[BLKXLT]

Remote turbo kits. Goes against so many of the old turbocharging rules, but seems like some good reviews and new technology.
http://www.ststurbo.com/products

 

[drescape08]

looks pretty sweet except the fact the one has the filter under the truck. wouldnt work so well on a rainy day. other than that...looks pretty sweet.

 

[Geoff]

dear god, the turbo lag.

 

[BLKXLT]

dear god, the turbo lag.

Actually not really an issue with the right application, sizing, housing. Some claim the exhaust gas is more dense at the rear and better yet. Less exhaust backpressure from the turbo out. We have some of the Outlaw 10.5 class drag racers using this with great results as well. I've seen placement under cars, in front and rear fenderwells, even spare tire wells. A little creative shielding or fabrication might be better in some apps.
Of course a SUV will see a greater variety of terrain and weather situations. Unless they make a direct bolt on, maybe not the right choice for most. On performance applications, I kind of get enjoy rearranging things when neccessary. Not for all. I'm seriously planning a similar set up for my 240Z.

 

[Surfscape]

There was a kid that did this a few years ago and he said it was a good set up but we never got any numbers from him and "his dad" made him take it off the family wagon. One thing is for sure the aircharge would be a lot cooler by the time it got back to the motor and an under hood set up. I could see it on a 4 banger manual escape but the auto would kill any turbo fun.

 

[drescape08]

that is exactly what i have in my escape. if i wasnt a broke student id look into it. maybe when i finally retire from being a full time student i can afford one.

 

[Geoff]

dear god, the turbo lag.

Actually not really an issue with the right application, sizing, housing. Some claim the exhaust gas is more dense at the rear and better yet. Less exhaust backpressure from the turbo out. We have some of the Outlaw 10.5 class drag racers using this with great results as well. I've seen placement under cars, in front and rear fenderwells, even spare tire wells. A little creative shielding or fabrication might be better in some apps.
Of course a SUV will see a greater variety of terrain and weather situations. Unless they make a direct bolt on, maybe not the right choice for most. On performance applications, I kind of get enjoy rearranging things when neccessary. Not for all. I'm seriously planning a similar set up for my 240Z.

Turbo lag is more or less a non-issue with a drag car. It's spending all it's time high in the revs anyway. Sure, you could use a small turbo. I don't care how good a system it is, if the piping goes all the way to the back of the car like that, there's going to be lag. Where would an intercooler go? You're definatly going to get better performance and engine response from a traditional turbo set up. I know a guy who's spent hundreds just to cut 1 1/2 feet on intake piping out between his intercooler and throttle body. Never mind the fact that the car has a front mount when it came with a top mount originally and that's where feet of piping came from. Just seems silly to me to route it back like that.

 

[BLKXLT]

dear god, the turbo lag.

Actually not really an issue with the right application, sizing, housing. Some claim the exhaust gas is more dense at the rear and better yet. Less exhaust backpressure from the turbo out. We have some of the Outlaw 10.5 class drag racers using this with great results as well. I've seen placement under cars, in front and rear fenderwells, even spare tire wells. A little creative shielding or fabrication might be better in some apps.
Of course a SUV will see a greater variety of terrain and weather situations. Unless they make a direct bolt on, maybe not the right choice for most. On performance applications, I kind of get enjoy rearranging things when neccessary. Not for all. I'm seriously planning a similar set up for my 240Z.

Turbo lag is more or less a non-issue with a drag car. It's spending all it's time high in the revs anyway. Sure, you could use a small turbo. I don't care how good a system it is, if the piping goes all the way to the back of the car like that, there's going to be lag. Where would an intercooler go? You're definatly going to get better performance and engine response from a traditional turbo set up. I know a guy who's spent hundreds just to cut 1 1/2 feet on intake piping out between his intercooler and throttle body. Never mind the fact that the car has a front mount when it came with a top mount originally and that's where feet of piping came from. Just seems silly to me to route it back like that.

Sorry, I dissagree. Old turbo school thought, but then again if you are an expert in installing a selecting systems, I'll listen to more. If its just my friend Joe's system worked better putting the turbo here or there, then perhaps he didn't pick the right housing, turbo or what ever to optimize the location. A system that works well in the front will be distictly different from a rear mount. I've seen "miles" of intercooler piping which drops the charge to a much lesser psi, due to density, produce huge gains in power, running the same power adder. Regardless of the placement the a/a intercooler goes in the front. A lot of turbo forum naysayers are beginning to eat their words.

