# STS vs PRO Charger



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

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.


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

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?


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

Looking for 2004 5.7 M6 stuff


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

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


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2005)

Get the procharger, even with the belt it's still more efficient than the STS
issuez


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

Traction issuez said:


> Get the procharger, even with the belt it's still more efficient than the STS
> issuez


I'd argue all day with that..........what are you basing this off of?


----------



## Guest (Jun 14, 2005)

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


----------



## Clevite 77 (Dec 21, 2004)

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


----------



## Braman'sGTO (Mar 14, 2005)

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


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

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



















Now isn't that SWEET?


----------



## Braman'sGTO (Mar 14, 2005)

this one gets my vote


----------



## Vanpaul (Jun 5, 2005)

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.


----------



## b_a_betterperson (Feb 16, 2005)

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...


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

None of the systems put more than 5-6psi of boost into such a high comp motor


----------



## StocktonRaider (Mar 11, 2005)

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)


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

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


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

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.


----------



## Guest (Jun 16, 2005)

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.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

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.


----------



## mumrah (Apr 3, 2005)

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.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

mumrah said:


> 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.


 :agree


----------



## GTPprix (Mar 29, 2005)

I *love* my ProCharger, but i'll be damned if the STS isnt getting some incredible results on these cars!! I havent heard one complaint about the GTO STS kit and the results really do speak for themselves!! Tons of low end torque too  I'm sure you'll see ProCharged cars running similar times in the future, but for now the STS really is the proven method to go SILLY fast on these cars..


----------



## toolman (Jan 10, 2005)

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


This guy must not have seen the 10 second STS video, I havent heard of anything close in a procharger.


----------



## Braman'sGTO (Mar 14, 2005)

that and every STS kit that i have heard of for the GTO has been intercooled


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

*Got Turbo?*

Well Guys... I will settle this once and for all... There is a guy with a ProCharger in our club, I will install the new STS kit I just bought and I will let him drive it. 

PSYCHE, Bet you thought I was gonna race him 

He has had his dynoed at the place that I am gonna have mine tuned, we will know for sure.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DFWGTO said:


> Well Guys... I will settle this once and for all... There is a guy with a ProCharger in our club, I will install the new STS kit I just bought and I will let him drive it.
> 
> PSYCHE, Bet you thought I was gonna race him
> 
> He has had his dynoed at the place that I am gonna have mine tuned, we will know for sure.


Hehehehehe, I can't wait...... :cool


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

I Need ... Install.... 
Sorry I don't know where that came from.

Want some gofast soon! arty:


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DFWGTO said:


> I Need ... Install....
> Sorry I don't know where that came from.
> 
> Want some gofast soon! arty:


Man, you know all you have to do is call me and the install will be done!!!! Hell, we can do it at your house or mine...... :cheers


----------



## mumrah (Apr 3, 2005)

Sounds like an offer that nobody could pass up..


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

I think I will rent or buy a swamp cooler and we can do it at my house... I will need to clean my garage up so that all my tools are in order


----------



## geerhed (Feb 25, 2005)

I wouldnt buy the STS system simply on looks alone.. I dont care how well it performs.. the twin screw chargers look menacing atop the LS1 or LS2 PERIOD. I had a vortech on my 5.0 at the power it produced was impressive - 450 rwhp from a 306 ci.. I'm not against turbos.. my brother had a buick GN and that car was fun as hell. step on the gas and whoooossshhhhh..... nice power.. but the turbo belongs under the hood not behind the rear wheel - and that goes for the air cleaner too! 

Design a twin turbo intercooled set up for the LS1 or 2 and watch the money come in! period!


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

How's this for a twin setup?


----------



## phantom04 (Jan 1, 2005)

That has to be one of the most beautiful things i've ever seen


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

ftlfirefighter said:


> How's this for a twin setup?


Can you say...underhood temperatures..... :cheers


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

Is that a custom job or a kit you can buy?




ftlfirefighter said:


> How's this for a twin setup?


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

That's a one off custom by LPE for $45k


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

ahh,,ok,,wonderful... It better run 8s for 45K.. looks nice though..


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

GTODEALER said:


> 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.


is that the base $3999 kit just bolted on with no other mods/tuning/etc?
Basically what I am asking is what the base kit bolted on a box stock 04 does.
It seems intersting but there is so many things I would consider basic that are not included.. fmu/blowoff/timing control/boost control ,,if it runs 12.3s without any of that then that is really impressive.


----------



## ftlfirefighter (Jun 6, 2005)

Lingenfelter doesn't do a base kit, it's kinda all or nothing, it includes a 427 inch built motor to handle the turbos, rwhp is in excess of 700 they told me. Almost the entire front of the car is disassembled, motor pulled, etc to faciltate the install.


----------



## RiceEater (Jun 21, 2005)

700 rwhp?.....












I need to start saving my money


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> is that the base $3999 kit just bolted on with no other mods/tuning/etc?
> Basically what I am asking is what the base kit bolted on a box stock 04 does.
> It seems intersting but there is so many things I would consider basic that are not included.. fmu/blowoff/timing control/boost control ,,if it runs 12.3s without any of that then that is really impressive.


