remote turbo setup

[pparaska]

Is it just me, or does looking at that dyno graph make me question if I would care too much about any "drawbacks". Come on, tell me, didn't that system increase the performance, if we believe the dyno graphs?

 

I'm not going to say it's the BEST way or even a GOOD way to install a turbo, but for some of the cars it's used on, it's damned difficult to fit a turbo underhood (LS1 Vette, GTO, Fbody, etc.)

 

The tests I've read, including the one in GM High Tech Performance (which is known for doing fairly honest tests) show that the long return pipe doesn't cause the lag you think it might, and that you do get 100+ horsepower for minimal boost levels w/o an intercooler. 100+ hp, and it's not at all just peak - that's nothing to sneeze at, whether you think it goes against good turbo system design practice or not, IMO. And you don't have to worry about filling a bottle, etc.

 

I agree, the placement of the air filter is bothersome.

[veritech-z]

Well, the drawbacks for me have nothing to do with power delivery or percieved lag, and everything to do with my own ideas of how likely that design would be to fail prematurely (and possibly catastrophically). I mean, imagine you are cruising on the highway at speed, and the oil line lets go and starts spraying your left rear wheel with oil...that's got disaster written all over it. Or for instance, look how much more susceptable to picking up road debris and water your wastegate is in that location. Imagine you catch a speed bump just right (not a stretch really, I do it in my Altima all the time when I have more than one passenger, and it's only 1.5" lower than stock) and damage it, now it's not controlling your boost at all, but you don't realize it until it's too late. I've got a good friend that just graduated from UTI in Orlando that actaully saw a wastegate fail on one of the STS GTO turbo systems. Spiked the boost up to 30psi and blew the dipstick right out of the hole. Supposedly it ran fine after that, but I suspect that owner's troubles are just beginning...

[pparaska]

Max, good points. I think ALL of those issues could be addressed if someone designed the system with those points in mind. Braided oil line, tucked up well and out of the way, wastegate positioned better, air filter positioned better, etc.

[G.I.jonas]

Considering all the crap you would have to do to make the setup even remotely acceptable,why bother in the first place.I know that the cars in question supposedly have little room up front but if your going to go through all the work with this remote turbo foolishness why not use the effort to make some room up front.Also it sems to me that you should probably have an idea as to what your going to do with your motor before you do a swap,motors that leave no room for a single turbo are probably not good turbo z car candidates anyhow.If you want displacement power,get a huge motor.If you want turbos, get a suitable turbo motor,makes sense...right?

[Mack]

sorry, I realized the error in my post not too long ago. yes, it still does have more area under the curve, but the off boost performance is drastically reduced.

 

its a giant cork in the exhaust system. you are squeezing 5.7L of bottled up exhaust through what, a t3? a T3 is almost too small for an engine half its size!

 

also, there are tons of way that system could go awry. imagine if an air filter or a charge pipe were knocked off on the highway and just how much dirt and road ♥♥♥♥ would get sucked right through the turbo into the engine. bye bye rings hello rebuild.

 

Im just not a fan. Remote mount is one thing, but remote mounting behind the rear axel (unless its a rear engine car) is tomfoolery. epsecially on a car like ours where factory turbo parts are most certainly readily available.

 

on the subject of stealth turbo set-ups, Ill have to find the pics of a 1995ish civic 2 door thatt looked BONE stock, but was rocking a turbo. had a charge pipe running through the stock air filter box and the turbo was hiding under an exhaust heat sheild. it was purple. anyone seen this kicking around?

[pparaska]

Well, I agree, if you are building a car from the ground up or doing an engine swap, just put the Turbo where it ought to be - up near the exhaust and intake ports!

 

But for the guy that wants a bit of boost in a cramped car like those I listed, I don't see it being a big mistake. Sure there are drawbacks, but I think they could be overcome. Or just be careful with the car and understand the drawbacks and risks. A lot of people only travel smooth surface streets and don't have to worry about knocking stuff loose under their cars. Me, I have snow, ice, etc. to contend with. But my hotrod doesn't go out in that either.

 

That Honda sounds very interesting.

[G.I.jonas]

Yea i guess,maybe its not the worst idea ever.....for me to poop on!

[Mack]

hewre are some pics of the sleeper honda..

 

nie and stock.

 

 

 

engine bay, nothing seems to be amiss....

 

 

 

 

UH OH! what have we here?

 

 

 

 

I guess this car passed the san diego smog checks and visual inspection.

[linluv84]

That's a pretty slick setup. I like the 'extra' plug wire coming off the cap that disappears under the air box too...

[proxlamus©]

Whoa!!

 

now thats a bad ass Civic! cool!

[rztmartini]

i think its really funny those of us think its so cool, just by the "ninja-like" stealth of that.

 

-candidate for ultimate sleeper-

 

I think the remote turbo was just intended for the specific V8 market that wanted the same thing this guy did...confuse the crap out of people.

[veritech-z]

I thought this car was a super sleaper at first glance, but the more I thought about it the more I wondered: WTF is the point of going to that extreme length of hiding your turbo system, and STILL using the super honda-boy sound non-recirculating blow off valve? -10 points on the ultimate sleeper score card, plus another -5 for the fuel pressure gauge that's screwed into the banjo bolt on his fuel filter, -5 for not changing out the "MSD" stamped boot on the MSD plug wire that came with his remote coil conversion cap (even though he went to the trouble to pull the sticker off the cap itself...). I'd be curious how this engine bay looks in person. It almost seems like it was designed to be seen from that angle. How did he route the air filter off the turbo without being obvious? I'm also curious how fast it really is. The D-series Vtec motors made around 120hp to the crank? How much power is a non-intercooled turbo going to add, like 50-60hp? I'd expect it should be about as fast as a stock GS-R integra then, unless there is some other funny business going on.

 

I always thought the ultimate sleeper honda would be an HF CRX (8-valve econo model, but equipped with sequential EFI instead of TBI like the DX) with a 4-valve D15 block overbored to accept D16a1 pistons(twin cam integra D-series, basically the same as a JDM ZC honda motor)to bump the compression (I think it's something like 3/4 of a point if I recall), and then get a Gude 1.6 non-vtec head and cam package, but don't use the 16valve valve cover, just re-use the old 8 valve HF cover. I'd try to find some way to spray on that motor with a hidden system. This setup would leave you with all the correct external markings of the D15 engine you started with, but all the internals of a built up 1.6 race motor. It wouldn't be the king of the street, but much like the civic in question, it would be a LOT faster than it was supposed to be since the 8-valve HF only made 50 flywheel hp...

[lifegrddude]

That Civic was featured in a Sport Compact Car issue a while back. (last year I think) It made ~245 hp at the wheels and somewhere near 190 lb/ft of torque which isn't too bad for a 1.6L SOHC motor. Not earth shattering, but quick enough to surprise quite a few people given that car's approximate curb weight of 2400 lbs. I give the owner a lot of credit as the casual observer would probably over see a lot of the modifications at first glance.

 

As for the blow off valve, you can just tighten the preload spring to keep it from venting under light throttle conditions, or disconnect the vacuum signal line. As long as you stay light on the throttle, you won't get audible compressor surge.

[veritech-z]

245? that's HUGE for a single cam...Most B-series turbo kits only make around that number.

[Mack]

I give the owner a lot of credit as the casual observer would probably over see a lot of the modifications at first glance.

 

and that casual observer would be the smog officials in san-diego, from what I understand.

 

This system was designed to pass the VISUAL inspection, which it did.

 

 

245 is huge in that car! that would make quite the fun ride!

[veritech-z]

I know this thread's pretty much run it's course, but I just watched something that would make me cry:

Notice we have a TWIN remote mounted turbo on this corvette. How much would you estimate this would make? If you said at least 650hp, like I did, you'd be sadly mistaken:

I'd send it back if it was mine...

[Tony D]

I'll weigh in here about the 'area under the curve' is a bit misleading. What needs to be considered is how would this system compare to a front-mounted low-boost turbo system, and not it's N/A counterpart.

 

I know on several 'small twin' setups using twin T-3's with integral wastegates the performance was phenomenal right off idle---7psi was available on a cobble-job of two 280ZXT turbos mounted on a box-tubing fabricated set of exhaust manifolds from around 1500rpm. Torque was WAAAY up compared to before forced induction, and I'd guess it was far better than this system under similar conditions. Performance was pretty much done by 5500 anyway, which looks to be the same situation with the STS system.

 

I'd be wary of attributing any of the STS issues to lag---I'd expect their turbines to be sized to have threshold outside light cruise, and with the air moving true 'lag' should not be an issue. In the front mounted examples I've toyed around with, we could get boost threshold at 1500-2000 fairly easily, and given stall speeds on Impalas (don't ask!) with autoboxes, that means for almost supercharger-like boost response.

 

Were I to do a V8Z and turbo it, I would set them up front rather than out back.

 

On a new Vette.... maybe out back makes sense. I'd agree it's a system for when a proper setup can not be employed, or as someone stated 'stealth'. Using an intercooler would kill the 'stealth aspect', and also limit the total boost that was useable to less than 10psi. But taking a look at a Vortech Supercharger would cause me to take pause about the troubles related to putting all that out back in comparison to an engineered kit up front...

[veritech-z]

That Vette sounded like garbage on a stick, and was blowing brown smoke like crazy during it's dyno pull as well.

[280zwitha383]

Well I got schooled by a TA running 10psi on a remote turbo setup (said he had everything ready but didn't have the WG spring to run 15psi). He did have a LOT of money in the car. He said he should be in the mid 10's and I believe him...