It's not that we "turbo owners" hate the idea or think that we know all there is to the inner workings of FI. This forum exists soley to discuss car related topics. The thread was started to get opinions and ideas on the subject of "rear mount".

It's evident that it will work, can be cheap/simple to install, but is not even close to what would be considered a well designed turbo.

 

I've been learning quite a bit about the different turbo systems out there. Thanks for the great information Brian!

How much more weight would a rear mounted system add to the car. This could be another problem with doing a rear version turbo. Comments?

 

Thats true but what was this all about, doesn't seem like an opinion was being respected at all which started this whole fiasco

^^^ said this cus he currently does not have a turbo in his car and if he had a chance this is what he would choose (opinion which everyone is entitled too)

uncalled for

^^^ didn't take the comment to heart and was more of a question as to why you got upset but used don't and not did

The comment wasn't bullsh%t and was simply an opinion but the comment you made was directed at him personally belittling the information he wanted to share

expected reaction and a bit much but again expected reaction when somone is protecting their opinion

still a direct attack on a member and information they had contributed as captain hook would say (Bad form Peter Bad form)

 

does someone want a cookie?

 

And milk

 

If all the plumbing on the pressure side is aluminium, it would be rather minimally more than a conventional turbo.

Running aluminium pipe under a car might be a loosing battle, so steel would be a better choice. In that case the weight would be more of a problem..

The weight added would be countered by the added HP.

So if you are comparing

No Turbo to Rear Turbo, Rear Turbo would win.

Similarly, Comapre Front turbo to Rear Turbo.. Well, I think I have expressed my opinion on that.

 

Looks like a bias opinion. According to you, anything I said was offensive, and anything he said was totally "Expected" as a reaction.

The thread got all clam and constructive, Why the hell are you stiring the pot again.

 

Your mom's polish.

 

Does the return piping have to be aluminum..?? Is plastic or something along those lines an option..?

 

I am betting that the exhaust gasses are going to be pretty hot. I dont know how well plastic would hold up...

 

Return, as in Intake.

Plastic, I Would not recomend it.

 

She's actually half polish, half german.

 

I don't think plastic would hold up to the PSI, most FI inductions are made of metal.

and whoever said it, 1/2 a second to spool is a life time compared to NA or a SC.

The rear mount may work on a large displacment engine because all of the exhaust is going to feed the turbo, meaning all exhaust gasses are merged into one 3" pipe, for a 5.7L thats a good amount of preassure. STS I know crimps the end of the pipe to cause backpreassure and help with the turbo spool.

For a small I4, however, it is a huge con because it has 1/2 the displacment if that, and can't fill the space as quickly. Granted you could use smaller pipe and such, but it is generally going to be much better to have it in the engine bay.

The main reason the rear mounted turbo was designed was because you couldn't fit a turbo in the engine bay of most V8 vehicles and it was a long and lengthy process. Not because it was a better design, but for functionality. If it was a better design you would have seen it implemented in as said, racing applications, Things like the Bugatti Veryon, where they could pretty much design anything they wanted, you know where they put the turbos? They are literally connected to the heads, with no headers.

They wouldn't put them there and loose all the functionality of having them remote mounted if they wern't more effeciant and a better design, it defys all logic to do so.

 

Would the remote mount be better suited for a car with an automatic transmission so that you can spool it. On a 2.4 ss it might not be too bad. But on our cars its pretty pointless because there is plenty of room to put it under the hood.

 

I think automatics are a better platform for turbo in the first place.

 

I wanted to make it apparent that I was not happy with what Brian said What you said to Wasey was in a joking manor and there was nothing wrong with it, which is why I didn't jump on your case about it. However, what Brian said to our other member was completely uncalled for and unprovoked. What I said to Brian was provoked by him being an ass, and my inability to deal with ******** in a civil manor.(working in construction will do that to you)

 

Stock Automatics do not take well to increased Output.

They overheat easily and fail.

 

CTFO Man, It's just the internet. We are here to learn and It's impossible to hold a grudge for longer than about 3.65 Seconds.

Basically, I'm scarcastic and it's unlikely that I can go through my lifespan without bumping heads.

What I bring to the Forum is done with the absolute Best Of Intensions.

Even If It seems like I'm flaming someone, there is usually information in the post that is actually constructive.

Kewl...

This goes for basically everyone here.

 

I have no problem with sarcasm, but blatent insults and personal attacks just arent needed and if one must do that, at least do it in a comical fashion of some sort, so it doesnt come out as hateful.

Alright, hatchet burried, carry on all.

 

Do me a favor... go count all the 90 degree bends in your turbo system. And then all the ones on a STS system. Also measure the length of your car.

https://www.cobaltss.net/forums/front-page-news-17/street-graffiti-sema-cobalt-8886/, hey look at that it makes good power at an average RPM on whoa a 4cyl.

Do you think they don't account for water when designing their systems??

On to Brian, dude research the systems thats all I ask(same with procharger). Just because car manufacturers haven't used them doesn't mean they don't work and work good. STS has only been making remote mount systems famous since 2003. http://www.ststurbo.com/f_a_q

 

"Well" as in "They Work Well"

"Work Good" isn't english.



Give it up man, we know you just got off shift at McDonalds late, but that dosent mean that the rest of us who have already agreed that the topic is dead want to hear whatever you have to say tonight.

Dead Topic


Later...

 

English lessons from a Canadian.....that made my day

 

Is that the same as spelling doesn't, "dosent"? Or like how that should be whom instead of who?? Come on man speak good engrish. What a joke... you know you are wrong with remote mounting systems just like you were with centrifugal superchargers, so you resort to nitpicking my grammar.

 

Here it is,

Rather than actually reading what I post, you automatically jump to a conclusion and type whatever link comes to mind that might suit your fancy. I want you to go back all the way to the first post if you have to and read exactly what I said.

Did I ever say it would not work?

Did I ever say that the advantage of ease of install was not there?

All I have said from day one is that this is not the way to install a turbo properly.

As I said it goes against all fundamentals of good turbo design.

The only problem that I have with you is that either you don't read what I'm actually typing or you are just trolling.

You constantly misread or remove from context. You teachers must be having a field day with you...

 

Let me get this straight, since I take everything "out of context". Your saying it isn't well designed because it goes against the norm? How can a turbo system that works and sometimes makes more power then a conventional setup not be well designed?

Same exact thing with your OPINION on centrifugal superchargers. They make more power then turbos and roots style superchargers, yet they are the worse superchargers. Makes no sense. Educate me, so that I can be as knowledgeable as you.