Close

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    595
    Rep Points
    806.8
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No

    Hellcat vs ZL1 Dyno Comparison

    Motor Trend encrypted everything so I can't embed the pics. Isn't it a given that the Hellcat would dyno higher since they used 8th gear?

    "Our eight-speed automatic-equipped Challenger Hellcat was the first to hit the rollers. Dodge says the Hellcat's 6.2-liter supercharged V-8 produces an SAE-certified 707 hp and 650 lb-ft of torque at the crank. That's a lie. It produces more -- much more, even, depending on what sort of drivetrain loss you're assuming. According to K&N's dyno results, the Challenger SRT Hellcat puts down 635 hpand 591 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels. Assuming a 12-percent drivetrain loss (automatics are getting more efficient each year), that means the Hellcat puts out about 722 hp at the crank. As for torque, well, the Hellcat makes more than advertised there as well -- 672-lb-ft, which might help explain the set of rear tires we burned through."

    "Now on to the Camaro. Chevrolet rates the ZL1's LSA 6.2-liter supercharged V-8 at an SAE-certified 580 hp and 556 lb-ft of torque. Our six-speed manual tester put down 472 hp and 482 lb-ft of torque to the rear wheels, which K&N noted was about 20 fewer wheel horsepower than it was used to seeing from a stock Camaro ZL1. Assuming a 10-percent drivetrain loss for the manual Camaro means the LSA is making 524 hp and 536 lb-ft of torque at the crank. While a bit lower than expected, it's worth noting that our ZL1 tester's test track numbers were exactly what we'd expect from a ZL1."

    http://blogs.motortrend.com/1408_dyn...e_rollers.html

    Click here to enlarge

    /
    //A L E X A N D R E 1983 Photography///ALX1983.COM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    6500ft ASL
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Points
    2,140.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22


    Yes Reputation No
    The Hellcat is impressive. Here's the graph (one of the few benefits of posting here on an ipad).

    -Rich
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    2010 E90 LCI 335i Black Sapphire (his)
    COBB/PTF proTUNE/Alpina/BMS Drop-in/PSS/Blizzak
    2016 Acura MDX SH-AWD Graphite Luster Metallic (hers)
    1969 Opel Gt Strato Blue (storage)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London and USA
    Posts
    2,061
    Rep Points
    1,444.9
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Yes Reputation No
    A black one zoomed by me doing at least 75 in a 30 zone in Riverhead this week, $#@!ing loud as hell that thing and fuglier than a busted face
    2005 Porsche 996 TTS RWD - Eurodyne 60-130 in 6.50s
    2015 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI - Eurodyne 0 - 100 in 10.67s
    2015 McLaren 650S (RHD) - UK - 1/3rd owner yet to drive


    Click here to enlarge



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,961
    Rep Points
    2,643.3
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Group.america Click here to enlarge
    A black one zoomed by me doing at least 75 in a 30 zone in Riverhead this week, $#@!ing loud as hell that thing and fuglier than a busted face
    What are ya doing this saturday? Im heading out east with the Fam... would love to get together possibly...
    09 6AT 335i Coupe M-Sport - SOLD
    Current - 16 Jeep Wrangler - Few Mods
    Looking for a n54 project e90/e82

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,930
    Rep Points
    921.6
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    I definitely like the hellcat over the ZL1, honestly was never a big fan of the ZL1 since it came out, it's just been an OK car. Now the C7 Z07...that I like...lol
    2009 335i coupe back to stock...for now

    Click here to enlarge

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    London and USA
    Posts
    2,061
    Rep Points
    1,444.9
    Mentioned
    44 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ChuckD05 Click here to enlarge
    What are ya doing this saturday? Im heading out east with the Fam... would love to get together possibly...
    Mate, I have the missus Aunties and parents, but where will you be. I might be able to sneak out Sunday morning
    2005 Porsche 996 TTS RWD - Eurodyne 60-130 in 6.50s
    2015 Audi A3 2.0 TFSI - Eurodyne 0 - 100 in 10.67s
    2015 McLaren 650S (RHD) - UK - 1/3rd owner yet to drive


    Click here to enlarge



  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    6500ft ASL
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Points
    2,140.6
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    22


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by mjmarovi Click here to enlarge
    I definitely like the hellcat over the ZL1, honestly was never a big fan of the ZL1 since it came out, it's just been an OK car. Now the C7 Z07...that I like...lol
    This.

