^^ Advice much apreciated. Can you pm me a link or contact for the universal kit please. I have looked around and contacted a Canadian STS dealer, and they quoted me $7500 for the full kit. No installation just the kit.

I just like the fact tha I could build this myself. As for the oil setup, I have heard from different places that a turbo only needs a trickle to keep the bearings lubricated. I am still researching this and will be contacting a few turbo manufacturers just to hear what they have to say. I am still trying to figure out what turbo would best suit my goals. I don't want to buy a turbo that can push 600hp when I only plan on running 380 or so.

Oh and I know how boost can be addicting, I just sold my old toy car and it was supercharged.

 

Not true. With proper heat wrap and a turbo blanket heat is not an issue. My car runs lower IAT's than most twin turbo setups because it's properly set up to route heat away from the intake piping.

But really, has anyone looked under every single OEM turbocharged car on the market? The turbocharger is located in the engine bay. If it were more efficient to run a rear mount system, the automakers would do so. The tradeoff of decreased efficiency of a rear mount system isn't worth the tradoff when you can simply shield or wrap exhaust components (people do this anyway with the rear mount to keep heat IN).

I'm not sure where people get their info that engine mount turbo systems are to "hot" but it couldn't be farther from the truth...

 

Taurran is a very wise man!!!

 

Never liked the look of heat wrap and the turbo will just run that much hotter if you wrap it as well.

It's cheaper and easier for the manufacturer to install the turbos in the engine bay. It has nothing to do with efficiency. Less plumbing, fewer pipes and they put the turbos on when the engine is out. The market is too competative these day so every penny is saved. Why is a rear mount turbo inefficient? The exhaust is going out of the engine one way or another, it doesn't make much difference where the turbine is mounted. So what if the turbo doesn't spool NOW, that's not what I'm after. If that's what I wanted then I would go with a TT setup. I am after about 350-380whp and this type of setup will do that just fine. That is more power than one will ever need on the street. I have drivern cars that have 350whp IS300, 401whp 03 s/c stang and a 750whp z28, out of all of those I though th IS 300 was just right for the street. I'm sure it would do just fine at the track as well. The mustang was just scary, and you lose traction any time you punch it, not fun on the street. No to mention the z28.

This setup will work just fine for my goals. Isn't that the first thing one needs to determine when going turbo anyway? Why go and get something that can make more power than I ever want to run? I am more than capble of building one of these systems and saving myself a lot of money.


Thanks for the PM CMyTailsBlink

 

your going to spend a shitload of money on this. Don't go into the project thinking, "Oh, it will be fine". You are spending thousands. Be absolutely sure.

And seriously man, you would rather go with a rear mount setup to keep the engine bay cool because you don't want to wrap the turbo? Seriously man? Boosting a car is not about hot "cool" your engine bay looks. It is about making power, and keeping the car running strong healthy with as much power as possible. If you go with a rear mount kit, you will be disappointed. Go talk to the F-Bod guys who installed the STS kits on their LS1 cars, they will tell you also, that the setup is shitty.

If you are asking why it matters that the turbo is so far from the engine, go back to the drawing board.

 

I know what I am doing, I have done this before:

http://s137.photobucket.com/albums/q...tboston001.jpg

http://s137.photobucket.com/albums/q...tboston004.jpg

http://s137.photobucket.com/albums/q...t=DSCN0044.jpg I used to make these and sell them.

All of that was desighned and fabricated by me. I can tell you that I never had any problems with my belts like most people on here, that have the Procharger/Vortech kits. That is a transfer shaft that spins up to 16,000 rpm, and guess what, never had a problem. Just because most people will pay somebody to turn a screwdriver for them doesn't mean that I will too. BTW, that kit can be installed in 1.5 hours and removed in less than 1/2 that time. It's all about the desighn.

No to mention that the car you see in those pictures was on Megasquirt shortly after that picture was taken. Again I built the ECU, converted from disty to coilpacks (3000gt coils), had full fuel and ignition controll and all tuned by me. That car hit 12.97 at the track. So much for doing it ALL myself eh.


Why don't you open your eyes and read, I already stated my power goals. I don't need a ***** extention, it's plenty big. I like to work on my cars, and when people ask qusetions I can tell them whatever they want to know. Not just: "yeah man, I bought this and had somebody install it for me I don't know what's in there, I just drive it like I stoll it"

Rading replys like the one you have makes me want to do this even more. Just to prove a point.

 

Okay, well I'm not really posting the following to berate you, but you can't really expect to come into an environment like this and claim you understand what you're talking about while making false claims. Take it for what it's worth.

