Remote Turbo

i was thinking about getting a remote turbo charger, ive read all the pros and cons about them and im pretty interested in getting one. But im not sure which one to get. I havent found any that are designed for my 2001 2.4L cavalier, usually the ones i see are only for trucks, fbodys, or suvs. Does it matter if its not designed for my car? Which one would be best for my car? Im only looking for about 4-7PSI of boost, nothing drastic.

What pros? There aren't any, only cons. Anyone that claims that there is any advantages with this obviously doesn't know the basics behind turbocharging. Spend your money on a real system instead.

how bout an electric turbo? I mean, a turbo with the compressor being driven by an electric motor instead of exhaust flow. Operated by push button, when you want. What rpm does a turbo usually provide adequate boost at?

i dont think you understand what a remote turbo is, a remote turbo is one where the turbo itself is sitted back just in front of the muffler. This makes it run cooler and alot easier to install. Can anyone list a few companies that make remote turbos? So far the only one play ive seen on at is http://www.ststurbo.com.

I understand just fine, but requiring that much tubing to go all the way back to the engine compartment, doesn't sound logical or efficient. Sounds to me like wasted money and made up testimonials. Would my application not be a type of remote turbo?
****************************************
courtesy of dictionary.com---
re·mote ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-mt)
adj. re·mot·er, re·mot·est

1. a. Located far away; distant in space.
. b. Hidden away; secluded: a remote hamlet.
2. Distant in time: the remote past.
3. Faint; slight: a remote possibility; had not the remotest interest.
4. Far removed in connection or relevance: a cause remote from everyday concerns.
5. Distantly related by blood or marriage: a remote cousin.
6. Distant in manner; aloof.
7. Operating or controlled from a distance: remote sensors.
8. Computer Science. Located at a distance from another computer that is accessible by cables or other communications links: a remote terminal.

n.
1. A radio or television broadcast originating from a point outside a studio.
2. A remote control device.
****************************************

Where yours would be maybe adj. def #1, would mine not be adj. def #'s 7 or 8?

i dont think you understand what a remote turbo is, a remote turbo is one where the turbo itself is sitted back just in front of the muffler. This makes it run cooler and alot easier to install. Can anyone list a few companies that make remote turbos? So far the only one play ive seen on at is http://www.ststurbo.com.
This page does only contain a lot of bullshit. The turbine is driven by heat in the massflow and the kinetic energy in the pulses, you want the turbocharger as close to the engine as possible where it can convert this energy as efficienct as possible. As the compressor needs a certain amount of power, so to make this power of the exhaust gasses that contains less energy the expansion ratio over the turbine will increase, so you will get more exhaust pressure. The lag will also become massive.

And by the way... electric driven superchargers don't work, at least the ones you can buy, they are simply just small fans that sits in the way of the airflow, in best case they doesn't reduce the power of the engine.

i thought the turbo was spun by the pressure of the exhaust, im pretty sure its not heat. And the website says the turbo is fully spooled by 3,000 RPMS. As for lag, yes their might be some, not much more than adding a intercooler. With my car i would prolly need to at 7FT of tubiing to connecting the turbo to the intake. A good intercooler could easily have that much in tubbing, but i dont need to run an intercooler if i run this. Im not looking for high PSI either, 6-8 PSI at most. As for lagging cause of the long pipe, i dont think their would be that much because of the dynamics of airflow. When air is pushed, the air molecules dont move through the air, instead they push the air molecules in front of them, like a big massive chain reaction. The webpag does that that 1/4-1/2 PSI can be lost in the pipping, but thats not a big deal to me, cause im not looking for massive performance, just something to play around with and take to the track every once in a while. I dont want to spend really more than 2G's on it. Not to mention my automotive skills are a little lacking.

