Twin Turbos- @ the BACK of the car -Remote mount turbo kits

[wtdash]

Someone please explain Why?


Here's the CL AD.

Thanks

[Perkul8r]

I've seen those before on a couple newer mustangs, You would think there would be loss of boost going that far. BUt they must work a little. I know those things wouldn't last long around here.

[brweber352]

I've seen these setups before, they can be pretty nasty. They usually put them on V8 powered domestics. I think the biggest reason why they put them back there is because of space limitations. The intercooler piping is a little longer, but there is a huge decrease in the air intake temperature as well. Remember, a turbo produces alot of heat under the hood.

Brian

[93forestpearl]

STS has been doing this for a loooooong time.




The remote mounted turbos are easier to package compared to using a shoehorn to fit a pair of turbos up front alongside the tranny.



Look up STS and you'll see.

[kimokalihi]

Those things would get so dirty and nasty. You would not want this setup living somewhere out east where they salt their roads.

On the other hand I'm sure the intake temps are quite low considering the exhaust would be much cooler by the time it got way back there and the turbos would run much cooler with all that airflow around them.

I'd imagine the spool up would be lagged a good deal more. You'd be losing a lot of potention power via heat though.

No intercooler either, eh? Definately a lot of pros and cons.

Only other setup I've seen that on was for toyota pickup. Somebody sells a kit with the turbo in the rear for the 89-95 toyota pickups.

[93forestpearl]

On the other hand I'm sure the intake temps are quite low considering the exhaust would be much cooler by the time it got way back there and the turbos would run much cooler with all that airflow around them.

Intake temps have little to nothing to do with the exhaust gas temps going through the turbo. Where the compressor is operating in terms of it's efficiency has everything to do with intake temps, along with the charge cooling strategy.






Did you look at STS's website?

[Mattheww044]

thats crazy, I wouldn't imagine wanting to do that to a DD

[wtdash]

Did you look at STS's website?

Yeah...amazing power.

Running low boost - 7psi - to make huge power gains.

Pretty 'exposed' back there.

[gijonas]

That setup goes against every rule of turbocharging efficiency.There is a reason why well designed turbo systems place the turbo as close to the exhaust valve as physically possible,not as far as possible .Yeah it may have an effect on performance but its retarded when you consider the potential that the parts have when installed the way they should be.Not only a FAIL in terms of engineering but as previously stated why do you want your expensive turbos acting as mudflaps behind you drive wheels.I can see it now-"hey what happened to your car?" - "oh I just hit a cat and it ripped my turbo off on its way under my car"

[Mattheww044]

haha, that would be quite a situation to be in now wouldn't it? but its only possible with this set up

[kimokalihi]

I wonder if they put up a shield or just leave them exposed like that?

[93forestpearl]

I don't see what the big deal is. Turbos in your engine bay are slathered with water and dirt anyways, so that is nothing new.



Simply put, their systems to work. Yes, you can build a more optimal system. However, it is much more work and a significantly tighter fit. With so many people not willing to go past basic bolt-on parts, I can see how STS's systems are attractive to a particular segment. the fact that they are still in business says something.



Would I use a turbo arrangement like that? Absolutely not. However, I've never been one to follow the easy route.

[gijonas]

Is the turbo in your car as dirty as the area 4 inches off the ground behind your rear tires?

Another thing to remember is the fact that these turbos need oil,and ideally coolant,what a nightmare.

[skid542]

Wow, that's a pretty slick idea. Definately a few trade off going on but I can see it being pretty effective.

I also don't see why you couldn't just remote mount an oil resevoir to them and not all turbos need coolant. As far as dirt, my mufflers don't get that dirty.

You gotta keep in mind, a lot of those cars they are showing are not the off road, mud luving, snow slinging, subaru's we're used to . For a street dedicated car I think it'd work just fine.

[brweber352]

Wow, that's a pretty slick idea. Definately a few trade off going on but I can see it being pretty effective.

I also don't see why you couldn't just remote mount an oil resevoir to them and not all turbos need coolant. As far as dirt, my mufflers don't get that dirty.

You gotta keep in mind, a lot of those cars they are showing are not the off road, mud luving, snow slinging, subaru's we're used to . For a street dedicated car I think it'd work just fine.

I was waiting for someone to say this, you hit it square on the head.

Brian

[SLODRIVE]

You guys talking smack about STS turbos have obviously never been anywhere near one...most of them would absolutely rape any STi. My old boss's Silverado with an STS and a stock 6-liter motor made 650+ at the wheels at about 10psi on pump gas, no kidding. (Some tuning and meth involved)Remember, these turbos are normally installed on torquey V8s, so lag is not an issue like it is with a little low-comp 4-cylinder. The turbos are oil cooled with electric pumps (NOT the best design but works pretty well), water cooling isn't really necessary where they're mounted.

