When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Here is another one more along of the lines of what you are thinking about.
would have a better pressure differtinal across the turbine side of the turbo.
Note the filter would be piped some where different just did not draw it up that way.
Or place the filter straight up with an impact guard.
Having the filter in the area behind the tire in the bumper area places the filter in a high pressure zone
one advantage to the previous idea (placed at the resonator) is the exhaust flow would have more inertia since the exhaust flow is a direct shot into the turbine unlike the last picture where the exhaust flow would need to make some sorts of turns to get in the proper orientation to the turbine inlet.
Some other things to consider with this kit is what size should the exhaust piping (post header pre turbo) be to minimize restriction on the engine but maximize exhaust speed?
Totally different than a normal setup where the turbo exhaust out put needs to be 3
The further back you move the turbo, the less efficient your system becomes. You cannot recover the energy lost through heat dissipation.
The best option would be a well designed manifold with the shortest possible runners to best direct the flow into the turbine. A log has supershort runners, but the resulting flow is anything but ideal.
I think replacing the cat with a turbo is the best option for an underbody turbo. You retain the well designed exhaust header and minimize additional hardware.
Originally Posted by slimjim8201,Jun 20 2006, 11:59 AM
The further back you move the turbo, the less efficient your system becomes. You cannot recover the energy lost through heat dissipation.
The best option would be a well designed manifold with the shortest possible runners to best direct the flow into the turbine. A log has supershort runners, but the resulting flow is anything but ideal.
I think replacing the cat with a turbo is the best option for an underbody turbo. You retain the well designed exhaust header and minimize additional hardware.
I guess that's why STS Turbo is getting such good results with their systems.
IT is not heat that moved the turbo it is the exhaust flow rate.
Yes the exhaust speed does decrease as heat is rejected from the system (energy loss) but that is why the STS turbos have a different criteria for what trim and what A/R's to use.
Another reason I think the STS works is the fact that instead of exhaust pulses pushing on the turbine you now have a more constant "push" on the turbine since you are so far down stream and the headers can still perform there function to scavenge exhaust gasses.
I guess that's why STS Turbo is getting such good results with their systems.
Whoa there sarcasm.
I'm just making a statement. You can't argue that you dissipate a lot of energy to heat, and in this case, quite a bit more than an "in engine bay" system. It is lost and completely irrecoverable in this case. I'm not saying you can't get good results with their system, as that would be rediculous. Just stating an innefficiency.
Depenma, I agree that the flow pulses will be smoothed out the further downstream the gas travels. I don't think the mean average rotational velocity of the turbine would increase or decrease though. You may have slight sinusoidal response upstream (undetectable by humans of course) but the bulk average mass flow rate must remain the same throughout the system. It would be very difficult to determine which would be more efficient without some fairly expensive and rigorous testing.
Average rotational velocity of the turbine would not increase or decrease.. agreed
Any of the slight inefficiencies of the remote turbo as compared to the under hood version appear to be made up for via the change in turbine specifications and the ability of a header to still perform its function of scavenging the exhaust.
Originally Posted by deppenma,Jun 20 2006, 04:36 PM
"slight sinusoidal response"
Now you are talking my language..
Acoustics
Average rotational velocity of the turbine would not increase or decrease.. agreed
Any of the slight inefficiencies of the remote turbo as compared to the under hood version appear to be made up for via the change in turbine specifications and the ability of a header to still perform its function of scavenging the exhaust.
Fluids are neat eh?
We'd need some very controlled testing to verify your last statement. I'm very interested though...
deppenma I have to give you props for the ghetto oil catch can, I got my self one for 4.9USD including the fittings...but the dash board and rear mount turbo is locco to say the least..
The dash is being taken out this week to make room the full array of gauges for FI.
The processors did not like the last SCCA event. (was a little rough through some parts of the course)
I think I cracked one of the circuit boards lol
No big loss... I think the gauges will look better and unless you are a very strict audiophile you would not be able to hear any audible difference between the Alpine processors in the head unit and what is installed in the dash.