Supra Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo 6spd
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
i know there is a company that makes LS1 and honda type R turbo kits that mount the turbo in the rear.

i was wondering if anyone has thought about this set up? it would be a lot of piping but if clearance wasn't an issue, would it be a pretty good set up?

pros would be:

weight distribution would be better with the turbo in the back.
intake air temp would be slightly cooler. under hood engine temp would be cooler withOUT the turbo :)

cons: a lot of piping, clearance issues, long ass oil/water cooling lines, pressure loss and possibly lag.

i've ridden in my friends' Camaro SS with this rear mounted turbo kit and it felt pretty nice. it was a "weird" set up.. but it was still pulling really good and worked just fine. he had a FRONT MOUNT INTERCOOLER though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
703 Posts
I remember reading about this. Kind of an interesting concept as it is very unorthodox. I found this interesting article that claimed it lowered the temperature of the turbo and that there wasn't as much lag as expected, as the article says here:

"Since these systems are uniquely designed to function at the rear of the vehicle, it operates without any noticeable lag and will produce full boost below 3,000 rpm. This is because the intake-tubing volume is about the same size as most traditional turbos that are front-mounted with an intercooler. The system is a true bolt-on kit that can usually be installed in an afternoon. In an F-body, the intake tubing is routed under the car on the driver's side. The tubing's exposure to ambient air alongside the car also serves to cool the charge. Tests have shown that turbo outlet temps with 5-psi boost measured 175 degrees F (at the rear of the car) and dropped to 115 degrees F at the intake discharge up front. The pressure drop was 1/4 to 3/4 psi. The bottom line is that the intake tube acts as an intercooler, dropping the rear-mounted turbo temp (which is already lower than engine compartment installations) about 50 percent and with a very small drop in psi."


http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/techarticles/148_0502_turbo/ :dunno:


Oh yea Jason, you should swing by one last time because curtis and I are moving out into different places by the end of may.

-Jason
 

·
Registered
1994 Toyota Supra Turbo 6spd
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
i dont think even with a rear mounted turbo set up like that you can run withOUT an intercooler. it MIGHT make the intake temps cooler but i'm almst certain you would still need an intercooler. that was the case in my friends' camaro SS. after he got the FMIC, he claimed that the intake air temps went WAY DOWN.

maybe he can post up on here. he posts under "zombiess"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts
It would be foolish to mount the turbo anywhere else but in the front on a supra. The F-body kit came about due to lack of space in the front. Originally STS came up with the kits for trucks because they were very easy to install and reasonably priced vs other options.

On an f-body the engine bay is very cramped and there is not a whole lot of room to mount a turbo. It can be done, but it's not cheap and it definately makes working on the car more difficult. You lose exhaust volume due to the temps dropping a few hundred degrees by the time it get to the turbo. To make up for that you run a smaller turbine housing.

I have a t67 on my car right now with a .81 housing p-trim. I see full boost by 3500. Car makes great power.

Supras came with a turbo in the front, keep it there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
I've read a ton of reviews on the STS setup... Supposedly it is an awesome concept and works very well. I'm curious to hear more about it on your SS.
 

·
Old School
Joined
·
314 Posts
On a Supra that would be extremely laggy and pointless since there is enough engine bay space. You would lose so much heat energy with a rear mounted turbo that I can't imagine a small turbo even spooling.
 

·
Mr2 Owner :-D.
Joined
·
300 Posts
I was speaking with my friend i remeber saying that there would be huge lag. His response was this, "Depending on the Waste gates setting you can get more exaust to flow through so it will spool faster."

Don't get angry with me lol its his thought not mine. But the +'s are cooler air and cooler engine bay. If you look at the Thread whats the MKIV achilles Heel most people say wieght and the engine bay gets to hot.

~any problems PM me lol i am still learning about these forums
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
BLKZ06 said:
I put my turbo where the passenger usually sits. That way i can see it spooling up while I drive.
:) Go to the STS website and read all the articles. Tons of accolades for this product. They only make the kit for a few vehicles. But it does make me want to slap a turbo on a Suburban or Yukon and tear up the streets!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
I'm sure THEIR site will say many good things.

I think that only in cases where thet turbo will not fit under the hood is a legit case for this option but at that point I'd consider a supercharger.

Start a thread in technical section and a few of us will discuss the technical pros and cons to this and not just what other people claim.

suprajake said:
:) Go to the STS website and read all the articles. Tons of accolades for this product. They only make the kit for a few vehicles. But it does make me want to slap a turbo on a Suburban or Yukon and tear up the streets!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
silvino said:
I'm sure THEIR site will say many good things.

I think that only in cases where thet turbo will not fit under the hood is a legit case for this option but at that point I'd consider a supercharger.

Start a thread in technical section and a few of us will discuss the technical pros and cons to this and not just what other people claim.
It is quite obvious you posted without doing your homework...


These "articles" I speak of are from various car magazines (NOT STS!!!) who have featured a vehicle equipped with this turbo or have product tested the remote turbo set-up.

These "other people" are magazine writers and editors... who better to listen to than non-biased people who have installed, tested, and driven the product?

Why try to discuss something you know nothing about!?!

http://www.ststurbo.com/magazine_articles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
I've discussed this product before on various boards. This system doesn't defy physics itself so don't fool yourself into thinking that not having a system won't let me give valid input.