    -Rich
    2010 E90 LCI 335i Black Sapphire (his)
    COBB/PTF proTUNE/Alpina/BMS Drop-in/PSS/Blizzak
    2016 Acura MDX SH-AWD Graphite Luster Metallic (hers)
    1969 Opel Gt Strato Blue (storage)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    1,082
    Rep Points
    916.9
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    i have a 2014 zl1 manual convertible sitting in my back yard, holy $#@! you guys do not understand how easy it is to drive that car. when downshifting it helps you rev match and it helps you on take off. short throw shifter but the clutch travel is too short for my taste (maybe I'm just too used to my m6's manual)

    acceleration wise..i mean it pulls but i feel it's missing something for a car supposedly to have a power level nearing 600. idk man $#@! the LSA it's not that good. that dyno probably isn't far from the truth but i think that peak power isnt in the right place and it hurts performance big time.
    '08 535xi - fbo

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,930
    Rep Points
    921.6
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by rawad1017 Click here to enlarge
    i have a 2014 zl1 manual convertible sitting in my back yard, holy $#@! you guys do not understand how easy it is to drive that car. when downshifting it helps you rev match and it helps you on take off. short throw shifter but the clutch travel is too short for my taste (maybe I'm just too used to my m6's manual)

    acceleration wise..i mean it pulls but i feel it's missing something for a car supposedly to have a power level nearing 600. idk man $#@! the LSA it's not that good. that dyno probably isn't far from the truth but i think that peak power isnt in the right place and it hurts performance big time.
    Yeah, a friend had an automatic for a short time last year, I wasn't impressed at all TBH. I had kinda hyped the car up myself, and expected a lot, and I thought it felt really slow for the supposed 580hp. Although the interior was very nice, and had all the creature comforts you could ask for, the design was just...blah. I do not like the big knobs that seems to jump out at you like something from an old jeep. It's absolutely a capable car on a road course and that's what it's designed for. I also agree with you, it's crazy easy to drive around town, and much more enjoyable than say the GT500. However, it lacks power, and blind spots are really bad...
    2009 335i coupe back to stock...for now

    Click here to enlarge

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Ive heard the blind spots are bad too on the Camaro.

    That hemi engine is a gem, historic times in the auto industry right now. We will be telling our grandkids.
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No

    MotorTrend puts the Challenger Hellcat and the Camaro ZL1 on a Dynojet to compare output and we include a 2014 Ford Mustang GT500 graph

    Brace yourself for shocking news. The Challenger Hellcat is much more powerful than the Camaro ZL1. Ok sarcasm off this is no surprise and why Motortrend chose to use the ZL1 is anyone's guess. We already knew from the Mustang GT500 beating up on the ZL1 that it is the weakest muscle car out of the trio.

    Click here to enlarge

    It is interesting to see just how strong the Hellcat is on the Dynojet at the K&N facility located in Riverside, California. The Hellcat has over 100 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on the ZL1 and 163 more horsepower at the wheels. Essentially a night and day difference.

    Now let us throw in a GT500 graph to put the trio of modern domestic muscle cars in perspective with added context. This is the stock 2014 GT500:

    Click here to enlarge

    585 wheel horsepower and 600 lb-ft of wheel torque for the GT500 which also flat out spanks the ZL1. The Hellcat is the new king (for as long as it lasts) but clearly the GT500 and Hellcat are the ones packing the muscle here.

