| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Remote turbo
|
Tue, 25 May 2004 01:08
|
 |
http://ststurbo.com/home
1 Would this work?
2 What would the turbo sizing be? (eg. for a 3L, a good turbo would normally be x but with this setup it would be y)
3 Would the turbo be smaller to reduce lag from that distance?
4 Would having thinner pipes before the turbo on the exhaust side) help reduce lag?
5 Would it be worth setting up dual turbos (one blowing into the other) to reduce lag/more boost from that distance.
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Tue, 25 May 2004 02:07
|
|
1) sure it'd work a bit...
the motors they use them on are not exactly what you'd call efficient, and anything you do to help will give big improvements. can you say "thaats myyy truuuuck"
basic thing is that turbos require energy to spin.. this means exhaust temperature and velocity.. (as well as pressure between motor and turbo)
the further away you put the turbo, the lower the exhaust energy will be (and exhaust pressure is lower), and so the less energy there is available to spin the turbine..
smaller turbine = smaller compressor = less air moved..
you would need a smaller turbo at this position to reduce lag, but you wil also not get much benefit from it since the compresor will also be smaller...
it might be good on large capacity, low revving motors with limited range of rpm...
4. probably... but would you want to deliberately reduce the size of your exhaust?? again, good for limited rpm perhaps....
although it is a good idea to move hot turbo away from engine bay.. think of it as just running a 3m turbo manifold, and 3M inlet back to engine... thats a lot of volume of gas before and after the turbo!!!
i guess basically.. smaller turbo, smaller benefit... could be a good solution if you only want 2 or 3psi perhaps....
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Tue, 25 May 2004 02:17
|
|
Hmm.. I think people figured out sometime in the 80's that running turbos without intercoolers is bad. MKay?
I'd imagine the lag would be quite hideous too.
Things would also get hot underneath the car...
And it'd be fun to have that air filter down there when it rains...
They also don't mention how they cool the turbo apart from mentioning their "patented system".
So, to sum up... Hot air into engine. Lots of lag. And heaps of weight.
|
|
|
Location:
Parramatta
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Tue, 25 May 2004 02:30
|
|
thats a good idea, for a smaller budget... but i would only think that this would give you small gains and wouldnt be quite as effeicent as the convential way, if that power gains i dont think would be quite as good as the convential way. You will have a lot more lag due to the exhaust gases have to travel alot more, also i dont think that the the inlet side with the piping being so far is such a good thing either.
but you will never know until u try.
|
|
|
Location:
Rosanna, Melb
Registered:
June 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 26 May 2004 10:02
|
|
I read a bit about this and had a laugh, but the more I thought about it the angrier I got. A lot of the "technical info" given on the STS website is crap, for example they claim it is good to have cool dense exhaust entering the turbo. In fact it is best to keep it as hot as possible, just look at the F1 teams in the turbo era, they used heat wrap. If these guys are so willing to spout crap left, right and centre, do you really want to buy anything off them??
It may be ok if you want a fullsik turbo on the cheap and nasty, but hello lag, no intercooler, extra oil pump, air filter under car etc. In my opinion, if you are going to do something, do it properly. And if you want to offload a whole packet of money, at least give it to some needy charity.
Hen
|
|
|
Location:
Kita-Ku, Sapporo, Japan
Registered:
January 2003
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 27 May 2004 06:30
|
|
but remember this is aimed at the US 'domestic' truck market...
those things rev so slowly and are geared so low the the turbo probably has time to spool up 
and even if it only just gives 2psi boost, it's still going to make the big ol' engine much more torquey than stock....
not exactly a performance option... more of a long haul towing a caravn kind of option...
and an afterthought 
Cya, Stewart
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
February 2003
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 27 May 2004 08:03
|
|
WOAH Welcome to lagville!
thats fantastically lagarific
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 27 May 2004 09:35
|
|
|
Has anyone actually done it and can show that its laggy?
|
|
|
I supported Toymods
Location:
I renounced punctuation
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 27 May 2004 09:38
|
|
|
Jamie (of TT 1UZ fame) now actually has a single turbo that is remote mounted.
|
|
|
Location:
Cabramatta, NSW
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 27 May 2004 09:55
|
|
|
Under the diff?
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 27 May 2004 14:48
|
|
| Nark wrote on Thu, 27 May 2004 19:55 |
Under the diff?
|
Not quite, it's just behind and below the passenger front seat. I've seen it before it was fully hooked up, and as usual it was a piece of art.
When he was driving it gently from his place to his old mans, it was starting to provide flow from just off idle. One thing was certain, it had a GREAT exhaust note !!!
Cheers
Michael B
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 03:49
|
|
Do you know if he modified the floorpan to put it in?
And yes, I'd assume it was a work of art. Jamie does wonderful work.
|
|
|
Location:
Adelaide
Registered:
September 2003
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Sun, 30 May 2004 12:43
|
|
You could say there were a few mods, but the solution was very elegant, and the floorpan distruptions were minimal.
JustenGT4 may have a better idea of how it ended up, but at the moment, I think Justen's beasty has spurned Jamie back into action on the TA22.
