Sooo. what does everyone think about the Rear mount turbo? - Page 3 - NJFBOA - Home of New Jersey's Camaros and Firebirds

2001orangess · 02-16-2006, 03:09 AM

i wanted something different. i seen camaros that went na, super charged and nitrous. there weren't that many turbo ones. so i decided to go turbo. when i 1st got the turbo kit, it was only out for a little bit. that episode with the two guys garage wasn't even out yet. other turbos were still in devlopment. so i went with something that worked.
i also tried to get the most hp with a stock block. i wanted to push that car to its limit. the motor blowing didn't even bother me. if it did, i would just swap it out with something else.

also i wonder how much less effiicent a rear mount is compared to a front mount

redbanditZ28 · 02-16-2006, 09:56 AM

I think it also comes down to Street legal and emissions legal. I mean to say you run a front mount turbocharger is impressive. But when you can run a turbo that is rear mount and have it pass NJ inspection, i think thats even a bigger feat. I'm not saying one is better than the other. Its just that this rear mount gives people the option of keeping it street legal and passing inspection without having to take the whole thing off or paying off some private inspection guy.

79dizZy28 · 02-16-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Savage_Messiah

You've got one of those??

i wish, but i do need a daily driver and will be shopping around this summer for something along those lines.

Shrek · 02-16-2006, 04:40 PM

The rear mount turbo is just as efficient, if not more, read the info...there is no need for the intercooler, it still makes the power, and you can safely run larger amounts of boost with out too many problems...this is my opinion, but i'd rather go turbo than blower, and rather go rear than front...but who the hell am i right?

Shrek

2001orangess · 02-16-2006, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrek

The rear mount turbo is just as efficient, if not more, read the info...there is no need for the intercooler, it still makes the power, and you can safely run larger amounts of boost with out too many problems...this is my opinion, but i'd rather go turbo than blower, and rather go rear than front...but who the hell am i right?

Shrek

no i understand about the info but its probably from the manufactuer..i mean does the tornado really give you hp

Brando56894 · 02-16-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2001orangess

no i understand about the info but its probably from the manufactuer..i mean does the tornado really give you hp

the dyno in the infomercial says it does

curt86iroc · 02-16-2006, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shrek

The rear mount turbo is just as efficient, if not more, read the info...there is no need for the intercooler, it still makes the power, and you can safely run larger amounts of boost with out too many problems...this is my opinion, but i'd rather go turbo than blower, and rather go rear than front...but who the hell am i right?

Shrek

a rear mount is in no way as efficient as a front mount. remember, the longer you pump a fluid, the more frictional loss will occur. if you look at a front and rear mount turbo, both with the same rotor diameter, rpm and flow rate, the front mount will be more "efficient."

now, if you are talking mechanical eficiency (which i do not think you are) then you are correct. the mechanical efficiencies would be equal.

Shrek · 02-17-2006, 04:57 AM

yes, actually i was talking about both, i understand that there will be some hp loss, but the loss isn't great enough to really give a ****... I was talking about how far the boost has to travel, most people are like wtf? but it eliminates the need for the intercooler...doesn't sound to inefficient to me...and as far as the research goes, this is actually doing research on the product, not what the manufacturer has to say, yes i posted a link to their website, but there have been several articles in magazines as well as on tv...

Shrek

JL8Jeff · 02-17-2006, 08:40 AM

There really isn't a hp loss because they mount a different turbo at the rear vs the front. It's a complete package and if it's designed for 100 hp then they put a turbo in that will make 100 hp. Obviously, the same turbo mounted at the rear will make less powere than the same turbo mounted up front, but that's why they run a different turbo in the rear. No need for an intercooler so it can run more boost than the same turbo mounted up front. I would rather have a pair of front mount turbos than run all the extra stuff for a rear mount. If was gonna run extra piping under the car, it would have to be for a true dual exhaust setup, not a rear turbo. But that's just me.

qwikz28 · 02-17-2006, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JL8Jeff

There really isn't a hp loss because they mount a different turbo at the rear vs the front. It's a complete package and if it's designed for 100 hp then they put a turbo in that will make 100 hp. Obviously, the same turbo mounted at the rear will make less powere than the same turbo mounted up front, but that's why they run a different turbo in the rear. No need for an intercooler so it can run more boost than the same turbo mounted up front. I would rather have a pair of front mount turbos than run all the extra stuff for a rear mount. If was gonna run extra piping under the car, it would have to be for a true dual exhaust setup, not a rear turbo. But that's just me.

and the piping runs where subframe connectors will go so you would have to ditch those or only run them on one side. that was a HUGE deciding factor for me

Tru2Chevy · 02-17-2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qwikz28

and the piping runs where subframe connectors will go so you would have to ditch those or only run them on one side. that was a HUGE deciding factor for me

That depends on the piping and the sfc's....I've seen pics of setups where there just incorporated the mounting tabs for the pipe into the sfc mount. I should have saved them.....

- Justin

2001orangess · 02-18-2006, 01:48 AM

or if you don;t have a sub frame, you can get one side done when you get the kit done :P

btw if there was front turbo set up back than that didn;t costover 6 grand (i think it was qmp and i think it was that much) i would have bought that instead

Ian · 02-18-2006, 08:42 PM

here is my take on this:

the front mount turbo will always be more efficient than the rear mount. why? because its the expanding hot exhaust gases that spin the turbo, not simply the volume of it and how fast its coming out (although those two do play a role in it). the rear mount is further away and therefore the exhaust cools down a lot by the time it gets there. the front mount is only a foot or so down stream from the head so the exhaust is still expanding, meaning it will spool faster and create more boost.

the rear mount doesnt need an intercooler because the pressurized air has to travel the length of the car to get where its going. While this is helpful, it also means the turbo has to make more boost than a front mount because it has more pipe to pressurize that a front mount. so a front mounted turbo wouldn't have to work as hard as a rear mounted one would. the intercooler used in front mount applications isnt really that huge of a restriction, and even if it is, the fact that the front mount is more efficient will porvide enough pressure to where the restriction isnt a big deal.

also, I'm not too crazy about running an oil line all the way to the back of the car. I'm sure its shielded, but I'm just not comfortable with it. however, it does create a nice drop in oil temp by the time it gets back there.

the last thing is the price. there are a lot of guys making their own front mount turbo kits with truck manifolds flipped upside down. that obviously makes it a bit cheaper than buying turbo manifolds. but you just cant beat the price and convieniance (sp?) of the sts rear mount setup.

thats my story and I'm sticking to it!