Thoughts on remote mount turbo?

My car is slow. Very slow. So I have been throwing around the idea of going turbo but I have noticed those that go turbo on Honda's have some biiiig problems with heat control under the hood. Even as far as melting timing covers, upwards of greater than 290 degree oil temps, and hardware pertaining to the turbo compenets loosening themselves.

Why dont more people go remote mount turbo?

Is there any major flaw in this design? The only issues I can see are some VERY lengthy oil lines, and on some cars, room for piping to go back up to the engine.

There is also an inability to run an intercooler but its been speculated that its just as efficient as a frount mount.

It seems like a lot of F-body and Corvette guys seem to really have good luck with them, so is there any reason I shouldnt look into doing this?

I think you end up with more turbo lag. Some one please correct me if I am wrong.

There are issues with remote mount turbo builds..

For one thing, turbo sizing is a lot less 'mathematical' and there is less of a knowledge base to go off of.. so some people have ended up with turbos that literally just did not work and had to change entire setups before they could achieve positive pressure..

They almost always need either an oil scavenge/return pump, or a separate oiling system. If you buy a return pump they can be pricey for good ones, and bad ones will cost you even more when they fail.

There is no inability to intercool.. in fact, it would not be any harder than intercooling a conventional setup. People choose not to do it out of a belief of the charge pipe dissipating that heat anyway, but few people actually monitor/take temps..

The main problem with the remote mount situation is that a LOT of the people doing them are doing them half-ass and skewing the curve of what people think is possible with them.

Im going to try it on a Dakota.

junkbuggie wrote: I think you end up with more turbo lag. Some one please correct me if I am wrong.

I thought so too. But I've been reading a lot of articles on the kits that were featured on similar displacement vehicles (namely an Integra type-R) and the "driving impressions" stated that the lag is no worse than a conventional set-up.

Though these articles were probably swayed by STS remote mount turbo themselves as it seems it was a test vehicle built by them so I'm not sure if I can trust that source...

Without an intercooler, the throttle response MAY not be too bad... As I have seen large FMIC cause more lag than a small one.

Vigo wrote: There are issues with remote mount turbo builds.. For one thing, turbo sizing is a lot less 'mathematical' and there is less of a knowledge base to go off of.. so some people have ended up with turbos that literally just did not work and had to change entire setups before they could achieve positive pressure.. They almost always need either an oil scavenge/return pump, or a separate oiling system. If you buy a return pump they can be pricey for good ones, and bad ones will cost you even more when they fail. There is no inability to intercool.. in fact, it would not be any harder than intercooling a conventional setup. People choose not to do it out of a belief of the charge pipe dissipating that heat anyway, but few people actually monitor/take temps.. The main problem with the remote mount situation is that a LOT of the people doing them are doing them half-ass and skewing the curve of what people think is possible with them. Im going to try it on a Dakota.

I was wondering about the oil situation... I figured that there was more to it than just running lines to and from...

So I'm probably going to have to use a very small hot side and a larger than average compresser side?

Let me know how it works on the Dakota!

My boss has built some RMT setups on vettes and other v8s.

It just doesn't work. Massive lag and disconnection from the gas pedal, and the oil issues. I will ask him about the intercooling issue, but theres no way a simple 6-7ft long pipe will cool as well as any air to air FMIC. Meth/water injection would work awesomely, but its another system to fail.

On a low displacement honda, Theres no way Id consider it. The biggest downfall of a RMT is the exhaust cools off drastically. That really reduces the spool and power potential of a turbo setup. You do need to put a smaller exhaust housing on any turbo you use, but it still is a huge limitation.

Theres also slowmotion motorsports in sunbury. They have turbos an insane amount of hondas. I haven't heard of that many issues like your saying. A turbo setup is a turbo setup. Except those that jankify it and ghetto it together. A proper application of heat wrap in a well designed setup can work really well.

What honda do you have? I'm not a FWD/honda fan but I did own a CRX for a short while.

~Alex

In reply to Rustspecs13:

Great info, I just dont want to deal with the heat issues I have seen.

I have a B16 EK hatch. Most of the problems I have talked about are from a guy who runs I believe redline time attack. Now with that being said I know that my car will never sustain the amount of stress he puts his car through. I am NOT that good of a driver, nor do I have the time or money to do track day upon track day let alone run a legitimate time attack... Though I want to do track days sometime in the near future (probably this coming summer). For now I'll just stick to autocross and the events that OUTBRAKE throws.

I understand turbo hondas have been done a BILLION times. And I could make a BILLION different power levels. My biggest concern is heat issues. I just dont want to deal with that.

I only throw this option out there to see how efficient it is in a real world application, and If its even beneficial to look into and its starting to look like it isnt. lol

And as far as taking my car to slowmotion or zerodrift or anyone else, I wouldnt. I dont like other people working on my car.

The reason you probably dont really see these problems often (in Ohio anyway) is because just about every Honda in Ohio is usually driven by a ricer, or someone who wants to race every single thing he sees. They dont see sustained stresses (constant 4-8k rpm) other than racing the last person they saw to the stoplight.

