Ever see this turbo set up?

[littleme13]

mounting the turbo right off the y pipe is not going to give you enough "intercooler" effect as the sps website says they get on there gm based cars. the reason for this is by them mounting the turbo in the rear the intake tubes have the full underside of a long car to cool the intake charge. mounting a turbo off the y pipe and only running the intake tube up too the throttle body is still subjecting the whole intake track to extream underhood temps. a good way to fix this is either an intercooler or water/meth injection. it is a good idea but there is a lot more to it then just slapping a turbo on and saying its gonna work great. and you dont have to worrie about conventional turbo problems because a website that has researched and tested this on a specific car.

 

[Ric]

I was sitting here pondering the idea of where to put the MAF. I thought I read that it should be a foot or so in front of the turbo.

Dave, do you have any insight where I can apply some logic here? I'd imagine that a remote turbo with the MAF in it's stock location would have some crappy throttle response as the metered air wont match what's getting past the TB. Or would it just not matter?

By my best logic, wouldnt a MAP sensor be more ideal for a remote turbo?

 

[V8RangerBoy]

I was sitting here pondering the idea of where to put the MAF. I thought I read that it should be a foot or so in front of the turbo.

Dave, do you have any insight where I can apply some logic here? I'd imagine that a remote turbo with the MAF in it's stock location would have some crappy throttle response as the metered air wont match what's getting past the TB. Or would it just not matter?

I'm most likely putting my MAF between the 2x 90 deg. bends between the TB and where it will start the down path to the turbo. The closer to the TB the better; that will give the closest reading to what is truly going into the motor. Mounting it right down by the turbo means the blow-off valve has to be between it and the throttle body, and THAT would be bad news since you are measuring air that could potentially be blown back out. That would give you serious potential for a major throttle stumble.

Also, being that close to the turbo would be more dangerous for throttle response since, under certain conditions (like blipping the throttle, or punching it and instantly backing back out), you could potentially have like a 'wave' of air blow through the MAF during sudden spool-up, making it seem like a large amount of air is going through, when in reality it's only for that instant, and not really any air at all has gone in. By the time the 'wave' dissipates among the rest of the charge tubing, the damage is done. To me, that's what would make it lag or stumble like a son of a.

As for the intercooler effect of the tubing, the charge tubing typically runs so close to the exhaust on the STS setups it isn't going to matter anyway. If I get some wildly high IAT's I'll add an intercooler at an angle and scoop into it. My truck sits high enough off the ground it won't be any problem. I have plenty of room to work with.

Although the filter will be under the hood, only about 3' of intake tubing will be under the hood. I'm moving the washer/coolant bottles, and the tubing will turn down and run through the fenderwell and down along the frame under the cab. After it hits the turbo, it will follow essentially the exact same track back up, then with a little bit of extra tubing to route it into the throttle body.

In reality, any heat that gets taken on under the hood on intake should get evened out by the tubing next to the frame. The frame in itself will act like a huge-ass heatsink. Since I won't have charge tubing following the exhaust all the way from the back to the front, and since every remote setup has to run the charge pipe under the hood to get to the TB anyway, I have no worries whatsoever. IAT's should be barely higher than what they are as stock.

 

[V8RangerBoy]

mounting the turbo right off the y pipe is not going to give you enough "intercooler" effect as the sps website says they get on there gm based cars. the reason for this is by them mounting the turbo in the rear the intake tubes have the full underside of a long car to cool the intake charge. mounting a turbo off the y pipe and only running the intake tube up too the throttle body is still subjecting the whole intake track to extream underhood temps. a good way to fix this is either an intercooler or water/meth injection.

I'm not the first 'xploder 5.0 running this setup, it's been done and worked great before me. I'll find the links to the videos when I get a chance, but the spool time is super-quick and it's spinning AWD off the line.

it is a good idea but there is a lot more to it then just slapping a turbo on and saying its gonna work great. and you dont have to worrie about conventional turbo problems because a website that has researched and tested this on a specific car.

Not to sound like a total jerky jackass or cocky-mofo (but I don't know how else to phrase this, sorry), but my dad's a 35yr mechanic and shop owner - heads up five techs, total of about 120 yrs among the techs, and my step dad is also a 30+ yr mechanic and shop owner, head of three techs with 45+ yrs collectively. It's no slap-and-pray-it-works affair I'm jumping into. I've spent countless hours researching, calling and picking out what I want/need and getting everything together. I have numerous experienced opinions on everything so it should slide together pretty well. If not, just try to fix it and test it again.

 

[littleme13]

no offense taken i just wanted to make sure that anyone else that reads this or yourself doesnt just think they can slap on a turbo and expect it to work perfect. i had a friend do this and tried to run 30 lbs in a stock focus. guy was great working on cars but had never delt with anything forced induction. so it wasnt a pot shot at you just a general heads up for anyone who reads this.

tony

 

[Ric]

Maybe if he didnt try 30psi he'd have done much better on a stock engine not designed to support that much HP.

 

[Ranger5.0]

30 psi boost on a stock engine? anyone get that on tape, woulde pritty cool to watch it go boom.

