Anybody Care To Weigh In On The Idea Of Mounting A Turbocharger In The Back Of A Car?

Here Is The Company's FAQ Page: http://www.ststurbo.com/f_a_q But Also Be Sure To Cruise The Rest Of The Site! (No, I Don't Work For Them)

... Now Shockingly Enough, There Is No Kit For The /6 , But Their "Universal" Application Is Interesting...

Perhaps Compare This Odd Turbo To A Purpose Built (I Don't Work Here Either) Supercharger? http://www.thesuperchargerstore.com/craigoconnor.html

Ponderous...

seen the superchargerstore before many times here. the last discussion had them at around 3k for the unit.

seen that duster before too.

Rear mount turbos, seems you either hate them or love them.

STS seems to be able to make them work ok, despite all of the venom the kits get on turbomustangs.com and such. Motor Trends' June issue had 5 tuner cars vs. a Z06 (all the tuners had boost, hmmm...) and the GTO with an STS setup (and a 7.5 liter motor) made almost 790 RWD hp, but they did talk about some lag in the figure 8 test. Others have said they don't have lag. STS seems to have made some hp with the kits, either way.

Personally, the only reason I would do it is if the engine compartment is too cramped. The /6, on the other hand, is almost ideally suited to hanging a turbo right off the side of the motor.

Also, the rear mount turbos seem to be more suited for trucks or cars with large muffler areas (i.e. Comaro's with the muffler in the back). I would think a Valiant or Duster wouldn't have the room to mount a turbo in the area where the muffler sits without it hanging too low.

Just my 2 cents.

_________________
'15 Chrysler 200S V6
'74 Duster 360, factory 4 speed car

They do work. If sized right they can work without lag. But they do tend to work better on bigger engines. And with the /6 being so easy to mount a turbo I feel it is a waste of time. There is a Corvette that runs 178 MPH threw the 1/4 with one of STS's kits so yea they can make power. But the truth is it would be cheaper to install the turbo up front on a slant. Even if you just bolt the turbo to the factory exhaust manifold you can make pretty good power.

A few advantages that the remote mount does have though are the turbo doesnt see as much heat, there forth it will last a very long time (if the oiling system is right). Also you are adding the weight of the turbo to the rear of the car instead of up front (weight tranfer). Plus the compressed air is cooler because the turbo is cooler and has farther to go through the pipes which helps cool it even more. Under hood temps are better (cooler) with a remote mount. But temp is something you need to drive the turbo effeicantly.

Transeint response (part throttle performance ) is not as good on them even if they do spool fairly quick. Also they are illegal in any NHRA sanctioned race. The extra expeinse in adding a oiling system plus extra piping can cost more than a simple setup like you could get by with on a /6. A Slant Six does not have as much exhaust energy as most engines that they are using these turbo kits on. It "may" require special size piping & exhaust heat wrap to get the /6 to drive a remote mount turbo very good. If this was on a D150 where you could mount it right behind the tranny it would help with driving the turbo.

This does not mean it would not work, like I said sizing the turbo (exhaust side mainly) right has a lot to do with it. But I think on the /6 it would be cheaper,perform better & be easier to mount it under the hood.

Jess

Why are they illegal in NHRA ???

Rick

I thought, general case, you wanted the turbo as close as possible to the exhaust port (heating and mounting issues aside). Otherwise, the exhaust gas has time to finish expanding and cooling down, and in doing so it looses energy.

Oil pump in the back?

I could see NHRA being nervous about the possibility of having a rear mount turbo pump a bunch of oil onto the track.

Just a guess.

_________________
'15 Chrysler 200S V6
'74 Duster 360, factory 4 speed car

Exactly the reason most conventional turbo people think rear mounts are a waste of time.

Real world examples don't seem to have shown that to be the case, though. They probably aren't as efficient, but the "heat energy" argument doesn't seem to have played out like people think it should. If it had, STS would be out of business.

IMO, the distance the turbo is from the motor is broader than most think. I've seen some Indy car setups that had the turbo(s) pretty far away. The back of the car might be an extreme, but I think next to the transmission is very do-able.

I hadn't even thought about a D100. I could see it being a decent compromise if a guy already had headers and didn't want to get rid of them, on a truck.

I might still mount mine under the floorboards of my Plymouth streetrod (if I ever get back to it). I just don't see that there is much difference in exhaust length between a single turbo in front of the engine on the passenger side (ala Buick GN) or next to the transmission. At the rate I'm going, though, gas will be outlawed before I get to see if it would work.

_________________
'15 Chrysler 200S V6
'74 Duster 360, factory 4 speed car

After having to hang a bunch of rear mounted EFI components on my Dart (it has two electric pumps and a surge tank mounted just in front of the axle), I'm not particularly in favor of rear mounted turbos on an A-body, particularly not on a slant six. There's a lot of room under the hood, and very little on the undercarriage for a turbo. It's hard for me to think of a space you could put it that didn't risk having the axle hit it on a hard bump or sit very low to the ground.

_________________
"Mad Scientist" Matt Cramer
'66 Dart - turbocharged 225
My blog - Mad Scientist Matt's Lair