Nissan 370Z Forum  

Rear mounted turbo kit

I would just do a regular turbo kit but that is way to close to the ground the filter would have to be cleaned at least every other week. Not

Go Back   Nissan 370Z Forum > Nissan 370Z Tech Area > Engine & Drivetrain > Forced Induction


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-23-2009, 03:26 PM   #46 (permalink)
Car Audio Installer
 
bigaudiofanat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Magnolia DE
Posts: 8,342
Drives: 2012 Infiniti G37x
Rep Power: 852
bigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond reputebigaudiofanat has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to bigaudiofanat Send a message via Yahoo to bigaudiofanat Send a message via Skype™ to bigaudiofanat
Default

I would just do a regular turbo kit but that is way to close to the ground the filter would have to be cleaned at least every other week. Not to mention the chance of going threw a puddle and getting water in the engine NOT GOOD.
bigaudiofanat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 04:50 PM   #47 (permalink)
A True Z Fanatic
 
Crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Drives: 02 Corvette Z06
Rep Power: 589
Crash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigaudiofanat View Post
I would just do a regular turbo kit but that is way to close to the ground the filter would have to be cleaned at least every other week. Not to mention the chance of going threw a puddle and getting water in the engine NOT GOOD.
The turbos are just as close to the ground as they would be in the front... Maybe a couple inches lower. The filters are located up high where dirt doesn't matter, so the filters would need to be cleaned just as much as the front ones, and maybe less.
__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 04:52 PM   #48 (permalink)
A True Z Fanatic
 
Crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Drives: 02 Corvette Z06
Rep Power: 589
Crash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by terrycs View Post
That kit for the Z06 may even be CARB certified.
It's possible. But I think I'm going to go with a supercharger. Techco is making a 3.0L supercharger kit that fits under the OEM hood. I'm thinking that'd be better since I won't have to modify the crap out of my car. We'll see, though. I don't really want to build the motor, but with the amount of power the 3.0 CAN put out, I may do it anyway.
__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 04:56 PM   #49 (permalink)
Track Member
 
jmlenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 645
Drives: a car
Rep Power: 642
jmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Your assumption on the compression ratio is not accurate. HRs run 10.6 compared to the 11.0 in the VHR and they (HRs) have been boosted successfully for over a year with 10+psi. For the record I only know of 1 failure reported (my 350z .com forums) since the HR turbo kits came out. The VHR, despite the 11.0:1 compression with boost just fine and VHR have stronger rods than HR too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kannibul View Post
The thing that gets me is that people are strapping on a turbo (or any other forced induction) to an engine that has 11:1 compression. That's just asking for it to blow up...

I remember the rule of thumb is 8:1 for blowers. I can't imagine he amount of octane boost one would need to run for 11:1 to prevent detonation / pre-ignition, if it'd even run correctly on 91...(since the car already takes 91...)

I dunno, I guess I'm not THAT into power. This car will break loose with an automatic transmission up into 3rd gear...that's plenty of power. After that, it's a matter of getting it to the pavement and stay there...
jmlenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 05:52 PM   #50 (permalink)
Track Member
 
jmlenz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 645
Drives: a car
Rep Power: 642
jmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond reputejmlenz has a reputation beyond repute
Default

pretty cool vid of an STS 350z running an auto-x course

STS 350Z video by TrackZpeed - Photobucket
jmlenz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2009, 06:01 PM   #51 (permalink)
A True Z Fanatic
 
Crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Drives: 02 Corvette Z06
Rep Power: 589
Crash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

LOL! The ending quote is wrong "Forced induction, there's no substitute."

Sorry, but "There's no replacement for displacement."
__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 02:05 PM   #52 (permalink)
Base Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 153
Drives: 05 Chrome Silver
Rep Power: 16
Zguy is on a distinguished road
Default

Sure there is... its called efficiency You can have a V8 that burns twice the gas but gets the same HP as a Boosted 4 cyl. I loved tea bagging all the Muscle car jack asses around here when I had my Boosted CRX. Displacement Is good if you want to stay NA and burn gas every day.

Sure you can boost a V8 but there is a point where you are just wasting the power because you CANT put it to the ground. You can get the same HP in a 4 cyl that you can in a V8 or even a V12 and still the point of where you have too much power is the same no matter what your displacement is.

