Universal Turbo for the 3.0L? will it work?

[rocket5979]

a remote turbo will always lag more than a non. usually the benifit of fitting the turbo under the vehicle is outweighed by the longer lag.

It will not always lag more than conventional. It all depends on what setup the conventional is setup for and what setup the remote is setup for. What I am talking about here is a street oriented versus track oriented turbo system.

Any lag time difference between the two is negligible when both are properly setup and installed.

Another benefit of the remote systems is that they run much colder intake temps which makes for a more dense aircharge. That in turn means more oxygen to burn which makes more horsepower per pound of boost on average. Both conventional and remote mount have their pro's and con's. I believe that not nearly enough people are properly educated on the pro's of the remote mounts.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

ok, your right. allow me to reitterate: a really bad non-remote system will have more lag than a really good remote system.

 

[rocket5979]

ok, your right. allow me to reitterate: a really bad non-remote system will have more lag than a really good remote system.

Look here don't be a smartass. I am trying to explain this stuff to you. You are talking to a professional who does turbo, supercharger, nitrous oxide and many other systems for a living. I am trying to educate you guys on some of the mistaken information passed around about remote mounts. Not nearly enough people understand them nor have the personal experience with them to actually determine if they are real laggy or not. They are nowhere even as close to having as much lag as people think. That is what internet hearsay gets you.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

i wasnt being a smart ass..im dead serious. a "proper" conventional mounted turbo will out-perform a remote turbo. period.

this is the first time ive actually discussed remote systems online...so hearsay doesnt have a whole lot to do with it. my info comes from a buddy whos a dyno operator.

 

[rocket5979]

i wasnt being a smart ass..im dead serious. a "proper" conventional mounted turbo will out-perform a remote turbo. period.

this is the first time ive actually discussed remote systems online...so hearsay doesnt have a whole lot to do with it. my info comes from a buddy whos a dyno operator.

You are mistaken when you make a blanket claim like the one above. There is allot more that goes into what makes one type of system out perform the other.

I operate off of personal knowledge through data that I have personally gathered throughout my years as an enthusiast as well as a business owner doing this stuff. I am sorry but I have seen allot of dyno monkey's that don't understand a damn thing about what it takes to create a solid combo. There are many factors from tuning to the actual setup and configuration of the various systems themselves.

I am not trying to disrespect your buddy's findings but someone operating the dyno does not have this intimate knowledge of these combos because they probably did not build or tune them. Your buddies experience really doesn't amount to much conclusive data because of that lack of understanding of the exact configuration of those systems. Without that understanding of the specifics of those combo's it is a big guessing game as to why one combo or the other makes more power or less power and at what rpm. I have the intimate knowledge of this stuff because I have built all of these types of systems and have tuned them too, not just observed from the sidelines.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

ya ok, your right. everything you say is proper and final. turbos do not require heat to spool.

im not going to play a credentials game with you because frankly, it doesnt matter. anyone who wants to find out for themselves need only spend 5 minutes on google to see which setup will ultimately provides the better performance.

 

[rocket5979]

ya ok, your right. everything you say is proper and final. turbos do not require heat to spool.

im not going to play a credentials game with you because frankly, it doesnt matter. anyone who wants to find out for themselves need only spend 5 minutes on google to see which setup will ultimately provides the better performance.

You are once again jumping to conclusions here. Take a break from posturing like a smartass kid and you might just learn something. I am trying to discuss this with you in an adult manner. If you keep acting like a jerk it just makes you appear more childish rather than capable of actually having a decent discussion about a technical item.

My point was, and still remains, that the differences in overall performance between the two approaches to turbocharging are not as vast as what allot of people think. They surely don't have "huge lag" like claimed. New things tend to get bad raps when initially introduced into an existing market. That stems from people usually not feeling comfortable with change. It takes a long time to overcome the bad aura surrounding that. Take nitrous as an example. People started using it and when they did they usually didn't control it correctly or tune the vehicle for it. Allot of combo's went south because of that. In turn nitrous got a bad rap mainly because the gross lack of understanding people had. It took years for most common musclecar folk to start to realize that if the proper steps are taken to control and tune for it that using nitrous can be relatively safe. Now the use of it is much more common; even in daily driven vehicles because more average people understand it enough to use it effectively. A similar understanding can be applied to what the remote mounted turbo systems are going through right now. The remote mounts have just become more mainstream in the last 5 years. Because of that not enough people know about them or how to configure them properly. The system itself gets the bad rap (I.E. "huge turbo lag") rather than the misconfiguration of it. People will always balk at a new idea until they really try it for themselves or encounter enough of others who have had success with it. I suggest that rather than talking about a system with which you apparently have very little personal knowledge of that you take the time to really understand how they are configured first. Doing a 5 minute Google search will not impart enough knowledge for you to know this.. If you understand that then you might be able to see the pro's and con's between how the remote systems works when compared to the conventionals. Using the blanket statement of "conventional mounted turbo will out-perform a remote turbo" is not accurate because there are many factors involved. While in some ways the conventional may usually come out on top of the remote, in other ways the remote will usually beat the conventional.

