Rear Mounted Turbos

[Jat_172cup]

Anyone heard/experienced one of these? Came across it on a website, looks intresting...

http://www.balancemotorsport.co.uk/...ar+Mount+Turbocharging&category=Turbocharging

 

[Riley!]

lots of pipe work needed

 

[Jat_172cup]

but still, would be intresting to see it on a clio

 

[Englebert]

I've seen turbos mounted lower down the system but was under the impression it caused lag?

Also looks a bit retarded...

 

[theduck]

Looks cool as f**k! Havent read that article, I will now!

 

[Jat_172cup]

Im sure it could be covered..the price for a universal kit is £1725!! bargain imo. If everyone on cliosport put a tenner or so in. we could test it on one of the cars...lol

 

[Yellow Dave]

I read about that long ago and it never took off. Apparently the drive was absolutely aweful. Think of the lag that system would create! Not an ideal place to be having vunerable pipework running under the car either. And an airfilter under the rear beam and petrol tank. I think NOT. better not drive on a wet day with any standing water! lol

 

[Jonff]

I read about that long ago and it never took off. Apparently the drive was absolutely aweful. Think of the lag that system would create! Not an ideal place to be having vunerable pipework running under the car either. And an airfilter under the rear beam and petrol tank. I think NOT. better not drive on a wet day with any standing water! lol

+1

All it'd take is one of those nasty high speed humps to cause some expensive damage.

 

[veloce]

Yellow Dave
Re: Rear Mounted Turbos
I read about that long ago and it never took off. Apparently the drive was absolutely aweful. Think of the lag that system would create! Not an ideal place to be having vunerable pipework running under the car either. And an airfilter under the rear beam and petrol tank. I think NOT. better not drive on a wet day with any standing water! lol


that's a pretty retarded comment....
if you think about the volume of air a turbo moves you'll appreciate the lag to fill small increase in inlet volume is negligible. vulnerable pipework? what more vulnerable than brake pipes? airfilter under the car but much higher than some factory intakes - eg M3 E46's regularly hydro lock as the intake is so low at the front. i don't know why people don't think before posting stuff.

 

[veloce]

i've just reread the magazine and they loved it?! also these things are big in the states where there's no room under the bonnet on big v8's and the clio isn't exactly brimming with space under the bonnet

 

[BenR]

You loose a LOT of energy by the time exhaust gasses reach the rear of the car....its an inefficient way to run a turbo.

 

[veloce]

that is true you do lose a lot of energy but there is lots to spare. if it didn't work then fair enough but it does. the mag said no more lag than a normal turbo

 

[BenR]

oh sorry......right, the mag.

 

[Matteh]

you'd wake up one morning and someone would have nicked it!

 

[Waitey]

Been tried a lot on MX-5. Called the 'turboot' lol

It failed miserably.

Just like most of the US ones do. Anyone remember the BMW M6 with this set up?

 

[Waitey]

Yellow Dave
Re: Rear Mounted Turbos
I read about that long ago and it never took off. Apparently the drive was absolutely aweful. Think of the lag that system would create! Not an ideal place to be having vunerable pipework running under the car either. And an airfilter under the rear beam and petrol tank. I think NOT. better not drive on a wet day with any standing water! lol


that's a pretty retarded comment....
if you think about the volume of air a turbo moves you'll appreciate the lag to fill small increase in inlet volume is negligible. vulnerable pipework? what more vulnerable than brake pipes? airfilter under the car but much higher than some factory intakes - eg M3 E46's regularly hydro lock as the intake is so low at the front. i don't know why people don't think before posting stuff.

Small Increase? The volume of piping from front to back is huge!

 

[veloce]

how would you define success or failure with a rear mount turbo?

 

[veloce]

Small Increase? The volume of piping from front to back is huge!

again define huge? you are speaking without thinking !!!!

 

[BenR]

success isnt a it works/doesnt work issue.

If you have a wart on your hand, is amputation of the entire limb considered a successful cure?

Fact is that mounting a turbo in that position is highly inefficient, even if it does make more power than the stock engine would. If the turbo was mounted in the traditional position and generated a less mediocre power delivery and output....surely that is more of a success and worth the minor amount of extra effort.

 

[Gumby]

There is probably about 35,000cm3 more volume in that tubing lol

 

[veloce]

success isnt a it works/doesnt work issue.

If you have a wart on your hand, is amputation of the entire limb considered a successful cure?

Fact is that mounting a turbo in that position is highly inefficient, even if it does make more power than the stock engine would. If the turbo was mounted in the traditional position and generated a less mediocre power delivery and output....surely that is more of a success and worth the minor amount of extra effort.

what are you rambling on about? no one is saying it's better or worse than front mount here just trying to bring some sanity to the post ! if you look at some of the dyno results of these you will see they deliver as much or more hp per lb of boost at the engine. success or failure? yes the power curve is different but do you really want a great wallop of torque on a fwd car for instance?

