Remote Turbo Set up

[i0kepa]

Ok i was watching Rides on TLC. Three companies were given a Chevy HHR to do whatever to. Anyway one of the companies did a remot turbo set up on it. So I was thinking about possibly doing a remote turbo setup on my 2.2. I tossed the idea's to a couple of guys at work and we just debated it back and forth on the reliablilty and effectiveness of it.

Here's my "theory":

A remote turbo would definitaly run alot cooler. i'm estimating about 500 degrees cooler.

I'm thinking with the turbo way out back, there's no need for a muffler at all. Also you may not even need a i/c for low boost applications like say 5-7 psi.

Problems i could see arising would be running the oil lines and getting the intake back into the engine bay. I thinkg running the intake back along the passenger side of the engine would be perfect.

If anyone ever took a look at the Turbo S-10 website they ran the exhaust from the turbo back around the passenger side of the engine. Which i think is REALLY REALLY BAD since the coil packs and the alternator are right there.

Anybody got idea's pro or con about doin this set up? I'm not looking for BLISTERING POWER but hell i think any type of low boost would be great for a bit more power and probably better mileage per gallon.??

[Rob]

STS Turbo Systems has a remote turbo system for the F-body and I believe they are working (may be finished) on one for the Tahoe/Suburban. Might want to check out their web site ( http://www.ststurbo.com/ ) and see what how they did theirs.

[i0kepa]

cool site. it pretty much confirms my theories on the turbo too.

Hey Injected you got any info on this?

[Injected]

Yeah, simply put the remote turbo setup isn't a good idea. The idea of running colder air over the turbine just doesn't make much sense and you will actually loose power from it. I still don't understand people’s aversion to intercoolers. Okay now I'll actually start rambling...

The remote turbo setup sets the turbo far away from the engine bay in the back of the car. The idea is to remove the very hot turbo from the engine bay, and they claim no more turbo lag than a normal setup due to not having to run an intercooler. This is a load of crap and comes to the wrong conclusions. Does a remote turbo setup add power, yes, of course it does, but it isn't the most efficient turbo setup and is actually worse than the traditional style.
Here's why.

The exhaust turbine is actually driven off of the pressure differences created on the two sides of the turbine. As the higher pressure gas moves over the turbines blades to equalize to the air on the other side, it turns the turbine. If you allow the compressed air on the high pressure side of the turbine to cool as it goes down the exhaust to a remote turbo, pressure is lost and thus does not spin the turbine with as great of a force, thus producing less power.

On the intake side. Whenever you compress gas it adds heat because of the natural properties of gas (I'll skip the high school physics here). On a normal turbo setup, the gas is then sent to an intercooler where two main things occur. The gas is cooled, and the pressure is dropped. Today, intercoolers are very efficient and do a great job in providing great intake charge cooling and heat dissipation, especially bar and plate intercoolers. In addition, the intake can be easily routed to the front of the car to reduce initial intake temperatures.

Now you are asking "But, what about that turbo sitting in the engine bay heating everything up?" Easy, use heat shields. Use one on the exhaust manifold, the turbo, and the down pipe. Use one on the intake, and if you still aren't satisfied, use heat wrap. On the remote setup, the air is being drawn from underneath the car and sits in a more turbulent atmosphere, not to mention the risks of merely having your intake underneath you.

And now, more about the intercooler. As I said earlier, I don’t really understand why people hate them so much. In the remote turbo setup, you don’t have one and the pipe that comes off the compressor housing goes to the intake. This is a long route, but because it is not obscured, it is very quick to pressurize and yields good boost response. But the location is not what makes it okay to run without an intercooler, it’s the low amount of boost. Much like an old roots style blower that sits practically right on the intake manifold, it offers quick boost response and no need for an intercooler. Running without an intercooler is commonly found in many aftermarket turbo- and supercharged systems that run fairly low boost. However, running an intercooler will allow significantly more power to be made on the same amount of boost.

Say that you have an engine that has boost unfriendly high compression ratio and can only run 7 pounds of boost safely. With an intercooler, you can get more power out of the same amount of boost because the cooler air packs more tightly allowing more oxygen in the same cylinder. Not only will you get this benefit though, but because of the lower intake temperatures, you can now safely run more boost, say up to nine pounds. And because that is intercooled it is more than just two pounds than the original seven pound setup without the intercooler.

The only downside is negligible. The fact that the intercooler has to be pressurized, and thus creates lag is easily remedied by selecting a good intercooler that fits your application. Besides, most applications will not even notice a real difference of maybe few rpm more of lag. I can’t really specify how much more lag because that really is determined by too many variables, but it is very negligible.