As for electric superchargers, yes i think like 99% of them are all a bunch of BS, a fan cant create PSI, but a turbo can. So since i need to pay off some bills (nice amount of credit card debt) i decided to try one out, i havent gotten it yet, but it should be here withing the next 3-4weeks (it was on back order). Anyways this is the best claims ive ever seen for an electric supercharger, and it comes with a 10HP moneyback guarante. So worst case i spend a few bucks on shipping. The E-Turbo claims 800CFM airflow @ 2PSI with a 12V motor.
https://cargodzcc.hivelocity.net/cgi-bin/miva.cgi?/Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=CV&Product_Code=E-Turbo+Gen+4-1&Category_Code=pi1

if it works, great ill be happy with 10HP, if not ill just send it back and get my money back. I know of all the scams on ebay and ive searched through a ton of these things, and this one was by far the best yet. If it can produce 2 PSI, i should gain about 20HP. . .but we will just have to wait and see about it.

Exhaust pressure does not power the turbine, it is the remaining thermal energy in the exhaust that powers it. The colder the exhaust, the less energy you will be able to extract from it, and consequently you will have a slug of a turbo system. Think of it this way, if it were pressure that ran the turbine, then think what having exhaust gasses backed up against the turbine would do to your motor. Think about how much reversion would occur if it were exhaust pressure driving the turbine. The fact of the matter is the further away the turbocharger is from the exhaust ports, the colder the exhaust is going to get, and you will find very quickly that cold exhaust doesn't drive a turbocharger very well.

I could not read much of that page as it was painful to me to read so much crap in one dose. That site keeps mentioning heat as if it were some sort of issue with turbocharging, which is entirely false. Turbochargers are designed to endure torturous conditions and temperatures, and do so reliably for a long time. The turbine housing can get hot enough to glow, that is true, but that does not indicate some sort of fault in it's design.

If you wont take our word for it then here's some food for thought; Why is it that there has NEVER been a vehicle produced with a remote turbo setup?

Edit: Please don't tell me you are considering a electric turbo from cargodzcc. We have heard from them before, and needless to say they sounded like they were full of it. They would give facts and figures, then would refuse to support them or give us any proof other than their word.

ok so the remote turbo is a no go then, i was just cruious of it so thats why i asked about it here. As for the electric turbo, i want to give it a shot. I know theirs a good chance that it wont work, but you never know, this one might. With a 10HP money back guarante its by far not the worst one out there. Im not gonna be able to get a real supercharger or turbo for atleast 6 months, so this is just something to play around with.

I agree all those market electric turbo's are BS, it's a fan. I've even seen one where they said "It's similar to CPU cooling fan" HOW THE HELL DOES THAT BENEFIT YOU? those things can't produce PSI. My thought was to actually get a turbo, a real turbo. Take off the exhaust/turbine side, and use a powerful electric motor. Bolt the compressor housing to the motor housing, to an anchor point. Then attach the compressor wheel to the shaft of the electric motor. Wire this in with prollly an extra battery and some switches for charging and running. Just a thought, I'm going to be building this mostly to see how it compares to the market scams.

^^ did you look at the link of the e-turbo i bought? thats pretty much exactly what it is. . .

what is the average rpm/speed range of a turbo pushing 6psi?

3,000 rpms i think. . .dont quote me on that.

Mother of God.
I can't believe this.
Electric superchargers are a BAD idea. More drag on the charging system, less net horsepower.
Good old fashioned turbochargers, FREE horsepower.
Turbos are run on the exhaust PRESSURE, NOT HEAT.
When somebody says that heat is bad for a turbo, they probably mean extreme heat, and shutting the engine down without letting the turbo spool down first, doing damage to the bearings.
Or, they're just overworking their little turbo, over-spooling it, creating unnecessary heat.
And as far as when the turbo spools, depends on the trim of the turbine wheel, and its size.
Remote turbo? BS. no such thing. Anybody that does tout anything about it is giving you some hardcore Bull.
If you want to make your Cavalier more powerful, but don't want to spend a whole lot of money, don't expect to make a whole lot of power. LotsaBang-for-littlebuck factor is non-existent in the world of FI.
And that "tornado" thing? Utter stupidity.

