To start with,

The Car
1988 Pontiac Firebird Formula its got a TPI balanced and blueprinted chevy 350 other then that i belive the engine is stock. I would assume the car has a cat back system considering the pipe from the "catback" is 3" back to a flowmaster muffler


What i want to do
I have had this car for about a year and a half it is my daily driver. i want to add a little more spark to it. Im thinking forced induction, i want to do a rear mount turbo and still keep it streetable. Now i dont know much about fuel injection. I also havent added boost to any engine before. I understand as to how it adds power and all that. Although I have been reading and learning all I can from the internet (this site mostly)

On a budget
headers (dont they have shorty style that will bolt right on with no exhuast pipe changing) I know i need to get bigger injectors and from what i have read from other people working on turbos to theres i will need a aftermarket ECU as well. Im looking to keep it a single exhaust car, Will that be enough for a like a T3 or T4 hybrid turbo also im only looking to get a little bit of boost just to get the system up and working later on i will work on upgrading parts

Any Info would be a huge benefit to me planning on doing this project this summer. Thanks

 

keep the stock cast iron manifolds, and get 2.5 tubing all the way back to the turbo. wrap the tubing with hi temp wrap. will need scavenge pump and lines for return oil back to pan.
u will need to upgrade fuel pump, will need a rising rate fpr with larger return and tune and injectors.

 

If u want to be disappointed and waste alot of effort ..rear mount is for you.

 

my dad has a rear mount STS and its sick as hell...

 

Many have a RMT with great results
Is it as effeicient as a traditional front mount? no.....
If this is the way he wants to do it why rain on his parade?

 

Some reading:

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/powe...unt-turbo.html

https://www.thirdgen.org/forums/powe...as-remote.html

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/forced...ggestions.html

http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/forced...unt-turbo.html

http://www.ls1gto.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243522

NemeSS-TyranT summed it up nicely since you are budget oriented.

 

I'm supposed to do a rear mount on my TA, but the engine blew, so as soon as I get the replaced 355 running right, it'll be ready for boost...

 

To keep it low budget I would fab the exhaust using S/S 409 to keep the heat in to help efficiency. It will also last longer and in the long run be cheaper than using mild steel tubing. Ebay has some pretty cheap S/S 409 kits that are sold by exhaust shops. If you have the funds I would also heat wrap it.

 

Is the shurflo pump still popular for a low budget build or is there now a better low cost pump? I know the shurflo wasn't rated high enough temperature wise but seemed to work. Some were running rear differential pumps but they are more expensive.

 

[quote=daverr;4544162]If u want to be disappointed and waste alot of effort ..rear mount is for you.[/quote

what disappointment ?

form what the dyno number show it has and holds the power
and cost wise it's sometimes less then the the engine mounted ones

 

Where are you guys getting this from? Are you just assuming that RMT's are less efficient? With heat, comes the expansion of gasses, higher exhaust gas velocity, and overall, more energy.

That is the ONLY con of a RMT. How do you solve that though..? A truck load of exhaust wrap.. Other than that, there's a whole lot less backpressure, which cuts down on spool time. There's also WAY cooler intake temperatures, since the turbo is away from the heat of the engine bay, and is sucking in cold air that's blowing under the car at 65 MPH, or whatever speed this guy would drive on the highway..

I'll give you guys some information from Squires.

Their kit for the 2010 Camaro produces 541 RWHP @ only 7 PSI. Stock, that 2010 Camaro put down a baseline run of 346 RWHP. Time for math..

541 - 346 = A gain of roughly 195 RWHP.

195 RWHP divided by 7 PSI = what do you know, 27.85 RWHP gained on average per PSI. Now, what's the 2010 Camaro have, 426 HP? It put down 346 RWHP. That's a loss of about 80 Horsepower, and that comes out to a 19% drivetrain loss.

Alright.. 19% of 27.85 RWHP = 5.29 HP. 27.85 + 5.29 HP = A gain of 33.14 Horsepower at the flywheel. Now tell me, what engine bay mounted turbo can produce them kinds of gains on a STOCK engine. I know most engine bay mounted turbos can easily achieve 20-25 HP gains per PSI, and up to 30 HP per PSI on mildly modified engines, but come on now, a completely stock Camaro.