    The Hellcat is an 8-speed automatic and the ZL1 is a 6-speed manual:

    Wheel horsepower:

    1. Hellcat - 635
    2. GT500 - 585
    3. ZL1 - 472

    Pound-feet of Torque:

    1. GT500 - 600
    2. Hellcat - 591
    3. ZL1 - 482

    It is interesting to note that the GT500 has more torque although it is important to point out that although these numbers are all from a Dynojet they did not all use the same Dynojet and conditions vary as do cars themselves depending on the break in, mileage, fuel, etc. The point is the GT500 and Hellcat have peak torque figures that are very close while the ZL1 trails both of them considerably.

    The Hellcat is making more power and it looks like the factory twin screw blower on the engine is more efficient than the stock Eaton TVS roots unit on the GT500.

    The power hierarchy is well established and now we have to wait and see if Ford will reclaim its title and if Chevy intends to actually put up a real fight with the next generation Camaro.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    595
    Rep Points
    806.8
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9



    Yes Reputation No
    looking forward to the 2015/6 GT500...

    Click here to enlarge

    /
    //A L E X A N D R E 1983 Photography///ALX1983.COM

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    The Mustang and the Hellcat are the 2 bosses right now of the muscle cars for sure. From the rolling road dyno's I have seen on the Mustang, the Hemi will eat them from down low in the rpm range. Up top it will be much closer, the Mustang just keeps pulling. A Pro street Challenger on a diet down to 3600lb would be a beast.
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    The Mustang and the Hellcat are the 2 bosses right now of the muscle cars for sure. From the rolling road dyno's I have seen on the Mustang, the Hemi will eat them from down low in the rpm range. Up top it will be much closer, the Mustang just keeps pulling. A Pro street Challenger on a diet down to 3600lb would be a beast.
    If the Challenger was 500 pounds lighter it would take a dump across the Viper's hood.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    lol, TRUE. However, the Viper gods are allegedly going to fix that little problem in a year or 2. Hope they do, that V10 LOVES boost.
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    lol, TRUE. However, the Viper gods are allegedly going to fix that little problem in a year or 2. Hope they do, that V10 LOVES boost.
    You've seen this I take it? http://www.dodgeboost.com/content.ph...he-sales-slump

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Yes :-) Personally I'd rather see them go twin turbos - preferably rear mounted. That'd work perfectly on a Viper, full race exhaust and great efficiency off boost, with negligible lag. But US OEM's tend to like heat soaking positive displacement blowers that add unneeded low down torque and crank sapping/IAT rising top end.

    BTW - my tuner just did a ZL1. Mild cam plus tune = 560rwhp
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    Personally I'd rather see them go twin turbos - preferably rear mounted
    Why? OEM rear mount? Meh.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Why? OEM rear mount? Meh.
    Good question, thanks for asking it. Most of the reasons informed boost enthusiasts (who have no direct experience with remote mounts) bag the idea have some truth in them.

    BUT, this is a case where the difference between the pros and cons in REALITY can turn the tables on conventional wisdom.

    I've got one.

    STS had the right idea, it works brilliantly on larger engines, mine is an LS3 6.2. The problem with the STS setups are poor quality due to builiding kits to a price. We replaced everything they supplied except the upgraded BB turbo, had to rebuild that after 5000 miles, and are now going to twin state of art Bullseye Power turbos that will be closer to the engine (mid mounted) because I'm going from auto to built manual.

    Here's some reasons why an OEM attempt would be a good idea on a Viper (based on my real world experience of actually doing it on a smaller motor, so larger one would be better):

    No stick shift with synchros is going to handle an OEM rated 800++ ft/lb of torque (800fp or 1085NM = very conservative for boosting an 8.4L V10, anything less would be detuned, and over 1000 is normal over 10psi on a good setup). THEREFORE my assumption is that a TT Viper that was OEM would run the 8 speed auto, and therefore my comments here will apply to doing a Merc 6.2 also...

