..............so I can go here www.ststurbo.com
While you're there take a ride in the Mustang!
| Slant Six Forum https://www.slantsix.org/forum/ |
|
| Waiting for an EFI Kit......... https://www.slantsix.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=24290 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Rug_Trucker [ Tue Jul 31, 2007 8:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Waiting for an EFI Kit......... |
..............so I can go here www.ststurbo.com While you're there take a ride in the Mustang!
|
|
| Author: | Matt Cramer [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I'm not sure a remote turbo would be the way to go on a slant six. They came up with that for fourth gen Camaros, which have notoriously cramped engine compartments. On a slant six A-body, you've got a lot of room under the hood, but not too many good spots under the car to fit a turbo. |
|
| Author: | Rug_Trucker [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
More weight on the rear, no intercooler needed. No hot azzed turbo under the hood. All plus's to me. |
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 7:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The remote turbo setup has an electric oil pump to fail, less exhaust energy at the turbine inlet, longer plumbing that's more prone to failure and no intercooler even though it still needs one if you're serious about making power. All negatives to me. BTW, if you want an EFI slant it's roll your own or pay someone the bucks to do it for you. |
|
| Author: | Rug_Trucker [ Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
IIRC the remote mounting of the turbo makes it unnecessary to have an intercooler. If the rear mount wasn't efficient enought to make gobs of power on a race car why are those guys using them? Anything you do is a compromise. |
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The cars with those turbo systems are not real race cars. They are street cars made faster and taken racing. If you look at what engineers do for turbo race cars you'll see things executed very differently. When Cosworth, Honda, Toyota, Audi and others spend tens of millions of dollars on turbo engine development pay attention. Thousands of ideas have been tried and discarded. If you know why those ideas were discarded and change your course you'll waste a lot less time and money to build a loosing effort. |
|
| Author: | Rug_Trucker [ Thu Aug 02, 2007 4:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
You mean the turbo Carrera's? The ones that switched from the turbos mounted near the engine, to a front mounted system? Seeing how they are rear engine!
|
|
| Author: | Matt Cramer [ Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: IIRC the remote mounting of the turbo makes it unnecessary to have an intercooler.
The intake temperature is still hotter than what you'd get if you used a proper intercooler on these cars. And like Joshie said, the cars using rear mounted turbos are less all out race cars than fast street cars where expedient installation and budget are more of a concern than the best arrangement for maximum power.
If the rear mount wasn't efficient enought to make gobs of power on a race car why are those guys using them? Anything you do is a compromise. |
|
| Author: | Joshie225 [ Thu Aug 02, 2007 2:29 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: You mean the turbo Carrera's? The ones that switched from the turbos mounted near the engine, to a front mounted system? Seeing how they are rear engine!
I call BS!The Carrera GT is normally aspirated. http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/carrera_gt.asp The current 911 Turbo has the turbos right at the engine. Very close to the exhaust ports. Trick variable nozzle turbines with built in compressor bypass too. http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/911_turbo.asp http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/11/911turbo07_eng2.jpg Also, when I point out real race cars I mean real race cars. Cars that are built from a clean sheet of paper as race cars. Think F1, CART, LeMans prototypes, etc. |
|
| Author: | AndyZ [ Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The link compares "turbo's" to superchargers not remote turbo's and the only mention of remote turbo mounting in the ad is: Remote mounted turbo systems leave more room under the hood making it easier to perform normal engine maintenance. Remote mounted turbo systems do not increase under the hood temperatures. Remote mounted turbo systems run cooler because the exhaust coming in is cooler and the tubing coming from the turbo cools the boost charge before it gets to the intake manifold. Turbo's create power from expanding exhaust gases. Cooler gases driving the impeller as the ad says would only equal less boost than a conventional turbo. |
|
| Author: | AnotherSix [ Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This is one of those things where all the supposed "pros" are all minor or secondary considerations given priority over the major or primary considerations. Under hood temps are not really an issue, a few heat shields and cold air induction take care of it. Maybe some extra vents for a really serious effort. Turbo lag is an issue, even long headers with 3' of pipe doubling back made a huge difference when I tried that on my GN. It was better than stock after the boost was up, but not worth the bottom end loss. Another thing that does not usually come up. In traffic, a turbo engine will pull just a little after you let of the gas if the turbo was starting to spin up. It is irritating and you need to be quick on the brakes sometimes. This would likely be much worse with all that plumbing. Those systems don't need an intercooler because they are not doing that much. Catch a little road debri and they won't be doing anything. |
|
| Author: | Matt Cramer [ Sat Aug 04, 2007 1:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Even without road debris hazards, I can't figure out where you would put a large-sized turbo under an A-body without hacking up the floorpan. There's not really enough room in the area ahead of the axle; I had trouble tucking my fuel pumps and surge tank there, and a good sized turbo would need twice the size of my surge tank even when you don't consider its piping needs. And you definitely can't put it ahead of the back seat. The only place I could see possibly mounting it is behind the gas tank, unless they made big changes in the underbody design after '66 (or you put a fuel cell in there). Which they may have, but I still think you'll have an easier time finding room under the hood than under the car. |
|
| Author: | Sam Powell [ Sat Aug 04, 2007 10:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Catch a little road debri and they won't be doing anything.
That really is true. My sister's turbo deisel VW was toast when her low lying intercooler hit a big rock in the road. That car then felt slower than my old 36HP '59 beetle used to feel. Sam |
|
| Author: | 63Dart170 [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I looked at some of the pics on their website (maybe a faster Internet connection would be nice  ), but mounting the turbo at the very back of the car doesn't seem to make any sense to me. I'd think there'd hardly be enough pressure to make that much of a difference, but then I don't know turbos.
|
|
| Author: | Rug_Trucker [ Mon Aug 06, 2007 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
One thing is for sure there is a bunch out there on the highway. I see some guys on Moparts are using them on their Hemi Rams. IIRC one guy's dynoed at 420+ at the wheels. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC-08:00 |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
