I've seen this rear mounted turebo design over 30 years ago, it does not perform any better today than what it did then. I know as we removed many of these rear mounted tubochargers and replaced them with an engine mounted turbocharger, I can't believe that anyone today would consider this out dated and ill considered design approach.


Your right about that, the turbo performance is ordinary at best and the spool of the turbo charger slow, certainly quicker and cheaper to install though.

True lots of room down back though all of plumbing has to be returned back to the engine bay, to me this just seems to be a bad choice for the turbocharger position.

Correct, turbo lag is a design feature of this turbo approach, can't understand why any engineer would consider this as a viable option, given all the negatives.

Peter

 

What if you were only comparing rear mounted turbo and a centrifugal supercharger? Which would you prefer?

--
Jeff

 

Imagine for a moment you actually contributed something to this thread. I'm trying, trying... Nope. Don't see it.

Don't get me wrong Peter, I think APS kits have a lot going for them. But reading page after page of your posts with nothing more or less other than marketing-speak isn't engendering you as a technical contributor. Seem to be doing pretty well as a salesman, but then again, the company does seem to put together good product packages.

Speak to the issues - stop with the unqualified commentary.

ahm

 

I'd much prefer a centrifugal Supercharger with an efficient intercooler than a rear mounted turbo which has to pump the charge air over 10 or so feet to reach the inlet manifold, this rear mounted turbo idea is just plain silly imho.

Peter

 

Well I thought I was contributing to this thread in a constructive manner and I have plenty of experience with this turbo design and my comments were only pointing out the design flaws with this approach, sorry if you don't like my comments.

I think this turbo design aproach is just plain absurd, I can't believe that any experienced engineer would seriously consider this approach for any automotive application, it does not make any engineering sense, and will surely give turbocharging a bad name, that's my real concern.

I did not intend to offend you and if you're planning going down this path I recommend you investigate the issue very thoroughly, it's has many pit falls imho.

Thanks

Peter

 

two words....



TURBO
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
lag.


Wish it could be that easy...


On a pick up truck... yes, that might be a good thing for extra power towing your yaht up a hill... but for a high performance sports car... tooo much lag

 

I don't think the piping is much longer than Turbonetics single turbo system. The main problems about this kit that I see is that the turbo is after the cat, the cat will slow down the exhaust, causing more lag. The cat has to be removed to make the turbo spool quickly. The turbo is non BB, Turbonetics use a BB turbo, so it'll spool slower than the Turbonetic. This kit doesn't come with a IC, I'm not sure if a undercar IC will be available or not, but I think without a IC the intake air would be too hot. For the money, I would rather get something proven like a Vortech SC or the Turbonectics ST.

 

I agree that it may not be a valid idea for the 350Z but I would not call it an engineering nightmare. Regardless of what you think of the technology I put down about 100 feet of rubber with a rear wheel drive chevy 4.8L pickup. I was impressed and may still put one on my tahoe one day.