    Remember that a remote mount allows for race style headers and exhaust - like a blower car - so no restrictions before the turbos. The trick is to get the intake back just as freely.

    1 - off boost is way better than anything short of a positive displacement blower (that can boost from idle).

    2 - remote mounts work with autos like hands into a glove. Mine had tall 3.07 rear gears same as the Gen 4 and earlier Vipers and could boost from a dig on the streeet despite the turbo being right out back where the back muffler used to sit!! That was on a 2600stall converter. Even on a stock converter it would hurt you on the strip for the 1st half second but on street you just squeezed the trigger then hung on, so perfect. Once rolling and into the rpm power was near instant

    3 - Phenomenal efficiency at part throttle means no loss or even better mpg and emissions off boost - no front mount with their tight turns or blower set up could match it without a disengagement clutch.

    4 - a softer boost ramp down low is perfect for big engines. A stock Gen 5 Viper cannot be stomped in 1st gear at any speed and hook, thats with 600ft/lb let alone 800, so anyone saying they need 800 in 1st gear is delusional or is talking DOT tires on a strip. Obviously the higher gears want more. My LS3 made 300hp at the wheels by 2600rpm - compare that to any blower set up you can find on the LS3 and get back to me ;-) They start soft but still out perform blowers by low rpm and from there on up they are always going to have an advantage if sized correctly due to inherent turbo efficiencies over a crank driven pump.

    5 - top end is limited by balls and sizing so no disadvantage

    6 - here is the kicker - because fact is a good front mount will beat a rear mount for street applications (not for all out race - refer 6 second Vette running them): you do not have red hot globes under your hood right where you are trying to control the heat from big power. THIS is why OEM should look at it - you could road race (I have) rear mounts and keep them cool. Power might be a little less and a little slower ramping than a front mount - but be useable and the driver won't want or need it any quicker as the tires can't handle more anyway.

    Add traction control and I was using almost all my 630hp in the RAIN from top of 2nd gear. Try that in a PD blower set up or a typical front mount that will come on like a bull at a gate. Then lets compare AIT and oil temps after a few hot laps :-)

    See, every idea has a place, though not all will agree with me - that's ok, just saying the idea works EXTREMELY well in real world street and road and track. For drag only - anything goes as you can work around stuff
    Last edited by Torquemonster; 10-11-2014 at 05:16 PM.
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    Good question, thanks for asking it. Most of the reasons informed boost enthusiasts (who have no direct experience with remote mounts) bag the idea have some truth in them.

    BUT, this is a case where the difference between the pros and cons in REALITY can turn the tables on conventional wisdom.

    I've got one.

    STS had the right idea, it works brilliantly on larger engines, mine is an LS3 6.2. The problem with the STS setups are poor quality due to builiding kits to a price. We replaced everything they supplied except the upgraded BB turbo, had to rebuild that after 5000 miles, and are now going to twin state of art Bullseye Power turbos that will be closer to the engine (mid mounted) because I'm going from auto to built manual.

    Here's some reasons why an OEM attempt would be a good idea on a Viper (based on my real world experience of actually doing it on a smaller motor, so larger one would be better):

    No stick shift with synchros is going to handle an OEM rated 800++ ft/lb of torque (800fp or 1085NM = very conservative for boosting an 8.4L V10, anything less would be detuned, and over 1000 is normal over 10psi on a good setup). THEREFORE my assumption is that a TT Viper that was OEM would run the 8 speed auto, and therefore my comments here will apply to doing a Merc 6.2 also...

    Remember that a remote mount allows for race style headers and exhaust - like a blower car - so no restrictions before the turbos. The trick is to get the intake back just as freely.

    1 - off boost is way better than anything short of a positive displacement blower (that can boost from idle).