 

[veloce]

There is probably about 35,000cm3 more volume in that tubing lol

hilarious. that would mean a 2 " pipe nearly 45 metres long !!

if a clio is 4.2 m long a 2 pipe running the length of the car would be 3.3 litres in volume
in a traditional set up lets say it was 1.5m (no FMIC here) then that would be 1.18 litres.

at 200 hp lets say roughly 200cfm that would be 93 litres in a second.
so the 4.2 m pipe would take 0.04 seconds to fill and the 1.5 metre pipe 0.01 seconds. so yes looking at percentages there is a big increase there but seriously it's not the volume of the tube that is going to cause "lag".

 

[veloce]

"Think of the lag that system would create! "

the point i am trying to make is people don't do that. they don't think. they just talk.

 

[Yellow Dave]

Maybe you should think before you come out with a comment such as calling it retarded???? a little rude and unjust would you not say?????

I Know what the mag said. I've already read it. And I also remember that when they 1st came about the drive was pure pants, quoted from the guys that tried it years ago, not me. Hence why it never took off.

A lot more spray is generated from under your car to directly affect the airfilter, than from the car in front affecting the air feed before it hits the airfilter. The odd stone/ boulder flies up and catches a brake line does it not? Have it hit the airfilter, possibly knock it off, un filtered air into your turbo. have it catch a vacum hose on the turbo/ actuator, bring on the unlimited boost boys, yee-haaaa!

Regardless of what I say. It never caught for a reason for what ever issues they are!

 

[Cupster]

Awaits 'some bugger nicked me turbo' thread!

 

[veloce]

Maybe you should think before you come out with a comment such as calling it retarded???? a little rude and unjust would you not say?????

I Know what the mag said. I've already read it. And I also remember that when they 1st came about the drive was pure pants, quoted from the guys that tried it years ago, not me. Hence why it never took off.

A lot more spray is generated from under your car to directly affect the airfilter, than from the car in front affecting the air feed before it hits the airfilter. The odd stone/ boulder flies up and catches a brake line does it not? Have it hit the airfilter, possibly knock it off, un filtered air into your turbo. have it catch a vacum hose on the turbo/ actuator, bring on the unlimited boost boys, yee-haaaa!

Regardless of what I say. It never caught for a reason for what ever issues they are!

yes sorry that was not a necessary adjective apologies.

 

[shadowsun]

Just because something works doesn't make it a good idea!

 

[veloce]

sage like advice there.....

 

[bing_17]

Theres a M5 running twin rear mounted turbos, and that worked brilliant. I'll try find a link somewhere.

EDIT: http://www.zercustoms.com/news/CMC-BMW-M5-Twin-Turbo-800hp.html BEAST!!!!

 

[agithegreat]

Sorry but even simple minded me say this is a no brainer. I put my hand across my exhaust and feel naff all airflow. You want to use this naff all airflow to spin up a turbo? You're mad!

You don't use a length of wire thats 100meters off a spool as it's easier than cutting a 1 meter run do you?

 

[ditz]

wouldnt want to be running oil lines the length of the car tbh

 

[veloce]

Sorry but even simple minded me say this is a no brainer. I put my hand across my exhaust and feel naff all airflow. You want to use this naff all airflow to spin up a turbo? You're mad!

You don't use a length of wire thats 100meters off a spool as it's easier than cutting a 1 meter run do you?

that's because it's on tickover.... why don't you try going flat out wedge the throttle and then climb out the window over the car and then try that. owe you fell off. shame.

 

[veloce]

wouldnt want to be running oil lines the length of the car tbh

yeah just like brake lines. best to stick with just front brakes.

 

[Gumby]

hilarious. that would mean a 2 " pipe nearly 45 metres long !!

if a clio is 4.2 m long a 2 pipe running the length of the car would be 3.3 litres in volume
in a traditional set up lets say it was 1.5m (no FMIC here) then that would be 1.18 litres.

at 200 hp lets say roughly 200cfm that would be 93 litres in a second.
so the 4.2 m pipe would take 0.04 seconds to fill and the 1.5 metre pipe 0.01 seconds. so yes looking at percentages there is a big increase there but seriously it's not the volume of the tube that is going to cause "lag".

So maths is not your forte then?

Volume = Area x Length

In your example (presuming the internal diameter of the pipe is 50mm):

Volume = [π x r^2] x L
Volume = [π x (2.5cm x 2.5cm)] x (420cm)
Volume = [19.6] x 420cm
Volume = 8232 cc

Volume = [π x r^2] x L
Volume = [π x (2.5cm x 2.5cm)] x (150cm)
Volume = [19.6] x 150cm
Volume = 2940 cc

Remember that gases compress too.

 

[veloce]

i stand corrected it was late. still not as far off as your 35 litres was it!

 

[BenR]

I am really failing to see the arguement to all this?

Who and what is actually being discussed.

 

[veloce]

rear mount turbos?

 

[BenR]

Ah right........thanks.

I mean there is some arguement, but i'm unsure what it is about. I thought it was about the pros/cons of rear positioning, but you informed me it wasn't.

 

[veloce]

by your rational things are only worth doing if they are done in the most efficient manner.
just annoys me when you get haters on something that looks interesting and clearly works.

 

[BenR]

True, but efficiency excites me.

But at least we've come to the root of the arguments lol.