First off, i am not basing my claims off of a special interest company. I used their website to show that engine compartment space was not the reason that sts systems exist. I credit the majority of the knowledge i use to back up my claims to Joe Pettitt, a well known performance automotive journalist who has writtencountless articles/books and researched enough to make my head spin.

As for the argument of 20' of intercooler piping, i think that is hardly the case. Now its been awhile since i've done even basic algebra so please feel free to correct me.

The volume of 1ft, 2.5inpiping= pi(1.25)^2*L
4.89in^2*(12in/1ft)= 58.68in^3/1ft
A moderately sized intercooler is 28in*6in*2.5in= 420in^3
So this intercooler volume may be replaced by 420in^3/(58.68in^3/1ft)= 7.15ft
So 7.15ft plus charge piping, which is another significant addition. I think it can be done.

And please, because i guess i truly don't understand it either, explain why many camaros and corvettes are having no problem spooling these turbos with a rear mount setup, even using methanol. And for the record i'm more than happy with my conventional turbo setup. It is more efficient on my car, for the time being.
________
Live Sex

 

You dont have 420"^3 of flow volume in a 28"x6"x2.5" intercooler. You suck at math and at aruing therefore I wont waste any more of my time with this thread.

 

because they don't have our puny little honda engines duhhh[&:]

 

What the heck? You are clearly reading the wrong books.

http://www.ststurbo.com/products

Don't you think that all of those vehicles have something very big in common. You know, like... the engine they're using?

Every single one of those cars also has ZERO room under the hood without some serious rearranging. The STS system is primarily designed to be a bolt on affair for those of us who own vehicles that can't comfortably fit a turbo under the hood.

Here, I'll explain this to you in a much more simple form.

Honda GSR engine, 1.8L. These things will spool a 42R to 30psi+ by 6500ish RPMs.

Chevy LS1 engine, 5.7L. That's almost 4x the displacement, and with the remote mount turbo systems they will spool the same turbo to 7psi just after 3000. I suppose you didn't happen to take a look at what they do when they're in the engine bay did you. 2500 or lower, easy. Mind, the LS1 rev limit is 6K and they are displacing some SERIOUS air to boot. So spool time differences will be much less than with a car, like a Honda, that produces considerable less. Needless to say, if you put a GT42R on the *** end of a Honda, you will never see boost.

I don't understand why people think these are so great. An engine bay turbo will spool considerably faster no matter what car it's in and therefore will have more power potential and a better powerband. Also, an air to air intercooler is by far better than any considerable length of piping alone. For one, they are right up front and designed for a specific purpose, not hidden under the car and up through the engine bay. If you don't agree with me, why don't you put 20 feet of coolant hose under your car instead of a radiator.

If you really just don't want to believe me, then go look at every single freaking turbo setup at any proffessional dragracing, time attack, or drifting event. They are all in the engine bay, even the domestic ones.

 

Well since ive joined this forum ive basically been told my rear wing looks stupid....its dumb to turbo an automatic and i shouldnt touch wrenchs anymore. I came here for some help and optimistic opinions not a bunch of 17 year olds with **** to say. Yes I drive a 99 si in canada which isnt any better than an ex in the states ( ive already been informed bu someone on here) .But how many chances do you get to buy a nice clean 99 with low miles for $2500 ?I did even though its a wimpy auto.

And i do have an auto which i am going to turbo..... I also have lovely AC which is staying and half of the reason i want a rear mount because of engine space with the ac air exchanger. And lastly i would like a bit of a sleeper with the rear mount setup as well as i like being different.

 

There, that should have been your argument from the start. That you wanted a sleeper, wanted ac, etc. The reason your idea was bashed wasnt because hcf is full of bitchy people that are stubborn. As red2000si stated, a rear mounted turbo wouldnt be as EFFIECENT as one mounted in the engine bay. He never said it wouldnt work, but that its not the most effective way to go.

People bashed your idea because you vouched for it being better. Better for you, not everyone. you want a sleeper and ac and therefore you figure it is better for you to have a rear mounted turbo. For others, its about efficiency and power, and as little hassle as possible. Therefore, a front mounted is better, for them.

HCF isnt about bashing, its about helping. If you had stated what you said above in the beginning, this thread would have a been a different story.

 

Wait, HCF isn't about bashing??? WTF, I always thought that's why we ewre here...

 

And dude, all that about having a wimpy auto and stuff.... its kinda true. If you were to sit yourself down in the same car you have, but standard, you would understand. And also, auto trannys can only withstand so much power.

 

To the op, Im not bashing your idea Im trying to explain to the other stubborn people in this thread who insist that rear mounted setups can be as/more efficient then standard setups. If you want to keep a/c and keep a sleeper look than more power to you. I live in Florida, I know how nice a/c can be and I dont have it because of my conventional setup, heck I dont even have power steering. But then again I kinda get into the whole nasty gritty race car feel like no a/c, pucked clutches and stiff motor mounts but thats just me. I say go for the rear mounted setup if you think it meets your needs but dont expect the performance and efficiency of a conventional setup, thats all.

 

You can keep your AC with a conventional setup...