Putting that crappy drivetrain loss aside, that RMT setup is producing a gain of nearly 250 HP. How on Earth could that be a crappy experience, and not as efficient as an engine bay mounted turbo..? I don't know about you guys sometimes. I have no experience in forced induction, but the information is there, it's a no brainer. RMT setups are VERY efficient. These assumptions are horrible.

http://www.ststurbo.com/2010_camaro_dyno

I believe I saw a C6 Corvette somewhere with an STS setup, producing well over 1,000 HP, but don't quote me on that, I may not be able to find the page. Ask yourself, would a company like this still be in business if the experience in general of an RMT was crappy, and the setup was unefficient?

 

Besides guys, listen to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pC5KKhZBx0M

I'd buy that whether it's not as efficient or not. Call me a r!cer, but that's an incredible sound. The kind of thing that can scare little children.

 

I agree, thats one of the coolest things about the rmt mounts, the sound is awesome!

 

the shurflows may not hold up for long.
i have used the turbowerx brand scavenge pump. twice now and it works flawlessly. they are like 380$. but they were designed for remote turbo systems. even the housing is heat sink like.
the return pump is not something i would cheep out on.
sold on ebay usually. but i know guy that sells em is from tx. and both times the pumps have been shipped to me from tx address

 

one of the quickest ls cars is/was remote mount twins. but of course theres nothing budget about.

 

another tip about the scavenge pumps, is that alot of people (and I will too) use oil coolers between the turbo and the pump to lower the temps on the oil...

 

This is one thing that stopped me from doing a remote setup. I just do not know how to do the return oil system. Do you just gravity drain the turbo into a sump and then plumb the sump to the pump and push oil back to the valve cover or oil pan?
Or do you just drain the turbo to the pump and it pushes oil to the pan/valve covers? Would you still need a large 10an drain like conventional or would a smaller drain work since the pump is "sucking" oil? I have not done my research on a setup like that.

I like the idea of remotes since the heat in the engine bay is less and you can have more room to mount turbos. Only thing I dont like is running the exhaust to the back of the car and having to route the intake charge to the front. Not alot of room under these cars, especially a lowered car.
I wanted to mount my turbos up front lower on my car and use some sort of pump/sump system to push back to the pan since the drains would not be vertical anymore.

Maybe you could run a seperate oil system for the turbos. A simple 3-4 quart tank, a cooler w/ fan, and just circulate that instead of routing all the lines tothe motor and back to the turbos.

 

The oil cooler is a great idea....! I Never thought of that one.

I have a bunch of info that I've gathered over the years on RMT's but it's on my other computer....
I'll see if I can post them here if you'd like..... there's tons of pics and a general "how to" with a parts lists....

I've been considering this kinda thing for 2-3 years, but didn't have a reliable enough shortblock or enough guts to do it

Maybe after fabricating my own Y pipe and building my forged engine I'll take the leap. (I already have a turbo picked out....!)

 

If i had the time, i'd fab a simple kit on my 99 trans am as its my daily driver and I wanted abit more power. Comfortable 450whp would be nice and easy with a mild turbo. Just not sure how I'd do the oil system.

 

I don't know what my wife did with the file that I had all about RMT's!!!
I had Part lists Pics and Prices and Links and so on....... But I can't seem to find it now!!!!

Anyways....
This one was one of the better How-to's I found
http://www.junkyardturbos.com/Rear-Mount-Turbo.php

and I thought that Garrett Turbos did a great job at explaining turbos in general and the calculations that you'll need to figure out what size you're lookin for... Read Turbo Tech 1,2 and 3 Get your pencil and Calculator ready!!!
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/

This link is older but it might give you an idea of parts and prices...???
http://www.precisionturbo.net/Pricesheet.pdf

Hope that helps a little.....

 

RMT setups are great for vehicles with limited engine bay space. The physics are clear and they are not as efficient as a front mount setup, but can come close. You don't see anyone with a strictly track car trying to make a RMT setup.

When done right they can be just about as good as a front mount setup. In terms of oiling, don't run a divorced system. The engine coolant pulls a lot of heat out of the oil and having a turbo oil system without this cooling is going to have problems in a street car that is used as a street car. If it is more a track car then it can be made to work.

The best way is to make a sump for the bottom of the turbo. Gravity drain to the sump. Then pull the oil out of the sump through a cooler using a pump and push it back to the oil pan. The engine oil pump feeds the inlet of the turbo.