I am willing to discuss this with you further but only if you stop being a child while making snide smartass comments in your posts.

 

[krugford]

While in some ways the conventional may usually come out on top of the remote, in others the remote will usually come out on top of the conventional.

Is this not a blanket statement in and of itself? A properly designed system will have a more likely chance of achieving the desired performance over one that is thrown together. The use of the words "may" and "will" in your statement above lends to a perceived disposition towards a remote mount system while you are arguing for an open viewpoint.

I believe the largest benefit of a remote system would be a ease of installation. I don't really buy the cooler intake charge without some comparative data to back it up. Will a charge that travels through a longer pipe have longer to dissipate heat than one that travels a relatively short distance? Yes. But if you are running a CAC, then I don't think that difference is going to be very much. There will be more lag in a remote system than a conventional system, it's a fact of life. You have a greater intake volume to account for with the remote system. Part of the lag felt on the ass dyno comes from that increase in volume, part of it comes from the inertia of the turbo itself, and part comes from the current boundary conditions of the turbo. There is also going to be less energy available with a remote system because that same effect that is cooling the intake charge is also cooling the exhaust stream. A drop in EGT = a drop in energy. There are going to be different performance characteristics associated with each setup that will require different operating parameters. A turbo that is designed for a conventional mount may not work as well when remote mounted and vice versa.

 

[pillen140]

ok, so bends in exhaust, less heat, and more travel for boost. that wont have any effect on how fast the turbo spools? doesnt lag refer to how fast it spools up? not how much power it can create?

 

[krugford]

The drop in EGT between the engine and turbine will affect how much energy there is available to perform work on the turbine. In short, less energy will result in lower accelerations of the turbine wheel if you are comparing the SAME turbo between a conventional and remote mounting system. The relative differences will depend heavily on where a remote mount turbo is located.

 

[rocket5979]

Is this not a blanket statement in and of itself? A properly designed system will have a more likely chance of achieving the desired performance over one that is thrown together. The use of the words "may" and "will" in your statement above lends to a perceived disposition towards a remote mount system while you are arguing for an open viewpoint..

No it is not even close to a blanket statement. In some ways a conventional will usually outperform a remote. In other ways a remote will usually outperform a conventional. For it to be a blanket statement I would have had to worded it in more absolute form which would not have been accurate. The reason for this is that not all systems, conventional and remote, are configured correctly or the same. That is where the "may" and "usually" come from.

I believe the largest benefit of a remote system would be a ease of installation. I don't really buy the cooler intake charge without some comparative data to back it up.

It is fine if you do not believe that the remote usually have cooler intake charges than a conventional of comparable boost and configuration (aka FMIC or not). My datalogs show the remote system I built as having IAT's that were only 12 degree's above ambient while under full boost and usually even cooler when cruising. That is pretty cold for forced induction without any kind of added chemical boost cooler like meth, water, nitrous.

Will a charge that travels through a longer pipe have longer to dissipate heat than one that travels a relatively short distance? Yes. But if you are running a CAC, then I don't think that difference is going to be very much. There will be more lag in a remote system than a conventional system, it's a fact of life. You have a greater intake volume to account for with the remote system.

The remote turbo intake tubes usually do have more volume than an average conventional but you would be surprised how close the volume is between the two actually are. That is unless you have a conventional turbo system that has the boost pipe coming straight off the compressor and to the TB or Carb. Most have it route down into the front bumper area for a FMIC. Also another thing to think about is the sheer volume of air that an engine takes in(and the turbo flows) compared to the volume in that intake tube. It doesn't take long at all to compress enough air to sufficiently fill that tube with enough airmass to see full boost. Considering the sheer amount of air that both systems pull in the intake tube volume is extremely extremely minute in comparison.

There is also going to be less energy available with a remote system because that same effect that is cooling the intake charge is also cooling the exhaust stream. A drop in EGT = a drop in energy.

This is true to an extent, which is why the remote turbo's are configured differently so that they will still be able to still operate in a high efficiency range. This is also not as critical as some people think. Here is the reason why. It is not air volume that moves the turbine but airmass. The airmass whether heated or not is going to be the same whether it be hot and right after the exhaust manifold or cooler near the rear of the car. The mass doesn't change, only the volume in which it is contained. After all, what strikes the turbine wheel causing it to spin, the dead space between the moving molecules of air or the molecules of air themself? In all forced induction you are able to get a MUCH more accurate understanding of how these systems really make power and operate if you think more in terms of airmass rather than pound force of air pressure (psi) or volume (cfm). Airmass is the real determining factor both from a gas turbine operation standpoint and also from a forced induction one as well. I am not saying heat does not matter because heat does contain potential energy but it is not the end all be all of what makes a turbo system spool well.

There are going to be different performance characteristics associated with each setup that will require different operating parameters. A turbo that is designed for a conventional mount may not work as well when remote mounted and vice versa.

