I don't know how many times this has been posted. I wondered if anybody had a suggestion of a custom remote turbo setup. I already found a turbo that spools up decently quick so thats covered. Just wondered if you had any good thoughts.
its possible....its been done on Js before.....theres no point to it because you have room for a local turbo......theres no benefit, only less performance....no point to it on a J platform.
Gilles has mentioned the fact that autos have some reasonable excuse with less room for a local, but there are local turboed auto running around the org too....so its tight but possible.
Joshua Dearman wrote:its possible....its been done on Js before.....theres no point to it because you have room for a local turbo......theres no benefit, only less performance....no point to it on a J platform.
Gilles has mentioned the fact that autos have some reasonable excuse with less room for a local, but there are local turboed auto running around the org too....so its tight but possible.
Its been done once on a J. There is a point to it, and the is a benefit, and I am guessing that 280 HP on a stock 2.4 engine is less performance.
Look for Mr. Pute, he just did it and posted his Dyno sheets from the weekend. Impressive numbers for a first timetune, and on an entirely stock block.
I'd also be happy to offer up suggestions. I've been putting parts together for a remote setup as well. I haven't finished it but it's all worked out on paper. I've been working on a setup for an LN2 but for the most part, everything up to the fuel mods would be the same.
Marchi1: Putting the turbo in a different place makes no difference for the possible power out of a stock block, or any block for that matter!!! That doesn't make any since.
before this thread goes to crap I will say it again...the shear physics behind remote turbo=less performance than local...the end.
If he would put that turbo local....he would have a higher power output....laws of physics.
I never said you couldn't make good power......as far as the engine is concerned, important variables are cfm, boost and tuning.......the remote system takes a hit in the cfm area which is where the less performance comes into play (skin friction losses in the pipes). Yes, thats assuming your running the turbo to the max however for an identical setup (losses to a remote get larger as you get closer to a exactly sized turbo for the motor, max cfm turbo = max cfm of motor), the local is better every time. I'm not saying he will get 400 if its local, I'm saying he'll get like 283hp or so.......all the remote does is add losses.....and I'm talking in the shear science of it....I wish people could understand that.
Edit: grammar
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, October 25, 2006 1:40 PM
Joshua Dearman wrote:Marchi1: Putting the turbo in a different place makes no difference for the possible power out of a stock block, or any block for that matter!!! That doesn't make any since.
before this thread goes to crap I will say it again...the shear physics behind remote turbo=less performance than local...the end.
If he would put that turbo local....he would have a higher power output....laws of physics.
I never said you couldn't make good power......as far as the engine is concerned, important variables are cfm, boost and tuning.......the remote system takes a hit in the cfm area which is where the less performance comes into play (skin friction losses in the pipes). Yes, thats assuming your running the turbo to the max however for an identical setup (losses to a remote get larger as you get closer to a exactly sized turbo for the motor, max cfm turbo = max cfm of motor), the local is better every time. I'm not saying he will get 400 if its local, I'm saying he'll get like 283hp or so.......all the remote does is add losses.....and I'm talking in the shear science of it....I wish people could understand that.
Edit: grammar
Skin friction?!?! HA Without question, you have no clue what you're talking about. Read my previous posts and the advantages/disadvantages of the system.
I will NEVER change my sig. HTML 4 EVA!!
<a href="http://www.j-body.org/members/mrpute"><img src="http://www.j-bom.com/images/sigs/putesig.jpg">
Joshua Dearman wrote:Marchi1: Putting the turbo in a different place makes no difference for the possible power out of a stock block, or any block for that matter!!! That doesn't make any since.
before this thread goes to crap I will say it again...the shear physics behind remote turbo=less performance than local...the end.
If he would put that turbo local....he would have a higher power output....laws of physics.
I never said you couldn't make good power......as far as the engine is concerned, important variables are cfm, boost and tuning.......the remote system takes a hit in the cfm area which is where the less performance comes into play (skin friction losses in the pipes). Yes, thats assuming your running the turbo to the max however for an identical setup (losses to a remote get larger as you get closer to a exactly sized turbo for the motor, max cfm turbo = max cfm of motor), the local is better every time. I'm not saying he will get 400 if its local, I'm saying he'll get like 283hp or so.......all the remote does is add losses.....and I'm talking in the shear science of it....I wish people could understand that.
