US-1
Banned
Should be.
Should be.

Also make sure the lines are as straight as possible without any level sections. You want them to have a continuous drop from the turbo to the pan.
Earl

492whp 503 ft/lb
After being corrected only revving to 6,000 rpms...
http://efilogics.com/dyno/graph.php...=1&rpm=1&sl=1&sln=1&runid1=893&rgb1=000000255
Well see how long it lasts now. I have to drive 4hours to a car show May 7th-10th thats will be the test...
Video not uploaded yet....
congrats!
492whp 503 ft/lb
After being corrected only revving to 6,000 rpms...
Because the STS is a pile of dogshit.
could you imagine the lag on those sons of bitches. They might as well be mounted in a different zip code to the intake
took the words right off my finger tips ha ha
^Agreed, i would never run the STS twin turbo setup.. Just a few quick reasons that pop into my mind 1) i am lowered and don't want to hit them while driving on shitty roads, 2) that is far for the oil lines to travel and raises the risk of failure greatly 3) Lag, not sure if it is an issue but it sure seems like it could be and to me, they sound weird compared to a normal mounted turbo under the engine bay.. 4) oh did i mention the price? lol..
I feel like anyone can unbolt them or tamper with them if they know they are there.. That can't be good, especially when driving through a good 8+ inches of water.. Which i have had to do before.
Now there is something we can agree on.
To all you who bash the STS kit... I ran a single turbo STS kit for a little more than a year, and I was happier than when I had my d1sc procharged bullit, and my ls2 gto on nitrous. STS makes a good kit, my power number are in the sig with a perfect AFR across the board and inlets temps @ no higher than 84* on a hot miami summer day. I would pull c6 z06's and pretty much any ( stock motor ofcourse ) supercharged or n2o 3v. Was at full boost by 4200rpm and trapped 124 in the 1/4. Not bad for a bonestock car with a STS kit @ psi if you ask me.

You'll pardon me if I'm not impressed with STS. I'm somewhat biased.![]()

492whp 503 ft/lb
After being corrected only revving to 6,000 rpms...
http://efilogics.com/dyno/graph.php...=1&rpm=1&sl=1&sln=1&runid1=893&rgb1=000000255
Well see how long it lasts now. I have to drive 4hours to a car show May 7th-10th thats will be the test...
Video not uploaded yet....


Grats man. You put alot of sweat into that thing, and noww have a pre dyno tune to go with it..And if you are hard up on dyno numbers( I'm sure you are not), You're 492 on Chris' dyno would be close to 530-540 on a dyno jet. His dyno is known as the "heartbreaker" to all the dyno queens, lol..Did you pass the message along to Chris like asked?
![]()