Thanks for your time.

the FREAK.

no one is talking about a tornado thing. . .

i never said i dont want to spend a whole lot of money, but i got rear ended like a month ago and had to a 1,000 dollar deductable to get my car fixed, on top of that i have about 1,000 dollars worth of credit card debt right now, so my plans for the GM supercharger or a turbo charger are on hold for a bit. Did you even read the thread?
I said i want to spend about 2G's on a turbo or supercharger, the Gm supercharger is about 2G's and will put my HP up to almost 200HP. I was looking around pricing turbos and i saw a remote turbo so i asked about it. Im only looking for about 6 PSI of boost at most, that will give me well over 200HP. Im not looking to make a speed freak performance machine, just something to have fun with every now and then at the track and to beat on a few other cars that dont respect cavaliers.

Your not understanding what I'm talking about FREAK. Im making my OWN electric turbo. I need to know average turbo speed, so I can set this up to match that speed. Regardless of what it is driven by, a compressor will compress the same amount of air whether it is driven by a turbine (regular turbo) or an electric motor (my turbo) at the same RPM.

Hypothetically, lets say this turbo I'm getting produces 6psi at 3000 rpm, conventional turbo setup, exhaust turbine driven, all that. Now lets say I take the compressor housing and wheel, attach it to an electric motor with adequate torque and crank the motor up to 3000 rpm. Guess what, the turbo will still produce 6 psi. This pressure will be cooler because the turbo is not being heated by exhaust gas heat. I will have to get another battery, and wire it in with the motor and to my alternator for charging. I'm not talking bout little rinky-dink computer fans. Read the whole damn thread and understand it before responding.

3,000 rpms i think. . .dont quote me on that.
Is that turbo or engine rpm? I'm just looking for something close. More PSI is fine, that's what wastegates are for.

The operating speed of a TD05H-14B is anywhere between 7000 RPM to 170000 RPM. There is no fixed speed that the turbine spins at, it covers a wide range of speeds depending on the operating conditions. Another issue with electric turbos is the difficulty in powering a motor powerful enough to drive the compressor. Remember, electrical power is created by the alternator, which is crankshaft driven, meaning that it leaches power from the crankshaft. The more power required to drive this electric motor, the more power will need to be leached from the crankshaft by the alternator. Real turbochargers use energy that would have been wasted.

I understand what your saying completely about the alternator using crankshaft power. Hence the second or maybe third battery, to do nothing but power the motor. When not turning the compressor, a switch would be flipped to charge the battery(s) off of the alternator(s).

it would be better to buy the one ive bought, or wait till i get it then ill write a full review of it with some dyno time. As for electric motots, the real problem is finding an electric motor that runs on 12V that has enough power to compress air, you can get one that spins well over 10,000 RPMS but if it isnt strong enough to compress the air, its just gonna burn up. Thats why electric turbos at most produce 2 PSI if any at all. With electric motors its either fast but weak, like RC cars or strong and slow like an electric wheel chair. Maybe if you had the motor first hooked up to a pully system, it a bigger pully attached to a smaller one, then you might be able to take a slow strong motor and make it spin faster. . .hmm interesting. . .

Jayson...you're starting to jump on the same wavelengths as me...be careful...it's scary here

All you need to do is attach an electric motor to a centrifugal blower.... then you get electric supercharging. But you need a powerful motor that can spin at 150,000 RPM or one with lots of torque with gearing to produce enough airflow to get boost.

