I was wandering because I saw one and just thought that it looked really cool and saved tons of room in that guys engiene bay... which one is better, or does it really matter???
It matters, think about how a turbo works.
It takes the exhaust from the engine and spins a turbine with it. The time it takes for the exhaust to start spinning the turbo at a rate to make boost is called turbo lag.
The longer the pipe, the longer the lag time is.
Then, it will take time for the boost created by the turbo to reach your throttle body.
That's a lot of time for the air to travel. Do you want to wait all that time just to save some room in your engine bay. There's not a lot you can put in place of your turbo in many cars because it sits very close to the exhaust manifold.
Another issue with the remote turbo is price. You'd have to do a custom turbo manifold and pay for a lot more piping. If you run charge pipes under the car, they'll get dinged up and possibly crack; sucking in parts of sand and road debris, clogging your throttle body and grinding your engine internals to nothing.
I don't think it's worth it. Go with the traditional turbo setup.
Remote makes no sence for a single header engine, I4, 5, 6
The ONLY time a remote turbo can create benefits worth mentioning is in V block motors, V6, V8, V10, ect...
Admiral Jedi wrote:Another issue with the remote turbo is price. You'd have to do a custom turbo manifold and pay for a lot more piping.
Not really, the remote system allows the use of the vehicles stock exhaust system so it saves you money, turbo after the y-pipe and typically in the back of the car. Just cut the muffler and weld the flange on. The intake charge pipes will cost you more but just use any pipe you can get to keep the cost down (if your doing remote, your not looking for performacne anyway).
Also, allows the use of 1 turbo in two header engines, saves money on a twin header engine.
Admiral Jedi wrote:If you run charge pipes under the car, they'll get dinged up and possibly crack.
You just use your stock exhaust so need to worry about the pipes getting dinged or cracking, unless you actually have problems with these on your stock exhaust but you shouldn't.
Admiral Jedi wrote:Sucking in parts of sand and road debris, clogging your throttle body and grinding your engine internals to nothing.
You see more debris from the intake being closer to the road, but all you need to do is get a good air filter and change it often, so no big deal and no internal damage.
You loose some heat in the long exhaust pipes and you loose boost in the charge pipes, both bad. By the time you limit the heat loss (ceramic coating the pipes) you've already spent as much as a twin turbo kit would cost so dont do it.
If you guys think 0.05sec is long, I wonder what is really long.
A remote setup work just as good on a 4cyl as a Vx.
Do I need to make a movie of my ho pushing the exhaust 6' mehind the car? There is ALOT of flow when you modify the exhaust.
Also, Lag on a remote setup can be change by turbo sizing just like a regular setup.
Gilles
2.3 Ho
Mfk-223 wrote:A remote setup work just as good on a 4cyl as a Vx.
Thats true....thats why it makes no sence on a I4 motor when you have room under the hood. The local mount works better every time...heat loss = power loss.
Mfk-223 wrote:If you guys think 0.05sec is long, I wonder what is really long.
That's what I was going to say...do you realize how fast the engine is spinning?...think about it...that gas is moving VERY fast
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Joshua Dearman wrote:Mfk-223 wrote:A remote setup work just as good on a 4cyl as a Vx.
Thats true....thats why it makes no sence on a I4 motor when you have room under the hood. The local mount works better every time...heat loss = power loss.
Before saying something stupid like that, go to your dealership, ask for a 2.4 AUTO fully equip and check under the hood. Then tell me you can fit any turbo easily. If you tell me it's easy it's because you're full of sh**. I own a 2.4 auto fully equiped and there is not much room. Enough to fit a T3 super 60 but barely. The cruise control module is in the way, there's a coolant line in the way, therE's almost no room for the exhaust, the AC pipes are in the way, .......
Also, it's not because you have space under the hood that you have to put it there. There's a few pro's to remote. One is no need for an intercooler. I'd rather pay 20-25$ in pipe from the turbo to the manifold than 200+. Also, it keep the stock look under the hood.
Don't come up with the heat argument cause it's not worth it. A properly sized turbo in remote will spool just as fast as a normal turbo.
Gilles
2.3 Ho
^^^talk about saying something stupid........thats why you dont buy autos!
Also, you would still need an intercooler under high boost pressures, the untreated piping wont drop near as much heat as an intercooler, you need serious surface area to drop alot of heat. Heat should be brought up if you want to get everything out of the setup possible, since the differencial of heat is directly proportional to the possible power generation. Therefore heat differencial loss = power loss.
Gilles: I'm talking generalities (applied physics at work), not specifics (certain cars).....local is always better.
Joshua Dearman wrote:^^^talk about saying something stupid........thats why you dont buy autos!