Edit: grammar
There are few things that I stand by here on the org, but the most important is "If you haven't done it, helped do it, or have direct experience with it, don't comment" That being said, Mr. Pute is the only one on here who has done it, I did help with it a very little bit, so I have experience with it.
As for your response with the frictional losses due to additional length, that could also be directly offset due to temperature loss due to the heat conduction of said tubes thereby cooling your charge furtehr then even an intercooler, but I guess Thermodynamics isn't part of Physics anymore.
what about the possibilities of twin... 1 remote... 1 local?
Mr. Pute wrote:Skin friction?!?! HA Without question, you have no clue what you're talking about. Read my previous posts and the advantages/disadvantages of the system.
Just because you havn't heard about doesn't mean it doesn't exist and yes, the pressure drop through any pipe system is due to turbulence and skin friction forces.......look it up before you discredit anybody. Intercooler have massive surface area which is why they have pressure drop and yes, it is caused by skin friction forces, which is the shearing of the air as the outer boundary stays fixed in location to the surface area....or called boundary layer..........I do know what I'm talking about.
First google page...."A small percentage of the parasite drag is due to skin friction. ... The entire skin friction drag is created within the boundary layer. ..."
I've studied turbo systems for two years and covered the effects of lengthening pipes in a lab.........every single time you have more losses.....you cant beat physics.
Remote systems add losses...period!
Mr. Pute wrote:Skin friction?!?! HA Without question, you have no clue what you're talking about. Read my previous posts and the advantages/disadvantages of the system.
HA! and
Marchi1 wrote:There are few things that I stand by here on the org, but the most important is "If you haven't done it, helped do it, or have direct experience with it, don't comment" That being said, Mr. Pute is the only one on here who has done it, I did help with it a very little bit, so I have experience with it.
As for your response with the frictional losses due to additional length, that could also be directly offset due to temperature loss due to the heat conduction of said tubes thereby cooling your charge furtehr then even an intercooler, but I guess Thermodynamics isn't part of Physics anymore.
HAHA!
Ignorance must be bliss...until you have a DIRECT comparison of Mr Pute's setup against an identical (read: comparitively sized turbine, appropriate pipe routing, etc) localized setup on the same motor, YOU have no first hand experience either.
And, the temperature loss through his charge pipes is nill compared to the presence "thankfully" of the IC, especially considering their location (mucho heat-o and very low airflow)
I'm in no way 'knocking' Mr Pute's setup, I love it, and it is well-suited to certain apps, but it's not the most efficient when speaking technicallities, although the difference is minor.
The fact that Dearman sugested a 3hp deduction and you guys are acting this way makes me think you feel the remote mount makes
more power than local...
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
^I know it says "small percentage" however in a turbo system with high velocity and high temps, and high pressure (pressure isn't more than a 10% increase so its not much but enough to mention none the less) this relative term "small" isn't small anymore.....
By the time you get a remote as efficient as a local you've spent more money than reasonable.
REMEMBER.....I never said remotes can't make power....its like you guys think I'm just saying remotes are garbage....not the case.
I'm trying to say remotes add losses and should be used as a last option or a money saving option in a Vx motor when your trying to run a single turbo. ITS PHYSICS
Sunb1rd: Hmmm......What your talking about is called "Regeneration" and its done in powerplants in different forms all the time.
The problem here would be temp difference between the intake and exhaust after the first turbo.....what you could do is run the exhaust through a heat exchanger to heat it up......depenind on your deltaT you might be able to heat using the engine coolant but I dont know the exhaust gas temps after a turbo in these motors so I'd say that that would probubly cool the exhaust. Without a reheat cycle in there, there might not be much more energy in the air to even spin the second turbo and keep up with the first. (Since the second turbos exhaust charge side pipes into the same manifold as the first) The first turbo is pushing 10+ lbs of air into the second turbo's intake, thus making the second turbo a boost leak for the first turbo until the second turbo could hold back the pressure. Maybe a check vavle or something could be done but I dont think you'll get anything out of it anyway.
The only other way to do it is to use a common shaft twin turbo, one larger to use the large entropy of the exhaust gases and then one smaller the drop the energy thats left in the gases. Common shaft meaning exactly that.....the shafts are connected together and spin together....this would require massive design engineering for a single specific application....thats why you only see this in power plants aswell.
thanks for the info... i know im doing a 3400 w/turbo but ive been probing the idea of a TT setup with the aforementioned remote system... if i go through with it i'll need alot of research...
to be honest a twin turbo, single shaft will be the only way...the first turbo will then spin the second thus keeping the second turbo from becoming a boost leak....I've never seen one for automotive use but you could make a setup to combine both shafts.
