Remote mounted turbo vs. Conventional mounted turbo.
-
So me and a friend have been having this argument for a good 4 months or so now, and i keep giving him facts after facts about how you lose energy in the exhaust with having the turbo so far from the turbo. His argument is that the exhaust is colder thus making it more dense and spinning the turbine more and that the charged air cools off because of the distance that it has to travel. But he is extremely thick headed and will not beleive a thing unless he is shown actual real world numbers. So what i am asking is this: I am looking for any info where this has been tested on the exact same car, same tune, same turbo, nothing on the car changed, except the placement of turbo.
Thanks, Jon
Ps: I think remote mounted turbos are a joke and are for people who are to lazy to fab up a conventional/front mounted setup.
-
beachbum_jon;312198 wrote:
So me and a friend have been having this argument for a good 4 months or so now, and i keep giving him facts after facts about how you lose energy in the exhaust with having the turbo so far from the turbo. His argument is that the exhaust is colder thus making it more dense and spinning the turbine more and that the charged air cools off because of the distance that it has to travel. But he is extremely thick headed and will not beleive a thing unless he is shown actual real world numbers. So what i am asking is this: I am looking for any info where this has been tested on the exact same car, same tune, same turbo, nothing on the car changed, except the placement of turbo.Thanks, Jon
Ps: I think remote mounted turbos are a joke and are for people who are to lazy to fab up a conventional/front mounted setup.
lol your friend is definitely thick headed
doesn't take a braniac to understand that lost heat on the way back is energy that could have been available for use
explain to him that it is flow across the turbine that counts.....
you have X molecules of hot exhaust up at the engine..... and you have the same X amount of molecules of exhaust down stream that you had upstream, it has just cooled off
though you have the same amount of exhaust molecules the hot exhaust is occupying alot more space volume compared to the cold exhaust....
thus giving you more volume of gas powering the turbine
you shouldn't have to show any real world testing.... it is simple physics
if he can't follow that he is brain dead
-
Exactly what zach said. It pretty damn simple to understand. You are moving the same amount of air no matter what, hotter air has more volume. Tell your buddy learn things.
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
exactly simple physics
Turbos operate on 2 principles:
transfer of exhaust energy from hot to cold
and
transfer of pressure from high to lowThis is taking place at the turbine housing and wheel to the downpipe. On a remote mounted system you are lessening the effect of the potential of hot to cold, and have to make up for it by INCREASING the potential of high to low pressure. This is accomplished by running smaller turbines and housings to attain the same response and leverage at the compressor wheel.
BUT, where the problem arises is in the fact that increasing pressure at the turbine by default creates a power loss. Power isnt made so much by the compressor with boost, power is made on backpressure ratio. This is the ratio of pressure in the turbine housing/boost pressure in the intake manifold. At the end of the day, the lower the backpressure ratio, the more power you will make
-
zbrown;312216 wrote:
friend....
awww well shucks
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
thanks everyone for the replies, i showed him all of this and he is still in denial. So it looks like i will need some real numbers from actual cars. If he isnt careful, i just might have to do it myself...
-
There are couple of ways that we can look at this problem.
First, the lag required to pressurize all of the tubes is going to be huge. Lag doesn't really effect the power being made, so it's kind of a moot point.
Second, there will be a small amount of pressure loss from the temperature change (info that I've gathered from a few other things I've read), but a potential gain: cooler air is denser. As a huge bonus, (unless I misremember) I've seen remote-mounted turbos that pull air from outside the engine bay (bonus!).
-
beachbum_jon;312287 wrote:
thanks everyone for the replies, i showed him all of this and he is still in denial. So it looks like i will need some real numbers from actual cars. If he isnt careful, i just might have to do it myself...If your "friend" is that much of a dumb ass, I would no longer be his friend. Seriously. If he is that stupid in this situation,would you trust his decision making in a time of need? I have no time at all for ignorance and thick headed people that push the issue get a blast in the cocksucker.
If the remote turbo was sooooo great, more companies would be selling complete kits. Heck, then you may even see them factory installed on vehicles. :bom:
-
There are some advantages to a remote mount setup. Power is not one of them, sleeperness is tho. STS makes a lot of remote mount kits. They keep the air charge cooler, some of them will run nearly ambient IAT's without intercooling!:O You don't take up real estate under the hood, and they are easier to return to stock if you happen to own something like a Z06 that will be worth something later. I don't believe they will make as much power, but arguements can be made for both.
> Mitch Hedberg wrote:
> I'm sick of following my dreams, I'm just going to find out where they are going and hook up with them later.ASE certified parts specialist.
2004 Impala LS 3.8 -
There are so many different variables, loss of heat energy in the exhaust, lower volumetric flowrate across the turbine, loss of kinetic energy/momentum due to viscous forces and friction multiplied over a longer distance to the turbine, loss of kinetic energy/momentum of the inlet charge as it travels back to the intake, the large pressure drops in between the turbo and the motor on both the cold and hot side, ect.
None of these variables favor a remote setup, except as capitlj mentioned they can sometimes have a cooler inlet charge with no intercooler by drawing air in farther away from the motor and by letting it cool down because of the huge length and resulting surface area of the piping going back to the motor. This doesn't negate everything that is wrong with them or make them better by any means though.
As far as the sts kits, yeah they're probably the most popular ones, but everything that I have ever heard about them other than by sts theirselves or people that are trying to sell them have said they are complete crap. Pretty much everyone on all the lsx boards seem to be in agreement that they are junk.
I would say the only reason for ever running a remote mount setup ever is if you absolutely positively could not run a decent conventional setup.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login