I hope you guys don't mind me jumping in, but I know some about turbos having started with a '63 Corvair Spyder (I hate to admit it!), and have had several real turbos since.
First, the pressure DROP across the turbo is what makes it spin. Reduce pressure drop and it will spin slower and produce less boost. So the goal is to maximize the pressure drop. That is why the downstream exhaust is always as large as possible on a turbo.
Now, what creates the pressure on the inlet to the turbo? This is where heat is a big effect. Do you remember your high school chemistry class? There is an equation PV=nRT which means Pressure times Volume equals the Number of molecules times a constant (R) times Temperature. Don't freak out; stay with me. In an exhaust system the number of molecules coming out of the engine is the same whether you measure it at the exhaust manifold or the end of the exhaust pipe. So how do you increase the pressure? Looking at the equation you have two possibilities: decrease the volume or increase the temperature. Since the volume is not fixed (exhaust flows by the turbo) the only way to increase the pressure is to keep the exhaust gas temperature as high as possible. This is where the remote turbo has a weakness. Let's pick some numbers and see the effect. If the exhaust temperature is 300° F less at the muffler (where the STS Turbo mounts), then the gas pressure will be only (373+200)/(373+500) = .66 as much (using 500°F at the manifold and 200°F at the muffler). That is a 34% reduction and I think I have used conservative numbers. I know the turbo in my T-bird commonly ran cherry-red after racing around, so I imagine a reduction of 50% would not be unreasonable.
But SRS is right that there is power that the exhaust can generate, just less than mounting the turbo on the exhaust manifold.
And then there is the question of turbo lag. This is a function of the volume between the engine and the turbo inlet and the amount of air that the turbo is trying to compress to feed the engine. Both of these are worse with a remote turbo and I would guess that the end result is more lag than an engine mounted turbo, even with the volume of an intercooler. Note that the Turbo T-birds and SVT Turbo Mustangs both used a low-volume intercooler that mounted between the turbo and the intake.
Does this help or just confuse the issue? I am lukewarm on remote turbos: they are better than not but not as good as engine-mounted turbos.

Actually we are trying to minimize the pressure ratio over the turbine since exhaust backpressure is always a bad thing.

A turbocharger is an open flow turbomachinery. It's basicly a gas turbine where the engine is the combustor, an external combustion engine so to say, which its only purpose is to provide the air needed to sustain the combustion.

A gas, when being compressed or expanded will change its enthalpy. Air have a ratio of specific heat of 1.4, so when compressing or expandning:

temperature_out=temperature_in*pressure ratio^((1,4-1)/1,4)

When we talk about compression the pressure ratio is always greater than 1, while with expansion the pressure ratio is always less than 1.

So if the compressor compresses the air to twice the intake pressure, which has an inlet temperatur of 273 K (0 degC) temperature will increase to at least:

273*2^((1,4-1)/1,4) = 333 K

Of course the temperature will increase more than that since that will require a compressor which is 100% efficienct, but for the moment I ignore that.

Air also have a certain specific heat at constant pressure (uncooled compressor) which is about 1 kJ/(kg*K).
So, imagine that we'll need a flow of .25 kg/s of air (enough for about 300 hp), the power required to drive the compressor is the amount we need to increase the entalpy in the air which is:

(333-273)*.25*1 = 15 kJ/s = 15 kW = 20.4 hp

So we need 15 kW to run our compressor, if we had a mechanical driven supercharger whis would have need the power taken from the crank, but now we have a turbine that will produce the power for it and we want to do this with the lowest exhaust backpressure since that will increase the pumping losses, causing a drop in engine power and efficiency.

There are mechanical limitations caused by the materials in the turbocharger, for example the temperature limit for Saabs production is about 980 degC (1250 K, 1800 F), so when you push full throttle you will see exhaust temperatures like that, at idle you probably see temperatures of above 400 degC or so.

To keep it simple I use air with the same properties as before instead of exhaust gases, and I don't include the fuel flow.

We now need to produce our 15 kW with the turbine, so I use the same formula as before but now I use the temperature of 1250 K and I calculate the temperature_out from the power needed:

15 kW = (1250-temperature_out)*.25*1
temperature_out = 1190 K

Then I calculate the needed pressure ratio for that temperature drop:

1250*pressure_ratio^((1,4-1)/1,4) = 1190 K
pressure_ratio = .84

So if we assume that the pressure after the turbocharger is 1 bar the pressure in the manifold will be 1/.84 = 1.19 bar.

But if the exhaust temperature was 800 K instead we can see that the pressure ratio needed is .76 to achieve that 60 K drop which mean that the pressure in the exhaust manifold will be 1.32 bar, and the differences seen here will increase if you have calculated with the efficiencies of the turbine and compressor.
So to make it short a higher inlet temperature in the turbine housing is to prefer. For a fast spool up the exhaust pressure pulses are also important, if you place the turbocharger after the muffler you practically have none left, which also means longer spool-up.

if you want a remote turbo i.e. not running of exhaust pressure then why not look at a small capacity supercharger. sure...it draws some power being driven by the crank, but the gains from it will definitely give a positive nett power return.