EDIT: I ran an oil temp. sensor in one of my turbo engines to see what affect boost had on the oil. The oil temp. would rise as boost came on. Typically the oil temp. would run the same as the coolant temp. Then when I put about 10 PSI of boost the oil temp rose up to 230* F. The coolant temp. would stay constant and maybe rise 5* F sometimes. I was surprised to see the affect boost had on the oil. This is what made me question the use of the ShurFlo pump that isn't rated that high.

 

a track car is just that, everything is taken out the engine bay so you then u have all the room in the world for a twin or simple setup, and you running the car for 2-5 minute at a time. and on a track car u can be more aggressive with the coolers

 

You really will attempt to say I'm wrong with everything, won't you? Until you find me another turbo system that will produce gains of 195 RWHP @ 7 PSI on a car that is very similar in specs to a 2010, then don't bother typing BS that you cannot back up.

What you're saying is your opinion. I've researched a few turbo systems, and none that I've found are as efficient as the STS RMT is.

Go ahead and find dyno sheets from a reputable site of a turbo system that is producing 27 REAR WHEEL Horsepower gains per PSI on a car similar to the 2010 Camaro, or any LS3 car. The physics are clear, yes they are. I find legitimate information, and on a number of threads you've attempted to tell me that I am incorrect, with just your silly opinion.

I guess no one uses underdrive and/or lightweight pulleys when trying to yank efficiency AND power out of an engine. Keep trolling, junkcltr.

 

Junkcltr, here are a few QUICK STS Vettes.

9.88 fast enough for you? RMT's are only good for the street?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0pA2Pu0Rdo

How about 9.33?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv5_F...eature=related

How about a high 10?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMz6k...eature=related

How about an STS turbo GTO running a high 10?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZkIH...eature=related

How about a dyno video of a 740 RWHP C5 Corvette, that is most likely running just over 10 PSI?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_tTTihJfP0

Holy sh*t dude. That's all I have to say. Get legitimate information on the efficiency of other turbo systems, because nearly anyone's opinion is BS. I'm sure I could find a couple STS RM turbo cars running 8's and 9's, just gotta look. Not good for track cars, right. What's not good about a turbo that runs cooler?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SApphqLwCwM
Notice where the air inlets are.

The new Camaro is a good example of when a RMT should be used due to limited engine bay space. In something like a thirdgen or race car a FMT is better.

Newer LS engines breathe great right out of the box. That is why the make so much HP per PSI.

It isn't my opinion. It is the law of thermodynamics.

 

There are already low 9 second rear mount turbo cars, and that's incredible for a fairly new technology. People just started widely buying STS' setups just a few years ago.

So tell me, what law of thermodynamics is stopping anyone from running faster, with turbos that are more efficient, due to running cooler?

I really wish I could find the page. I remember a long time ago seeing a 3,000 Horsepower dragster that was running I guess you'd say a "mid mount" turbo. The turbos were mounted about 3 feet in back of the engine, past where the dash would go on a regular, completely stock car.

The loss of heat from that bit of traveling didn't seem to make them make any less power.

 

It isn't the distance. It is the design and material used. Most RMT builders cut cost on material. Run Inconel for 20 feet in an RMT and it "looks" to the engine like it is right at the head. You are missing the point. It isn't about RMT or FMT. It is about the design and materials used.

STS just "marketed" something that has been around a long time. The reason they could do this in this day and age is because of tight engine bays and emissions laws. This stuff has been around forever.

 

LOL! Now it's just materials, and not the actual RMT Vs. FMT argument?

What happened with that?!

Really, until you have dynographs comparing RM and FM turbos on the same car, and the FM makes more power at the same level of boost, then don't bother. RMT's are very efficient. A cooler turbo, cooler intake temperatures, what part of that is less efficient than a FM turbo setup?

Just read..

http://www.ststurbo.com/the_technology

I was always taught that heat is the enemy of power. You seem to think it's the other way around?

 

For the uneducated, they make it a FMT vs RMT thing. It really comes down to design & material. Someday you will understand that.

Turbines are driven by heat. The more heat the more drive. Yes, more heat is better. Ask STS and they will tell you the same. Less heat on the engine inlet air is better.

I laugh at STS propaganda. Do the math on their "long charge pipe intercooler" theory. To the uneducated it sounds great. When you run the numbers it is laughable.