Not true. It just doesn't make sense to install a rear mount turbo on any car when you can install it properly in closest proximity to the exhaust manifolds. If it were cheaper and easier, then why would cars like the Bugatti Veyron run manifold mounted turbos? A couple feet of piping is not keeping Bugatti from building the most efficient turbo setup. Do the math.

Your choice to install a rear mount turbo? According to your first post this must be the case because you believe it's more expensive to install one rear mounted anyway.

I'm not sure what this means, but I'll assume it's incorrect as well.

Umm... are you kidding me? I can't believe you're making this statement and planning to design your own turbo kit. Exhaust gas and turbine efficiency is *everything* when it comes to turbo system design. The heat in the exhaust gasses is what keeps the exhaust gas velocity at a maximum, allowing for lower spool time and higher efficiency across the board. This is why manifold mounted turbos are the quickest spooling and most efficient setups (and why manufacturers mount them there). All of the piping in a rear mount turbo kit is its biggest flaw and largest loss of heat, making that big turbo less functional than a smaller manifold mounted one would be.

Also, the cold side piping on a rear mount turbo is every bit as much of an issue. Reason being is pressure loss across the intake tract and intercooler. This means that you'll have to run a smaller intercooler or spool that turbo even more to produce the same boost pressure at the manifold.

Spool time isn't everything, and isn't directly proportional to turbo efficiency. You'll spend more money on a larger turbo and piping to achieve the same goals on a rear mount turbo than you will a properly size manifold mounted turbo. Sure, the front mount ST systems that are out there aren't perfect, but they still allow the exhaust side to contain the heat while keeping the intake tract short and efficient.

Sure, you say that now. Ask anyone who's modified a turbo car. You will eventually want more power.

But hey, do what you want. It's your car. Make sure you post your results here so that we know you followed through on your plans.

 

You don't know what you're doing if you're equating a supercharger system to a turbocharged system. The fact that they make boost pressure is where the similarities end.

 

No way!

You really want me to buy a turbo kit from "Performance Factory" don't you? Why don't you just go ahead and say that you sell have the greatest ST kits.

I never compared the two systems, but stated that I have done custom work, and that custom work is not new to me.

Anyway, I am not going to argue with you, as you seem to have all the answers. All I can say that this setup is proven to produce great results, on many different platforms. Great example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1-jw...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka076...eature=related

I'm assuming that you will say the video is fake or that there is a manifold mounted turbo, we just can't see it. Maybe they have an electric heater keeping the exhaust gases hot till they get to the turbo....
IT WORKS. Why do people put these on corvettes if they are so horrible?

You should def. call these guys and tell them that they are all wrong too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PV5jEljsDE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnFA9...eature=related

I don't think I can really say anything else here.

 

Why not save money and time and go with a twin turbo kit already designed for your car, for example a kit offered by Greddy, APS or JWT? I think the twin turbo kits (which typically use smaller turbos that spool faster, but two of them) provide a better torque curve for street use. Unless you have a bottom end built like a brick sh** house to take 800+ hp at 8000 rpm, and you only plan to use the car for 1/4 mi. runs, I don't see the advantage of a single turbo setup. Even then, I would take a look at the APS extreme twin turbo kit. These are just my thoughts, but I never seriously considered a single turbo system since my car is being setup of for street/road coarse use, so you can take them with a large grain of salt.

 

I'm not trying to sell you anything. For all I care you can drag your turbo behind your car on a 20ft pipe.

I'm also not saying you can't make power on a rear mounted turbo, only that it is far less efficient that a properly built turbocharged setup. I'm sure the cars in the videos you posted are quick, but they definitely aren't taking full advantage of the turbochargers they're running. I guarantee that if they ran a properly mounted and configured turbo system they would be making more power with less boost, have less turbo lag, and much more headroom for added power potential for the turbos they're running.

People put these kits on corvettes, GTO's, and Z's because they're marketed as a low cost simple alternative to standard kits. It's totally about affordability and being cheaper, not about performance.

This discussion isn't to say that they're horrible, it's due to the fact you attempted to refute my earlier post with incorrect information and assumptions. Perhaps it will prompt you to do some research before diving into anything you may later regret.

 

A properly built single turbo system is arguably better for street use, straight line acceleration, and extreme horsepower builds. It's all related to efficiency, inertia, and the tradoff of having to push two turbines instead of one single turbine. At a certain point, twin turbos will become less effective in delivering top end power unless you increase displacement. Both can be effective on a road course setup, but the driver will have to adjust his driving style based on the characteristics of the system.

