Rear Turbo Setup
#23
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
intersting.
i still dont like the idea of running wires and electircal components to a remote location instead of just vacuum line. like the map sensor... you shoudl be taking the reading off the intake mainfold, no idea why'd youd put it as far away form that as possible.
i still dont like the idea of running wires and electircal components to a remote location instead of just vacuum line. like the map sensor... you shoudl be taking the reading off the intake mainfold, no idea why'd youd put it as far away form that as possible.
#24
Dear Braineack, I was hesitant to even post my car on this site because of all the grief and hassle I've seen you give other people because they don't conform to your standards or opinions. I built the first FRS rear turbo car on the planet a few years ago and got a lot of grief then. I know what I have and you can't change that, if you have nothing nice to say why say anything? Some people are interested in the setup and your not so move on or just follow along.
#26
intersting.
i still dont like the idea of running wires and electircal components to a remote location instead of just vacuum line. like the map sensor... you shoudl be taking the reading off the intake mainfold, no idea why'd youd put it as far away form that as possible.
i still dont like the idea of running wires and electircal components to a remote location instead of just vacuum line. like the map sensor... you shoudl be taking the reading off the intake mainfold, no idea why'd youd put it as far away form that as possible.
It's not the MAP for the intake, It's the MAP for the exhaust pressure.
#27
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
Dear Braineack, I was hesitant to even post my car on this site because of all the grief and hassle I've seen you give other people because they don't conform to your standards or opinions. I built the first FRS rear turbo car on the planet a few years ago and got a lot of grief then. I know what I have and you can't change that, if you have nothing nice to say why say anything? Some people are interested in the setup and your not so move on or just follow along.
and I dont just say nice things (that's what your mommy and liberal art tecahers are for) and people shouldn't expect others to hand out compliments. grow some ******* ***** *****. do you need to find a safe zone?
I'm not even giving you grief, just some ****.
#30
Junior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Metro Detroit, MI
Posts: 397
Total Cats: 36
I have learned that this forum is the most "trial by fire" place on the internet. You will get torn up at first, but for those that make it past the grief, it is an amazing place to be at with great insight and knowledge.
#34
Man, don't be so sensitive. Awesome build, loved the STS remote mount stuff for the C5. I thought that was always an awesome way to keep temps manageable and with modern turbos you can still get decent spool characteristics out of remote mount stuff. You should post some of your logs and let people pick them apart. Don't let your ego be hurt by it, it's just the internet. Lots of great information in all the skepticism here.
#35
I like this because it's different. But like others, I question whether this has any benefits compared to a normal mounting location.
Also, as you already stated that you were aware of, sometimes people offer some "tough love" here. If you knew you were going to get it, then buck up and take it. At least you're not JDM corvette guy.
Also, as you already stated that you were aware of, sometimes people offer some "tough love" here. If you knew you were going to get it, then buck up and take it. At least you're not JDM corvette guy.
#36
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,026
Total Cats: 6,592
I'd been trying to remember the name of the manufacturer that made the oil-less turbos. I've heard about them once or twice, but no first-hand experience.
The relatively high boost threshold, I suppose, is to be expected given the bearing configuration. I'll be extremely curious to follow the progress of this car and see how it holds up over time.
Welcome aboard. Looks very nice under the hood. I have a special fondness for sleepers.
The relatively high boost threshold, I suppose, is to be expected given the bearing configuration. I'll be extremely curious to follow the progress of this car and see how it holds up over time.
Welcome aboard. Looks very nice under the hood. I have a special fondness for sleepers.
#37
Man, don't be so sensitive. Awesome build, loved the STS remote mount stuff for the C5. I thought that was always an awesome way to keep temps manageable and with modern turbos you can still get decent spool characteristics out of remote mount stuff. You should post some of your logs and let people pick them apart. Don't let your ego be hurt by it, it's just the internet. Lots of great information in all the skepticism here.
#38
I'd been trying to remember the name of the manufacturer that made the oil-less turbos. I've heard about them once or twice, but no first-hand experience.
The relatively high boost threshold, I suppose, is to be expected given the bearing configuration. I'll be extremely curious to follow the progress of this car and see how it holds up over time.
Welcome aboard. Looks very nice under the hood. I have a special fondness for sleepers.
The relatively high boost threshold, I suppose, is to be expected given the bearing configuration. I'll be extremely curious to follow the progress of this car and see how it holds up over time.
Welcome aboard. Looks very nice under the hood. I have a special fondness for sleepers.
Comp Turbo in California.