Remote mounted turbo vs. Conventional mounted turbo.

[TurboGTU]

Not to mention you have to plumb that compressed air back to your engine in the front of the car. The longer your pipe the more pressure loss you'll have on top of the extra inefficiency of the hot side of the turbo.

[SPANISH-RICE]

zbrown;312216 wrote:
friend....

awww well shucks

[beachbum_jon]

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...

[out there]

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!).

[weshole]

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:

[91nbtsi]

The only thing remote turbo systems are good for are when traditional installations are very difficult or impossible.

[capitlj]

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.

[kylush]

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.

[zbrown]

lol..... i would love to have the headaches of a scavenging pump...

yeah, i should get one of those

[94NDTA]

I have considered it for my car, only because LT1 f-bods are a complete nightmare to turbo.