Cheers
Michael B
|
|
|
Location:
Toronto, Downtown
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Tue, 11 January 2005 21:24
|
|
|
lagg city id say and theyh dont mention an intercooler either
|
|
|
Location:
Bundaberg, Qld.
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 12 January 2005 05:09
|
|
| 4agte wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 08:24 |
lagg city id say and theyh dont mention an intercooler either
|
Actually it doesn't lag more...
There are quite a few cars in America running turbos mounted at the back of the car underneath...
The only problem they have is in the rain...
And theft...
So much easier to steal the turbo from under the car then under the hood...
|
|
|
Location:
Toronto, Downtown
Registered:
September 2004
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 12 January 2005 08:26
|
|
| Kyosho wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 16:09 |
| 4agte wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 08:24 |
lagg city id say and theyh dont mention an intercooler either
|
Actually it doesn't lag more...
There are quite a few cars in America running turbos mounted at the back of the car underneath...
The only problem they have is in the rain...
And theft...
So much easier to steal the turbo from under the car then under the hood...
|
If i had a truck with a 5.7 ltr engine it probably wouldnt be laggy.
|
|
|
Location:
Melbourne
Registered:
September 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 12 January 2005 09:55
|
|
Im definately giving it a thumbs down...
Reason #1:
Exhaust gases are much hotter and move faster closer to the engine.
Reason #2:
No intercooler
Reason #3:
Those so called trucks are so god damn big why would there be any trouble in placing a turbo in the engine bay!? Sounds a bit half arsed and lazy to me.
But thats not to say that remote mounting isnt a go... Just not that way in my opinion 
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 12 January 2005 10:47
|
|
Would be much better if they had it placed up near the gearbox. The exhaust gas has to travel all the way through cat down to the diff, I mean come on, they could have designed it a little better.
And for under 4k US?? What a bargain 
|
|
|
I Supported Toymods
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 12 January 2005 12:34
|
|
I suppose some of the pressure drop caused by all the plumbing could be made up for a bit by the location of the CAI... And manifold design doesn't really pose a problem with one of those puppies.
Colder exhaust air hitting exhaust wheel means less heat being transferred to the intake and so could in some cases defeat the need for an intercooler... cheap and nasty intercoolers and poorly routed pipework cause quite a pressure drop.
I'd imagine cops would be less likely to notice your turbo if it was near your diff too.
Theres no way it could compare to an the under hood mounted turbo with a decent manifold and CAI though... but for people trying to squeeze a turbo into a car that already has a V8 engine shoved in a straight 6 sized engine bay it could have some great benifits.
|
|
|
Location:
Brisbane
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Wed, 12 January 2005 14:32
|
|
| Toobs wrote on Wed, 12 January 2005 22:34 |
Colder exhaust air hitting exhaust wheel means less heat being transferred to the intake and so could in some cases defeat the need for an intercooler... cheap and nasty intercoolers and poorly routed pipework cause quite a pressure drop.
|
Almost all of the heat introduced into the system comes from compressing the air (Boyle's law), not heat transfer from the exhaust side, so cooler exhaust will make fark all difference to inlet temps.
Having said that, the huge length of pipe from the turbo to the throttle body will probably act as a fairly decent intercooler... forget about throttle response though! 
|
|
|
Location:
Wollongong
Registered:
November 2004
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 13 January 2005 04:39
|
|
Pressure drop...
Did you know that is one thing you WANT in an intercooler?
If you don't get a pressure drop, you
a) Don't require an intercooler because the air is cool enough already
b) Aren't running a high enough PSi to warrant an intercooler which also falls partly under (a)
The reason you get a pressure drop is because cooler air is more dense, meaning less pressure...
|
|
|
Registered:
May 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Thu, 13 January 2005 05:15
|
|
Hi Guys
I was going to reply to this thread way back in May/June last year and it completely slipped me until now
hmmm yes i did do a remote turbo location on the 22 1uzfe ,...it was placed just behind the passengers front seat ,.so basicaally in the cabin and rear seat footwell with boxing placed over the top + heat sheilding
the intercooler was placed where the rear seat usually goes and was a water/air setup with the rad part in the boot with a large thermo fan pulling air across it from under the car ,...
3" stainless piping ran to the front butterfly along the tunnel (all still inside the cabin)
The Turbo was the GT35-40 (700hp) model with the 1.06 rear housing fed by 4 into 1 extractors + 2 twin 2.5" stainless pipes joining just at the turbo
some have mentioned lag,.. yes and no is the answer ,...
the lag came if you had not brought the car on boost for awhile and i beleive this is due to all the pipe work cooling down and pulling alot of the heat out of the exhaust temp ,..it was quite noticable
once everything was hot the lag was minimal even un-noticable
boost response was not savage either compared to the twins i originally ran ,.but i can't clarify if this was due to the remote location or just the single swap
performance resulted in the car making 310rwkw on 1bar boost on a dyno dynamics dyno under constant load
The turbo is now on it's way back into the engine bay due to engineering issues with it in the cab not to mention the induction roar when you got stuck into it
|
|
|
Location:
Sydney
Registered:
July 2002
|
|
Re: Remote turbo
|
Fri, 14 January 2005 07:28
|
|
|
Sounds like a lot of work Jamie. Pity you've got to move it again.
|
|
|