Whether its a twin screw, or centrifuge (crank driven turbo) the power gains can be enormous. We have a couple of manufacturers here that have developed crank driven turbos that can give around a 70% increase in hp, and they are bolt on items like many turbos. if you wanted to stay away from driving anything from the crank then 'Evil Result' hit the nail on the head. Use step up gearing with an electric motor to allow the RPM that will be required to produce sufficient boost.

which ever way you go you will also need to look at a programmable engine management to allow changes to the air/fuel mixture or a piggy back like the apexi safc.

Some of the posts on here are quite laughable... it is true that a fan can only create at most 3psi, But the motor is driven off of energy from the battery. the altinator is there to charge the battery and when the battery is fully charged it can supply current into the accesories. An altenator will spin with the same resistance agianst the engin wether it is having to produce 10 amps or 100 amps...and as for turbos being turned by exiting exaust gasses this has some truth to it and so does a turbo being spun by the heat of the exaust gasses. the truth of the matter is it is a combination of both. when the exaust gasses are exiting the cylender via the exaust vaulve they are often still expanding and still creating more heat with the unburnt hydrocarbons. once the exaust vaulve snaps shut they continue to expand untill there is no more oxygen for the hydrocarbons to react with. at this point they begin to cool down. as they are expanding they cant go back into the cylender since the vaulve is shut and so they have to go through the turbo. the exaust stroke of the engin does little in spining a turbo since it only happens 25% of the time. the reason that "Remote" turbos are so in effecient is because of many things. the most obvious is that is has to push that air even further. the reason it wont spool as quickly or spin as fast is because all matter is lazy. the turbo will inquire a resistance to turn when creating boost and if the gasses have already began to cool they dont have as much inertia and frankly they would rather hang out before the turbo than move through it. this puts more back pressure on the engine and allows for less boost. also, cooling the oil is extremely hard. you would be better off taping into the transmission fluid flow to the cooler rather than the oil sump. though transmission fluid and motor oil have different viscosities and different luberication properties. basicly a turbo 8 feet away from the pickup and oil pump is going to create hell for your oil pump. but you havent heard the worst of it yet. since the back pressure will me massive and it is usually the exaust vaulves that create bad vaulve seats and have carbon deposits on them you have the potential to kill your engine power and loose tons of eficency. as the back pressure builds up in the lower RPM range exaust gasses will begin to leak back into the cylender killin oxygen to air ratio's and robbing horse power. basicly remote turbos are a bad idea. but they are better than electric superchargers or even...you wont beleive this...there are these things that are basicly cork screw turbines on a broken bearing that can be inserted into your exaust path on a natually asperated vehicle that squeal as the exaust gas flow increases to make it sound like a turbo is spooling...it is horrible what idiots that dont know how to tune a ricer will do...

