What do yo think of STS Remote Mounted turbo's?
03-01-05, 03:10 PM
#1
What do yo think of STS Remote Mounted turbo's?
They mount at the back of the car by the muffler.
http://ststurbo.com/
picture:
http://ststurbo.com/inc/iview/461?idx=5&p=4149
Is this going to work?
http://ststurbo.com/
picture:
http://ststurbo.com/inc/iview/461?idx=5&p=4149
Is this going to work?
03-01-05, 07:52 PM
#6
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MN
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice dent in the driveshaft of that camaro.
I'd never put the turbo in the back of my car unless the engine was back there. What is there to gain? There sure is a lot to lose.
I'd never put the turbo in the back of my car unless the engine was back there. What is there to gain? There sure is a lot to lose.
Trending Topics
03-01-05, 10:14 PM
#9
the only advantage of that I can see is when you pop your hood people not being able to recognize that you have a turbo right away... To answer the question about water doesnt the k&n filter shown on it shed water off because it has a special coating... Looks similar to on atvs... Besides that I dont think its worth it, all the piping all the way to the back of the car really adds up $$$... If your gonna go turbo just do it the proven method...
I also agree that this turbo would have more turbo lag then a turbo mounted on an exhaust manifold. The exhaust would take longer to reach the back mounted turbo then it would if it was just leaving the combustion chamber. Equalling turbo lag, longer time to spool up
I also agree that this turbo would have more turbo lag then a turbo mounted on an exhaust manifold. The exhaust would take longer to reach the back mounted turbo then it would if it was just leaving the combustion chamber. Equalling turbo lag, longer time to spool up
Last edited by Dan_s_young; 03-01-05 at 10:18 PM.
03-01-05, 10:27 PM
#10
Bimmer *****
hm maybe the camaro doesn't have enough room under the hood for a turbo or 2?? even the 3.8l and 3.4l v6's can't come out from the top... they gotta be removed from the engine from the bottom, meaning u gotta lift the car off them... least with the newer camaro's, not the pre what 96 one? whatever the new body style is, they r basically wrapped around the engine...
03-01-05, 10:54 PM
#11
sold the FD...kept the FB
It may not be that bad. They don't need to run an intercooler since the turbos probably run a lot cooler under the car and in the back. That lets them run slightly smaller diameter piping and they probably end up with less than a psi pressure drop....thats totally acceptable.
They are'nt looking to make more than 10 psi (if that) or push more than 6000rpm, so they probably went with a turbo design that spools up quickly but doesnt flow super high which has a good chance of driving nice.
I'm not saying I'd do it, but it might not be that bad for some.
They are'nt looking to make more than 10 psi (if that) or push more than 6000rpm, so they probably went with a turbo design that spools up quickly but doesnt flow super high which has a good chance of driving nice.
I'm not saying I'd do it, but it might not be that bad for some.
03-02-05, 07:11 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Montgomery, TX
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They make them for GM trucks also. It's a proven setup, many of the guys on LS1tech and GM-Truck have one and like it. It's not the end all turbo set-up for HP but it provides an easy to install boost in power over stock, not sure if you could go to far with it. If you think about it the filter is about as low as most airbox pick-ups nowadays. It's nice and works but not for the price, usually the price of a turbo kit is high because of the level of complex intergration while these are bolt on pipe turbos.
Vernon
Vernon
03-02-05, 11:55 AM
#14
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The things that would worry me is; water in the airfilter, oil line - you need a pump from the turbo drain to the oil pan and turbo lag. But it seems like they worked through all of those problems. It might be worth a shot.
03-02-05, 12:06 PM
#15
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by web777
The things that would worry me is; water in the airfilter, oil line - you need a pump from the turbo drain to the oil pan and turbo lag. But it seems like they worked through all of those problems. It might be worth a shot.
03-02-05, 01:55 PM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NE Ohio
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dazdconfsd
As I understand it, another advantage to this setup is no oil line to the turbo. The exhaust has cooled down enough by the time it reaches it, it's not needed.
Also, I'd imagine that a significant amount of heat comes from the friction of rotation and from building pressure. Pressurizing things makes them hot and depressurizing them makes them cold.
03-02-05, 02:02 PM
#17
Rotary Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Posts: 1,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dazdconfsd
As I understand it, another advantage to this setup is no oil line to the turbo. The exhaust has cooled down enough by the time it reaches it, it's not needed.
03-02-05, 02:41 PM
#18
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Decatur, GA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding of the setup is oil is in the turbo and kept sealed in there. With heat not being a issue it last a great deal longer than it would in a engine bay.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
immanuel__7
2nd Generation Specific (1986-1992)
89
09-05-15 10:23 AM