runnning any F/I setup is dumb with out an intercooler.....

 

If you're going to correct someone's grammer, do it right. Sentences don't start with "and" or "but". That's "Busch league".

As for the rear mount turbos, I agree with phunk. It will work, but why? If you are really that concerned with cost, you shouldn't be modifying your car.

 

Not true depends on what kind of car you are doing FI on there are other options like on the STS kits some of the LT1 kits do not come with coolers and have very safe inlet temps, and on high boost they run Methanol injection. Even if you look at some of the Vortech setups some of the Honda kits, Mustang kits and other vehicles run no cooler. We have several cars here making 700 plus HP with no cooler, while yes a cooler would add to the power sometimes it is not an option do to fit and sometimes even a little extra money in some peoples cases.

 

100% correct - if you compress air you will significantly raise the charge air temperature - the basics of thermodynamics.

 

That is not saying it is dumb, on some vehicles like said before there is just no room. While yes you are correct the intake temps will be higher with out a cooler and there will be a slight decrease in power because of the temps being higher. If I am not mistaking most turboed Mercedes did not have coolers from the factory

 

I only brought it up because it was one of the issues long discussed on the thread. It is good to know it will be an intercooled setup.

I am one who thinks that, given the right valves and piping, the turbos exist today to get the PSI to the right level even on a remote mount. And, in respect to location, I think there is plenty of space to tuck it in and even protect it with some vented plate. So I don't see big dificulties with getting this working. Also, consider that those camaros have a longer body than our car, which is way shorter than most of their other applications, so to STS probably it doesn't seem that far to go.

How about air vents on the upper rear fenders?

 

If there's no intercooling on the turbo system you have to retard the hell out of the ignition timing curve, this really kills power and torque and really hurts the fuel consumption for ever and a day, not clever imho.

The only way I can see around efficient intercooling on a turbocharged engine (on pump fuel) is if the turbo lag is that bad in the mid rpm range that the engine makes little boost around peak torque - that really helps though you still have to run a massively retarded ignition timing strategy in the high rpm to avoid engine detonation.

I think you're mistaken. I can't see a company like Mercedes in 2006 turbocharging a gasoline engine without extremely efficient intercooling - nor a company like Porsche - nor any car manufacturer that I can think of for that matter.

 

STS is very possible, but why fix something that not broken? The STS turbo that my friend uses on his WS6 puts out 505/540whp/trq..which is good but that could've been done with a weak supercharger. The front mount turbos put the WS6 in the 600-800whp range depending on internals which is a big difference.

 

I was talking about older Mercedes, I am not saying having no cooler is better by far a cooler is better all I am defending here is that on some setups not all it is not needed. Would it help yes of course cooler air always will help HP gains, but you do not need a cooler to make big HP. I could post plenty of dyno graphs of high hp cars with no cooler that are safe and still running today.

 

The big thing is where is your buddies power curve, if you compare a dyno graph on a supercharged WS6 to your buddies STS WS6 you will see that STS setup makes power earlier then the supercharged car. It is not all in the HP the power curve is a big factor when your out on the road.