Some of the posts on here are quite laughable... it is true that a fan can only create at most 3psi, But the motor is driven off of energy from the battery. the altinator is there to charge the battery and when the battery is fully charged it can supply current into the accesories. An altenator will spin with the same resistance agianst the engin wether it is having to produce 10 amps or 100 amps...and as for turbos being turned by exiting exaust gasses this has some truth to it and so does a turbo being spun by the heat of the exaust gasses. the truth of the matter is it is a combination of both. when the exaust gasses are exiting the cylender via the exaust vaulve they are often still expanding and still creating more heat with the unburnt hydrocarbons. once the exaust vaulve snaps shut they continue to expand untill there is no more oxygen for the hydrocarbons to react with. at this point they begin to cool down. as they are expanding they cant go back into the cylender since the vaulve is shut and so they have to go through the turbo. the exaust stroke of the engin does little in spining a turbo since it only happens 25% of the time. the reason that "Remote" turbos are so in effecient is because of many things. the most obvious is that is has to push that air even further. the reason it wont spool as quickly or spin as fast is because all matter is lazy. the turbo will inquire a resistance to turn when creating boost and if the gasses have already began to cool they dont have as much inertia and frankly they would rather hang out before the turbo than move through it. this puts more back pressure on the engine and allows for less boost. also, cooling the oil is extremely hard. you would be better off taping into the transmission fluid flow to the cooler rather than the oil sump. though transmission fluid and motor oil have different viscosities and different luberication properties. basicly a turbo 8 feet away from the pickup and oil pump is going to create hell for your oil pump. but you havent heard the worst of it yet. since the back pressure will me massive and it is usually the exaust vaulves that create bad vaulve seats and have carbon deposits on them you have the potential to kill your engine power and loose tons of eficency. as the back pressure builds up in the lower RPM range exaust gasses will begin to leak back into the cylender killin oxygen to air ratio's and robbing horse power. basicly remote turbos are a bad idea. but they are better than electric superchargers or even...you wont beleive this...there are these things that are basicly cork screw turbines on a broken bearing that can be inserted into your exaust path on a natually asperated vehicle that squeal as the exaust gas flow increases to make it sound like a turbo is spooling...it is horrible what idiots that dont know how to tune a ricer will do...
The alternator DOES NOT spin with the same resistance against the engine, the resistance depends on the load on the alternator. If you load the alternator with 10 ampere the alternator will require about (10*14)/0.8 175 watt from the engine. If you double the amps the power taken from the engine will double.
Since power is taken from the engine under alternator load modern production engines have a compensation function for this that increases the power under heavy alternator load.

The power extracted by the turbocharger turbine is the change in enthalpy over the turbine multiplied with the massflow. The higher the temperature is the more enthalpy will be availible in the turbine inlet.

To offer fast spool up we must reach a high turbine expansion ratio in short time, which can be done with small volume exhaust manifolds.

A "fan" cannot increase the density of air by more than 8%, or about 1 psi with 15.5 psi inlet pressure. After that it's no longer a fan but a compressor.

The difference in resistance to turn of an altinator that has the ability to crank out 100amps and is making 10 is very little....but in order to make 100 amps it mus be spin much faster

This one is actually reviewed by Turbo Magazine:

http://www.boosthead.com/home.php

Is that turbo or engine rpm? I'm just looking for something close. More PSI is fine, that's what wastegates are for.

huh? actually i think it would be kinda a cool project...to take a turbo and put a pully on it instead of a turbine (cyntrifical supercharger...sp?) and run it off of an electric golf kart motor or something....its like auto recharge nitros....with out the nitros...mash a button and get .5atmospheres of boost...i dont know if i would want it (rather have a real all time turbo) but it would be a sweet project...here is some ideas...even though your proabably already figured this out

-junk yard supercharger (cyntricfical if possible...sp?) that is still in working condition.
-smallest pulley possible for the supercharger, largest for the motor.
-3 or 4 deep cycle batteries in the trunk...helps out with balence
-batery isolation kit...isolate the batteries used to run the motor from the actualy car battery....to prevent drainage of either...and if yoru car battery ever dies you can use the extra batteries to start your car
-get an extra, extremely small altinator and use it to charge your bateries to run your motor only...
-wire the batteries in series to get the greatest voltage...depending on the required voltage of the motor you may or may not need a transformer
-get an on/off switch and a variable voltage controller
-figure out where you are gonna mount this contraption
you dont want the engine trying to suck ait through a non powered impeller so use thoes exaust shut off vaulves (ive seen them in JC whitney catologs) in your intake to choose wheter to pull from the free air filter or to open up the electric supercharger intake
-boost guage
-the way i would start this thing is to open the valve from the electric supercharger, turn it on, then close the vualve for the natural intake
-the variable voltage controller will alow you to tune the speed of the electric motor and there for tune your boost...i think you could expect anywhere from 6-12psi maximum boost
-when your batteries start to run down or the race is over open the natural valve then turn off your supercharger then shut the super charger valve....
-a BOV for when changing gears

if you do ever do this id love to see pics/video....

The difference in resistance to turn of an altinator that has the ability to crank out 100amps and is making 10 is very little....but in order to make 100 amps it mus be spin much faster
The power requirement to the alternator, voltage*amps, is the same power the alternator requires from the engine divided by the efficiency of the alternator which should be around 80%.