With all this being said... I may have to start looking into selling this thing lol

problems with heat are easily taken care of. The biggest one (the 290degree oil temps) is easily solved with an oilcooler. Besides boost, turbos are all about heat managment. Upsize the radiator, add an oilcooler, intercool, and properly size your turbo, and you will be fine.

Honda motors take to boost very well, they are tough little engines. The problems crop up with you half ass the install, try to get too much boost from too small a unit (all you do is make heat), or do the installation wrong.

considering people have been doing it successfully for ages, I wouldn't even think twice about diving in head first. If heat under the hood was a problem for turbo hondas, there wouldn't be so many of them.

If you don't already have Corky Bell's book, get it. Lots of ideas to get max boost out of whatever turbo you put in. The only complaint I have is that some of the pictures are grainy, moreso than you'd expect with a $30.00 book.

On the remote mount portion of the question: STS and others do it, and rather successfully. Their (STS) universal kit will get you far along the path, and they won't let you down if the return pump doesn't go zoom as it should at some point in the future.

You could always vent the hood to let the heat out.

I might as well just hang it off the engine. I know that it CAN be done and maintain the heat, but I just know that im looking at a lot more money than I ever expected. But I guess thats just how it goes.

Interesting video I found of an in-engine-bay camera turbo honda on a track day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8XIrn6EqKs&feature=player_embedded

Realistically, I doubt I'll be able to do it. If I do I wont cheap out on it so Its going to cost a lot. I'm probably better off buying used r-compounds and finally getting a diff and still being slow.

Get with the guys at slowmotion. The do not deal in rice and have done some real race cars to boot. They will talk options with you

One thing I never liked on the remote setups I've seen is the intake placement. They seem to all be under the car near the rear wheels. What happens when you drive in the rain? Through a puddle?

I don't think the question is "will it work?," I think the question is "Is it as good as an underhood setup."

Basically, you look for pressure and temperature drop across a turbine to indicate how efficient the turbine is and how much work you are extracting. The effect isn't great, but it is there. You also get some beneficial effects from the fact that the gas is still expanding when the exhaust valve opens. Again its small, but every little bit helps.

I'd pull out some equations and crap, but I can't remember them. It's been too many years since I've done a proper matching and played with the old turbocharger work balance equation.

Remote mount turbos work, and quite well, are they as good as an on engine setup.. No.. Ohh and as said above; The matching can get tricky for engine transients...

In reply to ignorant:

Yeah, I should have phrased the question like you put it. I overcomplicated that. lol

dsycks wrote: Get with the guys at slowmotion. The do not deal in rice and have done some real race cars to boot. They will talk options with you

lol I doubt they deal in rice... And if it seems I implied that, I certainly didnt mean to.

Appleseed wrote: One thing I never liked on the remote setups I've seen is the intake placement. They seem to all be under the car near the rear wheels. What happens when you drive in the rain? Through a puddle?

Another thing I get worried about is getting the turbine casing super hot and then going through a puddle. Cast iron, even the special alloys that they use for turbine casings, can really brittle.

I guess to answer the question that was asked is energy loss through the exhaust.

Turbos remove energy from the exhaust in the form of temperature, kinetic, and entropy. As the exhaust travels away from the engine the exhaust loses all three. The conduction and convection rob entropy and temperature and back pressure (more room to compact the exhaust the further it is away from the engine, and all the bends in the exhaust) rob the kinetic energy.

In a nut shell there are so many losses that it just doesn't make since. All of these are exhibited in the symptoms that the other posters have listed.

FlightService wrote: I guess to answer the question that was asked is energy loss through the exhaust. Turbos remove energy from the exhaust in the form of temperature, kinetic, and entropy. As the exhaust travels away from the engine the exhaust loses all three. The conduction and convection rob entropy and temperature and back pressure (more room to compact the exhaust the further it is away from the engine, and all the bends in the exhaust) rob the kinetic energy. In a nut shell there are so many losses that it just doesn't make since. All of these are exhibited in the symptoms that the other posters have listed.

Are you a physics teacher?! Good information.

cxhb wrote: I might as well just hang it off the engine. I know that it CAN be done and maintain the heat, but I just know that im looking at a lot more money than I ever expected. But I guess thats just how it goes. Interesting video I found of an in-engine-bay camera turbo honda on a track day: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8XIrn6EqKs&feature=player_embedded Realistically, I doubt I'll be able to do it. If I do I wont cheap out on it so Its going to cost a lot. I'm probably better off buying used r-compounds and finally getting a diff and still being slow.

Did you hear the cams switch at 0:13-0:15... sublime!

In reply to Taiden:

vtak just kicked in.

Yes the exhaust loses energy..

and Yes the rear-mount turbo can and will still generate boost.

So really the only question that matters is will it meet your expectations? It doesnt take a lot of energy to spin the compressor you'd need for a 1.6L.. It's clear you're not going for pie-in-the-sky numbers that might require a compressor so big that the small turbine wouldnt be enough to spool it.

I wouldnt say im a full-on supporter of rear mount turbos in all applications, but i AM a full-on supporter of the fact that small turbines are the cheapest and easiest to find!

cxhb wrote: In reply to Taiden: vtak just kicked in.

vrooooooomBAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!