Keep in mind the second turbo will need to be tiny.
if you are trying that, why not try a ford 6.0 turbo with variable geometery? makes about as much sense....
you would over spin the smaller turbo and drain huge power. then your engine will eat bushings, (but the are soft)
HP Tuners | Garrett T3/T04B | 2.5" Charge Pipes | 2.5" Downpipe | 650 Injectors | HO Manifold | Addco front/rear | Motor Mounts | HKS SSQV | Spec stage 3 | AEM UEGO Wideband | Team Green LSD | FMIC | 2.3 cams | 2.3 oil pump swap | 280WHP | Now ECOTECED
^^Good point...that setup idea is littered with problems to say the least.....I wouldn't even want to do the pencil strokes on it to find out either.
Edit: Also...in case anybody checks me out...regeneration is only when you extract heat from the reamaining acting fluid (feedweater heaters.....never will be in cars, unless yours is powered by steam), so I was wrong, I meant using a reheat cycle, not regeneration........also if you just decompress further without reaheat its just a multi-stage turbine system. So i made a mistake in the previous post.......just some FYI.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Thursday, October 26, 2006 8:54 AM
I was thinking about a remote turbo because my engine already runs hot (it usually stays between 190 and 210). Bein out in open air would cool the engine bay down. I'm only plannin to run between 6-8 psi of boost anyway, so i was thinkin about runnin a turbo with an A/R ratio of about 40-50 or something like that. Plus a remote turbo eliminates the need for an intercooler.
By the way thats a LD9 in a Z24 ( it dosn't look like theres much room for a localy mounted turbo but I guess it could be done)
^There done all the time!!!!...but you have some legitimate reasons if you dont want to hastle with fitting it. Especially since your not looking for a race car either.
Joshua Dearman wrote:its possible....its been done on Js before.....theres no point to it because you have room for a local turbo......theres no benefit, only less performance....no point to it on a J platform.
Gilles has mentioned the fact that autos have some reasonable excuse with less room for a local, but there are local turboed auto running around the org too....so its tight but possible.
No point to it now thats jsut an opinion. How about us people in cali that aren't allowed to turbo our cars dues to emission lawas. Im working on a remote turbo setup that is going to be completely stealth. SO being no point of doing one on j's is your personal opinion.
Plus who the @!#$ cares if you will net a little less hp from it? I for one don't give a @!#$ I will jsut put more boost on it to get to where I need/want to be.
Disclaimer:
Dey see me Trollin' Dey hatin' for trollin dey trying to catch me ridin dirty.
Cavie Freak wrote:No point to it now thats jsut an opinion. How about us people in cali that aren't allowed to turbo our cars dues to emission lawas. Im working on a remote turbo setup that is going to be completely stealth. SO being no point of doing one on j's is your personal opinion.
Plus who the @!#$ cares if you will net a little less hp from it? I for one don't give a @!#$ I will jsut put more boost on it to get to where I need/want to be.
Cali is obvioulsy an exception, but nobody in their right mind would voluntarily live there anyway
And, this isn't directed towards the remote mount discussion because it's not as applicable, but people who say "I'll just turn up the boost" aren't fit to be boosting in the first place. A proper turbo kit will be designed for a specific boost level (to accomplish a specified power output). Turning up the boost puts the compressor out of its optimal efficiency range, and just adds power-robbing and engine-destroying heat. If you were running the compressor too low in the first place (to where turning up the boost actually makes it more efficient), then it was a poorly engineered kit to begin with, and there are probably other problems with it as well. Just saying, use your noggin first. And once again, this isn't directed towards the remote mount idea, just people who refuse to put effort into design, but rather just want something to drive a BOV.
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
Cavie Freak wrote:Joshua Dearman wrote:its possible....its been done on Js before.....theres no point to it because you have room for a local turbo......theres no benefit, only less performance....no point to it on a J platform.
Gilles has mentioned the fact that autos have some reasonable excuse with less room for a local, but there are local turboed auto running around the org too....so its tight but possible.
No point to it now thats jsut an opinion. How about us people in cali that aren't allowed to turbo our cars dues to emission lawas. Im working on a remote turbo setup that is going to be completely stealth. SO being no point of doing one on j's is your personal opinion.
