remote turbo setup

[240zwannabe]

ok, i'm still kind of planning out my turbo setup, i had originally picked out the hy35 on a stock manifold. now, i'm thinking of running a remote setup. reason being is for lowering engine bay temperatures and its just cool. but, besides all that i was wondering what turbo i should use to accuate for the turbo lag. i thought maybe using a t3/t4 would be a better idea. can anybody reccomend a specific a/r for this setup?

[zguy36]

Remote mounted turbos are for cars that can't fit them under the hood. They aren't as efficient or good for as much power as an under hood mount. Do a search on this site and you will see lots of posts on this.

[240zwannabe]

i did search and found very little on the subject.

[proxlamus©]

first off go to http://www.ststurbo.com

 

BENEFITS!

# Ease of installation. STS turbo systems can be installed in about 8 hours with standard tools and average mechanical ability.

# Performance Sound. The turbo acts as a muffler and sounds like an aftermarket performance muffler. Turbo spool and rushing air from the blow-off valve make a unique sound that will turn heads!

# No need for major modifications to your vehicle. STS systems are designed to "bolt-on" to factory mounts.

# Increased gas mileage. Unlike a belt driven supercharger, the turbo utilizes "wasted" energy leaving your tailpipe. Most of our customers get 1-3 mpg increase in gas mileage.

# Lower underhood temperatures. No need to worry about melting wires, hoses, or other components.

# Converts back to stock in about an hour.

# More room under the hood. Future repair work or modifications will not require the expense of removing the turbo system to allow access to engine components.

# Cooler oil to the turbo. Cool oil is better for both the turbo and engine.

# Approximately 500F lower turbo temperatures. Eliminates the need for a turbo-timer, which allows the engine to run after the car is shut off in order to cool down the turbo and prevent oil and bearing damage.

# Denser exhaust gasses drive the turbo turbine wheel more efficiently.

# Built-in intercooling. Intake piping provides ~50% intercooler efficiency. There is no need for the expense, pressure drop, and installation problems associated with a front mounted intercooler.

# Turbo is exposed to ambient air rather than underhood air. Allows for better cooling of turbo components.

# No need for expensive headers, mufflers, or exhaust systems.

# Turbo is closer to the tail pipe outlet. Provides a better pressure differential across the turbine wheel which promotes better flow across turbine.

# Better weight transfer. Increases traction because the bulk of system is mounted in rear of vehicle rather than up front.

# Less noise in the passenger compartment.

 

With the turbo so far back, don't you get a lot of turbo lag?

No, our turbochargers are sized to operate at this remote location. Just like any turbocharger, once the turbo is up to temperature and in the rpm range for which it was designed to operate. The boost comes on hard and fast. All of our systems will produce full boost below 3000 rpm.

 

If you were to take a conventional turbo and place it at the rear, you would have lots of lag and consequently, our turbo wouldn't work properly if mounted up front.

 

 

These are pictures from 280z nick from Zcar.com

 

 

 

one main addition to a standard turbo setup.

 

you will need an external oil pump.

[240zwannabe]

i stand corrected, i did an entire forum search for remote turbos and found the thread you were involved in concerning them. although, i am still somewhat confused as to why you find them less efficient, will you please explain this to me? also, why are they found to make less power? i am shooting for around 375-400 at the wheels, would you find this possible and efficient at the sametime with an F54 bored 40 over, AZC pistons, P90A, MSnS,~600cc injectors, Crane Cams ignition, and all the necesities that come along with a durable turbo motor? i have put much thought and read many posts concerning what people have done right and wrong with they're motor and would also like to know if the motor's life would be affected with a remote mount turbo. thank you

[240zwannabe]

proxlamus, i read through their website earlier. thats why i was asking if anybody had any recommended a/r's. i was thinking to mount the turbo where the stock muffler would be, that way there is a heatshield to somewhat protect the gas tank.

[veritech-z]

You need an extremely small A/R I think, since you lose so much heat(and therefore energy that would otherwise go into spooling your turbo) in order to compensate. Also, you'll need some kind of electric scavenger pump for your oil so that it will continue to pump after you shut the car off to avoid coking the bearing up. You probably won't need an intercooler since your tubes will be so long to get back to the front of the car. Something I always wondered about was what about puddles? Even if you mount your air filter someplace where it wouldn't be in danger of picking up water, what if you were driving for awhile, and had a super hot turbo, then hit a puddle and splashed it with cold (relatively) water? Wouldn't it crack? If you look between the lines at www.ststurbo.com you can get a good feel for the type of design features that they are using.

 

As an example, this is a detail picture of a turbo they are selling for 6.0 liter GTO. look how small the exhaust housing looks, bearing in mind this is a SIX LITER V-8.

 

Here you can see what they had to do: they've converted it to single exhaust somewhere towards the front of the car, and then at the yellow arrow that I've added in they split it back out by using a large external wastegate. The wastegate dump tube is now the second exhaust tip. The pink arrow shows you where the turbo is. Notice how close the air filter is to the wheel. That's GOT to pick up all kinds of crap from the road (I know my cold air intake on my Altima that's between the fascia and the inner fender liner up front picks up tons of dirt, so this completely open filter has got to have it at least that bad...)