If you think articles by a magazine aren't biased, you have a lot to learn. Magazine articles can be entertaining most of the time but I hardly consider them the end all of opinions.

When you have the balls to post something about this on the tech forum, go for it and we'll discuss this in better details.

suprajake said:
It is quite obvious you posted without doing your homework...


These "articles" I speak of are from various car magazines (NOT STS!!!) who have featured a vehicle equipped with this turbo or have product tested the remote turbo set-up.

These "other people" are magazine writers and editors... who better to listen to than non-biased people who have installed, tested, and driven the product?

Why try to discuss something you know nothing about!?!

http://www.ststurbo.com/magazine_articles
 

·
Driver Down
Joined
·
1,991 Posts
weight distribution would be better with the turbo in the back.
using a rear mounted turbo to facilitate better weight distro is retarded. Want better distro? Mount the battery in the back.. hell put two back there in a vented battery box.

Just wait till somebody drives a car equipped with the thing through a deep puddle. A) Hydrolock or B) cracked turbo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
260 Posts
silvino said:
I've discussed this product before on various boards. This system doesn't defy physics itself so don't fool yourself into thinking that not having a system won't let me give valid input.

If you think articles by a magazine aren't biased, you have a lot to learn. Magazine articles can be entertaining most of the time but I hardly consider them the end all of opinions.

When you have the balls to post something about this on the tech forum, go for it and we'll discuss this in better details.
If you knew me in person, you definitely would not talk like that to my face... nobody does!!! It's real easy to talk trash to person you know nothing about and will never see. Rather than start some meaningless waste-of-bandwidth with a thread-bashing-cyber-brawl, I will be the bigger man and show you some respect.

The magazines I am referring to are used as sources of information, not necessarily for entertainment purposes (we're not talking about Star or National Inquire). They inform the public of new products and their performance. The goal of the publication is to provide a non-biased evaluation of an event or subject. Think about it... have you ever read an article that bashed a product due to its poor performance? I sure have! Featured articles are NOT paid advertisements!!!! ONCE AGAIN... you didn't read the articles! So here is a synopsis: I am not affiliated with STS. I am not endorsing STS. I do not own a STS product. I am not selling STS products or any other products for that matter. Some guys who are not affiliated with STS installed and dynoed the turbo system on a vehicle. They wrote about the installation and performance and published the results in a magazine for all who want know. This is the same process that the members of Supraforums follow!

On the other hand, even biased information can be valuable. Have you ever read a manufacture's product brochure? Or visited the manufacturer’s website? How about a vendors description of a product. Guess what... all biased!!!

I hate unsubstantiated claims just as much as you indicated. We have this in common, as I've mentioned this in other posts as well. If a person doesn't have first hand knowledge, they should "shut up and color!" Otherwise, they're just blowing hot air. Who cares? I sure don't care if Billy Bob knows a guy who heard his cousin knew a guy who heard something about something. It's all hear-say. Not valid.

Now if you want to attempt to discuss "physics" of a product... unless you are an engineer-type, product developer, installer, have first hand experience, or actually own the product, (which you may be all of these… and I may be all of these), all your doing is speculating and perhaps making yourself look stupid to those readers who do actually know the "physics" of what is going on. That's your prerogative. Meaningless threads suck.

I am an advocate of meaningful discussion. A person has the right to state an opinon, or ask questions, but they shouldn’t fall back on their high school science class and make 1000’s of posts pretending they know what they are talking about… no matter where a thread is posted. I believe the term is “poser”.


As far as I’m concerned, ZombieSS is the only person so far with a valid/objective post on this thread. If you read my first post I was simply requesting more information from him. ZombieSS would be considered the “resident expert”.

Just what exact "techinical pros and cons" can you contribute to the discussion?

I've wasted too much of your valuable time, as well as my own!

Let's move on.....

Peace. :hug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,687 Posts
This part of the forum is for reviews, not this type of discussion. I'll ask you again to move it to tech if you want to discuss the merits of this technology.

It's pretty sad that you took my last post as a personal challenge but I guess I shouldn't have expected less from you seeing your reading comprehension abilities so far. If you have a personal problem with me I'm at almost every national Supra event should you feel the need to confront me. I talk to everyone the same so don't think you're special just because I can't see you. You're the only one bringing drama into this.

I should add that I'm an engineer by trade but that shouldn't ever give you the right to question someone's ability to discuss topics like this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,991 Posts
I think I would be slightly skeptical about mounting a turbo which when under load, the turbine housing exceeds 600 degrees, right next to/underneath my gas tank. :sadwavey::stickpoke
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
One thing that I can never understand is why there are so many people who don't buy the way this turbo works. Its like say if you pour water out of a glass it won't hit the ground, then unless you throw it in the air, hence I said pour! SupraJake who probably owns a Supra still finds an innovative way to look at something of the same design. Silvino I am in no way bashing you but go to the sts web site and it shows a tacoma puting the sts to the test. It passes through water and mud, not to say that you should but its good to know that it can. As for me I love the Supra more than anything and the front mounted turbo on it doesn't mean than I shouldn't accept a new form of boosting.
 

·
Under Construction
Joined
·
763 Posts
OK. Name one advantage to a rear mounted turbo besides "weight distribution".
I would suggest that you learn the turbo basics by reading "maximum boost" by Corky Bell.

VVVVVV-its still stupid.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top