Post by
C-Kwik »
https://forums.nicoclub.com/c-kwik-u426.html
Tue Oct 16, 2007 6:58 pm
The problem with rear mounted turbos is there are no turbos designed specifically with such long distancs between turbo and motor in mind. The loss of heat between the motor and the turbo results in less available heat energy. Since the compressor side would be requiring about the same amount of turbine torque, the turbine would have to rely more on pressure and airflow and less heat. This means, more backpressure on the motor. While the system will work, it will not be as powerful/efficient as a more traditional set-up. It is a cheap way to turbo a car, but can be pretty limiting in the end. I also can't imagine that their claims that the long compressor pipes negate the need for an intercooler are legit. Certainly, there will be some heat that radiates from the pipes, but without consideration for ambient airflow around the pipes and overall mass, it would be hard to imagine it would be as effective, particularly during extended periods of boost with relatively little non-boost time like you might find on a race track.
As for the HR, I don't know the answer to the question of strength specifically, but the rods would likely be stronger overall as the HR was designed to rev higher. Higher revving motors for a given bore and stroke have higher tensile and compressive loads. Typically, tensile loads will be given more consideration in most motor designs, so if they account for the additional tensile load, the rods may naturally be beefier. The same would likely be true of the Rev-up VQ35DE over the standard VQ35DE. There are many other factors though, so until someone can validate it one way or the other, even through confirming actual changes in size of the parts and such, it's all speculation...