Don't you try and be a voice of reason now Jeff. We passed that bridge awhile back. ;)

And yes, the dimensions and mounts are the same for the ls2, just that it comes with a 4" bore rather than a 3.9". I could build a 402CID stroker without having to modify the block at all. There are several other smaller differences too, but nothing that would be a major hangup.


AC would be really nice though.

You know me, I can't help myself.

I haven't seen any *numbers* from the other turbo'd V8 FD. The packaging in that car looks horrid for anything other than car shows and internet pics.

I'm just thinking of how tight it'd be to plumb the exhaust from one side to the other and then dealing with the heat that the turbo will put out.

That could be my quote :D I could just leave it alone as is and put all that extra money into my pocket, but I can't help myself either. I enjoy tinkering too much.

Well, you knew my opinion of John's car. Wrong cam, wrong turbos, questionable welds on the manifolds (wrong welder choice for the fabrication). I'm not sure it ever ran right, which is likely why he's redoing it.

The plumbing isn't as bad as you might think. Tight for sure, but doable. There's no way around the heat, even with the massive heat blanket I picked up.

So what is the plan? Run one side exhaust forward, cross in front of the motor to the other side, turbo located where the ac pump was?

Jeff

Yup. exactly that, sort of. Both manifolds will point forward. Drivers side to Crossover pipe in front, horning together with the other manifold, and then a 4" downpipie, midpipe, catback all the way back. :cool:

Turbo is a little heavier than the AC compressor (32# v. 28#), and obviously the piping and FMIC will add some weight ot the car as well. It's a tradeoff. 600+ rwhp with no AC and room to grow, or 500rwhp (or less) with AC, and maxed out. Or plan C, throw a set of heads on it, finish the headers (doing that anyways) and start in on paint and interior. Or Plan D, sell it to Damon and start over with something else. ;) Just kidding Damon, it's not for sale...yet. :D

If you're going to sell it to me you have to do it before all that other stuff; I gotta buy it cheap ;)

Ceramic coatings and heat shields are your friends. :)

Originally Posted by wingsfan
There's no way around the heat, even with the massive heat blanket I picked up.

sure there is.. you may have seen or thought about this already but i'll throw it out there.

Have you seen the new sts turbo system for the ls1? It puts the turbo at the rear of the car where the exhaut muffler would be. I have seen older trucks with the set-up and a mustang before.

I just picked up the new issue of Popular Hot rodding and saw the new kit.

It would do 3 things for you.

1.) give you 463 RWHP at 7 psi boost:DAnd 511 ft pounds of tq.!

2.) eliminate the clutter of fabing speacial manifolds to teh turbo in the enginebay.

3.) eliminate all that bloody heat from the engine area.

here is the online article! Just a thought to throw out.

http://popularhotrodding.com/tech/0411phr_sts/

I haven;t really investigated if there would be room in the rear of our cars but since the turbo replaces the muffler, i would think you could alter it to make it work.As needed.

sts site link..

http://ststurbo.com/ls1_camaro_kits

some sound clips:

http://ststurbo.com/camaro_sound_and_video

Dave,

Thanks for the suggestion and the link.

I've even seen the STS setup in person. I don' t think it would work very well on the 7. There's not a whole lot of clearance back there, certainly not as much as an f-body or a truck.

Also, I haven't been impressed by any of the STS dyno curves I've seen. The peak numbers are nice, but the curve itself isn't all that attractive.

Of course, the curves in the popular hotrodding article are the nicest I've seen for the sts setup, but they're end user provided, so I'm always skeptical.

What is everyone else doing wrong then to get the choppy, peaky curves that I've seen? Who knows. Every STS car I've seen also gives decent dyno numbers, but shitty track times, so I think there's something funky going on there. I guess I'm just not a big fan of the remote mounted turbo setup. At least I'm not asking if they can go whre the oil coolers used to be. :rolleyes:

I think the easiest (well maybe not the easiest, but maybe the best) thing for me to do is get the car running under boost like I've been planning. Nothing's irreversible, and if it's too much (power or added weight), then I can alwyas sell the pieces and start over (I'm only out time and money right?)...or wipe my hands of the car and move on to some other challenge (been toying with this idea more and more lately as I start to dump ridiculous levels of $$$ into the car).

Turbos use waste heat from the exhaust to run the exhaust side turbine. The exhaust gases are very hot and still expanding coming out of the port (applies to heads and rotor housings). Putting the turbo that far from the motor will allow the exhaust to cool and significantly losing much of it's energy. I imagine the spool of the turbo would be terrible at lower speeds, as the engine makes it's way up the RPM range enough heat energy will make it's way back to the turbo and spool it up but not at all like it should.

I can't imagine piping the compressed intake air, oil and/or coolant all the way back to the turbo, what a nightmare...

While I agree with all those points and i think that the extra distance is the key issue with the jumpy graphs that Drew has seen. It is a good"budget" turbo if you will. It can be put on in 4 hours.( on a f-body mind you;) )

The oil is actually pretty easy to route. They have a adapter at the oil sender that pipes it back to the turbo and a 12v pump that pumps the oil back to the valve cover breather hole. That part is pretty slick. But for an overall vehicle i think the issues you run into with a traditional set-up are liveable compared to the wierd characteristics of a remote mount turbo system.

just thought i would throw the idea out there anyways..as a "compromise"