    2 - remote mounts work with autos like hands into a glove. Mine had tall 3.07 rear gears same as the Gen 4 and earlier Vipers and could boost from a dig on the streeet despite the turbo being right out back where the back muffler used to sit!! That was on a 2600stall converter. Even on a stock converter it would hurt you on the strip for the 1st half second but on street you just squeezed the trigger then hung on, so perfect. Once rolling and into the rpm power was near instant

    3 - Phenomenal efficiency at part throttle means no loss or even better mpg and emissions off boost - no front mount with their tight turns or blower set up could match it without a disengagement clutch.

    4 - a softer boost ramp down low is perfect for big engines. A stock Gen 5 Viper cannot be stomped in 1st gear at any speed and hook, thats with 600ft/lb let alone 800, so anyone saying they need 800 in 1st gear is delusional or is talking DOT tires on a strip. Obviously the higher gears want more. My LS3 made 300hp at the wheels by 2600rpm - compare that to any blower set up you can find on the LS3 and get back to me ;-) They start soft but still out perform blowers by low rpm and from there on up they are always going to have an advantage if sized correctly due to inherent turbo efficiencies over a crank driven pump.

    5 - top end is limited by balls and sizing so no disadvantage

    6 - here is the kicker - because fact is a good front mount will beat a rear mount for street applications (not for all out race - refer 6 second Vette running them): you do not have red hot globes under your hood right where you are trying to control the heat from big power. THIS is why OEM should look at it - you could road race (I have) rear mounts and keep them cool. Power might be a little less and a little slower ramping than a front mount - but be useable and the driver won't want or need it any quicker as the tires can't handle more anyway.

    Add traction control and I was using almost all my 630hp in the RAIN from top of 2nd gear. Try that in a PD blower set up or a typical front mount that will come on like a bull at a gate. Then lets compare AIT and oil temps after a few hot laps :-)

    See, every idea has a place, though not all will agree with me - that's ok, just saying the idea works EXTREMELY well in real world street and road and track. For drag only - anything goes as you can work around stuff
    I think this is a nice post but I don't agree with it. Basing points on STS kits is not exactly a good idea. I mean STS has had their share of failures and shoddy quality right?

    Regarding your points:

    1. Why is off boost better? I have no idea why it would be better with the crappy response due to all that plumbing and distance from the motor. The off boost response is really a function of displacement in your example.

    2. Like hands in a glove? You know what works even better? Turbos close to the actual motor. Like an entire hand actually inside a glove instead of just a finger.

    3. I have no idea what you're basing 'phenomenal efficiency' on other than your opinion.

    4. Sure, I agree with a soft boost ramp can be beneficial just like with a centrifugal blower. You might as well use the blower though as turbos are meant to give you quite the torque kick.

    5. Sure, turbo size will determine things here.

    6. The heat argument certainly is a good one. But OEM's are placing turbos directly in the V. I think they have turbo cooling figured out and don't OEM's also look into watercooling their turbos?

    Cars should not have more plumbing than a house and if rear mounts were better I think OEM's would already use them.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I think this is a nice post but I don't agree with it. Basing points on STS kits is not exactly a good idea. I mean STS has had their share of failures and shoddy quality right?

    Regarding your points:

    1. Why is off boost better? I have no idea why it would be better with the crappy response due to all that plumbing and distance from the motor. The off boost response is really a function of displacement in your example.

    2. Like hands in a glove? You know what works even better? Turbos close to the actual motor. Like an entire hand actually inside a glove instead of just a finger.

    3. I have no idea what you're basing 'phenomenal efficiency' on other than your opinion.

    4. Sure, I agree with a soft boost ramp can be beneficial just like with a centrifugal blower. You might as well use the blower though as turbos are meant to give you quite the torque kick.

    5. Sure, turbo size will determine things here.

    6. The heat argument certainly is a good one. But OEM's are placing turbos directly in the V. I think they have turbo cooling figured out and don't OEM's also look into watercooling their turbos?

