Rear mounted turbo kit

Minicobra1

Looks like these guys have done a lot of cars, I haven't seen anything about any failures reported. I'm all for trying anything new, as long as the results are proven. it looks like it would be a little easier to convert back to stock when it came time to doing a smog check.

__________________
370z Tour| Spt Pack|Navi|BERK CBE|Berk HFC's| Eibach Springs| Hotchkis Sway Bars|SPC Camber Arms|15mm Ichiba Wheel Spacers| 19"Factory Nismo Wheels-Matt Black|Stop Tech Rotors|TWM Shifter|3M Tint|Black Fangs|Black Rear Valance|JDM Fog Light| MY BAND-www.myspace.com/petroleum

Crash

On the corvette, the filters are out of the way of water and dirt. The original design had them sitting almost directly off the turbos. But STS later redesigned them to put the filters up high.

Turbo-lag won't be an issue. Simple physics: Take a 1 foot straw, pinch or block one end of it and blow through the other. Then do the same with a 3 foot straw. The result will be the same. You'll have no leeway to push any more air into either straws no matter their length. The only variable factor is the elasticity of the material the straw is made out of.

In the case of a rear-mounted turbo, the lag isn't going to be that much different than a front mounted turbo kit. The big variable is the density of the exhaust air, not the density of the intake air. The exhaust air will cool very fast allowing the air to contract into a denser accumulation. However, the mass behind that air remains the same so the end result is almost no different than the front mounted turbo kit. In this case, we're trading time of travel for air density.

Intake air, however, is going to near identical to a front mounted turbo kit because when the car is on, the turbos are always spinning and air is always moving. The pressure in the intake piping is not constant, but never becomes a vacuum. Therefore when the turbos spin faster, the air has nowhere to go but forward increasing pressure in the piping. Increasing pressure at one end of the piping will increase the pressure at the other end equally as the pressure will disperse faster than the air can move. Therefore, the only turbo lag that would be possible would be from the elasticity of the metal piping, which isn't going to be much.

__________________
2002 Corvette Z06 - Totaled
2003 Corvette Z06 50th Anniversary

bigaudiofanat

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.

Crash

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

jmlenz

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

STS 350Z video by TrackZpeed - Photobucket

Crash

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

Zguy

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.

KingDavid

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.

Crash

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

2fast4thelaw

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.

KingDavid

Something like that. I believe that an overall engine design and build, including displacement > just displacement alone.

Crash

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

2fast4thelaw

I made the unfortunate mistake of buying a 2002 C5 corvette with an automatic trans. It was the worse car I ever owned! The front nose is so long that the car always felt awkward and nose heavy to me. I kept it one year and sold it off. It was plagued with electrical problems and rattled like a Model T.

I think its great that you love the vette, you can have them! I can't knock a Z06 as I have never driven one, I would however expect much from it as it carries a very heavy price tag!

Bottom line, I love my 370Z and I feel its by far the best performing, best handling, and best looking car out there for the money. If you dont agree, than I really question why you are even here on this site! There are many Corvette forums out there for all you vette nut huggers!

Snakebite202

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?

Snakebite202