Remote Turbo Installation

[mwinkle353]

Not too bad of a setup. Very clean. I actually like it.

Just keep an eye on that oil pump. They don't last long. And when they do bite the bullet, it causes $$$ to go out the window for your turbo and other oil lubricated items.

[Ondonti]

Since there is so much room in the engine bay, I dont see the point of remote mount int he first place on a 3.0

The only reason for doing a remote mount is when you are cramped for space.

remote mount is hardly stealth when people can clearly see the charge piping in your engine bay. Not everyone with a turbo car makes their intercooler "visible"
The argument that a remote mount system doesnt need an intercooler is stupid also. Just about anyone can get away with 5 psi boost with no intercooler no matter what turbo setup you have.

Ic piping gets heatsoaked very quickly so it will not cool anything. Any high boost turbo setup needs an intercooler or alky.

[joker5k1]

I agree with you on those points. Perhaps I should start a thread for the 2.2/2.5 guys. Granted there's a lot more available for them. As I stated earlier though, with a "secondary", for lack of a better word, oil tank I believe that installation, maintenance and removal would be far easier. Not to mention there would have to be much less engine bay modification for the set up. No I'm not an STS supporter, I don't believe half the crap they publish on their site, but I do believe that this is a viable set up if someone's looking for something a little different.

I also agree that they may not be the most efficient design, you have a long track for the air to go through and that poses some problems. But it's still air going into the engine that it doesn't have to suck in making it slightly happier. The other argument I have for these is that you've got alot less worry when it comes to running too lean. Granted if you turn the boost up to 15* on a stock system you can probably kiss the car good-bye, but IMHO I think you could possibly even run one of these systems on a TBI and not have as many worries.... Though I'm not going to test that idea, I still think it might be remotely possible. If you don't think I have the right ideas please correct me, I'm here to learn after all.

-Joe

[Ondonti]

that comment about going lean made no sense

[joker5k1]

You're right, I appologize. At this point I'm not even sure where I was going with that. No more doing to things at once while in college. The only thing I can figure is that I was trying to state that it would be easier to control. But I wouldn't swear to it... Sorry again.

-Joe

[itoktoeatfish]

Ok, what I dont like about these setups is that they have the turbo clear in the back of the car, the intercooler has to be plumbed all the way to the front. Where are you going to run the pipes? under the floor pans where there is little ground clearance, think of all the railroad crossings that have scrape marks? How about next to the exhaust, where all the hot gases are? And there are 100 other things I can pull off the top of my head. Im not saying thet dont work, Im just saying psi to psi a traditional turbo setup will make more power. But its all some people need and they turn heads!

[the_flash083]

hmm turbo lag?

[JayLo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_flash083 hmm turbo lag?

Exactly. There’s lag inherent in a remote mount turbo system in the exhaust side and even more lag on the intake side due to the excessive pipe length. And that STS crap about not needing an intercooler is just plain garage. A 2.5” or 3” charge pipe will never be the heatsink a finned heat exchanger is, even if it is 6ft or longer.

Then there’s the problem of oiling. It would be much simpler and safer to not have to rely on an external pump.

And let’s not forget fuel system upgrades. Whether it’s laggy remote turbo boost or correctly mounted turbo boost, there is still a need for more fuel.

If a person has all these problems to contend with, why wouldn’t they just do it right the first time?

The only argument for these remote mount systems I will agree with is using them when there is absolutely no room in the engine bay. But if one can turbocharge an old Volkswagon Beetle (my buddy and I did) properly, one can likely find room to turbocharge just about anything the correct way.

[c2xejk]

I would agree, gravity is cheaper and more reliable than any mechanical pump! On the 3.0, there is plenty of room for turbo... and several have found room for two!

Testing on Stein is looking very encouraging... I have been taking advantage of the high heat to see if there are any detonation issue... I have been driving Stein hard to and from work... Underhood temperatures have been VERY hot (~200F)... Turbo out temps from the undersized turbo have been even hotter (400+F, Think I have even gotten it into the low 500F range.)...

The Toyota MR2 intercooler helps some, but in this weather it gets hot fast... Go with a bigger turbo running closer to it's ideal flow island and temps should be much lower...

Only problem found is continuing traction limitations. (a small turbo spools VERY quickly... ) Gotta get some wider and stickier tires soon...

I hope to start making some manifolds soon. (think Wink's rear manifold design with an extra pipe connecting to the stock crossover pipe...) There is plenty of room over the rear valve cover to put a T3/T4 hybrid...

Ed Kelly
www.kmperformance.com

[3rdGen3.0]

Like I've said in the past.... Rear mounted turbo is a stupid idea... you're exposing your turbo to same stuff you are exposing the underside of your car to...

Couldn't drive the car on a rainy day... imagine hitting a puddle with a glowing hot turbo under the car...

[NA2ndgen]

That is true. I now realize.

STS reps say they don't get that hot, but they admit their pumps burn out regularly, and that says to me that they make "less than relible claims" to sell their kits.

Ondonti was nice enough to warn me, yet again about these things too, and I was a bad girl about it.

Sorry. Very very very sorry.