Remote Mounted Turbo?

[C-Kwik]

You people saying that heat is necessary are morons. Heat is the biggest power robber for a turbocharger. Heat begets more friction AND reduces the lubricating properties of oil, which begets even MORE friction. Not to mention that hot metal makes for hot air passing through the turbocharger. Heat is BAD, not good.

While gas velocity and temperature are related, temperature is not the only cause of velocity. The remote-mounted system is as effective as it is BECAUSE the gas loses so much heat before reaching the turbo, not in spite of it.

Go to their site and go to the magazine articles/industry experts section. Brings up like 30+ multiple-page magazine articles with dynos. All of them say that lag is even better than a normal turbo system. That many independent sources is good enough for me.

Heat is always an issue in most mechanical devices when it comes to longevity. Controlling it is indeed imperative. However, heat and pressure are both forms of energy that a turbo uses. With the longer piping, as heat is lost, velocity drops as well. As gasses cool, they contract. This means the same mass of air will occupy less space. The further away from the exhaust source you get, the more the air contracts and slows down. But keep in mind, turbos are designed to account for quite a bit of heat before failure occurs. The bearings are cooled by oil and in many cases also by water. They run substantially cooler than the exhaust gasses that go through the turbine at full throttle. This heat that goes through the turbine does not rob power. I assume you are talking about heat in the intake, but that heat is created primarily by the compression of the air itself and perhaps it's inefficiencies in compressing the air. But this same will still exist with a remote turbo system as it is all heat generated by the compressor alone. Transferred heat from the turbine is minimal. Enough not to even be considered in any published turbo calculations.

As far as heat in the turbo, there is no doubt that pressure differential is a primary caarrier for the energy needed to drive a turbine. But, the expansion of air releases a lot of the heat energy into air velocity. Consider the laws of physics here. Energy can not be created or destroyed. Only changed or transferred. A turbine converts heat energy carried by moving air into mechanical energy. Surely, the flow of air can spin a turbine wheel, but having heat can allow the turbine to be less reliant on pressre. This means to drive a turbine wheel, there can be less pressure before the turbo for a given boost and flow out of the compressor. To lower the exhaust manifold pressure, you can divert some of the air through the wastegate. Less pressure required at the turbine means more air can be diverted through the wastegate. The result is lower backpressure, which increases power output at the motor. It also helps decrease the level of burned exhaust gasses in the combustion chamber and lowers the exhaust valve temperatures. More fresh air content in the combustion chamber gives better combustin(more power) and cooler exhaust valves reduce the chance of the valves becoming a source of detonation. In some cases where hot valves are causing detonation, the reduction of heat there may allow you to tune for more power.

As far as lag, it's easy enough to use a small turbine and decrease lag. however, like with any turbo system, small turbines are restrictive, particularly at higher airflows. This means less peak HP available and perhaps a motor being choked by a turbo at the higher rev ranges. Lag is not the only measurement for judging a good turbo system.

As I've said before, there is no doubt, these kind of systems will work. But if you're goal is peak output, look elsewhere. You won't find the fastest cars in each class running this type of turbo configuration.

Lastly, if you'ld like to continue to insult us as morons, please provide a technical explanation or dispute. So far, your argument does not carry enough weight to allow you the priveledge of calling the rest of us morons...

[C-Kwik]

the guys correct...heat is not needed. the heating up and cooling down of the turbo is what causes it to crack/break. Air doesn't need to be hot to move in the exhaust system, and the temperature for air to compress is VERY cold. still, there is always a constant flow of exhaust gas coming from the engine so the exhaust is constantly being pushed into the turbo.

I like that idea

Heating and cooling of parts in that of itself does not cause cracking of it's components. What can cause cracking is uneven expansion rates. This includes different parts attached to each other and single parts themselves. Consider, that many components in a car are made up of different materials. They each have different rates of expansion. When these kinds of parts are attached to each other without a way to allow the parts to expand without binding, they may crack. Even a single part of the same material can do this(typically thick parts). Cast iron manifolds are a great example of this. They have to be heated to a certain temperature in order to weld them. And no metod of electrical welding can be used as it causes too much of a heat differential between the weld point and the areas surrounding it. It's enough to crack a part upon cooling from the welding process itself. Or, try throwing hot water on a frozen windshield. The outer glass will heat up so much faster then the inner glass that it will fracture the glass. The parts of a turbo are designed to allow for expansion to a great degree from heat. If you look at one carefully, you'll notice few parts bolts a part down statically. They use clamps to hold the housings to the backplates. They use c-clips to keep the seals in. The only nut bolt arrangements used are between the shaft and the wheels. And all are made of the same materials. But the entire rotating assembly is free-floating on bearings. Most cracking you'll hear of is with manifolds and downpipes. Both of which should require careful considerations to heat and the resulting expansion.

I explained the reason you want to retain heat in the exhaust in my last post. It's not that you need hot gasses to move air. but yo keep velocity constant, you need to keep the temperature of the air the same throughout to maintain the same velocity throughout(in a fixed sized pipe). As I said before though, this is not going to have a huge effect on power. But having heat in the exhaust air is important to making more power as I've already explained.