Plus who the @!#$ cares if you will net a little less hp from it? I for one don't give a @!#$ I will jsut put more boost on it to get to where I need/want to be.
Ummm.......I used to live in cali up until 3months ago and a remote wont solve anything at all there.......they do a visual inspection as well, and that would include spotting the remote setup so your not gaining anything...your still going to have to take all that crap off anyway.
And the reason I say the remote makes no since and how I can prove its more than an opinion is look at the advantage vs. disadvantage.....it doesn't make since....more piping.....more losses when there is plenty of room to do it locally anyway and to make it look more obviously un-needed is the fact that its an Ix motor.....I would say that is the definition of "doesn't make since".
Notec: Your right about cali......great scenery but too screwed up.........lets just say I'd love to buy ocean front property in Nevada!
Joshua Dearman wrote:Cavie Freak wrote:Joshua Dearman wrote:its possible....its been done on Js before.....theres no point to it because you have room for a local turbo......theres no benefit, only less performance....no point to it on a J platform.
Gilles has mentioned the fact that autos have some reasonable excuse with less room for a local, but there are local turboed auto running around the org too....so its tight but possible.
No point to it now thats jsut an opinion. How about us people in cali that aren't allowed to turbo our cars dues to emission lawas. Im working on a remote turbo setup that is going to be completely stealth. SO being no point of doing one on j's is your personal opinion.
Plus who the @!#$ cares if you will net a little less hp from it? I for one don't give a @!#$ I will jsut put more boost on it to get to where I need/want to be.
they do a visual inspection as well, and that would include spotting the remote setup so your not gaining anything...your still going to have to take all that crap off anyway.
Actually, as long as the turbo is after all emissions equipment (after the cat) and before all emissions equipment (before the filter), it is technically legal there...The hardest part would be building a housing around an emissions-legal aftermarket intake to pressurize the filter.
I'm not sure how fond the inspectors would be of any aftermarket fuel control though (although, HPT is unseen I suppose).
fortune cookie say:
better a delay than a disaster.
That would get you passed the emisions assuming you could still pass the sniffer test however the visual will be the snag....I changed my brake lines and they wouldn't let me pass.........brake lines...........unless you can find a turbo with a DOT rating stating legal for use in cali(which doesn't exist) there not gonna let it go in a check only smog shop. The visual is what so many people in cali are getting Fed over with now....even suspension lifts for trucks are now suspect to visual inspection in cali..........
I'm glad I live in Michigan where there's no limits to emissions at all.
I just wanted to say that I did the remote mount system for a multitude of reasons that have aboslutely nothing to do with the power output:
1. 1st 3rd gen with a remote mount. I'm unique within that aspect.
2. Stealth. I've confused quite a few people up to this point after popping the hood.
3. Jet engine noise. The setup sounds wicked cool on the road. I got to hear it outside of the car for the first time this weekend. I absolutely love it inside and out.
4. Proof of concept. A lot of people have shot down the idea saying it wouldn't work at all. After I did the project and it worked, most people said it wouldn't make much power. Now that I've dynoed 279.9hp 269tq, people have STFU regarding it's power output, and now they're just nit picking at the setup, saying it's inferior to a traditional system.
Who cares if it's inferior? I honestly love all of the characteristics of the system. The fact that it actually makes a decent amount of power is just a bonus to me.
I'm choosing not to comment at this point about "skin friction" and all that other BS because it's completely overengineering the situation. I built a system and it works. I must say it works quite well. Does it work as best as a turbo system can? Nope. Can you honestly say any system does?
I will NEVER change my sig. HTML 4 EVA!!
<a href="http://www.j-body.org/members/mrpute"><img src="http://www.j-bom.com/images/sigs/putesig.jpg">
if you have the time, and the patients... take some pics, and it'll be sweet. Only thing I am a little concerned about is the oiling system, but I Am sure you have that worked out, good luck.
HP Tuners | Garrett T3/T04B | 2.5" Charge Pipes | 2.5" Downpipe | 650 Injectors | HO Manifold | Addco front/rear | Motor Mounts | HKS SSQV | Spec stage 3 | AEM UEGO Wideband | Team Green LSD | FMIC | 2.3 cams | 2.3 oil pump swap | 280WHP | Now ECOTECED
