Remote mount turbo?
 

Has anyone ever done a remote mount turbo setup on an FC?

Maybe a twin turbo setup with split exits....

A remote mount turbo on our Cars would not be effective. A majority of the ability for the turbo to spool does not come from gas velocity but rather the pressure differential (which is more based upon heat than anything else). The closer to the engine where the exhaust temperature is greatest the quicker the ability to produce boost. So instead of having nice hot gases that are then exposed to a much cooler volume you'll have relatively cool exhaust gases hitting cool air. The pressure differential is not big enough to produce a spool that would allow a good set up like that.

It's not effective on -any- car... the closer you can put the turbo to the valve/port the better; the exhaust gas will expand out from the chamber, and the shorter the pipe, the less chance the pressure has to drop (as it equalizes with the pressure in the manifold) before it hits the turbine wheel; the difference in pressure between the manifold and the downpipe at this point is what spools the turbo.

It has been done on a RX8. Search for member Rotorocks on RX8Club. He made one himself for his car. He presently is using a mid-mounted turbo that is next to the rear of the trans. He has reported success with both setups.
Squire Turbo Systems is in the process of making a kit for the RX8. They are testing a single and dual turbo setup. I don't see how a dual setup will work for the 8 but we will wait and see.

A guy with a Chevy Beretta 2.8 made a remote mount and saw a dyno proven 68hp increase.

Saying they are not effective is a false statement.

They run around 6psi tops, and with a rotary putting out as much exhaust force as they do, seems like it would be more than capable of boosting to 6psi and giving NA guys a little more umph.

But the car would be loud as hell

You sir need to learn the definition of effective. He had an increase of 68hp. Is that more or less effective than if he put it right off the exhaust ports on a turbo manifold? I promise you he would have seen a much bigger increase if he put it right off the manifold. If he was keeping it in the low PSI range, then it's still less effective than placing it right off the manifold. Why? think about it. How much piping for the coolant, intercooler, and oil do you have to run for both setups? All that stuff weighs something. So He threw on a turbo which could weigh anywhere from 10-25 pounds. He than ran extra long lines of coolant and oil to the turbo which only adds to the weight as well as the extra intercooler piping. When as is said and done, is it worth it to spend the money on a setup like that, that will only net you 68hp? I don't think so. Hence, not effective.

The effectiveness of a remote mount turbo sucks. There's no way around it. You will see more gains, and better performance all around the closer you put it to the manifold. Just because I said it wasn't effective does not mean it wouldn't work. It's just not very good at what it does.
that's a false statement if ever there was one ;). Look the turbo works off of pressure differential NOT exhaust velocity (I'd be interested on how you know how much Force our exhaust puts out). The pressure differential for the turbo comes heavily based off of Temperature. The farther away you put the turbo from the exhaust ports on the engine the less of a differential you have. This means more spool time is required to make a specific amount of boost.

Bottom line is this: Will it work? Yes. Is it worth the time and money and head ache for it? No.

Not everyone is looking to get maximum power out of their cars. I think that the 600 bucks you could make a setup like that is worth 68hp. Look at the costs of doing a TII swap now a days.

Think of 1200 for and engine and tranny, then 1200 for a rebuild not counting the hard parts it might need, possibly a new clutch, drive shaft, rear end.

Honestly that is not a very cost effective mod if you look at it. Just to get rolling you are looking at well over 2k.

You could say "take the cheaper way out and keep your NA tranny" But then it would turn into a flame war with people saying to take the weak NA tranny out and do a full TII sawp.

It's proven that it works, it is definitely effective. So from now on I would like the thread to be directed in the way I wanted it.

I would to know if anyone has actually done this? Not if someone knows its a shitty setup

I'm well aware, i'm doing a turbo 6pi at the moment. However you're going to spend the same amount of money either way if not more doing a remote mount. (i'm talking about turboing a 6pi and not a TII engine swap)
try closer to 300-400 for an engine and tranny and ecu. if you want to rebuild it yourself you can get a soft seal kit for anywhere from 300-600, apex seals for another 300.
If you're turboing an NA engine you're going to be looking at that price range anyways unless you're going used on everything. You still need to upgrade your injectors, fuel computer (at the least), piping, lines, modifications to the engine to support the turbo (both oil and water). Then you have the supporting modifications like gauges, blow-off valves, external waste gates/milling out the internal wastegate. Then you have to send out for repairs or cleaning on all the used stuff like injectors. Both require modifications to the exhaust but I'd be pretty sure that it would be cheaper to produce a manifold and a down pipe than it would be to try and fit a turbo under the car. On top of all this you still run the risk of road damage to the turbo where it is. It will be exposed to road debris, pot holes, speed bumps, animals, etc.

