6G Celicas Forums

Has anyone tried or seen one of these before? Would it be hard to run the oil line back there? any comments are much appreciated.

http://www.ststurbo.com/

they work good on V8's but i dont think its worth it on a 4 banger

it can work but will be horrible compared to a manifold mounted turbo.
where did you plan on putting the air filter?

Pretty sure it's impossible to push enough exhaust to make this system effective on a 4-banger.

remote mounted turbos are okay if you're tight on space in the engine bay. The celica has plenty of room for a good turbo setup directly in the engine bay. See here for our new kit: http://www.6gc.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=69593

On a 4cylinders it would be very long to compress: exhaust to the turbine wheel (to much pressure "elasticity" at this distance)
and very long to recompress: air from the compressor wheel to the intake manifold

Results: Much lag and especially a lot of energy loss when BOV open to put out all the air you compress on the 8feet long pipe, so from gear to gear you would have to recompress all the air into that piping.


what a bad idea for 4 cylinders, also for 6-8-10-12-16 cylinders engine, what a crappy idea (superchargers don't produce heat at all)





.....and what a good idea to put a turbo under a fuel tank

This post has been edited by domyz: Oct 4, 2009 - 10:00 PM

superchargers don't produce heat? perhaps you should read more.

he's from Canada, superchargers work differently there :rofl:


STS turbo is an inefficient and more costly way to turbo. WIll it work? yes.....is it the best idea/way to do it? NO

what if i wanted to twin charge my mini?

i have seen quite a few sts powered f-bodies here and the way they compensate for the distance to make up for the elasticity it a smaller turbine so it will spool...

but basically everyone is right i have raced a few sts f-bodies in my z28(motor+spray) and smoke them the few people with twin or single underhood turbos on f-bodies take me most of the time...

so it is easIER in a car without room under hood but at the cost of performance...

so it might seem eisier but but the time you factor in all piping, oil lines, and a scavenge pump for the oil line and alot more little extras it slowly becomes alot more hassle...

Hope your woman got some lungs

I dont know why people think its easier to try to bolt a turbo to your gas tank than it is to your exhaust manifold.

gonna need some extreme plumbing to get one of those fitted in the back. Great idea and nice concept though. But imagine the weight it's going to add with about 10 meters of stainless steel pipes?

no lag and after a good tune itll run pretty good. plus this is mainly for the guys that want to keep everything in the "sleeper Mode"

Superchargers don't produce as much heat as an exhaust bolted turbine. I wrote my post a little to quickly: It didn't mean that they do not produce heat but they produce much less heat than a turbo.
For better understanding I would say that for the same boost you need a much smaller intercooler core. And the underhood temperature will be also way colder

This post has been edited by domyz: Nov 3, 2009 - 8:30 PM

SC's are less effecient than turbo's by nature. SC's have quite a bit of parasitic power loss due to how they function, they are belt driven. Turbos work on wasted energy.

For racing I would choose a supercharger , because of response and underhood/charge air temperatures

That is a pretty "blanket" statement. It really depends on the type of racing, size of motor, power level you're dealing with, etc.... SC's in the old days were superior to turbos in many ways. These days with current turbo technology and design you will be hard pressed to find any SC setups that are a better overall choice over a turbo that produces similar power.

Where did I talk of power output? You only seem to be wanting to argue with me. You seem to compare old superchargers with new turbos, read more. It is obvious that a turbocharged engine get better HP efficiency and higher HP output.

Do you have driving experience with these TWO setups, or with monitoring engine bay temps?
Response is quicker, more torque at lower RPM and underhood and charge air temperature are lower with a supercharger setup, end of discussion. I won't write the whole story about why I say that.

My choice for street/race is a turbo engine.
My choice for only racing would be a supercharged engine, based on experience and what I feel better for lapping.

I didn't say you talked of power output, and neither did I. All I meant with "turbo that produces similar power" was that comparing a turbo that produces a similar power band to an SC that produces a similar power band, you see a smaller and smaller gap in low end torque these days with new turbo technologies. It seems like you may be reading too much into my post and trying to start an arguement.

Engine bay temps are just ONE part of the equation. It's not just two setups. There are many different types of SC's and many different types of turbos. Yes, I have built and driven many different SC'd cars from mustangs to mercedes to oldschool hemi powered muscle cars. They're great and they produce a great produce great power bands. I have also built and driven many turbo cars. Properly setup turbo cars from my experience provide a great power band, are more effecient, provide more adjustability, fast throttle response, fairly low intake temperatures with a proper IC setup, and even net better MPG. All of which matter.