It was the $3999 base kit w/tune, tuning is a must! That was it, 4-5lbs of boost, automatic, and Nitto NT555R drag radials (245/45/17)..... :cheers 
BTW, we just put one on a slightly modded F-body, 8lbs kit w/HUGE front mount intercooler, it made 535 rwhp!!! Only one word to discribe this car......BRUTAL! :cheers


----------



## HTRDLNCN (Jul 1, 2005)

GTODEALER said:


> It was the $3999 base kit w/tune, tuning is a must! That was it, 4-5lbs of boost, automatic, and Nitto NT555R drag radials (245/45/17)..... :cheers


Whats the whole shebang with install and tune running?
time frame?
Thanks!


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

We will be installing it this weekend... Dun Dun DONE!


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)




----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

Thanks to GTODEALER


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

HTRDLNCN said:


> Whats the whole shebang with install and tune running?
> time frame?
> Thanks!


There are quite a few different options........ call me and we'll go over. And btw, thanks for not posting that retarded pic of me Lloyd (DFWGTO)...... your goat is a BAD ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :cheers


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DFWGTO said:


> Thanks to GTODEALER


Add STS to your mod list.....hehehehe....


----------



## RiceEater (Jun 21, 2005)

Well I have another little point to bring up now.

I've heard people saying of course that the STS seems to be a bit more sutied toward lower end power, and I mean that it gives more kick going from 0 to whatever than the ProCharger does. I also know that some people have gotten up to 4mpg better fuel economy!

So how does the ProCharger do for your fuel economy? And would you say it is more suited to kick in at higher speeds or has there just not really been anyone to tune their cars with the Pro on and make it work as it should!


----------



## DFWGTO (May 4, 2005)

The Tune is in... It matches the stock numbers on STS's site almost exactly
Crazy Eh! 96° Temp and it had just rained outside.. (the worst dyno conditions... high heat and humidity 402HP 431Ft/LBS Tourque he said he would rather set it "blah blah blah" to stop detonation possibilities since the motor is so new... so after that 396.4HP and 421.8Ft/LBS... He told me come back on a better day and it would be around 410 and 450... needless to say that day will be sooner than he thinks, soon I will order the InterCooler! Muah ha Ha! 
It is a real kick to drive! 
It sayes Psssss and you go bu by....


----------



## RamAir69 (Jun 8, 2005)

My P1SC gets a little better gas mileage. It is a animal on mid range to upper RPM. I am not a track junkie, but I do like high speed and autocross. I don't need gobs of torque down low. What the motor puts out is more than enough for what I do. 


I also think a properly tuned maggie or intercooled sts is hard to beat in 330 ft. There is a reason these guys are eating up the 1/4 mile track.

It all depends on your application.






RiceEater said:


> Well I have another little point to bring up now.
> 
> I've heard people saying of course that the STS seems to be a bit more sutied toward lower end power, and I mean that it gives more kick going from 0 to whatever than the ProCharger does. I also know that some people have gotten up to 4mpg better fuel economy!
> 
> So how does the ProCharger do for your fuel economy? And would you say it is more suited to kick in at higher speeds or has there just not really been anyone to tune their cars with the Pro on and make it work as it should!


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

DFWGTO said:


> The Tune is in... It matches the stock numbers on STS's site almost exactly
> Crazy Eh! 96° Temp and it had just rained outside.. (the worst dyno conditions... high heat and humidity 402HP 431Ft/LBS Tourque he said he would rather set it "blah blah blah" to stop detonation possibilities since the motor is so new... so after that 396.4HP and 421.8Ft/LBS... He told me come back on a better day and it would be around 410 and 450... needless to say that day will be sooner than he thinks, soon I will order the InterCooler! Muah ha Ha!
> It is a real kick to drive!
> It sayes Psssss and you go bu by....


Yep, all you can do is  ...... intercooler + 8lbs of boost = 500+ rwhp and 500 + rwtq :cool ......then all you can do is break stuff :lol: ....... and that's where I come in! :cheers


----------



## JMVorbeck (Jun 1, 2005)

Got a package in the mail yesterday from Procharger. In it were some product catalogs and a letter. "Thank you for your interest in Procharger systems. Unfortunatly we do not have a complete system for your vehicle, and have no plans to make one in the next 6 months. However, we have included some material that may be helpful if you would like to piece one together yourself. Thank you." Yeah. Thanks. For nothing.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

JMVorbeck said:


> Got a package in the mail yesterday from Procharger. In it were some product catalogs and a letter. "Thank you for your interest in Procharger systems. Unfortunatly we do not have a complete system for your vehicle, and have no plans to make one in the next 6 months. However, we have included some material that may be helpful if you would like to piece one together yourself. Thank you." Yeah. Thanks. For nothing.


OMFG, that is like a kick in the twins...... Procharger told me by the end of the year......... :willy:


----------



## RiceEater (Jun 21, 2005)

GTODEALER said:


> OMFG, that is like a kick in the twins...... Procharger told me by the end of the year......... :willy:


LOL I think they're just trying to keep everything quiet because I know a guy who is working with ProCharger on his new 05 goat to come out with their next system for the 05's. Not sure why they would want to or need to keep this quiet but I know they're definately coming out with one by about the end of this year or beginning of next unless something had drastically changed.


----------



## GTODEALER (Jan 7, 2005)

RiceEater said:


> LOL I think they're just trying to keep everything quiet because I know a guy who is working with ProCharger on his new 05 goat to come out with their next system for the 05's. Not sure why they would want to or need to keep this quiet but I know they're definately coming out with one by about the end of this year or beginning of next unless something had drastically changed.


 :agree


----------

