a sign of inefficient piping? Lack of power, increase in charged heat?
02-08-2010, 02:32 PM
#17
thanx that's what I was looking for. I was told elsewhere that 2" is too small but wanted to get more opinions.
I guess only one way to find out, ill put in the turbo and see how it responds.
what would be a sign of inefficient piping? Lack of power, increase in charged heat?
I guess only one way to find out, ill put in the turbo and see how it responds.
what would be a sign of inefficient piping? Lack of power, increase in charged heat?
02-08-2010, 04:18 PM
#18
I have a question, and I know this might be pushing it for a "home made" build type deal but considering I already have slight ground clearance issues with 2" piping, has there been such thing as running two small pipes to equate to the same volume as a single large pipe? For example if i want 3" piping or 2.5 I would run two 1.5" pipes instead, etc... Would that be inefficient since the smaller diameter will still have too much velocity?
02-09-2010, 04:12 AM
#19
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Winfield, IL
Posts: 1,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Area goes up with the square of the radius dude. 2 x 1.5" does not have nearly the area that a single 2.5" pipe does, and you'd need 4 1.5" pipes to get the flow capability of a 3" pipe....
2x 1.5" = 3.52 sq-in
1x 2.5" = 4.91 sq-in
1x 3.0" = 7.07 sq-in
2x 1.5" = 3.52 sq-in
1x 2.5" = 4.91 sq-in
1x 3.0" = 7.07 sq-in
02-09-2010, 05:46 AM
#20
How are you having problems with 2" IC piping scraping. I have a full turbo kit under the car without any clearance issues at all.
Guys put dual 3" exhaust under there (all though they would be hanging low) but still, it is possible.
2.5" tubing would do the job just fine for your power goals.
Guys put dual 3" exhaust under there (all though they would be hanging low) but still, it is possible.
2.5" tubing would do the job just fine for your power goals.