cheeze Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Just wondering if anyone's ever done a remote turbo setup on they're sbc z? I'm thinking about ditching my b&m 144 blower to do a sleeper setup remote turbo, what's everyone's thought and input on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowlerMonkey Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 If you're talking about a rear mount turbo heat shielding for the floor is definately one thing to ponder as is it's proximity to the fuel tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowoctupus Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 TURBO LAGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTHALOSISM Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 From what I have read about the STS systems there really is not much lag at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowoctupus Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 Hot side considerations aside, you have a probably twice the volume of air to compress coming from the back of the car forward. If you spool it up before you take off, sure you might not notice, but I can't imagine it being nearly as responsive under normal / aggressive driving conditions. They make some pretty vague claims on their 'The Technology' page. It would be nice if they gave some comparative graphs, or some sort of engineering level evaluation to explain/ put some backing behind their claims (especially if they have such highly guarded patented technology). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 There is no good (performance) reason to mount the turbos as far from the energy source as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ineedboost Posted August 1, 2012 Share Posted August 1, 2012 There's really not much lag with a properly sized remote mount turbo on a sbc. My brother has a remote mount on his camaro and there's very little lag. Sure it's not the most efficient setup but it works just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowoctupus Posted August 3, 2012 Share Posted August 3, 2012 How would it be sized differently with a remote setup? I've never heard any technical information pertaining to differences in setups, remote v. 'standard'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boggero Posted August 5, 2012 Share Posted August 5, 2012 I saw 2 camaros that raced 3 times in a row. One had a sts twin turbo it had 500 whp Second one had a lt1 with 210 whp The 3 times the camaro with 210 whp won, then i saw the dyno sheets of the sts camaro, and the power band with the remote turbos was real small , it had 500 whp only for few seconds. I don't know if it had to do with the tune or the size of the turbos but i haven't seen a remote turbo system that works as well as a regular one. I'm about to boost my sbc and theres plenty of room for everything, why would you want a remote turbo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOTHALOSISM Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 210 whp for an lt1? Something does not sound right with that. Mine has 310whp with only a few mods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowoctupus Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I know, I know, quoting wikipedia for technical numbers.... The 92 LT1 in the Y-body was factory rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m). The 96 LT1 Y-bodies were rated at 300 hp (220 kW) and 340 lb·ft (461 N·m). The 93–95 F-bodies were rated at 275 horsepower (205 kW) and 325 lb·ft (441 N·m), while the 96–97 cars were rated at 285 horsepower (213 kW) and 335 lb·ft (454 N·m). The 96–97 WS6 and SS F-bodies were rated at 305 hp (227 kW). The 94–96 B and D-body version was rated at 260 horsepower (190 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boggero Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 At 6000 ft is possible , that lt1 had a cam only, my sbc with vortec heads. A 274 cam 235 @.50 gave exactly the same horses in the same dyno 213 thats why im going to use a turbo lol i know several fbodys with those whp here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUNNY Z Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 This thread makes my head hurt. Yes stock LT1 cars are turds. Do some reading on "quick spool valves" or "zombie spool valve" with a properly sized turbo with a split exhaust housing, you will experience VERY little lag. That being said, the engine bays on these cars are plenty spacious for a front mount. Possibly thing about customizing your engine mounts to gain more room. With a remote mount, you will experience lower IAT s, all other factors being the same. The actual design of the system (primary tube size, hot side size, charge pipe size) is the critical piece of information you need to figure out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnjdragracing Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Why remote when it is possible to have the turbo up front and still run a stock hood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUNNY Z Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Why remote when it is possible to have the turbo up front and still run a stock hood. ... the engine bays on these cars are plenty spacious for a front mount. Possibly thing about customizing your engine mounts to gain more room..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stprasinz Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 Hot side considerations aside, you have a probably twice the volume of air to compress coming from the back of the car forward. If you spool it up before you take off, sure you might not notice, but I can't imagine it being nearly as responsive under normal / aggressive driving conditions. They make some pretty vague claims on their 'The Technology' page. It would be nice if they gave some comparative graphs, or some sort of engineering level evaluation to explain/ put some backing behind their claims (especially if they have such highly guarded patented technology). Say running 2.5" pipe to the front of the car, approx. 10' of piping, thats only a few liters of air to move, compress. An enigne (5.7 liter for example) ingests 5.7 liters of air every rotation. at 3000 rpm it will ingest 5.7 liters 50 times a second! The heat lose from the exhaust piping will mean you dont need an intercooler so the intake piping is actually about equal in the amount of air being compressed from one system to another. in a properly setup remote mount setup, I've seen some pretty reponsive systems. They no longer have the heat issues associated with standard turbo setups, but run into other issues. Wheres the intake filter going, oil, feed, and return, weight of the oil scavange pump if not running oilless turbo, exhaust has to be AIR TIGHT, is there clearance under the car heat sheilding in the fuel tank area. if there is room underhood, I would recommend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwerty240 Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 An enigne (5.7 liter for example) ingests 5.7 liters of air every rotation. A 5.7L is a 4 stroke engine... Its 5.7L every 2 revolutions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.