    Cars should not have more plumbing than a house and if rear mounts were better I think OEM's would already use them.
    First off Sticky, you may be entirely right and I could be wrong. However I was one of those that bagged the whole idea for years then learned a few things about them so tried it and the results were very satisfying.

    1: It is not crappy response, throttle response is normal and re boost - it takes less than 1/10th of a second to get air from back to front so there is no noticable loss. I think the advantage off boost is where the intake track and exhausts are optimized for flow, ie. correct sizing (slowly increasing on intake) with no tight bends like there has to be under a hood. That's just a guess, but these system give incredible economy tuned properly. STS Ricks own C6 Vette makes 700hp and has achieved 35mpg over a tank on highway, with spot readings over 40mpg at steady highway speeds on flat ground. From an LS3 that is remarkable. My own setup was a lot heavier and less areo than a C6 being more like a 4 door GTO, yet still managed 30mpg on a economy run with an auto! They can't do that with a blower for sure, and I've not seen it done on front mounts except on a full race style set up where they made room for some awesome plumbing. But as I did not do a back to back front mount to rear - as I said - you may be right. But trust me, it is still good to drive, I smile everytime I drive it.

    2 - lol, can't argue with that

    3 - see 1 - not sure how to explain why the remote mounts get great mpg - they are known for it. Also the air cools in the quick journey to the front

    4 - the torque curve IS fat, how is 606ft/lb at the wheels from 2600rpm out of a stock LS1 5.7 on low boost with an auto? It just smoothly ramps to that point - from 2500rpm up it's doing what turbos do. By soft I'm talking under 2500rpm... but most guys run their turbos so large they have nothing till 3k anyway.

    5 - agreed

    6 - agreed - convenience being the big thing as the intake track on an OEM is going to require some attention. But be fair - it is one thing to cool 600hp, quite another to cool 1000+, and most turbos on big engines easily can boost past that. Veyron would have been a lot easier to cool if the turbos were further away - if there was room. Modern materials coming out that can handle heat will help a lot, but for retro fitting - remote mounts are a good idea if you want track days and hot lapping. Much less heat soak.

    Some drag race cars use them - 6 sec over 200mph - just gives more room for big pipes and better design options. Down side is they need plumbing of cold air into the inlets which front mounts are perfect for (if you don't want a filter).

    In the end remote mounts are like a band aid - but solve one big problem on big power - heat. If you talk to 20 people that twin turbo'd a Viper or Vette passed 800rwhp, most will tell you they have had heat issues or would have had if they tried hot lapping (street rolls are nothing). A few solved that issue I understand. A buddy has one and it hot laps fine - but only because it runs the track at 750rwhp and had a lot of sorting out, even so it needs to cool off between sessions.
    Last edited by Torquemonster; 10-13-2014 at 05:16 PM. Reason: grammar
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    1,475
    Rep Points
    1,454.2
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    15


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    I agree with a lot of what you said about rear mount/mid mount turbos and I think they have a place and are not as bad as everyone says. The bad impressions probably have to do a lot with STS's failings, not the rear mount architecture itself.
    At the same time I don't think an OEM would ever do it. Simply because they have almost complete freedom in the engine bay for intake/exhaust piping when they design a platform and for the same engine a remote mount turbo will be worse in every aspect no matter what. It is just thermodynamics.
    Remote mount turbos make a ton of sense in my mind for applications when the OEM left no room for a turbo setup in the engine bay.
    The heat dissipation issue that remote mount turbos mitigate is a good benefit but I don't think it is compelling enough to overcome the drawbacks at an OEM level.
    Also, those remote mount turbos have oil-less bearings to reduce all the oil/coolant lines right? I dont' know if I buy into the marketing that they would last long enough (or in the environmental conditions) for an OEM application but I suppose that could be proven false.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Posts
    53
    Rep Points
    63.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    I agree. ALthough chassis rails could work as intakes in a new design. That'd get everything up neat and clean