An alternator can deliver 10 and 100 amps at the same engine speed, there is just a limit to what it can give at lower speeds. There is also a kick in speed, below that point it won't give you any electricity.

holy shit, i started reading this post to learn a little on remote turbo's and wound up with bs. BS!!! there are remote turbo setups from www.ststurbo.com that are pushing 20 pounds boost. I have seen two reviews in magizines one is a z28 from super chevy magizine and the other a truck magizine. The editors doubted the car until they rode in it. and then they were blew away. they reduce piping size to keep flow up i believe and also have specially designed turbos for this setup. I just got thru reading about a 10 second camaro with a remote mounted turbo. they dynoed a base line camaro at 313 BASE and then remote turboed it to 463 HP.does that sound meager to you guys? This is the worst thing our forums our plagued with. if you do not have proof or experience to back up what you say then be quiet. now that i am done with my 1st rant. 2nd rant - 99.999 % of electric superchargers are crap. period. I have never seen one post decent times, dyno sheets, or a article written on a car with one installed.you turbo guys have got to realize this setup is alot different than yours. different piping design, different turbo & turbine design, no intercooler, and most of them are used on big cube engines that push massive amounts of air. sorry but a small block chevy can push alot more air than a saab or honda sized motor! thanks for reading ! :)

not only is this post dead... but here is a little fact for you...turbos work off of exaust heat and expansion...not just flow. if they worked off of flow then the turbine wouldnt spin fast enouhg to speed the intake chare up any... and as for your idea about chevy 350's... here is a little illistration for you...

Saab 2.0l turbo engine: 210hp- 105 hp/litre
Chevy 350 (5.7l): 330hp- 57.8 hp/litre
Performance Chevy 350: 400hp - 70 hp/litre
Blown 350: 550hp- 96 hp/litre
Remote Turbo 302LS1: 463hp- 87.2 hp/litre
Turbo Mustang 5.0: 510hp- 102 hp/litre

looks like sabb wins the hp/litre battle there...ohh ya that Eff...effiii...EFFICENCY...of turbo's....

get real. For one they have proof. I have seen time slips, dyno sheets, videos, and several magizine articles. 2nd of all your engine hp ratings are way off. a mild performance 350 is 400 hp, but they can go over a thousand hp naturally aspirated. Lets see a N/A saab do that. or if you want to talk about turbo engines check out a gale banks 350 who makes 800 hp on a basic kit without intercooler. 1600 hp with i/c's and race fuel. Can you say saab killer? And 3rd it isn't about a regular turbo setup. The turbo buildup is different. the pipes are thermal coated to keep the heat in. hte diameter is probaly smaller to keep flow up. And if you would have read any of the www.ststurbo.com site info you would know it is mainly for low boost setups. which is what i want. 4th I owned a 13 second dsm so i see how this is a different setup than traditional underhood setups. just because it isn't what you know doesn't mean it won't work. it has already been proven to work. they have a 10 second camaro. and finally I hate to break it to you but most of those other engines you listed will smoke a saab. saab's are rich boy crap. take on a 4g63 dsm and see what happens. turbo 2.0 awd in a lightwieght package. yes this thread was dead when there was no proof that this setup would work but now there is proof in any form you could ask for. either adapt to technology or don't it is your choice.

im not argueing that they wouldnt create boost. im syaing that their efficency hindered. why do you think all regular turbo kits place the turbo as close to the engiene as possible straight out of the headers? efficency.

The ones talking for remote turbos don't have a clue how to design exhaust maifolds for turbochargers and the energy transfer engine to turbochargers.

Here, http://www.md.chalmers.se/EM-Masters/theses/archive/pdf/2003-02.pdf you can read about some correct info.

By the way, the Saab engine isn't designed for maximum power, it's designed for a high torque for the average driver, which is also deliver. The torque output is equal to the torque from an engine about twice the size while power is only slightly higher.
If you want power take a look at the Saab Pikes Peak Hillclimb car instead, its engine is delivering about 800 hp from 2 litres (400 hp/litre) at 4000 m altitude (equal to about a 30% powerloss). The engine has also a good driveability. The engine has a weight of about 150 kg, how much do a gale banks 350 weigh?

