Twin turbo's in the trunk 3000hp Mustang

**gmkillr** · 10-02-2007, 12:00 PM

this is pretty cool.

http://www.themustangnews.com/carnew...907-tsmart.htm

**Domination** · 10-02-2007, 12:07 PM

Thought that was gonna be a joke, but I like it!

**Viper_ed** · 10-02-2007, 12:08 PM

That's also a good way to help distribute weight from the front of the car.

**racefan** · 10-02-2007, 12:18 PM

Thats also a real good chanch of hurting yourself!!!!!!!!

**Stangman701** · 10-02-2007, 12:30 PM

I'm always surprised at how well the remote mount turbos work. I bet they'll be a lot more popular in the near future.

**Viper_ed** · 10-02-2007, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by racefan

Thats also a real good chanch of hurting yourself!!!!!!!!

Who you kidding old man? You know you'd be 1st in line to try!

**phillysrt4** · 10-02-2007, 01:08 PM

cool setup!

one of the plusses of a remote turbo setup like that is the exhaust gases tend to be cooler by the time they hit the turbo, this combined with the amount of piping from the turbo back to the engine means an charge air cooler isn't required. Saves weight and distributes it better.

I like the concept. too bad its probably expensive as balls to mount turbos back there with all the fabrication and oil/water lines that would have to be run.

**Domination** · 10-02-2007, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by phillysrt4

cool setup!

one of the plusses of a remote turbo setup like that is the exhaust gases tend to be cooler by the time they hit the turbo, this combined with the amount of piping from the turbo back to the engine means an charge air cooler isn't required. Saves weight and distributes it better.

I like the concept. too bad its probably expensive as balls to mount turbos back there with all the fabrication and oil/water lines that would have to be run.

Colder exhaust gas into the turbo is a negative. Air charge cooling is still required. It probably on the whole weighs more, but does distribute it better. Fabrication of remote mount is far easier, and I doubt they are using water cooled turbos.

**Stangman701** · 10-02-2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by phillysrt4

cool setup!

one of the plusses of a remote turbo setup like that is the exhaust gases tend to be cooler by the time they hit the turbo, this combined with the amount of piping from the turbo back to the engine means an charge air cooler isn't required. Saves weight and distributes it better.

I like the concept. too bad its probably expensive as balls to mount turbos back there with all the fabrication and oil/water lines that would have to be run.

I think it would probably be less expensive to do a remote mount since you can pretty much use the existing exhaust for most of the hot side plumbing and the engine bay wouldn't be as tight to work in with the turbo's mounted else where. The main "extra" expenses would be the auxiliary oil pump and the extra cold side piping.

**JC Turbo** · 10-02-2007, 02:42 PM

Talk about junk in the trunk!

**phillysrt4** · 10-02-2007, 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by Domination

Colder exhaust gas into the turbo is a negative. Air charge cooling is still required. It probably on the whole weighs more, but does distribute it better. Fabrication of remote mount is far easier, and I doubt they are using water cooled turbos.

Its a negative in that it delays spooling, but the cooler exhaust gases combined with the long tubing from the compressor side means the intercooler for air charge cooling, if one is required, doesn't have to be as big. They still have to get oil lines there, and given the cooler exhaust gases spinning the turbo, they would probably want every spoolup advantage they could get, which would mean ball bearing (and hence water cooled) turbos.

**phillysrt4** · 10-02-2007, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Stangman701

I think it would probably be less expensive to do a remote mount since you can pretty much use the existing exhaust for most of the hot side plumbing and the engine bay wouldn't be as tight to work in with the turbo's mounted else where. The main "extra" expenses would be the auxiliary oil pump and the extra cold side piping.

hadnt thought about it that way. I didnt consider that most of the existing exhaust plumbing would be used.

**Domination** · 10-02-2007, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by phillysrt4

Its a negative in that it delays spooling, but the cooler exhaust gases combined with the long tubing from the compressor side means the intercooler for air charge cooling, if one is required, doesn't have to be as big. They still have to get oil lines there, and given the cooler exhaust gases spinning the turbo, they would probably want every spoolup advantage they could get, which would mean ball bearing (and hence water cooled) turbos.

Cooler exhaust gases marginally if at all effect intake charge temps. Compressing air generates heat. The 6 feet further it has to go is hardly and effective method of heat exchange. There is no doubt an air to water heat exchanger of very similar size to any front mount/supercharger system. I would much rather run oil lines to those turbos, as you can get to the inlets. Try having full access to all the turbo fittings in a cramped engine compartment. Undoubtedly they want any spool advantage they can get, but ball bearing, and water cooled cartridges aren't synonymous.

**somethingclever** · 10-02-2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by phillysrt4

cool setup!

one of the plusses of a remote turbo setup like that is the exhaust gases tend to be cooler by the time they hit the turbo,

I think you'll find that most people who have turbo's would disagree that cooler exhaust gas is a "plus".

**racefan** · 10-02-2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by somethingclever

I think you'll find that most people who have turbo's would disagree that cooler exhaust gas is a "plus".

Originally Posted by Viper_ed

Who you kidding old man? You know you'd be 1st in line to try!

you are right, My ASS has been in some wild places and wild out of shape stuff that should have killed me long ago!!! Still got the nerve to STOMP the PETAL!!!!!

**Viper_ed** · 10-02-2007, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by racefan

Still got the nerve to STOMP the PETAL!!!!!

So get off your Ass and start putting in some time on that soon to be Modular Beast!

**racefan** · 10-02-2007, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Viper_ed

So get off your Ass and start putting in some time on that soon to be Modular Beast!

Gathering parts ,gathering parts,gathering parts,

**phillysrt4** · 10-02-2007, 05:39 PM

forget it... its the end of the day and im beat...

**Silverhatch** · 10-02-2007, 06:00 PM

I built one twin turbo setup on my own, worked well. I wouldn't run oil lines all the way to the back. I'd have a rear sump with a dedicated, rear pump. It would be self contained 3 quart unit and have a shift type warning light on the dash that would light up when the rear electric pump would ever fail. No water cooling. Rear mounted would be a breeze compared to a front mounted one. All that would be run to the front would be vacuum and pressurized air. Eventually there will be one in the Mark VIII, unsure of twins or a single turbo. Can easily be done for under $500 bucks.

**PaxtonShelby** · 10-05-2007, 01:43 PM

...that is NUTS!!!!!!...and extremely cool at the same time!! :D
I think I'd rather watch it run than drive it or even be a passenger. Can a 10.5 inch tire even come close to handling that much power? I'd think it would spin the whole way down the track.