So Displacement is a waste imo..... The VQ37 is a perfect in between and in most cases already destroy V8's in its stock state. The day of American muscle is pretty much out dated. Ill take technology over displacement any day.
Zguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 04:59 PM   #53 (permalink)
A True Z Fanatic
 
Crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Drives: 02 Corvette Z06
Rep Power: 589
Crash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Two corrections to be made:

First:
LS1 corvettes, camaros and firebirds get between 32 and 36 MPG and average around 20-25 city. That's 5.7 Liters and yet the 370z gets a lot less economy with 2 less liters. Sometimes the size of the engine has nothing to do with the quantity of fuel it burns. In addition, those motors make a LOT more power and torque NA than is at all possible for the VQ37. Boost either of them and the result is the same as NA; the LS1 will make more power and get better economy than the VQ37.

To say that smaller boosted engines are better for economy is making a bold accusation that all larger motors are inefficient and is quite an ignorant remark. (No offense)

Second:
Also, the saying "There's no replacement for displacement" is a saying on the race track. NOBODY on the track cares how much economy they get. If it was a Honda motor tech that were to make a saying, it'd be something like "There's no replacement for direct sequential electronic fuel injection" or something that doesn't really flow well.
__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 10:31 AM   #54 (permalink)
Enthusiast Member
 
2fast4thelaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Denver Co
Age: 49
Posts: 403
Drives: 09 370Z Sport/MT6
Rep Power: 16
2fast4thelaw will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
Two corrections to be made:

First:
LS1 corvettes, camaros and firebirds get between 32 and 36 MPG and average around 20-25 city. That's 5.7 Liters and yet the 370z gets a lot less economy with 2 less liters. Sometimes the size of the engine has nothing to do with the quantity of fuel it burns.
Whoa, I call BS on whomever wrote that statement!

I dont know where you get your fuel economy numbers but I have owned both a Corvette and Trans-Am and they never got any where near this fuel economy! I was lucky to get 18 in town and maybe 24 on the hi-way if I kept my foot out of it.

Both those cars were fast in a straight line but as far as handling, the Z is completely in an whole other class. Both the Vette and the Trans Am drove like boats in comparison! Raw torque is the only thing these cars have on the Z.

The old saying " Theres no replacement for displacement" is a very out dated term that no longer applies in our day in age.
2fast4thelaw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 10:34 AM   #55 (permalink)
Base Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 182
Drives: Future 370z owner
Rep Power: 427
Snakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Snakebite202
Default

Snakebite202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 10:39 AM   #56 (permalink)
Base Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 182
Drives: Future 370z owner
Rep Power: 427
Snakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond reputeSnakebite202 has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via Yahoo to Snakebite202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crash View Post
Two corrections to be made:

First:
LS1 corvettes, camaros and firebirds get between 32 and 36 MPG and average around 20-25 city. That's 5.7 Liters and yet the 370z gets a lot less economy with 2 less liters. Sometimes the size of the engine has nothing to do with the quantity of fuel it burns. In addition, those motors make a LOT more power and torque NA than is at all possible for the VQ37. Boost either of them and the result is the same as NA; the LS1 will make more power and get better economy than the VQ37.


LS1 corvette - 19 / 28 for manual and 18 / 26 for auto

2009 Base Vette - 16/26

370Z 18/26 for both manual and auto


Not a lot of difference in fuel mileage, so that aurgument is kind of moot. And who buys a sports car for the gas mileage anyway?

Last edited by Snakebite202; 06-29-2009 at 10:48 AM.
Snakebite202 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 01:05 PM   #57 (permalink)
Base Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 176
Drives: A car
Rep Power: 16
KingDavid is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zguy View Post
Sure there is... its called efficiency You can have a V8 that burns twice the gas but gets the same HP as a Boosted 4 cyl. I loved tea bagging all the Muscle car jack asses around here when I had my Boosted CRX. Displacement Is good if you want to stay NA and burn gas every day.

Sure you can boost a V8 but there is a point where you are just wasting the power because you CANT put it to the ground. You can get the same HP in a 4 cyl that you can in a V8 or even a V12 and still the point of where you have too much power is the same no matter what your displacement is.


So Displacement is a waste imo..... The VQ37 is a perfect in between and in most cases already destroy V8's in its stock state. The day of American muscle is pretty much out dated. Ill take technology over displacement any day.
Where do you pick up your ignorance from? ANYTHING can hook. It's not up to the engine but rather suspension set up and tires and aerodynamics, etc, etc. How do you think those cars go down the 1/4 mile so quickly? Or how F1 cars are one of the quickest vehicles around tracks? There's tons of ways to get a car planted. Please shut the hell up.