[QUOTE=Jet-Lee]Now lets say I take the compressor housing and wheel, attach it to an electric motor with adequate torque and crank the motor up to 3000 rpm. Guess what, the turbo will still produce 6 psi.QUOTE]


I recall learning in high school physics classes that ever time you convert energy to another for, you always lose some. ALWAYS. converting the engine's rotational kinetic energy to electrical energy in the alternator, then from electric back to rotational kinetic, then into pressure is 3 conversions. if you're going to be getting the energy from the crankshaft, a supercharger would only be one; rotation to pressure. The electric idea is interesting, and there is a guy on the board I more frequent that proposed the idea of electric leaf blowers, but just wouldn't work out as well...just my thoughts.

Old Thread...

[QUOTE=Jet-Lee]Now lets say I take the compressor housing and wheel, attach it to an electric motor with adequate torque and crank the motor up to 3000 rpm. Guess what, the turbo will still produce 6 psi.QUOTE]


I recall learning in high school physics classes that ever time you convert energy to another for, you always lose some. ALWAYS. converting the engine's rotational kinetic energy to electrical energy in the alternator, then from electric back to rotational kinetic, then into pressure is 3 conversions. if you're going to be getting the energy from the crankshaft, a supercharger would only be one; rotation to pressure. The electric idea is interesting, and there is a guy on the board I more frequent that proposed the idea of electric leaf blowers, but just wouldn't work out as well...just my thoughts.
n/m....read the damned thread and stfu. You people are fucking clueless.

You're fucking clueless buddy. Obviously you have no idea how much power it takes to make 6psi. All the power you made would be offset by the added weight of all the batteries you would need. Do you think you are the first person to think of an electric turbo? There's a reason why you haven't seen any before, They can't possibly work!

You're fucking clueless buddy. Obviously you have no idea how much power it takes to make 6psi. All the power you made would be offset by the added weight of all the batteries you would need. Do you think you are the first person to think of an electric turbo? There's a reason why you haven't seen any before, They can't possibly work!
Obviously you have no fucking clue who I am or what I do. :loser:

Wow, the remote turbo raises it's ugly head. I believe there was an article in a "hot rod" type of rag a month or so ago.
Turbos are driven by both heat and pressure. They respond fastest when the exhaust system is fully warmed up. That means they lag a bit more when you first stand on the gas vs. the third time you stand on the gas, in succesion. At least that is my experience with both of my turbo cars, one with a fairly large turbo, and one with a small turbo, (for their respective engine size). An article said that the remote system turbo was spooled up and making boost by 3,000 RPMs, or something like that. That doesn't mean a thing. The car could've been put on a non-inertial dyno, and held at 3,000 RPM for two minutes and THEN the turbo slowly spools up enough to give boost-- well that won't work well on the street, or the track. Too laggy.
All successful serious turbo applications have the turbo situated as close as possible to the exhaust manifold to take full advantage of the hot exhaust. It's true that there can be a bit of tubing and equipment between the compressor outlet and the intake manifold, but that doesn't matter as much as the exhaust manifold/turbine distance.
---
Just my 2 bits.

Somebody call the fire marshall; I think we have too many idiots in one thread. :shakehead

Squire's Turbo System is total B.S. Eliminates the need for a turbo timer? Sure. You don't have to wait for the turbine to spin down since it will probably never spool up in the first place!

Electric superchargers?! Can you people not read archives? We've debunked this idea a thousand times over! Pay attention!

To the clueless: a couple of guys who are actually "in the know" have graciously explained this all to you. Instead of listening to them, you've shrugged them off and continued to rant and endlessly debate a dead topic without facts, figures, or even a basic understanding of the principles involved. Apparently you're not going to learn anything here. So just do us all one favor:

Shut up.

Do it before you confuse the other neophytes. Do it before you make total fools out of yourselves. My patience with this sort of stupidity is gone.

Somebody close this thread. It'll be a mercy killing.