Ever see this turbo set up?

97fordrunner · Dec 16, 2007

I was looking at rangers for sale on ebay and found this prerunner with a 4.0 and a turbo so I checked it out and found this set up? how effective could this be?

ironman · Dec 16, 2007

Yea, i have seen that setup before there are a few cars that have the turbo setup under the car hookup like that .Dont know the stats on a turbo setup like that, but sure not as good as being hook up straight to the manfoids

CGATOR · Dec 16, 2007

actually on some cars this setup is better especially if your car or truck is not turbo ready.....works just like any other turbo just alot cheaper version.....no intercooler needed

97fordrunner · Dec 16, 2007

huh, how come more people don't do that on trucks since they have more room underneath? seems like it would be easy enough

littleme13 · Dec 16, 2007

that setup is most common on firebirds and cameros replacing the mufflers with a turbo. its called a remote turbo setup. heres a good link on this beware its a gm based site http://www.ststurbo.com/ the reason most dont do it on a truck is most trucks are used offroad and a turbo thats submerged or coverd in mud usually doesnt last as long.

CGATOR · Dec 16, 2007

i never said it was easy to do i just said cheaper its atually a PITA to get the right back pressure

CGATOR · Dec 16, 2007

littleme13 said:
that setup is most common on firebirds and cameros replacing the mufflers with a turbo. its called a remote turbo setup. heres a good link on this beware its a gm based site http://www.ststurbo.com/ the reason most dont do it on a truck is most trucks are used offroad and a turbo thats submerged or coverd in mud usually doesnt last as long.

well said....and dont forget the proper tuning

V8RangerBoy · Dec 16, 2007

I'll post pics and let you know in about a week! :clapping:

Here's a page with quite a bit of info about it. The spool time is sometimes LESS than a front mount because it isn't as necessary to run an intercooler.

http://ststurbo.com/f_a_q

Davis · Dec 17, 2007

no way i believe that a rear turbo set up is going to spool faster than a normal setup. the reason you "don't need an intercooler" is because the length of piping form the back has more volume (but much less surfce area) than an intercooler and the air coing by cools. so it is an intercooler of sorts that has not much restriction, but a lot of volume and ver poor cooling efficiency. your major lag is going to come because the amount of piping in the exhaust before the turbo is immense and in order to fill that, it is going to take a while. i see it as a decent solution when space really is an issue, but in 90% of the cases, it is a very poor soution.

V8RangerBoy · Dec 17, 2007

Davis said:
no way i believe that a rear turbo set up is going to spool faster than a normal setup. the reason you "don't need an intercooler" is because the length of piping form the back has more volume (but much less surfce area) than an intercooler and the air coing by cools. so it is an intercooler of sorts that has not much restriction, but a lot of volume and ver poor cooling efficiency. your major lag is going to come because the amount of piping in the exhaust before the turbo is immense and in order to fill that, it is going to take a while. i see it as a decent solution when space really is an issue, but in 90% of the cases, it is a very poor soution.

You'd benefit greatly from reading around before posting.

When you consider the amount of tubing that exists in and around the intercooler, the amount of tubing running from beneath the cab straight into the manifold is hardly any more than that of the tubing that typically sits under the hood anyway. And, like in my case, where there is literally ZERO room under the hood, this is the only option, and a truly decent one at that. If I choose to run an intercooler later, I can put it in without losing any spool time, but since the IAT's aren't near as high as running an under-hood turbo in the first place, there really isn't much point until you really start to add in alot of boost.

Mathematically, I am running LESS intake pipe volume that many of the intercoolered-turbo'd 5.0 Mustang's I have looked at, and I'll only have marginally higher IAT's. I'll spool just as fast, don't worry. As soon as my headers merge is where I'm placing mine (next to the T-case), not clear in the back, so again, when you do the math, I don't have any more exhaust tubing to really fill either.

TireIron · Dec 17, 2007

The biggest issue with a remote turbo setup is the oiling issue. The return oiling on a turbo is just a gravity fed drain so with the turbo below the oilpan it cant drain properly, you need to build some form of a oil sump for it to drain to and then have a pump in that to pump it back up into the oilpan. You're oil feed pressure line isn't much of an issue, it just has to be a little longer, but the return is where the big issue is.

Also in placing the turbo that far away from the manifold it will create more lag as the exhaust has that much more time to cool and cooler exhaust is slower. Now if you can keep it right up where the y-pipe merges where the main cat sits you shouldn't have much of an issue, but it still won't spool nearly as fast as sitting directly on manifold where the exhaust is at its hottest and fastest point.

Dave R · Dec 17, 2007

TireIron said:
Also in placing the turbo that far away from the manifold it will create more lag as the exhaust has that much more time to cool and cooler exhaust is slower.

The cooler exhaust gas has lost a good bit of it's energy to the outside environment before it can do useful work in the turbo. As the charge cools it condenses. Remote mount turbo's have their place. But they can never be as quick spooling as a manifold mounted turbo, unless, they are dramatically undersized for the application. Then they just act like a cork.

Davis · Dec 17, 2007

the negative effects of the exhaust cooling will far outweigh the positive effects of the intake pipe bing "intercooled" if you wrap your headers and y-pipe in header wrap, that will minimze your losses as far as lag goes. but header life will suffer. header wrap voids most header warranties.
i suppose if you are adding a turbo to a 5.0 you will be okay. i assume you want it as a power adder, which it will, and significantly at that. but if you want the turbo to be your power producer, remote mount just wont cut it. what do i mean by "power producer"? NA 2.3 stock=100 hp, 2.3t stock=200hp (2x original). and that is at 15 psi. the first mod most 2.3 guys do is turn the boost up. i just dont think a remote mount could manage to bring a motor up by 100% or more. which probably isnt what you are looking for anyway, so it ought to suit your purposes fine. but for optimum performance, remote mount is not ideal.
BTW sweet ride. its clean.

Davis · Dec 17, 2007

http://ststurbo.com/mustang_gt_single_turbo
take a look at the dyno sheet.
assuming zero heat increase from compressing the air, 1 bar (14.7psi) will give a 100% increase in hp, right?
and a 100% efficiency intercooler does not exist (at least with air to air), right?
from a 47% increase in air volume, they are getting a 58% increase in power. the math does not add up. the only way to do that is increase the density of the air incredibly (cool it. A LOT) or add air in another manner (NOS). or maybe they switched over to nitromethane without telling anyone.

Chic N Stew · Dec 18, 2007

littleme13 said:
heres a good link on this beware its a gm based site

Hey, there's nothing wrong with GM

Ever see this turbo set up?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

TRS Events

Member & Vendor Upgrades

Recently Featured

Ranger Adventure Video

TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Sponsors

Sponsored Ad

Sponsored Ad

Amazon Deals

Sponsored Ad