    But it also looks cool and sounds cool to run headers and full race exhausts :-) Mind you Tom Nelson setups make front mounts look sexy

    For oiling to rear I use a Turbo Werx oil pump, rated for 5000 hours use. I replaced the STS one after a year as I got nervous given everything else they supplied was replaced by then except the turbo itself.... then that failed lol
    Hung like Einstein, brains of a horse. Click here to enlarge

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    First off Sticky, you may be entirely right and I could be wrong. However I was one of those that bagged the whole idea for years then learned a few things about them so tried it and the results were very satisfying.
    I understand it works it just isn't my preference. I feel it falls more under the band-aid approach.


    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    1: It is not crappy response, throttle response is normal and re boost - it takes less than 1/10th of a second to get air from back to front so there is no noticable loss. I think the advantage off boost is where the intake track and exhausts are optimized for flow, ie. correct sizing (slowly increasing on intake) with no tight bends like there has to be under a hood. That's just a guess, but these system give incredible economy tuned properly. STS Ricks own C6 Vette makes 700hp and has achieved 35mpg over a tank on highway, with spot readings over 40mpg at steady highway speeds on flat ground. From an LS3 that is remarkable. My own setup was a lot heavier and less areo than a C6 being more like a 4 door GTO, yet still managed 30mpg on a economy run with an auto! They can't do that with a blower for sure, and I've not seen it done on front mounts except on a full race style set up where they made room for some awesome plumbing. But as I did not do a back to back front mount to rear - as I said - you may be right. But trust me, it is still good to drive, I smile everytime I drive it.
    I believe you but this is from an LS3. It's a 6.2 liter V8. You aren't pushing big boost and there isn't going to be a ton of lag. All that piping on a 2.0 liter though...

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    3 - see 1 - not sure how to explain why the remote mounts get great mpg - they are known for it. Also the air cools in the quick journey to the front

    4 - the torque curve IS fat, how is 606ft/lb at the wheels from 2600rpm out of a stock LS1 5.7 on low boost with an auto? It just smoothly ramps to that point - from 2500rpm up it's doing what turbos do. By soft I'm talking under 2500rpm... but most guys run their turbos so large they have nothing till 3k anyway.
    Once again, I feel both of these are due to boosting the large V8. Sure, it works.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Torquemonster Click here to enlarge
    In the end remote mounts are like a band aid - but solve one big problem on big power - heat. If you talk to 20 people that twin turbo'd a Viper or Vette passed 800rwhp, most will tell you they have had heat issues or would have had if they tried hot lapping (street rolls are nothing). A few solved that issue I understand. A buddy has one and it hot laps fine - but only because it runs the track at 750rwhp and had a lot of sorting out, even so it needs to cool off between sessions.
    They do help with heat and packaging but I just do not personally like them. That said, I have yet to try a good rear mount setup.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,443
    Rep Points
    32,145.1
    Mentioned
    2108 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by subaru335i Click here to enlarge
    I agree with a lot of what you said about rear mount/mid mount turbos and I think they have a place and are not as bad as everyone says. The bad impressions probably have to do a lot with STS's failings, not the rear mount architecture itself.
    At the same time I don't think an OEM would ever do it. Simply because they have almost complete freedom in the engine bay for intake/exhaust piping when they design a platform and for the same engine a remote mount turbo will be worse in every aspect no matter what. It is just thermodynamics.
    Remote mount turbos make a ton of sense in my mind for applications when the OEM left no room for a turbo setup in the engine bay.
    The heat dissipation issue that remote mount turbos mitigate is a good benefit but I don't think it is compelling enough to overcome the drawbacks at an OEM level.
    Also, those remote mount turbos have oil-less bearings to reduce all the oil/coolant lines right? I dont' know if I buy into the marketing that they would last long enough (or in the environmental conditions) for an OEM application but I suppose that could be proven false.
    I think this is well said.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •