Rear mounted turbo?

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

I remember a long time ago my brothers best friend owned a performance shop called "TRT Texas Rear Turbo" and I remember seeing his work and it involved rear mounting turbos on Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes you name it. My question is where's the advantage? Why don't I see anyone else running rear mounted turbos?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

CC'S95GT · Mar 26, 2013

Another Co. called STS was making rear mount turbos too.
I guess the advantage would be cleaner under the hood.
There was a big discussion then about heat reduction from the turbo being that far away and the effiency being reduced. But also not having to need an intercooler either.

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

CC'S95GT said:
Another Co. called STS was making rear mount turbos too.
I guess the advantage would be cleaner under the hood.
There was a big discussion then about heat reduction from the turbo being that far away and the effiency being reduced. But also not having to need an intercooler either.

I saw them too, im just surprised I don't see more of them, hell if I saw a cat with twin turbos mounted at the rear of the car I'd back off rear quick, IMO rear mounted turbos look sexy!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

****ing drool!!!!!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

CC'S95GT · Mar 26, 2013

I thought it was kinda cool too. They basically bolt inplace of the mufflers.
I would be worried about the air intake though. But if you could duct it to the side scoops, that would be even cooler.
The oiling system for the turbos would be a big question too. You would almost have to have an dedicated oil pump to run for a few minutes after the car is shut down to prevent it from coking.

We may not have the room behind the axel though.

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

Sts on an SN!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVSXRJ1K2Kk&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

rz5.0 · Mar 26, 2013

There was a guy on here who did one.. The thing was the oil and water sucked up on the intake side..
How is the car running now..

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

rz5.0 said:
There was a guy on here who did one.. The thing was the oil and water sucked up on the intake side..
How is the car running now..

Doing good man got my coolant sensor leak fixed on my own, car started misfiring I thought it was my o2 sensor I found out last night it was coolant in the driver side spark plug chambers. Cleaned that out and now she's running good!

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

ttocs · Mar 26, 2013

one down side would be weight of all the plumbing. But if you can get the boost high enough then....

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

ttocs said:
one down side would be weight of all the plumbing. But if you can get the boost high enough then....

Ah true man that is ALOT of piping lol

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

1997gtRioRed · Mar 26, 2013

wouldnt there be some massive turbo lag?

sn95jones · Mar 26, 2013

1997gtRioRed said:
wouldnt there be some massive turbo lag?

From what I read apparently rear turbo was suppose to also clean up turbo lag? I dunno?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Tommy92 · Mar 26, 2013

sn95jones said:
From what I read apparently rear turbo was suppose to also clean up turbo lag? I dunno?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

That doesn't make sense, there is more volume to fill up with air before you reach boost with a turbo that far away from the motor. Intuitively that sounds like it'll take longer for you get boost to your engine. The only plus side I see to this set up is a cooler running turbo and engine bay. Definitely a cool factor too.

Steve-Oh · Mar 26, 2013

Didn't [MENTION=8290]uncltrvlnmatt[/MENTION] put one on his Mountaineer? Or was that someone else... :dontknow:

rz5.0 · Mar 26, 2013

The turbos are pretty small. Also that is the issue making allot of power. From what i read..

The turbos are pretty small. Also that is the issue making allot of power. From what i read..

RichV · Mar 26, 2013

IIRC there is a reason you don't see a whole lot of these. A turbo needs heat to spool, the closer it is to the exhaust ports the better. And the plumbing mess would be really complex to keep the turbo from self destruction.

The other thing not mentioned, is how much road debris can the turbos handle? Rain, mud, rocks, etc, probably not a great location. Cool idea, but practical ... no.

I watched the video of Ernesto Rocco's AI SN where the turbo was mounted inside the cabin, that was a wild setup. He said it actualy worked well, but the inside temperature was 120*+!!

Just go to like 1:45, skip the intro gheyness.

[video=youtube;jrql_K4DBow]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrql_K4DBow[/video]

Rallim · Mar 27, 2013

I was thinking about rear mounted turbo's lately too, and I was wondering how it'd effect lag as well. It's definitely a cool setup regardless

justinschmidt1 · Mar 27, 2013

Theres a lot of negatives about rear mount setups....will it "work"? Sure, would I recommend it?

Never.

The main one being this:

For ever 1 foot of intake piping you loose 1 psi of boost. So your car is 16ft long and you use 17ft of tubing (up and to the throttle body and or intercooler, which will also loose pressure), to make any boost the turbo has to compensate for 17psi.

This is probably why most STS cars run like 5 PSI lol. I would imagine the setup would be pretty laggy as well.

And thats not even touching on the fact that you have a million feet of oil lines, oil pumps and all kinds of shit hanging under your car.

duh09 · Mar 27, 2013

I'm going to be putting a remote mount turbo on my 67 after I get it running. I've already got a Holley 650 to convert to blow-thru. From what I've read, a lot of how the turbo boosts has to do with it's A/R ratios and there are supposedly certains levels that will spool effectively pushed away from the motor. Mine won't be sitting as far back as the rear axle, but I'd like ditch the rear seat, cut out the floor under it and raise it up and have a little area to tuck the turbo up and keep the air-filter out of as much debris as I can although I feel like with it being mid-car-ish it shouldn't be into too much of a bad area but we'll see. I will agree that it's not the most efficient way to do a turbo build, I'm not even kind of implying that it is. But price-wise, I think it'll be a fun project. Some of the benefits are that you don't have to completely reroute and rebuild your exhaust, no need for an intercooler as the piping from front to back effectively cools the air, simpler install in the case of my 67 (there is just no way to build a proper turbo setup and keep the factory shock towers without extensive mods)... I'll admit that I've got a lot more research to do but with stock blocks cracking at around 400hp anyways, I couldn't build anything super ridiculous. The motor in the car has decent compression so it's not like it will be a slug out of boost. But anyways, I'll def be posting up about it as I do it but that'll be probably next year.

EDIT: Here's some more reading for you kids:
http://www.junkyardturbos.com/Rear-Mount-Turbo.php
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/foru...he-Good-and-Bad-of-Remote-Mount-Turbo-Systems

justinschmidt1 · Mar 27, 2013

duh09 said:
I'm going to be putting a remote mount turbo on my 67 after I get it running. I've already got a Holley 650 to convert to blow-thru. From what I've read, a lot of how the turbo boosts has to do with it's A/R ratios and there are supposedly certains levels that will spool effectively pushed away from the motor. Mine won't be sitting as far back as the rear axle, but I'd like ditch the rear seat, cut out the floor under it and raise it up and have a little area to tuck the turbo up and keep the air-filter out of as much debris as I can although I feel like with it being mid-car-ish it shouldn't be into too much of a bad area but we'll see. I will agree that it's not the most efficient way to do a turbo build, I'm not even kind of implying that it is. But price-wise, I think it'll be a fun project. Some of the benefits are that you don't have to completely reroute and rebuild your exhaust, no need for an intercooler as the piping from front to back effectively cools the air, simpler install in the case of my 67 (there is just no way to build a proper turbo setup and keep the factory shock towers without extensive mods)... I'll admit that I've got a lot more research to do but with stock blocks cracking at around 400hp anyways, I couldn't build anything super ridiculous. The motor in the car has decent compression so it's not like it will be a slug out of boost. But anyways, I'll def be posting up about it as I do it but that'll be probably next year.

EDIT: Here's some more reading for you kids:
http://www.junkyardturbos.com/Rear-Mount-Turbo.php
http://forums.bimmerforums.com/foru...he-Good-and-Bad-of-Remote-Mount-Turbo-Systems

I would think you had all kinds of room under the 67s hood?

Heres a quote from a guy over at ls1tech:

engineermike, I love that we did the test long ago. Hell we had a front mount and everything before they we ever made for the STS's...lol. The HP gap was as much as 100rwhp at 14psi and lag was ~500-1000rpms worse. We have all the data somewhere in our archives

Idk to each their own I guess lol