Ever heard of efficiency? Sure you can TRY to make a 900whp 4cyl but you're more unlikely than anything else, able to daily drive the damn thing, and have a good power band. I'll use an example. Pick any and I mean ANY 4 cyl car that can run 8s in the 1/4 with stock internals, AND FULL INTERIOR.
KingDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 01:06 PM   #58 (permalink)
A True Z Fanatic
 
Crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Drives: 02 Corvette Z06
Rep Power: 589
Crash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Snakebite202, What they're rated at and what they actually get are two different things. The AUTOs got about that MPG, but the manuals get WAY better... You can take my word or you can ask anyone with a manual C5.

2fast4theLaw likely had an auto. Those sound like Auto numbers to me... In fact, I had an auto as well and that's what I got until I put 3.73's in the rear end where I lost about 1-2 MPG. All my friends and I get/got beyond 30 on the freeway with the m6. The BIG difference between the 4L60E (auto) and the T56 (manual) is that the auto had a crappy overdrive after 3rd whereas the T56 has 2 overdrive gears (one for street, one for freeway) and at any time, the car can cruise at 1500RPM. 70MPH in 6th gear on the freeway is 1700RPM.

The LS1 is already a very efficient motor... Giving it better gearing like that is only going to help its case. The auto, however was a 3 speed + over drive. And that trans was terrible for fuel economy.

LS1 Gas Mileage - LS1TECH <-- Totally unbiased MPG results. Some really low (from VERY modded cars) and some exceeding my expectations.

What shows up on paper isn't always true. GM under rated the LS1 F-Bodies to sell more Corvettes. So are you saying that just because it's on paper, the F-Bodies were 325HP instead of 350? Because a dyno would say otherwise.


And yes, that saying is old. But I don't feel it's outdated. Technology only gets better, but the truth behind the saying is still what it is. A current day Big block is still FAR better than a current day small liter motor. ANYTHING you do to the smaller motor, you can do to the bigger motor and the results are only escalated, but not changed.
__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 01:07 PM   #59 (permalink)
Base Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 176
Drives: A car
Rep Power: 16
KingDavid is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2fast4thelaw View Post
Whoa, I call BS on whomever wrote that statement!

I dont know where you get your fuel economy numbers but I have owned both a Corvette and Trans-Am and they never got any where near this fuel economy! I was lucky to get 18 in town and maybe 24 on the hi-way if I kept my foot out of it.

Both those cars were fast in a straight line but as far as handling, the Z is completely in an whole other class. Both the Vette and the Trans Am drove like boats in comparison! Raw torque is the only thing these cars have on the Z.

The old saying " Theres no replacement for displacement" is a very out dated term that no longer applies in our day in age.
Something like that. I believe that an overall engine design and build, including displacement > just displacement alone.
KingDavid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2009, 01:19 PM   #60 (permalink)
A True Z Fanatic
 
Crash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,853
Drives: 02 Corvette Z06
Rep Power: 589
Crash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond reputeCrash has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2fast4thelaw View Post
Both those cars were fast in a straight line but as far as handling, the Z is completely in an whole other class. Both the Vette and the Trans Am drove like boats in comparison! Raw torque is the only thing these cars have on the Z.
Who said anything about handling?

If we're going to argue that, I have my rebuttal, of course. The F-Bodies certainly were straight line cars. They handle like crap without a lot of work. My T/A wasn't all that great for turning at all. Still better than Mustangs by far, but no canyon car!

However, the C5 Corvettes (especially the Z06) handle way better than the Z in my opinion. I really don't believe you had a C5 Corvette. You may have had a Corvette, but it wasn't a 97 or newer if yours didn't handle well. The C4 Vettes handled OK, but I'd agree the Zs handle better. But the C5's were meant to be tracked straight from the factory. The handling and braking on the Z06 was top-notch. The C6 Z06 has even better handling and is arguably one of the best track cars in production.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=1&preview= <-- Better skidpad results from the first generation c5 z06. Bests the 370z.
http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevr...orvette_C5_Z06 <-- 1.03G on the skid-pad.
__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary

Last edited by Crash; 06-29-2009 at 01:25 PM.
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you get to 400 without turbo or super-charger Q_USAF Engine & Drivetrain 193 03-15-2023 02:18 PM
AAM VQ37 Twin Turbo Kit! Clint@Altered Forced Induction 114 12-01-2009 08:58 PM
Will we see a SINGLE turbo kit? Brazilbro Forced Induction 17 07-03-2009 04:03 PM
APS Twin turbo release??? Dcwatson7 Forced Induction 8 03-06-2009 12:13 AM
BMW M3 E46 Turbo vs Lamborghini Gallardo AK370Z Other Vehicles 7 12-27-2008 01:22 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2