Very true. Take a conventional turbo and toss it into remote mount and you will see the ton's of lag like people mention. On the flipside throw a remote mount configured turbo into a conventional application and you will be spooling way too soon and will limit top end power too. Each type of turbo system has its pro's and con's in different areas of performance and also maintenance. It is not as cut and dry "this is better than that" as some make it out to be. I am glad we could have a decent discussion about this.

 

[bobbywalter]

so stock injectors will support more then 4 pounds of boost?


i would not have guessed that. even with a high power pump modded in.


that begs the question as to why it isnt done alot more.


i know there were some supercharged 4x4's in the low 15's last year, though i did not witness the runs, alot of people mentioned it. thats pretty impressive for a 3.0 ext cab 4x4 auto. seems some tuning with 19# injectors and 12 pounds of spool should hammer 14's in a reg manual pretty easily all other things being stock.


that has to be alot more cost effective then a 302 swap doesnt it?


hmm....makes me brim with ideas.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

calculating injector capacity isnt that hard. you need only know the number of cylinders, injector size, duty cycle, and brake specific fuel consumption.

lets start with a stock vulcan. we have 6 cylinders, and 85% is our max duty cycle (this is the safety margin ford uses). the stock injectors on most vulcans are 14's. BSFC is .45-.50 for n/a engines, .55-.60 for supercharged engines, and .60-.65 for turbocharged engines (these are approximate figures, obviously). lets assume the vulcan is on the efficient side and use .45 for a stock motor.

multiply injector size by number of injectors
14 X 6 = 84

then multiply duty cycle percentage (85%) by that number
0.85 X 84 = 71.4

then divide 71.4 by BSFC (.45)
71.4/0.45 = 158.6

so a naturally aspirated vulcan can support 158 horsepower with the stock fuel system....since the engine makes 145+ HP in stock form, you can see this doesnt leave much to play with. if we make the same calculations with a BSFC of .55 (low boost), we get 129 HP...oops, you just burn holes in all your pistons. if we try again with 19lb injectors, we get 176hp (thats about 3PSI of boost). again with 23lb injectors and we get 213hp...now were getting somewhere (a quick stop over in the forced induction 3.0 forum on RPS confirms that most whipple guys are using 23 or 30lb injectors).

you can get a little more fuel out of an injector with an adjustable FPR by cranking up your fuel pressure...but this will only get you so far.

 

[Original_Ranger84]

You are once again jumping to conclusions here. Take a break from posturing like a smartass kid and you might just learn something. I am trying to discuss this with you in an adult manner. If you keep acting like a jerk it just makes you appear more childish rather than capable of actually having a decent discussion about a technical item.

My point was, and still remains, that the differences in overall performance between the two approaches to turbocharging are not as vast as what allot of people think. They surely don't have "huge lag" like claimed. New things tend to get bad raps when initially introduced into an existing market. That stems from people usually not feeling comfortable with change. It takes a long time to overcome the bad aura surrounding that. Take nitrous as an example. People started using it and when they did they usually didn't control it correctly or tune the vehicle for it. Allot of combo's went south because of that. In turn nitrous got a bad rap mainly because the gross lack of understanding people had. It took years for most common musclecar folk to start to realize that if the proper steps are taken to control and tune for it that using nitrous can be relatively safe. Now the use of it is much more common; even in daily driven vehicles because more average people understand it enough to use it effectively. A similar understanding can be applied to what the remote mounted turbo systems are going through right now. The remote mounts have just become more mainstream in the last 5 years. Because of that not enough people know about them or how to configure them properly. The system itself gets the bad rap (I.E. "huge turbo lag") rather than the misconfiguration of it. People will always balk at a new idea until they really try it for themselves or encounter enough of others who have had success with it. I suggest that rather than talking about a system with which you apparently have very little personal knowledge of that you take the time to really understand how they are configured first. Doing a 5 minute Google search will not impart enough knowledge for you to know this.. If you understand that then you might be able to see the pro's and con's between how the remote systems works when compared to the conventionals. Using the blanket statement of "conventional mounted turbo will out-perform a remote turbo" is not accurate because there are many factors involved. While in some ways the conventional may usually come out on top of the remote, in other ways the remote will usually beat the conventional.

I am willing to discuss this with you further but only if you stop being a child while making snide smartass comments in your posts.

From what I'm reading it sounds more like your the Jack A$$, just because you know what your talking about doesn't automaticlly make you able to call other people little kids and stuff.


And The speed of the exhaust leaving the engine and hitting the turbo affects how fast it spools up. The lag is affected by how far away the turbo is from the manifolds, how big the turbo is, and the type of turbo it is (ball bering or non ball bearing turbo).
1. The farther the turbo is away from the manifold the more the exhaust cools down before it hits the turbine cooler exhaust gasses move slower in the pipe.
2.The bigger the turbo is the longer its gonna take for the exhaust to spin the turbo up to speed.
3. Ball bearing turbos spin much easier than non bearing tubos ,(they will also be more expensive and will last longer).

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

you guys are wasting your breath. you cant convince a person that denies physics.

we all know a remote turbo will ultimately have more lag than a conventional set-up. let him think whatever he wants and lets move on