Pontiac GTO Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok guys I need some kinda techie info... If you were to compare the two systems, what would you rate there installability and longevity.
-This will be the 8lb Intercooled STS with M6 PopOff VS Intercooled ProCharger
-In the end them seem to cost the same... roughly 7000 installed w/custom tune vs 6500 installed with there tune ( I think I would go get custom NeWays so theres 7000 vs 7000
-Things I would like to know oiling problems for each MAF AIR Temp for each... oviously the lower of the two would let you run more boost :) The effects of Headers and underdrive pully.
-Stuff like that,
-Not trying to start a war here just need some facts so I can make a good choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
Which engine? the 5.7 or 6.0? Turbos make huge power but the sts sys suffers from alot of lag, the procharger takes a second to spool up as well. ones engine driven vs exhaust powered. Depends what you're looking for?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Looking for 2004 5.7 M6 stuff :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
STS............but then we've already discussed this during lunch now didn't we.......lol How close are you Loyd? ......I'm starring at the STS kit, she's soooo pretty...... sorry. :cheers
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Get the procharger, even with the belt it's still more efficient than the STS
issuez
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
The T67 that often comes with the STS kits is a rather large turbo that produces "unfulfilling" results in the STS configuration. The Procharger does just as it should, belts up and blows air. In a traditional engine compartment turbo layout the T67 would school the procharger in area under the curve and overall performance. However with the choked down turbine A/R that typically would be used to compensate for a lower displacement engine or a twin turbo applications combined with the heat loss and travel distance of the hot pipes in the STS configuration makes it still produce admirable numbers, but not par with what the compressor is capable of from a power and response perspective.
Second, these cars a low to the ground, they are designed that way for cruising and "elevated" speeds. Having the lower stance tends to cut the air from out from underneath the car to improve stability. The "pipe" that is used to transport the compressed air from the turbo up to the intake doesn't take on the same airflow that the procharger intercooler would (which is a poor choice to compare an intercooler with that "pipe" anyway) and doesn't have the same heat transfer, ie efficiency capability, that the procharger would have in mounting the intercooler in the nose.
Finally, take a look at available air at speed. When you're driving down a dusty road, does dirt settle on the nose or on the tail? It settles on the tail because there is less airflow at that point to blow the dust away, that's right where STS put the air filter, the procharger filter is located in the engine bay near the fenderwell, which is right where GM designed the air inlet to be.
In this application, the Procharger, despite the fact of being belt driven, wins out. When the T67 is mounted in the engine compartment and given a proper front mount intercooler, the procharger will be left wanting, but for the time being it takes the cake.
issuez
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
I like Turbo's better myself, but the sts has a lot of tubing and such ran under the car.

I would go with the pro charger kit.

plus with turbo's you have to let them idle for a good minute to keep the oil from coking (SP?) up.

just my opinion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
I personaly would go with the STS, I have seen and heard of several more Prochargers go back for several rebuilds because they keep blowing there seals, an issue that procharger was sapose to have fixed and has yet to do so succesfully
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Regardless of which supercharger is used, what gains can be expected on a 2005? I mean how many psi can be put to the 11:1 compression ls2 without massive detonation? On pump gas that is. I was just wanting to know because I would like to supercharge mine as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
ftlfirefighter said:
Go for the Harrop Stealth roots type blower from Australia. Makes gobs of power, has built in liquid to air intercooler and fits right in the V of the engine. No plumbers nightmare of plumbing. http://www.harrop.com.au/root_folder/engine_components/stealth_ls112-75.html
That is a really sweet set up. Looks as clean as the Magnuson. Been wanting to go the supercharger route, but the ProCharger installation isn't particularly elegant while the Maggies appear to have issues with heat. The turbo setup looks terrific as well, but the complexity is a little much for my taste.

Thanks for the info...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
any idea when the 05 harrop s/c is coming out, DAMN, it looks like the aussies know a thing or two about supercharging!! What do those prices translate to, if it is under 5500 hundred bucks count me in!(if not Im goin with the maggie)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
Their prices include a 10% value added tax (super sales tax!), so subtract 10% then mulitiply by 0.765497 to convert to US dollars. Should come out to $5646 US
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
Traction issuez said:
The T67 that often comes with the STS kits is a rather large turbo that produces "unfulfilling" results in the STS configuration. The Procharger does just as it should, belts up and blows air. In a traditional engine compartment turbo layout the T67 would school the procharger in area under the curve and overall performance. However with the choked down turbine A/R that typically would be used to compensate for a lower displacement engine or a twin turbo applications combined with the heat loss and travel distance of the hot pipes in the STS configuration makes it still produce admirable numbers, but not par with what the compressor is capable of from a power and response perspective.
Second, these cars a low to the ground, they are designed that way for cruising and "elevated" speeds. Having the lower stance tends to cut the air from out from underneath the car to improve stability. The "pipe" that is used to transport the compressed air from the turbo up to the intake doesn't take on the same airflow that the procharger intercooler would (which is a poor choice to compare an intercooler with that "pipe" anyway) and doesn't have the same heat transfer, ie efficiency capability, that the procharger would have in mounting the intercooler in the nose.
Finally, take a look at available air at speed. When you're driving down a dusty road, does dirt settle on the nose or on the tail? It settles on the tail because there is less airflow at that point to blow the dust away, that's right where STS put the air filter, the procharger filter is located in the engine bay near the fenderwell, which is right where GM designed the air inlet to be.
In this application, the Procharger, despite the fact of being belt driven, wins out. When the T67 is mounted in the engine compartment and given a proper front mount intercooler, the procharger will be left wanting, but for the time being it takes the cake.
issuez
I wished I had more time today to go over (wait till tomorrow..), in short if you want to argue #'s an 04 GTO w/ Procharger went 12.8's , 04 GTO w/ base STS (no i/c) went 12.34's same driver........btw, I'll go over the informative response tomorrow......some of your #'s are wrong.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
GTODEALER said:
I wished I had more time today to go over (wait till tomorrow..), in short if you want to argue #'s an 04 GTO w/ Procharger went 12.8's , 04 GTO w/ base STS (no i/c) went 12.34's same driver........btw, I'll go over the informative response tomorrow......some of your #'s are wrong.
From what I read he is pretty much dead on. Comparing track times when calculating power efficiencey is moot, he could have blown the launch, the track prep could have been different and so on. Bottom line, the STS system by basic design is the most inefficient turbo kit I have seen yet, yes it's easier to install than a conventiona kit and makes decent power, but use the same exact components and build a kit with the turbo where it's supposed to be (under the hood close to the header), and it will make more power period.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,541 Posts
Scott02GT said:
From what I read he is pretty much dead on. Comparing track times when calculating power efficiencey is moot, he could have blown the launch, the track prep could have been different and so on. Bottom line, the STS system by basic design is the most inefficient turbo kit I have seen yet, yes it's easier to install than a conventiona kit and makes decent power, but use the same exact components and build a kit with the turbo where it's supposed to be (under the hood close to the header), and it will make more power period.
blah, blah, I've seen the cars perform....yes the system looks ineffecient, but the performance #'s speak for themselves....btw, find a GTO running in the 10's with a Procharger.......I know what they are capable of but the STS has already proven itself. I'm not trying to argue, listen to what I'm saying...off the header or part of the catback the turbo will always be better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
STS turbo is as radical of an idea as trying to get to India from Europe by sailing west. Read the articles about how despite all previous theories on turbos this works and well.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top