Turbo mounted in the place of the muffler

[Turbodan]

Last week I was watching on the speed channel the "2 Guys Garage" with Sam Memmolo and Dave Fisher. Anyway, they were installing a turbocharger on a 2000-2002 Camaro SS 5.7 liter. They had dynoed the car before the turbo was installed and the car made 260 HP and 269 lbs of torque at the rear wheels. Since there was not enough room under the hood of the Camaro for the turbo and the exhaust plumbing, this turbo setup mounts where the factory muffler was. They had to install the oil lines and very long intake tube to reach the back of the car. The turbo/intake/exhaust setup replaces the factory dual outlet muffler and even uses the muffler hangers. The turbo was connected directly to the 2 1/4" exhaust pipe. The airfilter/intake is on the drivers side and the exhaust comes out on the passenger side. No muffler required. The kit has a 2 stage boost controller with 5 and 7 PSI settings. The electronics are not altered at all and on the 1st dyno pull the car had 402 HP with 398 lbs of torque on the 5 PSI setting. They company that made the turbo setup said that coolant was not needed for the turbo and the oil needs to be switched to a synthetic. Also the turbo temps are alot cooler do to the rear mounted position. Does anyone have any thoughts about this turbo configuration for the 2.2/2.5 engines. I thought it was a pretty interesting alternative.

[xrattiracer]

Its a serious compromise to mount the turbo that far away from the engine. heat is energy and there is alot of heat loss by the time the exhaust makes it back there. not to mention the lag introduced with everything being so far away, the expense of the oiling system (needs an electric pump, long lines, etc). I dont run coolant to my turbos anyway so that doesnt bother me.
I would only consider this setup on a car after I had exhausted ALL other possibilities.

[My96z]

As you can see it does work. But the camaros with the turbochargers mounted inside the engine bay have made WAY more HP.

[WIDOWMAKER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by My96z As you can see it does work. But the camaros with the turbochargers mounted inside the engine bay have made WAY more HP.

Exactly. Also, that stock dyno number would be way low for a 2000-2002 LS1 6-speed car. I assume it was an auto.

[turbovanman]

Lag isn't an issue on the Camaro's and they also don't need an intercooler.

Apart from the oil drain its a good idea and totally sleeperish too. As for our cars, why? we have the proper manifolds and room to mount the turbo. But if you want to do it for shits and giggles, why the heck not.

[Putter]

In a high boost application, where substantial backpressure is made, I would imagine you would have issues with the exhaust leaking or joints coming apart all together....Exhaust pipe isn't made to hold 60+psi at the joints....although it might.

[HiFonicsLD]

I helped install such a turbo sysem on a friends 2000 SS. If I recall right it was an STS turbo system. It was simple enough to install takeing about 6 hours and its definately a conversation piece to look under the rear of the car and see a monster turbo sitting there. I was skeptical at first but it made a huge difference in the performance of the car. I don't know exact numbers but I know he picked up 7-9 mph in the quarter mile.

[WIDOWMAKER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbovanman Lag isn't an issue on the Camaro's and they also don't need an intercooler. Apart from the oil drain its a good idea and totally sleeperish too. As for our cars, why? we have the proper manifolds and room to mount the turbo. But if you want to do it for shits and giggles, why the heck not.

Lag can be an issue on a Camaro, just like any other engine. Where twin turbos are concerned, the ability to run two smaller turbos to feed the cylinders instead of one large turbo lessens the lag problem. When you're talking a single turbo system, adding a large turbo for massive airflow increases the lag. This was a noticeable factor on the '93 LT1 I had when adding the T-76 Turbo.
Also, where it's true you don't need an intercooler in this application, you'd be leaving MASSIVE amounts of horsepower on the table. It's the Law of Physics at work--when you compress air, it's temperature rises. With the high factory compression of the LS1s, I wouldn't even consider investing in a turbo system that didn't include an efficient heat exchanger. A good intercooler will greatly increase the system's performance, as well as offer a valuable safeguard against detonation, especially considering the aforementioned high compression ratio of the LS1s. All of the high quality turbo kits that have stood the test of time that I'm aware of are intercooled. The base Incon twin turbo kit(which is intercooled) makes over 400 whp on an otherwise stock LS1 at only 4 1/2 psi. Also, keep in mind that these aren't four bangers. Rarely do you see stratospheric boost levels on these engines like you do on the TDs. Fifteen psi is about the highest boost pressure I can recall seeing on an LS1 motor, and that motor was a serious, big turboed, 427-inch stroker LS1 that laid down well over 1,000 hp. They don't need massive boost pressure to generate big power numbers.

[Putter]

They're starting to get kind of high boost pressures down the 4valve 4.6's around the mustang community. They're around 1000hp in the mid 20's on boost pressures on those tiny engines. Tiny in the v8 world i guess.

[Una]

Regarding intercooling with low boost.. I got some first hand (literally, used my hand) experience with my "small" NPR on the dyno last week. Even at only 8psi, after the run, the hot side of the intercooler would be REALLY hot.. Not too hot to touch, but startlingly hot. The cold side of course never changed temps, stayed at room temp/cold to the touch.

[My96z]

I thought that was a little low for a LS1 auto even... definatley on the lower end of the spectrum.

Jeff

[WIDOWMAKER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Putter They're starting to get kind of high boost pressures down the 4valve 4.6's around the mustang community. They're around 1000hp in the mid 20's on boost pressures on those tiny engines. Tiny in the v8 world i guess.

I read about that. I prefer the LS1 to the 4.6, but I am impressed with the engineering that Ford put into the Terminator Stang. A bulletproof shortblock and an intercooled blower--they did a great job of retooling the bottom end for the boost application. I can't think of another regular production model by any manufacturer today that is better equipped to be seriously modded, and live under those conditions. If I were in the market for a new performance vehicle today, I would buy a Cobra.

[Putter]

I went through fords training school and talking to some of the Ford employed people up there who have of course been through all the SVT things and talked to the engineers etc. The engineers up there claimed the production engine was designed to be able to hold roughly 1000hp without failing, of course at that level a missed tune would be the end of it hehe. It would be nice to have a new cobra...but I bought tools instead.....shoulda bought the cobra hehe......

[WIDOWMAKER]

Quote:

Originally Posted by My96z I thought that was a little low for a LS1 auto even... definatley on the lower end of the spectrum. Jeff

Mine is an auto, and I think it dynoed somewhere around 280 totally stock, but I can't remember the exact number. I'm certain my car's torque number was higher, though.