PDA

View Full Version : Home built rear mounted turbo ?????


6oneimpala
02-07-2006, 03:19 PM
I am considering putting a rear mounted turbo on my 63 nova, reason being that I have a 5.3 out of a 2001 Chevy Silverado, that I would like to leave as close to stock as possible except the whole 10 to 20lbs of boost thing. The reason I like the rear mounted location is ease of installation, normal headers, no intercooler ect. What all would I need as far as wastegates and componets like that to get this working. Any opinions would be nice, I really think that this would work and not cost a arm and a leg.

V8bug
02-08-2006, 06:59 PM
To start with I am no turbo expert, although someday I hope to be, but I personal don't like the idea of a rear mounted turbo for a couple reasons.

First off the oil issue, you would have to have engine oil go too the turbo and then drain into some tank and then be pumped back to the engine. That does not quite fit the KISS law to me.

And secondly, if I am not mistaken, my thermodynamic class tought me that the turbo is using thermal energy from the exhaut gases to transform into work to spin the compressor and make boost. As soon as the exhaust leaves the engine it starts to cool, by the rear of the car you could almost put our hand on the exhaust pipe, meaning there would be less energy then near the engine. I guess you could insulate the intire exhaust system to help?

I knwo there is companies out there making rear mount turbo setups and they are making proven Hp gains. If it were me and I was going to dump the $ into a turbo setup I would put it under the hood. Not only would the plumbing be easier, in theory it would be more efficent. Not to mention I would look a whole lot cooler!!!

gEtyOpAPiOn
02-11-2006, 01:58 AM
one thing i didnt really like about a rear mounted turbo was the location of the air filter ....how aboout when it rains ???????? no thanks

hotwheels
02-11-2006, 07:47 AM
i would think you could get away with a 60-1 turbo, a good 35 to 38mm wastegate, and a turbonetic's bov.........you will also need to look at an external oil system in order to properly oil the turbo itself.....

I think it is a great idea and it should be fairly cheap to build........will surely add some power to your ride. Let me know if you need any other info on building the system, i will gladly help in any way......

Boxer
02-11-2006, 09:19 AM
Rear mounted turbos are like getting you girls breast implants put in her ass. They don't please you anymore and they look stupid.

If you want to keep the turbo/s looking subtle, run a nice low-mount manifold and make up a nice neat looking heat shield. From what I saw in the US, cops would probably never look under your hood anyway... unless you're driving a lowered DeSol with Altezza tail lights :lol:

T Bell
02-16-2006, 12:15 PM
turbos are run off of heat :_paranoid ? the exhaust flow is what makes them spool. Besides keeping the filter clean and the oiling, I don't see much else. It is a cool design because it basically uses your exhaust pipe as the intercooler.

cpd004
02-28-2006, 10:56 AM
I say try it...whats the worst that could happen other than some lost time. There must be something to it as STS is making boat loads of $$$ doing them that way.

aonghus
02-28-2006, 09:22 PM
Turbos are run off heat?

What are you guys talking about? You understand, a turbo works off the principle of how much exhaust passes through the hot site of the turbo veins, driving the set of veigns on the intake side.

Heat is the enemy of any FI application.

chuntington
03-02-2006, 07:29 AM
i think they are a great idea!

heat is energy and is importatn but STS use smaller exhaust housings to reduce spool up and counter the loss of the heat. also rear mounts dont need to eb water cooled as they run at lower temps and probably put less stress on the oil!

getting the oil back to the engine can be a problem, and some have had pumps fail. but then you could just run a dry sump and run one of the scavange pumps for the turbo! hehehehehehehehe.

Chris.

Twin_Turbo
03-02-2006, 07:57 AM
Turbos are run off heat?

What are you guys talking about? You understand, a turbo works off the principle of how much exhaust passes through the hot site of the turbo veins, driving the set of veigns on the intake side.

Heat is the enemy of any FI application.

Yes, a turbocharger is an adiabatic device and the hotter the incoming exhaust gas the more efficient the turbine, hot gas has a higher pressure and travels faster..in other words, hot gasses have more potential energy. A turbo is more than just a sort of water wheel. A hot turbo is a happy turbo.

They have something to cool the intake charge..it's called an intercooler

*rayman*
03-02-2006, 04:11 PM
check out the work these guys are doing with the ls1 commodores (pontiac gto as you know em) over here in australia:

http://www.airpowersystems.com.au/ls1/ls1.htm

6oneimpala
03-02-2006, 06:11 PM
That is a very slick turbo setup. Think outside the box !!!!!!!!!!
If rearmounted turbos didnt work these companies wouldnt make them nor would anyone purchase them.

Twin_Turbo
03-02-2006, 06:47 PM
no one said they didn't work, the difference is in the efficiency.

superpro787
03-16-2006, 01:48 PM
I don't think you'll save any time or money by going rear mount. But if I were you I would call up the company that builds these kits and buy the parts you would need then just make them fit.

Good luck and keep us updated.

Damn True
03-16-2006, 02:13 PM
That is a very slick turbo setup. Think outside the box !!!!!!!!!!
If rearmounted turbos didnt work these companies wouldnt make them nor would anyone purchase them.

Holy Moley! By that logic I'd better go out and buy a TORNADO for my intake.

ironworks
05-02-2006, 07:39 PM
don't forget splitfire plugs, or that oil stuff prolong, if it was so good what happened to it and why is not around?

nitrorocket
05-12-2006, 08:52 PM
I run a full race twin turbo front mount on my chevelle. I would definetly run a rear mount on a daily driver for simplicity and cost. One can be made for about $2k. No they will never be as effective as a front mount, but they serve there purpose for a medium performance application for sure!! :unibrow:

nitrorocket
05-14-2006, 10:44 PM
I am not on here to argue. By design, a front mount has the capability of making more power then a rear mount. I never said a rear mount will not make huge power. I think rear mounts are an excellent bang for the buck.

As far as my car, I never got to make a full pass yet. I blew my torque converter on the first pass. It went 10.50@137 with a blown converter. I replaced it with a 10" converter, 9" was to small.
It should go close to 150 mph as soon as I get time to get to the track this year. My car is 3,850 w/driver, runs on 93 octane and 17" drag radials. I have a full race turbo setup, but I only street drive the car. I will never have a fast E.T. on my drag radials. I go to the strip about twice a year.

nitrorocket
05-15-2006, 06:22 PM
Your kinda right, but a 9" is too small to hold all the torque of a turbo motor. I had a $950 Hipster converter. I now have a Niel Chance bolt together converter. I took it for the first real drive yesterday. Feels real nice and tight, The 9" was real loose under full throttle and if I floored it it would zing right to redline. The new converter holds the power excellent! :unibrow: