Squires Turbo System (rear mounted)

[CM boyd]

Ok, My fault you have me beaten there... I concede to about 1-2% of your argument. :D
Sorry about the drama. Even I get fired up sometimes.

[HAZ-Matt]

Originally posted by CM boyd:
It does not matter to me because in the end my overall performance is much superior to the stock NA powered 3800SII... If the car goes faster what the hell difference does it make...

Bottom line right there.

[CM boyd]

Thank you HAZ-MATT. That is all so true, but there are probably more advantages there that are not listed (no need for details). Besides not every system is going to be 100% efficient for all applications. What one mans bread is another
mans water. Maybe my setup has something in it
that makes it compliment the remote kit more, thus
making it spool faster. I don't know; all I can tell is how fast I am going when I stomp the gas pedal.

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally posted by HAZ-Matt:


I'm wondering why you think a turbo that is set to make max boost in its efficiency range will spool faster? I don't see that happening, unless it is out of its efficiency range on the high side of flow.

My turbo is like that. It loves being at 10-12psi, but at 7psi, the power is more linear, and peak boost isn't reached quite as fast. Maybe it's just my turbo. :D

[nocutt]

Originally posted by Teufel Hunden:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by HAZ-Matt:


I'm wondering why you think a turbo that is set to make max boost in its efficiency range will spool faster? I don't see that happening, unless it is out of its efficiency range on the high side of flow.

My turbo is like that. It loves being at 10-12psi, but at 7psi, the power is more linear, and peak boost isn't reached quite as fast. Maybe it's just my turbo. :D </font>[/QUOTE]ASSuming your unit is matched correctly then you will be refereing to both throttle & turbo response...absolutely nothing to do with efficiency... ;)

And since we are on the topic...I really think we should respect each other's ideas...let's face it no one here is running as efficient as "they think they are" if you think so, then put "real values" up here and we can start to discombobulate the issues even further... :D

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally posted by nocutt:
I really think we should respect each other's ideas

I don't respect that.


:D

[CM boyd]

[img]graemlins/twak.gif[/img] ^^^^^^

[Nicklz]

Can we agree that a benefit in using a remote kit, is it's non-heat issues, thus more reliable? This is my main concern with traditional front mount kit in our car, as a daily driver who drives anywhere between 100 to 150 miles a day. Not to mention the engine bay would be cramped and making it harder to get to certain stuff.

My car is my pay check, if I have no wheels, I'm not able to bill for that day. So any day my car is in the shop, thats a shop bill plus my day wage out the window.

[Nicklz]

Also to build boost quicker in the rear mount kit, has anyone tried experimenting with the size piping?
I'd think if you used a smaller exhaust tube/stock size to the turbo, thus more exhaust pressure on the turbo, thus spooling it quicker/reaching max boost quicker.

[T-Punk]

I think we already went over the fact that the remote mount turbo is no more reliable than a front mount in another thread. The issues being water vapor, road debris, and the possibility of the cat failing and causing even more problems with your turbo. Basically the advantage of the remote mount is its ease of install/fabbing and its possibility of being cheaper. Also as for heat being an issue, i have yet to hear anyone have problems with their turbo car due to heat, and there are people here in florida and over in texas running them where its already hot as hell. good day.

[T-Punk]

Have you ever heard of backpressure? it kills performance. Anything smaller than the stock 2.25 pipe will kill performance. Also you will still have heat loss before it reaches the turbo thus its performance will probably only go further down the drain. I beleive a 2.5" pipe would be the best choice for the STS style turbo on a 3800 f-body. I said good day.

[kahouna23]

Originally posted by Nicklz:

My car is my pay check, if I have no wheels, I'm not able to bill for that day. So any day my car is in the shop, thats a shop bill plus my day wage out the window.

If this is seriously how important your car is to you then my advice is to leave it the way it is and DON'T go FI. Otherwise, you're gonna have problems (not always, but most of the time). Anytime you do a major mod to a vehicle engine wise, there are always bugs to be worked out.

[Nicklz]

I'm not talking about overheating, just general under hood temps. And heat isn't good for a turbo's reliability. It only raises the temp the turbo which will produce even more. Heat is bad. It's bad for parts.

As far as back pressure is concerned, yeah it's bad when it's trying escape out the exhaust, but when it's used (rear mount style) to spin the turbo, the more exhaust pressure (smaller pipe 2.0" or 2.5" raises the velocity the gasses travel. It's under pressure to the turbo not freely trying to escape out the tail pipe.

If you had (example) 4.0" exhaust coming off the headers it would take for ever to spool the turbo.

If you had a 2.5" exhaust off the headers the exhaust gasses would have to travel at nearly twice the velocity to escape, thus turning the turbo faster.

The reason a rear mount kit has more lag would be that the displacment of the longer pipe to the turbo, takes longer to build pressure against the turbo. Thus longer boost lag, and slower spooling.

An the ideal size pipe to the turbo would be the same size coming off the stock setup, 2" or 2.5" whatever it is. You wouldn't want the flow's velocity to be slowed by a larger size pipe.

And if your going to make claims please back them up, (road debris, water vapor). As far as the cat issue remove it, it will kill the velocity going to the turbo.

p.s. um...yeah back pressure I know what that is.

[GN-T66]

Originally posted by Nicklz:
Can we agree that a benefit in using a remote kit, is it's non-heat issues, thus more reliable? This is my main concern with traditional front mount kit in our car, as a daily driver who drives anywhere between 100 to 150 miles a day. Not to mention the engine bay would be cramped and making it harder to get to certain stuff.

You're looking at heat in the wrong light. The excuse of heat has already been refuted many times over. In Teufel Hunden's car, no underhood accessories have been damaged in the least bit with his front mount turbo setup. Nothing is harder to get to. Actually, it might take 30 seconds longer to change a belt, and 10 seconds longer to change the oil filter. Turbos have been in GN engine bays forever, and they exhibit no problems as a result. Mine sure doesnt. And one more thing... heat is crucial when it comes to turbos. To make a blanket statement that heat and turbos is a bad combination is just wrong. Have you ever seen a turbo map? Those maps are figured off of a certain temperature of exhaust gas as it enters the turbine. The hotter a gas is, the more energy it has. This makes it extremely beneficial to have the turbos as close to the manifolds of the engine as possible. Exhaust gases cool at a rapid rate upon exiting the motor.. By putting the turbo at the rear, the exhaust gases being utilized to spin the turbine have ALOT less energy than in a traditional setup. There's a reason that after millions of dollars of research, all car companies that build turbo cars put the turbos as close to the manifolds as possible.

Originally posted by Nicklz:
Also to build boost quicker in the rear mount kit, has anyone tried experimenting with the size piping?
I'd think if you used a smaller exhaust tube/stock size to the turbo, thus more exhaust pressure on the turbo, thus spooling it quicker/reaching max boost quicker.

Choice of evils.... Using a smaller pipe will indeed decrease the time needed for the turbo to spool; however, on the top end, the piping will become too restrictive to flow and performance will suffer.

I've argued these very same arguements time and time again. People read the STS website, which is as full of **** as a used car salesman, and take what it says as gospel.

[phoenix64]

TH you have pretty long pipes yourself. If you think short pipes are so important, why did you pick the design you did?

BTW this is not meant as mines better than yours post. The only part of my kit thats of quality are the welds.