[Looneybomber]

Totally useless information!

Do not wrap Titanium headers...They stand a high risk of cracking.

[JESTER]

Darn Looney, I think I liked it better before the turbo experts tryed to explain things. Now I am confused. Lets talk motorcycles instead. I can hold my own in motorcycle talk.

[Looneybomber]

You were doing ok until this point. Blowers and turbos have about the same efficiency

Actually no, the motor wastes power trying to turn a supercharger, where-as the normally wasted exhaust can be used to turn the turbo.

DOHC 4.6A picture is worth a thousand words. The stock eaton 112cid produces 247hp less than the twin turbos even though it's producing nearly 1 more psi of boost.

Pic1 is of the eaton vs the TT's

[Looneybomber]

Pic2, KB 1.7L vs the eaton 112cid.You can see how much more efficient the twin screw is over the roots. However it's still over 100hp down from the twin turbos.

[Looneybomber]

Darn Looney, I think I liked it better before the turbo experts tryed to explain things. Now I am confused. Lets talk motorcycles instead. I can hold my own in motorcycle talk.

yeah, bikes and turbos don't exactly go hand in hand. They already produce PLENTY of power/liter. More so than most forced inducted cars. Have you seen the video of the 700hp turbo'd busa...exactly why bikes aren't supposed to be turbo'd.

[PoorManQ45]

Actually no, the motor wastes power trying to turn a supercharger, where-as the normally wasted exhaust can be used to turn the turbo.

You're just talking about the method used to create the pressure. Try comparing the temperature of the air coming out of the two when at the same pressure. Efficiency would be a measure pressure output AND heat output for a given power input.

A centrifugal blower has about the same efficiency as a turbo.

DOHC 4.6A picture is worth a thousand words. The stock eaton 112cid produces 247hp less than the twin turbos even though it's producing nearly 1 more psi of boost.

Apples to oranges man. How much CFM are those turbos moving compared to the blower?

[Looneybomber]

You're just talking about the method used to create the pressure. Try comparing the temperature of the air coming out of the two when at the same pressure. Efficiency would be a measure pressure output AND heat output for a given power input.

you show me dyno runs that take that into account. The only ones I see show RWHP. If that's the only info I have, that's what I have to use.

A centrifugal blower has about the same efficiency as a turbo.

Nope, you're still wasting engine power to turn a supercharger. It would be like running your car with a huge AC on all the time. Check the picture below. Still about 100hp down from the turbo's and WAY down on torque from EVERYTHING else. That's why I don't like centrifugal blowers.

Apples to oranges man. How much CFM are those turbos moving compared to the blower?

Hey, you're the one that wanted to compare apples (turbo's) to oranges (supers) but isn't CFM in direct relation with PSI up until you reach the critical point where the device is out of it's designed range of operation. There is a word for that, but I just can't think what it is. So dare I say we just proved that turbo's are more efficient at creating peak HP?

[Oatmealman]

http://superchevy.com/technica...c_sts/

that'll awnser your questions

[C-Kwik]

You're just talking about the method used to create the pressure. Try comparing the temperature of the air coming out of the two when at the same pressure. Efficiency would be a measure pressure output AND heat output for a given power input.

A centrifugal blower has about the same efficiency as a turbo.

Apples to oranges man. How much CFM are those turbos moving compared to the blower?

Compressor efficiency (which is what you are referring to) does have some effect on a charger's energy consumption. A more efficient compressor will be easier to power, whether it be by exhaust gasses or crank power. But turbos do have an advantage here that they are powered by exhaust gasses. There is some backpressure to contend with, but the effect on power is minimal if the turbo is sized pretty well.

Centrifugal chargers are in essence the same as a turbo's compressors mechanically. But the way they interact with engines is different. As a supercharger's compressor speed is directly related to the engine speed, it takes a path through the compressor map that progressively increases airflow and pressure ratio as RPM's increase. A turbo on the other hand typically builds boost quickly and then plateaus when the wastegate opens then begins to drop off as the exhaust energy present is no longer sufficient to overcome the resistance from compressing the air. One would hope that with such different boost curves, they would try to tailor the compressor designs of the superchargers to coincide more with the boost curve.

As far as CFM's, boost and CFM are intertwined. Any engine will flow a certain amount of air given a certain amount of boost(at a given RPM). If you increase the CFM of the charger at a given RPM, boost will increase. This is true regardless of turbo or supercharger. Therefore CFM would in essence be the same given the same boost level, and same RPM.

[InsanityInc]

Heat is always an issue in most mechanical devices when it comes to longevity. Controlling it is indeed imperative. However, heat and pressure are both forms of energy that a turbo uses. With the longer piping, as heat is lost, velocity drops as well. As gasses cool, they contract. This means the same mass of air will occupy less space. The further away from the exhaust source you get, the more the air contracts and slows down. But keep in mind, turbos are designed to account for quite a bit of heat before failure occurs. The bearings are cooled by oil and in many cases also by water. They run substantially cooler than the exhaust gasses that go through the turbine at full throttle. This heat that goes through the turbine does not rob power. I assume you are talking about heat in the intake, but that heat is created primarily by the compression of the air itself and perhaps it's inefficiencies in compressing the air. But this same will still exist with a remote turbo system as it is all heat generated by the compressor alone. Transferred heat from the turbine is minimal. Enough not to even be considered in any published turbo calculations.