So you see a remote turbo setup is built upon mythical or over sensationalized advantages. You are much better off with a traditional style setup.
I hope this helps you and I’m sorry that I didn’t get back to you a few days ago, but things have been kind of crazy and my posting a bit sporadic. I’ll keep an eye on this thread from now on though.

[Danny_SS]

I agree with Injected + the idea behind the Remote is to be able to add a turbo to applications where the traditional turbo under the hood setup is too hard to achieve due to lack of space or because the plumbing would be just too messy not for performance reasons. As an exaplme we have the Camaro kit. ever opened the hood of a camaro? there is no room for a turbo unless you really start modiying a lot of stuff. In this case a supercharger or a remote mounted turbo would be a better option than trying to fit a twin turbo setup under the hood. I would still rather use a supercharger than the remote turbo, but the turbo is still an option.
On a 2.2 it is relatively easy to make a turbo manifold, than to mess with this remote turbo crap.

[Injected]

I agree with Injected + the idea behind the Remote is to be able to add a turbo to applications where the traditional turbo under the hood setup is too hard to achieve due to lack of space or because the plumbing would be just too messy not for performance reasons. As an exaplme we have the Camaro kit. ever opened the hood of a camaro? there is no room for a turbo unless you really start modiying a lot of stuff. In this case a supercharger or a remote mounted turbo would be a better option than trying to fit a twin turbo setup under the hood. I would still rather use a supercharger than the remote turbo, but the turbo is still an option.
On a 2.2 it is relatively easy to make a turbo manifold, than to mess with this remote turbo crap.
On these types of applications where turbos cannot fit under the hood, I think the greatest setup would be a centrifugal style supercharger with an intercooler. Still not a turbo, but has greater power potential than the old roots style chargers.

[postalpop]

has anyone done a remote on a S10 yet?
And if so wahat about some info.
Postalpop

[lafever25]

The reason Remote setups are believed to be efficient is because engineers say exhaust gases further back is cooler than off the manifold, thus being denser and having more energy to spin the turbine. A cooler turbo is super good in building power because cooler air = more power. The piping from the turbo traveling back to the engine acts as a intercooler because thats more surface area for cold air to pass by. All this info i got from the stsremote turbo site. And as hard as it might seem to understand. It does make alittle sense.

As far as the remote 2.2 turbo. I think im the only one going this route on a kit. Mainly because i like my A/C. I will finish it up very soon, I promise. I just need another vehicle to drive while im working on it.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2104451/1

[Injected]

The reason Remote setups are believed to be efficient is because engineers say exhaust gases further back is cooler than off the manifold, thus being denser and having more energy to spin the turbine. A cooler turbo is super good in building power because cooler air = more power. The piping from the turbo traveling back to the engine acts as a intercooler because thats more surface area for cold air to pass by. All this info i got from the stsremote turbo site. And as hard as it might seem to understand. It does make alittle sense.

As far as the remote 2.2 turbo. I think im the only one going this route on a kit. Mainly because i like my A/C. I will finish it up very soon, I promise. I just need another vehicle to drive while im working on it.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2104451/1
The air that reaches the remote turbo has already released some of it's power producing energy when it expanded in the exhaust system. The air expanding (change in pressure over the turbine blades) is what produces power in a turbo car, not the actually pushing of dense air over the turbine. Achieving high turbine efficiency should be the goal of a turbo setup. I would love to know the intake temperature reduction achieved by the return pipe on this system. I doubt it is much.

[TypeS10]

OK so here is what I have been thinking about. Since yes it would be a pain to do the turbo set up inthe engine bay lets move itout back. Right before the Cat there is a ood space to put a small mitsu style turbo in there. Oil pan is right there for the oil lines and with the removal of the battery there seems to be a good line back to the motor bay. I have installed an electric fan already so that to has given me more room to work with. With the turbo fairly close to the motor bay still run the plumbing for a small intercooler at the front of the truck. And from there back into the intake manifold. Just a quick thought what you think?

[Injected]

OK so here is what I have been thinking about. Since yes it would be a pain to do the turbo set up inthe engine bay lets move itout back. Right before the Cat there is a ood space to put a small mitsu style turbo in there. Oil pan is right there for the oil lines and with the removal of the battery there seems to be a good line back to the motor bay. I have installed an electric fan already so that to has given me more room to work with. With the turbo fairly close to the motor bay still run the plumbing for a small intercooler at the front of the truck. And from there back into the intake manifold. Just a quick thought what you think?

What are your goals with this truck?

[TypeS10]

Its a big freakin toy. I am going to buy anice 4 door for everyday use and then take the truck and just play with it. Come up with crazy ideas and try them out.

[Injected]

Its a big freakin toy. I am going to buy anice 4 door for everyday use and then take the truck and just play with it. Come up with crazy ideas and try them out.
Buy nitrous and set up an oversized, sequential shot and have fun. At least when you blow up the engine you can take it to the next car you have for a big toy.

[danssoslow]

The reason Remote setups are believed to be efficient is because engineers say exhaust gases further back is cooler than off the manifold, thus being denser and having more energy to spin the turbine. A cooler turbo is super good in building power because cooler air = more power. The piping from the turbo traveling back to the engine acts as a intercooler because thats more surface area for cold air to pass by. All this info i got from the stsremote turbo site. And as hard as it might seem to understand. It does make alittle sense.

As far as the remote 2.2 turbo. I think im the only one going this route on a kit. Mainly because i like my A/C. I will finish it up very soon, I promise. I just need another vehicle to drive while im working on it.

http://www.cardomain.com/ride/2104451/1

Cooler exhaust gasses are bad. The exhaust HEAT is a bigger contributing factor to the turbine spinning than the exhaust pulses themselves.
That is why the closer to the exhaust manifold the turbo is, the more efficient it is. Knowing this, the remote unit could be made more efficient through means of exhaust insulation, like Jet Hot coatings or the like, although some heat is bound to be lost.
I will agree that the extrmely long (comparatively) outlet tubing would negate the need for an intercooler. All an intercooler is is an increase in surface area to dissapate heat, which the lung tubing will do without the need of trying to fit 10' of effective surface area into a 2-3' space, thus reducing the backpressure associated with an intercooler.

[Injected]

Cooler exhaust gasses are bad. The exhaust HEAT is a bigger contributing factor to the turbine spinning than the exhaust pulses themselves.
That is why the closer to the exhaust manifold the turbo is, the more efficient it is. Knowing this, the remote unit could be made more efficient through means of exhaust insulation, like Jet Hot coatings or the like, although some heat is bound to be lost.
I will agree that the extrmely long (comparatively) outlet tubing would negate the need for an intercooler. All an intercooler is is an increase in surface area to dissapate heat, which the lung tubing will do without the need of trying to fit 10' of effective surface area into a 2-3' space, thus reducing the backpressure associated with an intercooler.
Heat isn't what contributes to the spinning of the turbo, the change in pressure across the turbine blades does. The expansion of exhaust gas dissipates heat. While adding heat wrap to the exhuaust may add to the efficeiencey of the system, it is not because of the retention of heat, it is because of the retention of pressure caused by inability to lose the pressure due to heat exchange. Also, the efficiency of an intercooler cannot be matched by a pipe for the same reasons. Not even close.

[Danny_SS]

Injected is right.
listen to him

[Injected]

Injected is right.
listen to him
Thanks Danny.

[danssoslow]

The necessity for the intercooler is the manufacturer's idealogy, not mine. And given the numbers they are able to produce in other engines, I still say it's a good setup. Not ideal by any means, sure, but given the time and experience it takes to do some modifications to put up the same or better results, the remote turbo is an attractive choice. Before I'd completely dismiss the idea, I'd like to see how much power it would add to the GM 4 cylinder. I'd be more interested what it would do to my 4.3L. :D

[Injected]

The necessity for the intercooler is the manufacturer's idealogy, not mine. I think it's more of a 'let's-respect-physics-so-our cars-don't-blow-up-and-become-known-as-unreliable-and-we-tank' ideology adopted by the manufacturers. Respect physics and it will respect you. And given the numbers they are able to produce in other engines, I still say it's a good setup. Not ideal by any means, sure, but given the time and experience it takes to do some modifications to put up the same or better results, the remote turbo is an attractive choice.
Ever wonder what hot intake temperatures, inefficient turbo setups, or other ridiculous contraptions/designs do to your engine. Well at least the companies that sell the products are going to do just fine. Before I'd completely dismiss the idea, I'd like to see how much power it would add to the GM 4 cylinder. I'd be more interested what it would do to my 4.3L. :D If you are doing this for such a purpose, please do it right and post your progress from begining to end. We are all very interested in things like structural limits, and especially interested in surpassing them.

[danssoslow]

Hey, I'm just a curious consumer here, I'm not even the mesenger. I did read the magazine articles that were posted on STS's website, and noone talks of any detrimental disadvantages as you do.
I tend to believe that magazines have a responsibility to cover thier own butts, so to believe that they all have said only good things in the name of advertising this design without a thought to the potential liability they would be facing hyping a flawed design, doesn't cross my mind.So, with all the positives they have seen firsthand, I need more firsthand technical reasons from you to disagree that the remote turbo idea is a good one.
You can balk at how it looks on paper all day long, what I need to see is some hard evidence that it is, in fact, a bad idea.

[Injected]

Hey, I'm just a curious consumer here, I'm not even the mesenger. I did read the magazine articles that were posted on STS's website, and noone talks of any detrimental disadvantages as you do.
I tend to believe that magazines have a responsibility to cover thier own butts, so to believe that they all have said only good things in the name of advertising this design without a thought to the potential liability they would be facing hyping a flawed design, doesn't cross my mind.So, with all the positives they have seen firsthand, I need more firsthand technical reasons from you to disagree that the remote turbo idea is a good one.
You can balk at how it looks on paper all day long, what I need to see is some hard evidence that it is, in fact, a bad idea.

What magazines do you read? If you get the impression that they only say good things to cover their asses, don't read that magazine. I only read those that I trust and that are full of technical discussion. Mike Kojima and Dave Coleman are two examples off the top of my head of writers who don't mind pointing out the flaws in just about everything if one should exist. If you want technical data without firsthand knowledge, then secondhand knowledge is best, though most is crap. Deducing the outcomes of theoretical and hypothetical situations is an exercise in intelligence. Some will do it well, others will be way off, and some will still have to do it, either through unfounded skepticism that cannot be quelled through rationalizing, through sheer ignorance of the facts presented, and sometimes both. And even if you are the skeptical type, I have found that skepticism itself is often a sign of either intelligence or ignorance. I would suggest spending a good amount of time learning some simple mechanical physics. Learn how 'reverse engienes' work. This is basically how intercoolers, radiators and refrigerators work. Then research intercoolers. Check out both tube-and-fin and bar-and-plate cores and the differences in pressure drop and efficiency. Then research the flow characteristics of a pipe as well as it's ability to dissapate heat and not loose pressure. If you want some sources, check out the thread that helped convince s10racer that an intercooler was a great idea for his twin turbo V8 (performance section). The decision was his to make, but when presented with a wealth of information supporting the idea of running an intercooler, he decided it was a worthy investment.

Look, I could sit here and spend my time trying to convince you that an intercooler is a great idea and to not run one is just stupid, but if you are one of those skeptics that must do it yourself, then have fun and document your results, especially intake temperatures and pressure drop.

[danssoslow]

The use of an intercooler was never an issue with me. I never said that an intercooler was useless. I'm telling you that, from the tests done by those magazine editors, is that with the cool air being ingested by the turbo coupled with the length of outlet tubing, negated the need for an intercooler with THIS system at the pressures they work within. And in all fairness, one could be added to the remote turbo system if it ever became an issue, could it not?
If you do not know what magazines I speak of, then I take it you have not been to thier website. http://www.ststurbo.com/
There you will find several articles from several magazines that have tested the system. You will also find info about the system itself. From there info, do you see discrepancies in thier design? Have they done anything to fix any potential problems you have forseen?

[Injected]

The use of an intercooler was never an issue with me. I never said that an intercooler was useless. I'm telling you that, from the tests done by those magazine editors, is that with the cool air being ingested by the turbo coupled with the length of outlet tubing, negated the need for an intercooler with THIS system at the pressures they work within. And in all fairness, one could be added to the remote turbo system if it ever became an issue, could it not?
If you do not know what magazines I speak of, then I take it you have not been to thier website. http://www.ststurbo.com/
There you will find several articles from several magazines that have tested the system. You will also find info about the system itself. From there info, do you see discrepancies in thier design? Have they done anything to fix any potential problems you have forseen?
Cooler air being injested by the turbo? From below the vehicle? Again, air from below the vehicle is more turbulent than air from the front. Not to mention that air under the vehicle is often passed through the engine bay making it not only hotter, but dirtier. Thus you will see cooler intake temperatures at the front of the vehicle so long as you do not place the intake right next to the exhaust manifold or use a better source of air such as the fender (cold air intake).

You wouldn't want to ad anything to the system, such as an intercooler. You are thinking about it the wrong way. You want the shortest route, smoothest flowing intake piping. Emphasis is more on shortest routing because it takes more energy to pressurise a system if the routing is long, but you can fairly easily pressurize a less smooth flowing pipe.

If you think STS's own website will pick out the flaws in their systems, then you are mistaken. A remote mount turbo is a compromise. It is a decent compromise, but if you can go with a more traditional style of setup, then do so. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, it's all about application. But if you want boost in this type of application though, a centrifugal style supercharger with an intercooler is a better opiton than a remote turbo.

[Rob]

I agree with Injected, that's why I'm building my own centrifugal supercharger system for my 4.3 (which I am running an intercooler). I bet I will be able to make more power with less boost than if I fabed up a remote turbo set up. In the long run the gains may not be worth the cost.

Don't get me wrong though, it is a very interesting idea and design and it seems to work pretty well, but a traditional set up would work better I think.

[danssoslow]

I agree with Injected, that's why I'm building my own centrifugal supercharger system for my 4.3 (which I am running an intercooler). I bet I will be able to make more power with less boost than if I fabed up a remote turbo set up. In the long run the gains may not be worth the cost.

Don't get me wrong though, it is a very interesting idea and design and it seems to work pretty well, but a traditional set up would work better I think.

When you say your own supercharger system, do you mean you are not going the kit route and building from scratch? If your doing the scratch thing, kudos to you.

I'll agree that the remote couldn't be optimal. And if I were planing to go the turbo route I'd probably opt for a different direction. A GN engine would be the granddaddy, but I like the novelty of the remote idea. Expecialy when you pop the hood on someone, and all they see is a stock engine. It all makes for good benchracing, either way.

By the way, STS has twin turbo kits, too. :D

[Danny_SS]

The whole idea of a remote turbo on a 4cyl is just pointless. There is no benefit in installing a remote turbo when a turbo sitting by the engine is soooo much easier, not to mention that it will perform better. I have seen it done to a Sonoma that I saw at the track.
If you want the "stealth" of the remote turbo mount then add a hidden direct port NOS setup that will cost a lot less.

I would not even bother with a turbo setup on a 2.2 period since you will spend too much money to run what a stock 4.3 can run, but if YOU choose to have one, go for the traditional turbo by the engine setup and run a nice intercooler.

[TypeS10]

Remote turbo, traditional set up, supercharger, NOS. Who cares as long as you are trying to do somthing to your dime or noma then props to you. As far as the waste of time just get a 4.3 comment we always get in the tech 4cyl sections SHUT UP. You see the joy of the 4 cyl motor is the under dog theory. If i can beat you A** with a smaller motor then haha. keep in mind that GM just built a 1000hp cobalt with uses a what oh yea a 4 cyl. Now yes they did alot of work to that motor but all in all they had the original block and orginal head casting. If you really want to boost your dime then do it, but make sure you take the right percautions such as... Get a good boost controller. If you create to much boost BOOM. no more motor. Go to a machine shop and see what they can do about getting you a better set of rods and pistons. Fuel ... Definetly get a stand alone system so that you can adjust your fuel pressure on the fly. Hands are tired. Done typing.

[Rob]

keep in mind that GM just built a 1000hp cobalt with uses a what oh yea a 4 cyl.

Now your comparing apples to oranges. The new Ecotec is a engine designed to make power from the begining. It is a TOTALLY different engine than the 2.2L that is the S-Truck, so you can just stop there. The 2.2L in the S-Truck was built for economy reasons and maybe to pull a small load. The Ecotec is GM's drag racing engine, you don't see GM using any other 4 cylinder. If you want to keep a 4 cylinder in your S-Truck and want to make more power than a 4.3L or even V8, the swap in an Ecotec. Just my $.02.

[Rob]

When you say your own supercharger system, do you mean you are not going the kit route and building from scratch? If your doing the scratch thing, kudos to you.

That is exactly what I'm doing. I can build my own set up for about half the cost for a kit, and mine will hopefully have an intercooler. If your interested in the progress of the project keep checking here (http://mys10.net/showthread.php?t=1936).

[danssoslow]

That is exactly what I'm doing. I can build my own set up for about half the cost for a kit, and mine will hopefully have an intercooler. If your interested in the progress of the project keep checking here (http://mys10.net/showthread.php?t=1936).

Yeah, I found that shortly after I posted that. I actualy felt a little doofy for not looking before asking. :o I'm keeping up with the progress on that, keep up the good work!

I've been spending alot of time on the GN/T Type sites lately, doing some oogling. Screw N/A! Supercharging is teh poopness!

[j-ville2x4]

forget a remote turbo system. drop a V8 in your truck, and turbo charge that if you want to.

[Injected]

forget a remote turbo system. drop a V8 in your truck, and turbo charge that if you want to.
Why stop there? Get a V12 and quad turbo that!!! :rolleyes:

[TypeS10]

Why do that when you could just strap a jet motor on top and literally blow the competition away!

[danssoslow]

Why do that when you could just strap a jet motor on top and literally blow the competition away!

Then there's issues with reinforcing the roof of the truck, burnt paint, noise ordances, etc. Not worth the effort in my opinion. :p