Universal Turbo for the 3.0L? will it work?

[shadetree]

Interesting read:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/tech/0411phr_sts_remote_turbo_install/index.html

shady

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.

It can get you quite far. Joe Morgan raised the pressure on his mostly stock 2.3 Pinto, and by adding nitrous was running approx 400hp with stock 35lb injectors. shady

 

[Kdawg532]

well for the price of the STS which isnt all that bad i could deal with the lag cause its about the only forced induction kit a dumb ass like me could probubly install by myself with out an insane amount of fabrication involved

 

[BlackBII]

Eliminate turbo lag by adding a supercharger for the lower RPM's, then a bigger turbo to really up the PSI at higher RPM's, check out the Lancia Delta S4 rally Car, 0-60 in 2.3 in gravel..........

And a remote system will lag more than conventional, it's inevitable, the flow has to travel farther...., no matter what

 

[Kdawg532]

hmm Black BII has a good idea,

 

[rocket5979]

Eliminate turbo lag by adding a supercharger for the lower RPM's, then a bigger turbo to really up the PSI at higher RPM's, check out the Lancia Delta S4 rally Car, 0-60 in 2.3 in gravel..........

And a remote system will lag more than conventional, it's inevitable, the flow has to travel farther...., no matter what

Adding a supercharger to get off the line quicker while still retaining most of the top end with the turbo is not very cost effective for most average people. MOst people can barely afford one form of forced induction on their vehicle let alone a second also.

I really wish you guys would read up on EXACTLY how turbochargers work and build boost. Find out why a bigger downpipe will net more power for people, see how a different turbine housing will affect spool time, see what difference the volume of the intake between the turbo and the TB really makes. I can assure you guys that it is nowhere near as simple of a comparison as, "Well this one has the shorter pipe it must be better". It just isn't that simple. Both conventional and remote mount have their strong and weak points when compared to one another. To do a proper comparison for a given application all of these will need to be taken into account not just a small portion of them. I build turbo systems for customers quite often and thus I have to have a very clear understanding about both conventional and remote mounts. I am not just some newby talking out my rear here.

I wish you fellas the best of luck in your turbo endeavors but before making any big decisions I suggest that you read up on allot of this stuff before taking the "buddy mechanic down the street"s word of advice for face value.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

obviously its not as cut and dried as we we're making it. there are thousands of little bits and peices that affect a particular turbo system. without getting too technical, we were just attempting to describe some of the basic functions, advantages, and disadvantages to the different setups.

as for turbo lag...probably the cheapest way to reduce its effects is with NOS. spraying off the line increases CFM to the turbo, spooling it up very quickly. then cut the NOS at the first shift and let the turbo do its thing.

 

[rocket5979]

without getting too technical, we were just attempting to describe some of the basic functions, advantages, and disadvantages to the different setups.

I understand that the intent was to keep things simple when comparing and I really do not want to come off like I am ragging on anyone here. The only difficulty is that it is not that simple. Understanding how and why turbo systems make boost and how boost response is affected by the configuration is a complex process. MUCH more complex than understanding how a supercharger works and builds boost. Turbos really rely upon high exhaust pressure differential to spool quickly. That, as an example, is just one of the many VERY important items that weren't even discussed in some of the comparisons in the previous posts. The proper comparison needs to take much more into account than what most have discussed on this thread. It bothers me when people try to post about something regarding technical matters but only know 1/4 of the info they need to know. It serves to mislead the extreme newbies who have no clue at all.

My entire reason for posting here has much less to do with getting on peoples cases for why they prefer conventional or remote mount. It has more to do with stressing the necessity that these people have a FULL understanding about the systems of which they talk if they want to give advice to others about it. I won't be the "tech advice police" anymore but it is just a few recommendations from someone who does this stuff as a business.

Have a good night guys and gals.