MK3 Turbocharger mounted in the rear?

Is this a dumb idea? I can have a tubular manifold made with no turbo flange much easier than with one. Cost me around $200. So why don't I mount my turbo at the rear of the car, behind the rear wheels?

You don't even need an intercooler because of how much the exhaust cools down by the time it reaches the back of the car. Meth/water injection used to make up the difference, but I could actually think of several other options for cooling boost that this method of turbo placement would present.

Im just trying to get a list of pro's and con's. Please if you will contribute to them.

Positive aspects of a rear mounted turbo :

- Cooler exhaust gases = a cooler turbo
- Free up engine bay space
- Reduce the heat of the engine bay
- Can still use an intercooler if you like
- Not as much need for an expensive intercooler
- Simpler exhaust manifold design
- unlimited placement options for wastegate and BOV

Negative aspects of a rear mounted turbo :

- Seems like someone could steal it easily
- Not traditional
- Added turbo lag?
- Exposure to roadway grit and grime
- Limited or no muffler option
- Lots of mandrel tube
- Additional oil pump + extra long oil line

I would just go with the standard setup, if it aint broke dont fix it.

I don't think you understand how much heat a turbo produces. Your going to need some type of cooling system to increase the effect of the low temperature. Not running one and saving a buck here and there is going to probably cost a lot of money in the long run if it doesn't work out as you expect, but to each his own. I'd disagree with your idea but it's up to you. Good luck.

Its not my idea. It is my idea to do it to my supra. It has been done in many V applications to avoid the use of a Y turbo header, because it makes more sense to have the Y in your exhaust with a V application. There are 2 Tiburons and 3 camero here in town with that set up that i know of. They all use meth/water injection and one guy with a camero has lower EGT at 7psi and stock compression than I do with low compression and 10psi w/inter cooler.

Your probably right though, a supra has a good set up.. but i want to upgrade to a turbo with an external waste gate and it seems much cheaper and just as effecient. For a T04 upgrade the traditional way I will have to buy a $700 exhaust manifold. Rear turbo mount style would take a few welds from the MIG to mount my waste gate. However there is no doubt there are more points of failure when it comes to exhaust leaks ect.

Back to me not understanding how hot turbos are. When you are feeding fresh exhaust directly into a turbo your talking serious heat. I've seen vids of people heating a turbo to a glow on an engine dyno. When your feeding your turbine housing exhaust gas that has had time to cool down a bit, the over all performance of your turbo will increase. Not to mention the compressor housing of your turbo is not in the engine bay and is connected to a much cooler turbine housing than a typical set up. Cars have used turbo's for years w/out intercoolers, but this is much different. Consider lower preturbine EGT, meth/water inj, header wrap on everything and you can imagine how people are doing this an still pulling off low outlet EGTs.

Besides you still have all the options of a typical turbo set up when it comes to cooling the boost(intercooler/CO2).

I saw the show on speed channel. Don't quote me on this , but I'm thinking this is more for the low boost applications. Though the volumetric pressure inside the pipe would be taken up as soon as the exhaust gasses fill the IC piping I'd think there would still be a significant pressure drop with the longer piping if running high boost, though the charge would be cooler. Hence the reason why people try to run shorter IC piping.

nah it wouldnt have enough boost and it would still need an itercooler it would cost more and evrything more pipe=more$ more tubes=more$ its just going to cost more $$$$$$$ so dont do even if youve seen it before. The only reason to do that is if you have no room in the engine bay but they would put it close to the motor

RMT Turbo Company
www.ststurbo.com

All they are good at is marketing. Make it sound much better than it really is.

Im gonna make this short and sweet. DONT DO IT. The rear turbo actually replaces the muffler, running piping, oil lines, etc to the rear of your car. THE POWER vs HEAT EXCHANGE ISNT WORTH IT. Sure the turbo MIGHT run a little cooler, but at the same time, you want your turbo to be closer to the manifold because the hot gasses will actully help with the spool time. The average spool on the RMTs are about 4,000-4,500 rpms depending on application. Thats a LOT of lag. If that were a conventional setup, that better be one MONSTER turbo. The RMTs ARE for the "V"s as you called them, but the bigger displacement ones. The massive ammounts of turbo lag from the rear turbo doesnt hurt these larger engines (ive seen many on LT1s) due to their high displacement. Plus with less room in the engine bay, thats the only place for a turbo... what happens if you hit a nasty pot hole ;) I hope i talked you out of it...