[evolutionmovement]

I don't think that's a bad spot. Shielding could easily be made to protect it from the front and bottom with the rear left open or with louvers to vent the heat. You're also mating them to engines that have low end balls, so lag is less of an issue to begin with. It's not a bad idea in the right application. I've stood behind the exhaust on old muscle cars, and the exiting pulses pressed the front of my pants to my leg at idle. There's plenty of energy.

[gijonas]

You guys talking smack

By guys you mean me?? Its ok I still poop on it and think its for gheys.

[SLODRIVE]

You guys talking smack

By guys you mean me?? Its ok I still poop on it and think its for gheys.

You crack me up. 500whp @ 7psi on a STOCK motor sounds okay to me. I assume you'll be smoking these cars in your BC?

[Mattheww044]

I was in no way implying that they are ineffective or pointless. Like you said, it has been proven many times that it creates some great numbers, its just not my ideal situation for a turbo set-up, but then again I'm not a v-8 guy, but I know how rediculously tight some of those engine bays are

[gijonas]

I assume you'll be smoking these cars in your BC?

In a way i will,as my car will be running 100,000 miles after they meet the crusher,and not to mention i CAN go around corners in less than ideal conditions,and do so while spending less on fuel...i could go on.

BTW 500 or even 600 horse isnt exactly the example of impressive when you have 3 times the displacement of our cars,in fact when you do the math-many of or members have more impressive things going on with waaay less money,but then again thats whats cool to me,not just the numbers but the real efficiency of a system.

[93forestpearl]

Needless to say, for much less money they will spank your ass in a straight line. That is the point of their kits. Simple, easy to install, and effective.



If you can't see that a simple yet effective solution can sell and work, then go back to your world of ideals. Yes closer to the motor is more effective, but much more expensive and much more difficult to work on.




Also, as far as water and dirt go, look at a stock SS once. The hood scoop directly channels water and crud onto the CHRA. Yet, they don't seem to have an issue with it. On what basis do you say the remote mount setup will fail any faster than other OEM arrangements?

[gijonas]

You guys are right...its wicked awesome,must be jealous.

[93forestpearl]

I'm not trying to take away from Subaru's at all or small displacement motors in general. The fact is, for what I've spent over the last 8 years trying to make 600hp, I could do double that for half the price with any of the vehicles listed in their repetaur. Yes Subarus are fun to drive and great as an all around vehicle, but a fast car can be more effectively made from large displacement american platforms. No news there.


STS puts together a simple package that gets people an easy bump in output. Who's to blame them for trying to tap a market? I would too.

[evolutionmovement]

This is less a defense of V8s than a condemnation of modern car design, but there are V8 cars that get similar or better mileage than new turbo 4s in the real world, and often beat their V6 counterparts (never mind that some of the board members here get old school big block mileage numbers). And a V8 turbo with stock high compression would probably not suffer much if the driver kept his foot out of the gas (probably would barely make a difference, if any, during highway cruising). Cars today are so badly designed in terms of weight and aerodynamics that a V8 can match or beat a stressed smaller engine since the increased power, especially at lower rpm, allows taller gearing and cylinder shut down while the 4-cylinder, having to plow a brick through the air at highway speeds and accelerate a tank with the vigor and power reserves expected of a modern car often works them outside their efficiency zone, dulling the possible benefits. (As an aside, the handling traits of an over-powered high polar moment, big sedan can be advantageous under certain circumstances ((getaway cars, stunt driving)). But I agree that I don't know of many high performance V8s that regularly do 1/4 million miles of abuse before a rebuild. Strangled ones, maybe, like the 300+k miles Caprice Classic my grandfather had ((leaving a blue contrail in its wake)), but it's easy for an engine to last when it's driven so lazily ((I still maintain this is a big reason for Toyota's sterling reputation, eroding presently as it may be)).)

A V8 in something as light and efficient as what I'm building would be stupid (ignoring other issues as well) since the efficiency of the vehicle design allows for a small engine to be used in a low stress state, much like the V8 in the larger car, but with the small(er) engine's better potential efficiency. The N/A EJ22 will give me an STI power/weight ratio and have a nice, tall top gear. I'd like to go even taller, but I have to work with what's available (there's increasing wheel size, but that's increased unsprung weight, a bigger problem, the lighter the car). Costs me a few mpg, but should still beat a Prius. As long as compacts weigh over 3000 lbs., 4 cylinders aren't going to have the advantages they should over their larger counterparts.