 

[littleme13]

Ric, that was my point guy was a great mechanic but new nothing about turbos and just tried to bolt one on and go. didnt know anything about wastegates and such. my point in all this was so future readers dont think they can replace there muffler with a turbo and it run great. and Ranger it wasnt a pretty site when he had it towed back to the hobby shop most of the internals were sitting in the trunk and the crank was wedged diagnal in the block. we asked him what happened, he just said "i hit the gas, car screamed to about 6k and then it was the loudest bang and most smoke ive ever seen come from a car."

 

[rocket5979]

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.

You should really know more about this stuff before posting. You are not even looking at the correct factors to try to take into account why the combo is making more power; let alone using the correct jargon for this. The name of the game is not air VOLUME it is air MASS. Pulling cooler air from under the car will allow the aircharge to retain more mass because there are more molecule's (MASS) per cubic foot of air (VOLUME) moving into the engine. More airmass means more power. People always screw up and try to use "volume" when it is really not the scientifically accurate way to refer to the reason why an engine makes more power in this case. Even more people screw up and try to use manifold pressure (psi) instead of volume. Lower IAT's at the same pressure will net higher power due to more stored potential energy in the aircharge and lower IAT's also allow you to run more spark timing as well. That is where your power difference is. You got to look waaaaay deeper than just lb/force airpressure (psi) and air volume. By the way; psi and volume are not interchangeable either as somewhat suggested by your previous post. Like I said before, I suggest you know a little more about this stuff before suggesting that STS doctored their results.

 

[Davis]

You are not even looking at the correct factors to try to take into account why the combo is making more power; let alone using the correct jargon for this. The name of the game is not air VOLUME it is air MASS.

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.

Volume of a gas X Density = Mass
That's what I was talking about the whole time.

Or am I just an ingnorant fool like you say I am?

 

[rocket5979]

Volume of a gas X Density = Mass
That's what I was talking about the whole time.

Or am I just an ingnorant fool like you say I am?

Hey bud as you know I never called you an ignorant fool. I do think that you were trying to come to a little too hasty of a conclusion by suggesting that STS doctored their results with the addition of nitrous or other artificial boost cooling means. The STS systems usually do run much lower IAT's due to the location of their air filters and the boost pipe also running under the car where allot of cool ambient air flows freely. This highly affects the density of the aircharge. Then add an intercooler into the mix, like what is used in some of their systems, and you have a pretty dense aircharge.

You started mentioning your example in terms of aircharge volume. The then proceeded to suggest that the math doesn't add up. The reason is because you didn't use the correct math to being with. In your defense you did throw mention of the density of the air by cooling it later on in your post. However, I am sure you and I both would agree that factoring aircharge density is better left as part of the equation rather than just a side note. Your approach to the math was overly simplified and inaccurate in that previous post. Now with your last post you are correct. volume x density = airmass. If you initially meant it that way then I will leave it at that.

My previous post was not meant as a personal shot at you but I do think that you posted information in a suggestive manner, intentionally or not, that could serve to mislead people. Please do not think I am just some Joe Schmo talking out my rear here. I am a performance shop owner as well as an STS dealer and have experience with those systems as well as other scratch built remote turbo systems and many other types of forced induction too. There were a few things that you are incorrect on.

#1. The power to "air volume" comparison and the suggestion that STS doctored their results with the addition of other unaccounted for power adding items. I believe I have already beat this dead horse so I will leave it at that.

#2. You mention that you do not think that a remote mount turbo system is capable of improving a vehicles power beyond 100% gain. That statement was 100% incorrect. There are quite a few vehicles running around now pushing some VERY VERY serious power with the STS systems. Not only are they pushing pretty big power (gains much more than 100%) but they are also spooling pretty hard too. Take a good look around and you will probably see what I am talking about.

I am not trying to beat you up here or discredit you or your standing here but I know that you posted information of which you seemingly have no direct knowledge on. I would ask that before doing so that you talk to someone else with direct experience with this stuff. I am positive that once you have firsthand experience with this "remote mounted voodoo" that you will change your mind about it.

 

[Davis]

Okay, I admit I maybe jumped on them a bit too quick. But I still have some questions. So we all know that when air is compressed into the intake tract, it heats up. Lets say the volume of an intake tract is 10 liters (just as an example) and it holds x grams of oxygen at bar. And then we compress the air in that tract to 2 bar (temperature and volume of intake remaining constant) we would have 2x grams of oxygen. Since there is twice the oxygen, we can burn twice the fuel and get twice the power. But in the real world, with normal intercooling (air to icewater intercoolers excepted) the temperature will rise and we will never get twice the mass of oxygen into the intake by doubling the pressure. And that is where I don't understand the STS claims. Unless they are removing some major bottlenecks in the intake and exhaust tracts by installing their system, and from what I have seen, the kits don't remove any huge restrictions. I would like to know where the extra power is coming from, and maybe I can squeeze a little more power out of my system.
Maybe I'll just go down there and ask them to explain it to me, they are only a 15 minute drive from me.

