remote turbos

I have a better idea. Ditch the heater core and mount it in the heater plenum. Hehe.

God, That'd be the last thing I'd wanna mount right next to the fuel tank. No matter what they say, that long intake tube is gonna drop the pressure and increase lag, unless they run the turbo at pretty high boost to make up for it.

Joe opined in news:Fj39d.128$a85.21@fed1read04:

Turbo Lag to the MAX!!!!

Gee..... I had 18 lb boost on my 84 SVO - foot in it ALLL the time as a daily driver - and the turbo lasted 150kmiles WITHOUT a water jacket in the bearing housing.

[pol] Dumb idea keyed to those who think Kerry's campaign issues make sense. [/pol]

66 6F HCS opined in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

higher the boost, more apparent the lag

I like the fact that the this turbo being remote-mounted has solved all of the problems with engine-mounted turbo systems. There is intense under the hood heat a turbo generates has been eliminated and you do not have to punch a hole in your oil pan or cut up the front of the vehicle for an intercooler. I just hope it passes emissions but it should be CARD approved soon and also good being that is is mounted after the catalytic converter. here is a article from a turbo magazine that talkes about turbo lag, appernelty there is'nt any and you get a 60% gain in ponies. i still think this is such a new and radical concept that I wanna be the lab rat.

I am with you on this one. I looked on the website for a place to sign up and have your stock 87-93 Mustang 5 Liter tested, but alas, I couldn't find such a thing. I could always email them. I do have a potential customer base of about 70 Mustang owners who would love to find a more efficient turbo system. On top of that you could include RAMFM as an additional customer base. That should give me about 150 people that would want my opinion and could very easily be swayed by the reviews I give. Yeah...sounds like I should get setup for free.

Don Manning

After reading the 'turbo vs. supercharger' page

I came to the conclusion that this is all a bunch of crap. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

"2.3Sleeper" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@uni-berlin.de:

LMAO!

I found it interesting that twin screw SC's weren't included in the comparo. Since that style is the most comparable to a turbo in how it works anyway.

"66 6F HCS" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Exactly. I'd love to know (a) what engine and blowers that graph represents, and (b) what the graph from a KB would look like.

Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC

To quote Chris Rock:

"You can drive a car with your feet if ya WANT too, that don't mean it's to be done!"

I think that sums up this topic :-)

///Mike TS #63

1993 BMW 525i of all the old cars - Newly updated

Yet added the problem of about three minutes of lag time....

Yeah I hafta agree. That's a load of horse crap.

-Mike

-- A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT Cold air intake FRPP 3.73 gears Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter Full Boar turbo mufflers Hi-speed fan switch

255/60R-15 rear tires Subframe connectors

WindsorFox[SS] opined in news:KeD9d.554$%x.338@okepread04:

Note that "lag" is addressed right up front... "special design" eliminates this and in fact the configuration is not suitable for up front mounting.

Now even though I didnt stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I assume that means it's so efficient that you'll get boost before you actually mash the pedal down which would obviously be dangerous ... imagine your pony running away with you.

I've seen pictures of a late model F body with twin turbos under the car, every LT1-LS1 tweaker I know that saw it laughed at it.