73_cuda

is it n e better to have the turbo at the back of the car or is it worse or is it the same sh*t

Turbo Jer

I assume you are referring to an exhaust mounted turbo. This setup is far less efficient, but is cheaper to fabricate and does not require an intercooler. If you are just looking for a quick, economical way to make some extra power, give 'er. Otherwise, stick to the basics.

sky_kid

As opposed to an intake mounted turbo? Or radiator mounted

Turbo Jer

Okay dick weed, my bad, I meant muffler mounted.

frost

a few vettes have rear mounted turbos because lack of space in the front.. i cant remember which ones

InfinitiStyle

yeah you will experience great amounts of lag..
there was a pic of a GNX with those.. i cant remember..

munch

actully there JUST as efficient and there is NO notciable lag

http://www.chevyhiperformance.com/te...48_0502_turbo/

http://www.ststurbo.com/testimonials

Turbo Jer

No way. You believe everything you read on the internet? How is it possible that it is just as efficient, that just doesn't make sense.

B6T

Ok look at it this way, if the air mass going through the compressor housing and the exhaust gas mass going through the turbine housing were the same volume, the turbo just wouldn't work. It relies on the extreme heat for the expansion of these gases to increase the volume going through the turbine housing, this is what gives it the ability to create mechanical energy. If there were no change in temperature, the volume of the air coming out the exhaust ports wouldn't be great enough to spin the turbine wheel fast enough to compress air through the compressor housing. So essentially, the more heat lost through before the turbine section of the turbo, the worse the performance of the turbo will be because there is less volume to drive the turbine.

2.5SPECV

yeah ive seen this before its a remote mount turbo setup, i have a link here aswell
its pretty quick in the quarter.
http://www.v6z24.com/registry/89jyturbo