 

[rocket5979]

Okay, I admit I maybe jumped on them a bit too quick. But I still have some questions. So we all know that when air is compressed into the intake tract, it heats up. Lets say the volume of an intake tract is 10 liters (just as an example) and it holds x grams of oxygen at bar. And then we compress the air in that tract to 2 bar (temperature and volume of intake remaining constant) we would have 2x grams of oxygen. Since there is twice the oxygen, we can burn twice the fuel and get twice the power. But in the real world, with normal intercooling (air to icewater intercoolers excepted) the temperature will rise and we will never get twice the mass of oxygen into the intake by doubling the pressure. And that is where I don't understand the STS claims. Unless they are removing some major bottlenecks in the intake and exhaust tracts by installing their system, and from what I have seen, the kits don't remove any huge restrictions. I would like to know where the extra power is coming from, and maybe I can squeeze a little more power out of my system.
Maybe I'll just go down there and ask them to explain it to me, they are only a 15 minute drive from me.

I look at it this way. My Kenne Bell supercharger gained 150rwhp running on 8.5 psi boost way back when I was running a stock bottom end. That is a 17.64 rwhp gain per pound of boost. I will state things in psi, even though we know it is technically not the "correct" term, to keep things simple here. While the Kenne Bell twin screw blowers are efficient blowers for what they are, nevertheless they still heat the heck out of the intake charge. They are also a supercharger so you have to factor in parasitic power loss from the engine as well. Now lets take a look at the STS system offered for the Mustang GT. My math shows a 26.77rwhp gain per pound of boost. That may look like a huge difference between the two and honestly it is. A 9rwhp per pound of boost difference is huge. Lets take a look at the factors involved.

#1. It is a turbo, so no parasitic loss like the KB.
#2. The average regular turbo usually does not heat the intake charge nearly as hot as a PD blower.
#3. Remote mounted turbo's pull COLD dense air from under the car.
#4. The intake tube is ran under the car and is in a very cool ambient airstream as well.
#5. Not only did the Mustang GT system have all those cooling advantages but it also was running a FMIC as well.

Those 5 factors add up to not only more horsepower gains because of the more potential oxidizing energy stored in the greater airmass. That also means the cooler airmass going into the engine will allow it to take more spark timing too, which also leads to additional power. When you look at it as a whole it seems like too much, but when you break it down you will really see where the differences are. Another factor worth mentioning with the Mustang GT in particular is that these 4.6 engines LOVE LOVE LOVE boost.

Another prime example of where a person would not think power gain numbers add up with forced induction is the Kenne Bell S197 Mustang GT kits. They claim a gain of 173rwhp with 8 psi boost. That is 21.65rwhp gain per pound of boost. That gain is with a much higher intake charge than the STS turbo system and also parasitic power loss due to the engine power used to drive the supercharger. I also regularly see people turning 425-430rwhp on 5-6psi on those Kenne Bell systems. I am not advertising for Kenne Bell here, but this does provide another example to look at so as to provide a better point of reference for the gains the STS turbo system makes on the S197 GT's.

When you really take the time to break things down in detail and do a little comparison between the different supercharger and turbo systems you will find that these various kits do make the power they are advertised to make. STS's power gain numbers on their turbo kits are solid and not doctored whatsoever.

 

[Alex L]

without knowing the compressor and turbine maps, intake temperatures, exhaust back pressure, accuracy of the boost gauge, boost over time and pressure losses through the intake tract, its all hand waving. 15psi from a t3 blowing 400f air charge doesn't hold a candle to 15psi from a holset @ 250f.

also, a variable displacement chamber resonating against 14.7 psi of plenum pressure vs 22psi of plenum pressure are 2 different animals.

anyway, came across this thread looking for rear mount infos. i own an 84 svo (2.3 turbo, la3, 35#, holset hc351y turbo), and spare turbo goodies. i have a shortblock on the stand ready to rock and roll, just need to come across a turbo head. unfortunately, the ranger i just purchased friday, is a 96, which is not the same pin count as the fox body ECUs. so this might be more of an pain in the wires vs mounting up the turbo and plumbing it up.

 

[mhughes165]

without knowing the compressor and turbine maps, intake temperatures, exhaust back pressure, accuracy of the boost gauge, boost over time and pressure losses through the intake tract, its all hand waving. 15psi from a t3 blowing 400f air charge doesn't hold a candle to 15psi from a holset @ 250f.

also, a variable displacement chamber resonating against 14.7 psi of plenum pressure vs 22psi of plenum pressure are 2 different animals.

anyway, came across this thread looking for rear mount infos. i own an 84 svo (2.3 turbo, la3, 35#, holset hc351y turbo), and spare turbo goodies. i have a shortblock on the stand ready to rock and roll, just need to come across a turbo head. unfortunately, the ranger i just purchased friday, is a 96, which is not the same pin count as the fox body ECUs. so this might be more of an pain in the wires vs mounting up the turbo and plumbing it up.

ya ur lookin at about a solid weekend of wiring to get everything working right....this is why ill never swap the 2.3 turbo into anything obd2 again....