 

If that's the size you need for a 6.0 V-8, imagine how small you would likely need to get similar performance out of an engine less than half the displacement...

 

*edit* Wow, you guys beat me to that one! posts 4,5,and 6 appeared while I was typing that up...

[veritech-z]

Hey Prox, what is the AN fitting in the back of the valve cover for, do you know? That's not the oil return, is it?

 

I find their comment about "no expensive exhaust system" kind of funny, since the GTO I posted right from their website clearly has a completely custom exhaust...

[240zwannabe]

jesus, for a 6 liter thats tiny. i'm gonna go ahead and thank you guys for saving me all the extra money i would have spent just for the bling factor and temp. differance. there's a remote twin turbo '06 vette running around here in louisville and it got me thinking of how cool that would be. i appreciate the advice and the info, i'm only 18 and i dont know what i dont know, i figured it would've been a better setup. thanks again

[veritech-z]

The reason it's small is because if it weren't small, it wouldn't work back there. I've seen a Camaro with a rear mount turbo, and it was pretty fast. As long as you design the system around it, there is no real reason it wouldn't work. I just don't like the complexity of plumbing in the electric oil pump (what if it fails? you wouldn't know until it was too late). Plus it makes me nervous to run oil lines that far down under the car, right next to the drive wheels. I wonder if you couldn't get an external oil cooler, a catch can, and a small electric pump and just give the thing it's own rear mounted oil system totally independant of the main engine oil system?

[(goldfish)]

For cars with factory turbo parts, its really not worth the effort.

[280zwitha383]

I like the setup because it doesn't run a muffler and the wastegate having the other part of a dual exhaust is pretty cool.

[240zwannabe]

I like the setup because it doesn't run a muffler and the wastegate having the other part of a dual exhaust is pretty cool.

 

before i changed my mind, i wouldn't have run a muffler and would have done something similar to that wastegate setup except it would've been out the side.

[proxlamus©]

the fitting in the valve cover is the oil return

[badjuju]

I've seen a couple camaros running the remote turbo setup, and it's really a great sight, and they haul ass, but keep in mind, lag time is MUCH less of an issue when you have a 5.7+ liter running 9:1 rather than 2.8 liter running ~7.5:1.

[Mack]

remote mount sucks. If you know the basics of turbo theory, you'll know why.

 

have you ever seen Dyno charts on those? they make decent peak numbers but thier area under the curve sucks ass. notice how they dont show anythign under 2500rpm on the dyno? you can see how much it kills the powerband off boost. at 2500rpm, the stock car is making 300lbs/ft of torque, while the turbo is making only 250, Im sure earlier on the powerband, its gets much worse. because you are jamming 5.7L of exhaust through ONE t3 sized turbine. not cool.

 

[Turbo Meister]

at 2500rpm, the stock car is making 300lbs/ft of torque, while the turbo is making only 250

 

However, beginning at 2800 rpm the turbo is just rapidly outclimbing the stock curve.

 

Also, the softer turbo start will be better to control wheelspin.

 

This chart shows great improvement with a low boost turbo on a stock low rpm engine. The small turbine is necessary to reduce lag from the extended piping. At that boost level even an intercooler is not necessary but that also hurts performance since the piping will reduce the heat of the exhaust to the turbine.

[pparaska]

I disagree about the area under the curve for the STS dyno graph. There is CLEARLY more area under the curve for the 5 and 7psi setups over the stock run. Sure, it's lower number from 2500 - 2650 rpm. But where was the throttle mashed on each run? Looking at the numbers at the low end of the dyno graph can be misleading - the stock run may well have had the foot mashed to the floor at 2500, whereas the STS runs may not have, or you may be looking at the effect of lag. But that difference is MINOR compared to the NOTABLE increases beyond 2650rpm.

[G.I.jonas]

I agree with mack,this concept goes against everything that is known about turocharging."low turbo temperatures" is not a good advertising point,if your turbo isnt getting hot than it isnt recieving heat(or energy).Internal combustion engines lose most of there potential to heat loss already,and turbos are made to scavenge this lost heat and turn it back into potential.However if the turbo is in the rear then you are losing however much heat is lost between the engine and 8' of exhaust tubing,which is a lot considering most respectable turbo system designers try to get the turbo as close to the cylinder head as possible.For this reason i can only look at the other statment made as complete bs..."denser exhaust gases drive turbine more efficiently" hmmm... yea...about that.Not to mention the fact that your boost has to fill who knows how much return tubing volume,as well as all the other problems already mentioned.On a scale of 1-10 for good ideas i would personally give a 2.This entire concept is akin to eating food by stuffing it up your backside and expecting to still get your vitamins and minerals.

[veritech-z]

The only advantage to a system like this would be the relative "stealth" of the modification. I have yet to see any of these systems try to take it to the next level and hide the plumbing, but that would be the only viable consideration to doing this vs a traditional system from my point of view. If it was me, I'd think about going so far as to try and hide my pitifully small turbo inside a gutted out muffler. A proper sleeper need only look stock from the back, and pass a cursory underhood inspection. If you aren't concerned with that, then the drawbacks far outweigh any advantages to a system with this configuration in my opinion.