As far as heat in the turbo, there is no doubt that pressure differential is a primary caarrier for the energy needed to drive a turbine. But, the expansion of air releases a lot of the heat energy into air velocity. Consider the laws of physics here. Energy can not be created or destroyed. Only changed or transferred. A turbine converts heat energy carried by moving air into mechanical energy. Surely, the flow of air can spin a turbine wheel, but having heat can allow the turbine to be less reliant on pressre. This means to drive a turbine wheel, there can be less pressure before the turbo for a given boost and flow out of the compressor. To lower the exhaust manifold pressure, you can divert some of the air through the wastegate. Less pressure required at the turbine means more air can be diverted through the wastegate. The result is lower backpressure, which increases power output at the motor. It also helps decrease the level of burned exhaust gasses in the combustion chamber and lowers the exhaust valve temperatures. More fresh air content in the combustion chamber gives better combustin(more power) and cooler exhaust valves reduce the chance of the valves becoming a source of detonation. In some cases where hot valves are causing detonation, the reduction of heat there may allow you to tune for more power.

You missed my first post I take it. It was about the 3rd one in the thread. The velocity lost is not a 1:1 relationship with the heat loss, and in fact in the case of this turbo, the efficiency gained by dropping heat actually outweighs the spooling power lost by the decreased velocity. This is why they're making +67% or more horsepower with like 4-5psi on a relatively small turbo.

Additionally, the turbo in no way transforms heat energy into mechanical energy. You're right about the law of conservation of energy, but you're totally misinterpreting what it means. All the heat in the exhaust does is heat the turbo, which then causes more friction as well as heating the intake charge. The fact that you think the turbo somehow translates heat to rotational momentum is absolutely absurd, and I'd rather like if you told me what part of the turbo did that.

[C-Kwik]

You missed my first post I take it. It was about the 3rd one in the thread. The velocity lost is not a 1:1 relationship with the heat loss, and in fact in the case of this turbo, the efficiency gained by dropping heat actually outweighs the spooling power lost by the decreased velocity. This is why they're making +67% or more horsepower with like 4-5psi on a relatively small turbo.

Additionally, the turbo in no way transforms heat energy into mechanical energy. You're right about the law of conservation of energy, but you're totally misinterpreting what it means. All the heat in the exhaust does is heat the turbo, which then causes more friction as well as heating the intake charge. The fact that you think the turbo somehow translates heat to rotational momentum is absolutely absurd, and I'd rather like if you told me what part of the turbo did that.

Based on their website and dynos on each of their kits, most running 5 psi are in the 30-40% HP increase range. The H2 and the Tacoma have an unusually high increase given 5 psi and that's great. But not exactly what I would refer to as empirical data that you can rely on. In fact, most that actually have 7 psi kits can't even break 50% increases in power. By contrast, a decently sized turbo(T4 or T3/T4) on a KA at 7 psi nets about 230 give or take at the wheels. Stock is typically about 127 HP. That's a gain of 81%. The only 7 psi STS kit to come close is the Mustang Kit that pulls off 73% more HP over stock. But as I said, I'm not concerned with the drop in velocity. It was never my argument to begin with. I only confirmed that it does occur, but to a minor extent.

As far as heat not being transformed into mechanical energy, you need to stop looking at this in a single dimension. Heat, in that of itself, can't be turned into mechanical energy. As comical as it was to read, STS's example of taking a torch to the turbine housing and asking if it can make more power was rather absurd. You need to understand that heating of the turbo is not what makes more power. The hotter gasses carry with it a large amount of thermal energy. The turbine is designed to make use of the thermal energy, the energy in the pressure of the gasses and even sonic energy. The thermal energy is converted into something usable when the hot, high pressure gasses pass through the nozzle of the turbine. The air is at that time allowed to expand while passing through the turbine. The hotter the gasses, the more it will expand. This expansion creates even higher velocity and volume than the pressurized air alone. This is more energy to drive the turbine. And this is energy the engine does not see in the form of backpressure. And according to your sig, you would agree that this is a good thing. And if STS were to believe heat is not a factor, then why do they coat their exhaust pipes with a heat retentive coating? hmm?

[PoorManQ45]

That's a gain of 81%. The only 7 psi STS kit to come close is the Mustang Kit that pulls off 73% more HP over stock.

How about 6psi on the VH45DE getting about 450~500 RWHP, stock = ~215~230

[PantherRacer]

Have you seen the video of the 700hp turbo'd busa...exactly why bikes aren't supposed to be turbo'd.

why? 200mph wheelies are a bad thing? wasn't the bike CHASING it doing like 208? but 4rly tho... I can't imagine what it must be like hitting boost on a motorcycle.... That's why I'm gonna buy a sport quad, turbocharge that, and attack the beaches I love living on an island.