Of course this is the internet. Where everyone's an expert,...or 14 year old girl

We encourage you to continue your investigation into the many benefits of STS remote-mounted turbocharging, and remind you not to always trust the uninformed traditionalist masses, i.e. uniformed traditionalists used to also believe the earth was flat

I'll add one more point then get off my soapbox. These systems are produced for vehicles that don't typically have turbocharger systems on them and run realtively low boost. Look under the hood of a new GTO. You'd be lucky to see water come out from underneath if you pored it on top. Still, 9 second 1/4 at 140 is quite an accomplishment. Plenty of testimonials for strictly stree use. I've owned/ own factory turbo cars and some of them have hideous lag, even with the turbo next to the intake, but so do big cams and centrifugal 'chargers. I think this is a phenominal solution to adding a power for a variety of cars.

 

[CrashNburn]

they are looking for a CBR600 and i have one sitting in my shed waiting for spring, i might give them a call and see how much of a "discount" i get for letting them use it to make their for sale one.

 

[Geoff]

Actually not really an issue with the right application, sizing, housing. Some claim the exhaust gas is more dense at the rear and better yet. Less exhaust backpressure from the turbo out. We have some of the Outlaw 10.5 class drag racers using this with great results as well. I've seen placement under cars, in front and rear fenderwells, even spare tire wells. A little creative shielding or fabrication might be better in some apps.
Of course a SUV will see a greater variety of terrain and weather situations. Unless they make a direct bolt on, maybe not the right choice for most. On performance applications, I kind of get enjoy rearranging things when neccessary. Not for all. I'm seriously planning a similar set up for my 240Z.

Turbo lag is more or less a non-issue with a drag car. It's spending all it's time high in the revs anyway. Sure, you could use a small turbo. I don't care how good a system it is, if the piping goes all the way to the back of the car like that, there's going to be lag. Where would an intercooler go? You're definatly going to get better performance and engine response from a traditional turbo set up. I know a guy who's spent hundreds just to cut 1 1/2 feet on intake piping out between his intercooler and throttle body. Never mind the fact that the car has a front mount when it came with a top mount originally and that's where feet of piping came from. Just seems silly to me to route it back like that.

Sorry, I dissagree. Old turbo school thought, but then again if you are an expert in installing a selecting systems, I'll listen to more. If its just my friend Joe's system worked better putting the turbo here or there, then perhaps he didn't pick the right housing, turbo or what ever to optimize the location. A system that works well in the front will be distictly different from a rear mount. I've seen "miles" of intercooler piping which drops the charge to a much lesser psi, due to density, produce huge gains in power, running the same power adder. Regardless of the placement the a/a intercooler goes in the front. A lot of turbo forum naysayers are beginning to eat their words.

Of course this is the internet. Where everyone's an expert,...or 14 year old girl

We encourage you to continue your investigation into the many benefits of STS remote-mounted turbocharging, and remind you not to always trust the uninformed traditionalist masses, i.e. uniformed traditionalists used to also believe the earth was flat

I'll add one more point then get off my soapbox. These systems are produced for vehicles that don't typically have turbocharger systems on them and run realtively low boost. Look under the hood of a new GTO. You'd be lucky to see water come out from underneath if you pored it on top. Still, 9 second 1/4 at 140 is quite an accomplishment. Plenty of testimonials for strictly stree use. I've owned/ own factory turbo cars and some of them have hideous lag, even with the turbo next to the intake, but so do big cams and centrifugal 'chargers. I think this is a phenominal solution to adding a power for a variety of cars.

Holy shit! How'd you know I was a 14 year old girl? And no, I'm no expert. And neither is he, though he is a competent mechanic. He's going with a well known setup on his impreza. See, from the factory, subaru gives them top mount intercoolers. Which is fine, but you can only get so much power out of the size intercooler you can fit there. So you put in a front mount, but now there's a lot of intake piping. So you rotate the intake plenum and turbo and guess what, less lag, less piping. And I don't see a single small motor on the list of applications. V8's make huge amounts of exhaust gases, so lag seems like it would be less of an issue anyway. What would the dyno chart look like on let's say a 1.8 liter honda motor? Or a 2.0 liter subaru motor? Both need all the help they can get reducing turbo lag, remember, we're talking GT30R being a huge turbo for these things. If they do make an application for that type of car, and it works, then so be it, I'm wrong, but it just doesn't seem like the best way to turbo it.

Yours in My Little Pony and texting to 2 am,
14 year old little girl Geoff

 

[BLKXLT]

Geoff, I like your sense of humor
Anyway, not talking small motors. Not talking Subarus or Hondas, but you're right, not many imports. Some old tests 4 or 5 years ago:
http://pi.b5z.net/i/u/1473169/f/Press/stss3s.pdf
http://pi.b5z.net/i/u/1473169/f/Press/stshcis.pdf

The title of the topic was referring to the Escape as a great add on. I'm no expert either, but I also know conventional thought leads to no advances. Listening only the a resident "expert" or a tired and true system has limitiations when newer technology leaves you behind. Who'd of thought a production car could turbo an 11:1 motor? Street driven, pump gas 7 second 3.0 liter RB30s? I'm still having a hard time accepting front wheel drive cars are now keeping up with rear wheel at road race events. Not possible a few years back. Time will tell...
From another more performance related forum:

The loss in power or efficiency from remote mounting does not have the hugely negative affect that many would have you think.... as long as the system is designed and installed properly. You will see boost come on slightly later than in a front mount... but countless knowledgeable and industry experienced installers have expressed shock and appreciation over how little perceived lag there is in a properly installed and tuned system.

they are looking for a CBR600 and i have one sitting in my shed waiting for spring, i might give them a call and see how much of a "discount" i get for letting them use it to make their for sale one.

DO IT!Then let me ride it :yes:

 

[drescape08]

youre right. it does take trial and error to find new and better things. wether this is better or not...i dont know. but given the setup and what the setup is on...this may be the easiest way of adapting a turbo to one of these vehicles. this may not be the most efficient set up...but is a nice jesture as to the research and development of products available. this seems to be a more "universal" system than if i wanted a true turbo on my escape (just think of the custom made pedestal and intake pipe) this is probably why this setup was invented. well see how it works when you guys buy it for me...this will give us a solid answer. :lol:

 

[Geoff]

Geoff, I like your sense of humor
Anyway, not talking small motors. Not talking Subarus or Hondas, but you're right, not many imports. Some old tests 4 or 5 years ago:
http://pi.b5z.net/i/u/1473169/f/Press/stss3s.pdf
http://pi.b5z.net/i/u/1473169/f/Press/stshcis.pdf

The title of the topic was referring to the Escape as a great add on. I'm no expert either, but I also know conventional thought leads to no advances. Listening only the a resident "expert" or a tired and true system has limitiations when newer technology leaves you behind. Who'd of thought a production car could turbo an 11:1 motor? Street driven, pump gas 7 second 3.0 liter RB30s? I'm still having a hard time accepting front wheel drive cars are now keeping up with rear wheel at road race events. Not possible a few years back. Time will tell...
From another more performance related forum:

The loss in power or efficiency from remote mounting does not have the hugely negative affect that many would have you think.... as long as the system is designed and installed properly. You will see boost come on slightly later than in a front mount... but countless knowledgeable and industry experienced installers have expressed shock and appreciation over how little perceived lag there is in a properly installed and tuned system.

they are looking for a CBR600 and i have one sitting in my shed waiting for spring, i might give them a call and see how much of a "discount" i get for letting them use it to make their for sale one.

DO IT!Then let me ride it :yes:

soooo, basically we're arguing different points on different types of vehicle... :hyst:

And about the FWD vehicles, most are small. Take civics for example. Get a 94 civic, turbo it to 200 at the crank, go to town on suspension (and not just ricey drop springs and that's it) aluminum wheels, good tires, and yeah, it will be VERY competitive with the right driver who can drive FWD cars fast. Though, I'm REALLY biased towards AWD myself :rockon:

11:1 compression and turbo on a production car?!?!!?!?! On an RB30? I wasn't aware Nissan made an RB30 (just googled it, impressive). I'm a huge nissan fan, first car was a 94 altima. I wanted to turbo that sooooo bad. And I would kill for an S14 with an RB26DETT swap :angel:

 

[MidnightTribute]

I saw this set up on the show "Trucks" on that old lightning.... awesome, I'll take 4

 

[gianpmt]

Turbo niiice lol i want one :lol: but cant :stop:

 

[jonas1022]

A decent base supercharger costs way more than the $1895.00 turbo kit. If you get a good punch out of a turbo for 20% of a supercharger boost, why not turbo? Assuming of course you don't crater your engine with it. But that can happen with either system.