 

If you look into the laws of thermodynamics you would see that the heat on the compressor side comes from the actual compressing of the air, not from the turbo compressor being hot. STS just says that a hot compressor makes the air hot and that is far from the truth. Look up adiabatic heating. That is where the inlet air heat comes from. The compressing (smashing of air molecules) is what makes the heat.

 

LOL!! You just told yourself that you're uneducated! First it went from you arguing about RMT VS. FMT, now it's onto materials, and you're saying that the educated people will know that. How come you were discussing that RMT VS. FMT subject then? UNEDUCATED?

You're contradicting yourself WAY too much. Now you've moved onto elementary subjects such as materials. I didn't know you had to be educated to know that! Hey.. What cold air intake would transfer more heat? Steel, or carbon fiber? That's an obvious one, steel. Carbon is not a good heat conductor.

You're re-routing to simple opinions that you've practically created yourself, after contradicting yourself. Needless to say, it's not working. I see that you made your own turbo system. Is that why you'll defend FMT's to the death, with no information to back it up?

That's worse than saying a Third Gen is more aerodynamic than a 2010 Mercedes E class, with the .26 drag coefficient, just because you really love Third Gens.

 

Yeah, you know everything.

 

I'm well aware that compression creates heat, thank you though. Do you really think a (let's make up a random number) 500 degree turbo (hot side) won't have ANY effect on the compressor side? I mean, they are directly connected with a shaft, that in it's self is capable of transferring heat.

I'm guessing you were one of those kids who played with lighters, thinking you can't burn yourself unless you actually touch the flame.

 

That the best you can come up with? 9 second cars? SLOW

There is a 7 second Vette running a remote mount 106mm turbo

http://www.challengevideos.com/7-second-Z06.php

I have read about a 6.8 second 200+ mph remote build and am looking for the information

These things can work. Another car on LS1tech down here in texas just made 961whp on 20psi with a 91.5mm remote mount.

There are many guys with front mounts in the 7's and faster. There are many guys making 1000+whp with front mounts.

I think if done right, either one will get you where you need to go. Remote mount is nice because it frees up engine room. No mess of piping running around everywhere like a FMT, especially a twin setup. No heat melting wires there. Can easily get at the engine for plug removal, oil changes, etc. Some FMT setups also leave good room when done right. Just depends on how you build them.

You can have oil drain problems with a FMT justlike you can have oil problems with a RMT. Each have their issues, but when either one is done correctly, I'm sure you can do whatever you want to do in a car, be it a drag car or street car.

 

I just cracked up, because I realized you have the bragging rights to say that a 9 second car IS slow. It's a been there done that type of thing for you.

At least someone has a fair opinion on this topic. I'm about 100% sure that the fastest car I've ever been in was a 10 second blown El Camino, so I couldn't even have an opinion on that matter! I really don't even remember, this was years ago, all I know is the owner showed me a 145 MPH time slip. Not sure if that could equate to a low 10 second run or not.

 

Well I am just stating some of the results I've seen with the remote mount stuff. I dont have any experience with them and only have built one turbo setup which is the one I have now, but I have learned a few things along the way.
I probably would have built the remote system if I was confident in making a reliable oil supply and return system. I could have researched it more but for me a FM setup was "cool" looking and its the reason I went with twins. Only reason actually. twin turbo just sounds nice and having them in front of the motor and symetrical just puts the icing on the cake.

RMT setups usually dont spool AS fast as a FMT due to losses in heat but when sized right its not TOO far behind a FMT. If you have enough motor, and go small on the turbo, you will have a great spool. 422lsx spools a 91.5mm fairly well. Alittle lag but its a big turbo so its expected to have some lag.

And 145 mph traps is abit higher than me, i've been 142. Its a low 10 second pass if you just walk it off the line and dont launch.

 

orr89rocz
ive put a few rmt ls and lt cars. there are various ways to return oil back to the sump. mocal and turbowerx make good pumps. but i would prfer to run a beltdriven scavenge pump that would be sufficient to draw the oil back to the pan but these would cost way more than typical e pump.
ive never used an inline cooler for return side. but does sound like it would be good idea.

 

thats just what we like to call traction control

 

Amen! Ramp up the boost slowly you may have a chance to enjoy it. When 10psi comes on near instantly, things get out of control.