Lightning

Pro Turbo Lightning kit

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 09:41 PM
  #16  
meansvt00's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
From: New Jersey
that kit looks sweet i cant wait to see it installed on a truck
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 09:48 PM
  #17  
Silver-Bolt's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,451
Likes: 0
From: Portland, Oregon. USA
Originally Posted by camcojb
Got a call into PTS. The turbo is 4" inlet and 3" outlet so it's either a 3" or 3.5" pipe. I'll let everyone know once I find out.

Jody
Wait a minute, a 3.0-3.5" downpipe? My STi is a 2.5L and my downpipe is 3.0". That will be a huge restriction on a 5.4L with a T76. Even Supra's with a 3.0L running a T76 use a larger diameter. Something is not right here.
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 09:55 PM
  #18  
Frank5L's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Searcy, AR
3" is a big restriction. Thats what I'm running and I just went 7.12@98 in the 1/8th on the stock longblock
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:06 PM
  #19  
LightningTuner's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 5,438
Likes: 1
From: Palm Coast, FL
Originally Posted by Silver-Bolt
Wait a minute, a 3.0-3.5" downpipe? My STi is a 2.5L and my downpipe is 3.0". That will be a huge restriction on a 5.4L with a T76. Even Supra's with a 3.0L running a T76 use a larger diameter. Something is not right here.
I made 753rwhp with the 76 GTSH and the 3" downpipe. It's not as bad as you think. I went up to a 4" pipe at PTK's advice, and only picked up 50rwhp. Not that I was complaining about 50 rwhp . The 3" will do just fine for most setups.
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:27 PM
  #20  
camcojb's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
From: Wilton, Ca.
Originally Posted by LightningTuner
I made 753rwhp with the 76 GTSH and the 3" downpipe. It's not as bad as you think. I went up to a 4" pipe at PTK's advice, and only picked up 50rwhp. Not that I was complaining about 50 rwhp . The 3" will do just fine for most setups.

Perfect! Thanks Sal, 753 rwhp would be awesome but I'm guessing you may have had some tricks in that motor! I do think I'm make 700-725 rwhp though.

Jody
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:32 PM
  #21  
Frank5L's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Searcy, AR
Originally Posted by camcojb
Perfect! Thanks Sal, 753 rwhp would be awesome but I'm guessing you may have had some tricks in that motor! I do think I'm make 700-725 rwhp though.

Jody
I hope you can with a built motor. What are your cam specs? Good blower cams don't translate into good turbo cams.
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:32 PM
  #22  
Tim Skelton's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,928
Likes: 1
From: The People's Republic of Los Angeles
Originally Posted by LightningTuner
. . . It's not as bad as you think. I went up to a 4" pipe at PTK's advice, and only picked up 50rwhp. . . .
If a few pennies more for a 4" pipe would even net 10 rwHP -- as well as leaving room for future power increases, why would you not?
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:36 PM
  #23  
camcojb's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
From: Wilton, Ca.
Originally Posted by Frank5L
I hope you can with a built motor. What are your cam specs? Good blower cams don't translate into good turbo cams.
I understand exactly what you're saying and you're right, turbo cams are different beasts. I've got a twin turbo 69 Camaro I am building and the cam specs are weird compared to the centrifugal motors I've done.

With that said I don't think Sal did turbo spec'd cams in his but I'm not sure. Mine are Stage II Crowers, but to Dante's specs which have more lift than off the shelf Crowers, but less duration and overlap. Hopefully they'll work well, we shall see.

Jody
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:38 PM
  #24  
camcojb's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
From: Wilton, Ca.
Originally Posted by Tim Skelton
If a few pennies more for a 4" pipe would even net 10 rwHP -- as well as leaving room for future power increases, why would you not?

You're right Tim and if I'd have known this in advance I would have opted for the 4" downpipe. But being as the 3" supports 750 rwhp at least, then there are very few guys who would need more room as far as a Lightning kit would go.

Jody
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:42 PM
  #25  
Frank5L's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Searcy, AR
Originally Posted by camcojb
I understand exactly what you're saying and you're right, turbo cams are different beasts. I've got a twin turbo 69 Camaro I am building and the cam specs are weird compared to the centrifugal motors I've done.

With that said I don't think Sal did turbo spec'd cams in his but I'm not sure. Mine are Stage II Crowers, but to Dante's specs which have more lift than off the shelf Crowers, but less duration and overlap. Hopefully they'll work well, we shall see.

Jody
VT has a set of turbo grinds I'm probably going to try out whenever that time comes for mine.
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 10:43 PM
  #26  
camcojb's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
From: Wilton, Ca.
Originally Posted by Frank5L
VT has a set of turbo grinds I'm probably going to try out whenever that time comes for mine.

If I had a "do-over" I'd definitely do turbo grinds. But at the time the motor was built I never imagined a turbo on it.

Jody
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 11:21 PM
  #27  
Frank5L's Avatar
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
From: Searcy, AR
Originally Posted by LightningTuner
I made 753rwhp with the 76 GTSH and the 3" downpipe. It's not as bad as you think. I went up to a 4" pipe at PTK's advice, and only picked up 50rwhp. Not that I was complaining about 50 rwhp . The 3" will do just fine for most setups.
What was the rest of your exhaust?
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 11:27 PM
  #28  
Tim Skelton's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 4,928
Likes: 1
From: The People's Republic of Los Angeles
Originally Posted by camcojb
You're right Tim and if I'd have known this in advance I would have opted for the 4" downpipe. . . .
My comment was not directed at you, Jody. The issue is why does Pro Turbo even offer a 3" pipe? Why not a 4" for all Lightning kits? Would there be any technical downside to a 4" pipe?
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 11:35 PM
  #29  
camcojb's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
From: Wilton, Ca.
Originally Posted by Tim Skelton
My comment was not directed at you, Jody. The issue is why does Pro Turbo even offer a 3" pipe? Why not a 4" for all Lightning kits? Would there be any technical downside to a 4" pipe?
Less ground clearance would be my only thought. The piping runs under the frame. Then again they could use oval tubing at that area.


Jody
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2005 | 11:45 PM
  #30  
Scott Dunn's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
From: Olathe KS.
Reds next engine will be turbo specific.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:24 AM.