 

Front Mount Turbo is more efficient than Rear-Mount but only on high boost. I have a rear-mount and lots of people all ask me how can I produce that power since the turbo is in the back and doesn't make any sense to put it back there I hit Full boost (8psi) at around 3700rpm on the dyno but usually hit full boost around 3400rpm on the street. Most TN that I see don't hit 8 psi until past 4000rpm. There are hundreds if not thousands of skeptic but the Fact is Rear-Mount Turbo does work. There are also Videos in Youtube people making their own kit so it is really not that hard to fabricate one. Having said that, Rear-Mount has its limitation but for the OP's goal, the rear-mount kit will fit him well. MRC already did an overlay of the power curve between the STS and TN kit and they pretty much have the same power curve. At higher boost (10+psi) then I believe a Front Mount is better, not that the Rear-Mount can't do it but you have to do more planning and it is far more complicated for a Rear-Mount to compete with Front Mount kit for big power.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your figures, but measuring peak boost isn't an exact science and is very subjective on the situation and driver. Most turbonetics kits I see hit 8psi within the 3500 rpm range. My turbonetics ST setup was hitting full boost (9psi) at around 3200 rpms with a boost controller. I don't really want to start comparing kits though, this is more of a comparison of turbo location.

I agree in your statement on the rear mount not faring well under higher boost/flowing conditions. The tradeoff in a rear mount setup is that you have run a much smaller turbo or turbine section to get the same amount of response and power. This severely limits your output when you do wish to go for more power at some point (which you will want).

 

I read alot.... and not to take sides because I think that FI is great any way that you can get it.... to each its own...... its whatever.... who cares what is efficient and not... noone is running a perfect solution that makes everyone happy.... if you do a search and look at the safeness of the turbo systems out there... I do believe there have been alot more blown motors with front mount traditional turbo systems due to HEAT and poor tuning... hell Turbonetics is known to be the hottest running turbo system and eats motors like a fat kid eats candy..... There is more piping in a twin setup then there is in a rear mount... the only difference is on the rear mount its strait pipe.... and if done correctly the rear mount WILL make more power than a twin setup.... but... the twins will ALWAYS spool faster.... so I think its a toss up.... its whatever you like....

 

I got my info by looking at TN Dyno's posted on this same forum. I have yet to see a Dyno of TN kit that hit 8-9psi below 3500rpm. I don't even have an EBC and we are pretty much hitting the same boost at the same RPM I said at mid boost 6-8psi then the rear-mount isn't as bad as people thing and is very comparable to the TN kit. The OP only want to run 7psi so why keep insisting your opinion? I even told the OP that he will want more and he said he has great self control.. lol so I guess that is his choice. Like I said before, for high boost then Front Mount Rules but for low boost then Rear-Mount isnt as bad as you think.

 

Incorrect on all counts, and also more misleading information for anyone reading this thread...

"Safeness" has very little to do with the system on the market, as much as install and tune.

Heat isn't what is killing any motor out there, it's tuning. The turbonetics kit has a LOT more out there on the streets and a LOT more self installed and otherwise improperly configured systems. Those installed by experienced shops don't have any more issues than other systems. These are factors that few of the people that make simple minded assumptions don't take into account.

Your assumption that any heat on the turbonetics system is based on turbo location is incorrect as well. It's determined by turbo efficiency and also backpressure on the hot side caused by wastegate placement. As I stated before, my top mount turbo kit runs cooler AIT's than most TT kits on the market.

You're also incorrect in saying that there is more piping on a TT setup than a rear mount setup. Just because there are two turbos to feed doesn't mean the air has any more room for inefficiency.

The rear mount turbo system will NEVER make more power than an engine mount setup with equivalently sized turbochargers.

I'm just going to say that there is a lot of misinformation spread on these forums by people who don't even understand how a turbo system functions. Please stop posting unless you've done research on the very basic factors involved in turbocharging. (Seriously, that's all I'm preaching is basic knowledge)

 

Granted there are only 12-14 of STS kit out there but to date there hasnt a blown motor running the standard kit!!! STS has been out for over a year and non had any failing parts, blown motor once the kit was installed and tuned right.... For a new kit in the block then that is a great accomplishment! Greddy and TN blew motor when they started out but eventually fix the problem.

 

Like I said before, we're not comparing kits, but rather turbo location.... So stop making this into a Turbonetics vs STS argument because it is NOT.

I would post dyno sheets but I don't the TN vs STS argument as any place in this thread.

 

You are comparing the efficiency of the Front-Mount and Rear-Mount right? the closest one is the TN VS STS coz the Turbo size is almost the same. I believe the 60-1 is rated at 55lbs/min and the 60-0trim is around 50lbs/min. Either way it is the OP's decision and both of us made our point.