Also, you would still need an intercooler under high boost pressures, the untreated piping wont drop near as much heat as an intercooler, you need serious surface area to drop alot of heat. Heat should be brought up if you want to get everything out of the setup possible, since the differencial of heat is directly proportional to the possible power generation. Therefore heat differencial loss = power loss.
Gilles: I'm talking generalities (applied physics at work), not specifics (certain cars).....local is always better.
You could add fins as a 'heat sink' to the piping, but that's a lot of work.
I'd like to add to that a response to :
Mfk-223 wrote:A properly sized turbo in remote will spool just as fast as a normal turbo.
While this is true, that smaller turbine housing will limit the high-end potential of the setup. Every one would use .48a/r turbine housings if they could flow more volume instead of just creating a choke point.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Yeah I've learn that with the turbo I had on the Ho.
Still, once the catr is removed and the exhaust change for mendrel bend, it will flow enough to use a turbine housing with a ratio bigger than .48
Gilles
2.3 Ho
Joshua Dearman wrote:^^^talk about saying something stupid........thats why you dont buy autos!
Also, you would still need an intercooler under high boost pressures, the untreated piping wont drop near as much heat as an intercooler, you need serious surface area to drop alot of heat. Heat should be brought up if you want to get everything out of the setup possible, since the differencial of heat is directly proportional to the possible power generation. Therefore heat differencial loss = power loss.
Gilles: I'm talking generalities (applied physics at work), not specifics (certain cars).....local is always better.
um.... ya i guess them old auto GN's and SCYCLONS are pos's because there auto's
TURBO AUTO CARS ARE FASTER THAN THE SAME THING BEING MANUAL.
in a perfact world any way.
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
the remote mount setup works ok. no need for an intercooler since all that pope acts as one and its cheap. its a great way to go for modest target power levels. if you want the most from it put the turbo right on the engine.
as for space with an auto.. i see a buncha bitching on this site about that. i have a t3t4 on a 2.4 auto using an exploited manifold. hell i even have the charge pipes run UNDER the engine and have a proper air filter installed. its dooable you just hafta ignore all the retards that line up to tell you what you cant do and what wont work.
99 Turbo Sunfire GT | Ram 2500 | International Rollback | Mr Hanky the Suburban
Taetsch Z24 wrote: um.... ya i guess them old auto GN's and SCYCLONS are pos's because there auto's
TURBO AUTO CARS ARE FASTER THAN THE SAME THING BEING MANUAL.
in a perfact world any way.
Yeah, I never argued whether autos have there place or not.....the RIGHT auto trans with the right mods IS a more desirable option than a standard due to repeatability and consistency, now you can never get an auto to have less power loss than a standard but it can get close and with a standard you always run into the human element. I was just poking fun at people who buy autos...thats it.
OHV notec wrote: You could add fins as a 'heat sink' to the piping, but that's a lot of work.
Ya, but by then it negates the cost savings by making it remote......I'm talking Vx motors......Ix it still just doesn't make since.
Gilles brings up the only valid point about the auto making the remote feasable.....but remote should not be desired unless you have no other options.
Roscoe: I dont think anybody in this thread ever said it couldn't be done.....Gilles just said in an auto the remote is a feasable option as room is very tight thus limiting the available options for turbos.
The straight untreated steel pipes will not drop enough heat to act as even a bad intercooler, thats like sombody cooling there 2.4 SC charge by getting a ram air hood pointed at the SC and intake........it just isn't near as good.
It would be better than nothing, but it would suck, to do it right you would still need an intercooler.
remote mount turbo systems done right with an intercooler can be effective but very rarely cost effective there are still all the major workings of a turbo kit just done differently. Personally if i was to do one the intake would run to the trunk so no water or other debris would clog the filter. Another think is the elements personally id be worried about cold ass snow or water hitting a housing thats close to 700-1200 degrees F. I could just imagine an exhaust leak forming because of a cracked housing or even the compressor housing cracking. I know they have been proven to work especially in tight situations such as Vx motors and it does work nicely if designed right. Such as a vette or other ls1 vehicles its not gonna be hard to gain 100-200hp from a remote kit and make things easier and cooler in the engine bay it makes sense. But on a cavalier i dont car what has been said but any j car ive seen has potential to be turboed. If you look at your boost project/dream and say oh theres not room for a turbo you are definately not ready to build a kit. If you cant figure out how to fit the turbo in the car how are you supposed to design the proper system and fab it up. Most likely your not ready. Personally im down for the real turbo kits. remote kit id porbably do on a @!#$ty car just for fun. Running around town with teh worst looking tercel you have ever seen letting that hks valve pierce small childrens ear drums aahhh such joy.
*2012 mazdaspeed3*