NA tranny's are good for about 300-350 hp unless you're doing 500+ there's no need to swap. That eliminates any conversion from the engine back. I promise you won't make enough power from a remote mount to warrant a conversion to a TII engine or drivetrain. However it will cost you MORE money if you decide later you'd like faster spool, more boost, where as if you mount it in the "normal" location all you need to do is either just swap the turbo or put in a boost controller. 600+(at the least) compared to 200+(at the most)
Sorry, it's not effective. It will work, but it will not be effective. That's like saying a knife is effective at killing people during a war. Yes it will work, but it's much more effective to use an M16 or an AK, probably cheaper too... this argument seems eerily familiar....:suspect:
You already have that information.

The question is really why are you so hell bent on doing a remote mount?

I'm not aware of anyone who's done the setup on a rotary. I've seen numerous remote mount jobs on various trucks, corvettes, TA's and they all put out some nice power. And despite what you think, the one's I've seen are no slower spooling then a poorly tuned "regular" single on our cars.

IMO - it'll work. It'll work well. But it has its purpose, which is to fit a turbo or turbos where you normally can't (ever seen a C5 or C6 engine bay?) and on our cars there's plenty of real estate to fit a turbo.

That said though i'm all for uniqueness...with a proerply sized turbine and housing you'll have a decent setup. Plumbing, shielding, etc will take alot of thinking but it can be done.

I'm not hell bent on doing one, I was asking if someone had done one on a rotary.

Why are you so hell bent in putting down a setup you probably have never used?

And honestly, I have not seen a TII longblock with tranny for 300-400 bucks. If you do manage to find one for that price, it will more than likely need at the least a housing and rotor.

They do seem to be very effective, although you seem to think not. Many people have run them with great results.

That's the thing though, were not comparing a poorly tuned "regular" setup to a properly tuned remote mount. I'm comparing (at least) a properly tuned remote mount to a properly tuned "reg". Dollar for dollar it's going to be more effective to go with a "reg". That's not to say one shouldn't do a remote mount, maybe some one wants to make it appear as a sleeper and run a completely different setup (mid placed turbo, hidden intercooler, etc). I know people personally that have done remote mount turbo setups on C5's and had great results. That's not to say that it was effective. Just imagine if they would have been willing to cut the inner fenders to fit a turbo in the engine bay? What's going to be more effective? Now the C5 != S4/5 and so they'd spend more money altering their engine bay to fit the turbos which means for them it would be cheaper to do a remote mount.
I know it will work, but I doubt we'll see the gains we would if compared to a "reg" setup you know? It would be my opinion that it would cost more to do a remote mount on our cars than it would be to do a "reg".+1

Read above reasons.
I have seen recently an s4 na short block for 100, an s4 tii for 150, and an s5 short block for 150. Tii tranny's can be had all day for 100-250 depending on seller. Put them on a pallet and it's 150 more to ship it to your door.
alright enough with the semantics.

I can attest to that. My clutch is nearly toast but the NA tranny is still perfect.

The problem with a remote mount on an FC is space. Have you been under the car to see where you could put one? It would have to be all the way in the back (in one of the muffler spaces). Now that the turbo is back there, you have to plumb intake piping all the way back to the front, most likely occupying the same space that the HOT exhaust is already filling.

Doesn't seem like something I would want to attempt when a 6 port turbo is so easy to do.

As far as this particular facet of the debate goes:

The C5 around here running this setup puts out a little over 580whp at 6psi. Up from its previous 390-410 in with various exhaust setups (engine also had other mods). Now, if you were to put a traditional set of turbos in the engine bay, maybe it would make 600-610 at 6psi? Hard to say, but the difference is very negliable make no mistake about it. Its not like running a turbo in the rear automatically means its 50% less efficent. Either setup would be VERY comparable when you omit the install/fab headaches of doing a rear mount turbo. Shit, Randy even has EMP on his setup and 6psi of MAP there's only 6.75psi EMP which is an extremely close ratio (edit: yes clsoe ratio for "low" boost, but nonetheless.)

I wasn't trying to make a comparison. I just wanted to see if someone had done it.

I stated that it would be an effective way of giving an NA engine a bit of extra go. I said nothing about trying to get the most power out of an NA.

But then what about the turbo, manifolds, wiring harness, sensors, an exhaust to mate with the turbo manifolds, TII hood for going top mount, or a big front mount?

As I said, I have never seen a TII longblock for 400 bucks.


But look at it this way. Everyone used to say there was no way of getting power out of an NA FC. Everyone said it was impossible to turbo one without it blowing up within a few hundred miles.

But people still tried it and did it successfully.

Maybe the remote mount is the same way?

Success is relative though. THe person who goes turbo 6 port may be satisfied with the money put into the mod. They might be satisfied with the power and reliability. They might be satisfied with their uniqueness.

In the end their satisfaction/ "success" may not be what I consider successful. I'd rather spend the money on a TII swap and modify it from there (for less money /same performance.)

perhaps the remote mount turbo is like that.

Best way is to do it and show us the results.