I saw a STS rear mounted Turbo set up on three different cars at SEMA. It looked clean and amazing!!!!!

I know of a company called Squires who also has this set up and I belive there was a mag write up on it. Ha ha.

I definitely see the advantages of this for removing the heat from the engine bay and easy placement off of exhaust but i was wonder if this means a huge lag in the turbo?

I am looking for a much simpler (roots) approach than you knuckleheads with your Turbo-supercharge combos.

What have you all heard of this?

knuckleheads ????????????
Well no matter how you look at It a TURBO IS 100% FREE HP SO think about what you have to lose to gain Little the More you want to gain from any Belt driven BLOWER OR SUPER CHARGER the
MORE you will have to lose first. a TURBO is nothing But GAIN GAIN GAIN.And NO belts to slip OR BRAKE

Here you go knucklehead!
http://prostores1.carrierzone.com/servle...manifold/Detail



MBHD

squires is STS

The advantage to this setup isnt so much less underhood temperatures, as it is space limitations under the hood of modern vehicles.



If properly sized, no. I hate to be "that guy" that says do a search but this company has been around for quite a while now, youll be able to find much in the way of real world feedback via your favorite internet search engine.

James:
If you do a search for "forced induction" threads for "supercharged 250" beginning 5/16/08, you should find a record of my experience "rootin'" an inliner.
Got about 6000 trouble free miles on her now and lovin it!
But it's a street rod, not a racer.
Be happy to help any way i can, including drawings of the manifold, pulley ratios, timing tips, etc.

My Goal is to build a street rod from my 250 inliner. When I see "Kits" like the STS I truly believe I can build it (Bolt it on) at Home. I like these real world applications and especially for the street. Pappy (jlgrooms) I absolutely LOVE that Supercharger set up. Very very clean, you definetly have skills I can only imagine. So I will log that one under "future Considerations".


Back to the drawing board, I guess Larry is right, Turbo is free horsepower and maybe the rear mount is the way to fly, long plumbing and all. For me it finally comes down to expense and expectations. Whats the best bang for the buck.

Again to all who took me seriously the term "Knuckleheads" was affectionate. You guys are genius and sometimes I just read this stuff and go Oh My Gawd! They did what?


James

By the Hank, thanks for the nod to Larowe and Sons....that Larowe manifold is a quick way to accomplish what Pappy did on his own. Pricey, yes?
But hmmmm if I win the lottery.....

Thanks James,
But i bet you can do it! Perserverance (spellin?) takes precedence (spelin?) over skill any day. I just get it set in my mind what I want, then, as Roger Miller sang, "knuckle down, buckle down, do it, do it, do it". AND it ALWAYS helps when the nay-sayers say it can't be done! hah
I built an intake for my first inliner (49 Crosley) at age 16 out of some old steel bed rails, using only an acetylene torch and bench grinder. The flange surfaces were levelled with a large flat file. Ya make do with what ya got.

If you check the classifieds, there's a simple and much less pricy system there.

Squires Turbo Systems is STS, they're the same company. I'm building a homemade trunk mount system similar to their system. Google trunk mount turbo and you will find some tips and sources parts. Some early articles mentioned that you should use a hot side about 2 sizes smaller A/R than you normally would, but I haven't seen that written lately, probably because people weren't buying the kits because they could build their own now. I wanted the trunk mount so it wouldn't "clutter" my engine compartment with "modern equipment". Yes I know turbocharged sixes have been around for fifty years. I'm just weird like that.

Trunk Mount...hmmmmm...will do if it will fit.

After looking up in the cavity around the rear axle and around the gas tank I have no idea where I would fit one of these rear mound units.

The whole reason i liked it was to prevent buying a expensive exhaust manifold.

Again i am not sure about LAG with so much pipe going to the rear of the car and then back to the front. Seems counter-productive.

Anybody here turbo-charged a inline 6 in a first Gen. Nova?

jJmes

I believe Larry A.K.A. Twisted6,, said the SPA turbo manifold will not fit the early Novas,the turbo will hit the shock towers/structure.

There are a few fast cars I have seen run the STS system,there is a lot more tubing involved,electric oil pump,feed & return hoses for the oil & so-on. They don't seen to have turbo lag problems,but you need to choose the correct A/R for the turbine housing.

You can run a "J" bend pipe from a stock exhaust manifold.
Here is REVOD from the BB here did one in a newer Nova,but you could fit one of these & be a low dollar install & make it fit your engine compartment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSB2uvlOOtQ

MBHD

i have a tubular turbo header that may fit your chassis. it mounts the turbo further forward. i need dimensions based from reference points on your engine and then we could tell if it would fit. tom

Is that made by SPA also?

MBHD

no, not by spa but another brazilian vendor. i also have other brazilian intakes and other parts i can get.
if i have dimensions, then a header can be made in quantities. tom

I know a few First Gen Nova owners that would love to motivate their Inliners this way.

Ive laid under the my 65 staring at the space between the tank and rear end too, for a remote mount,,, I'm looking for options,, here is some dims off an offy manifold
manifold to tower 5 1/2"
engine block to tower 9 1/2"
bottom of manifold to cross member 12'

maybe the pic will help,,

http://s50.photobucket.com/albums/f320/fingersix/?action=view¤t=IMG_9778.jpg

Not to change the subject matter of using a turbo, but have you considered a Vortech or Paxton, or possibly even a Procharger centrifugal supercharger instead. They dont have lag or other issues that a turbos has such as excessive heat buildup(I don't think I'd want it close to gas tank,unless you wrapped it), and would be easier to mount, even in your application. Increasing boost is just a pulley change away(6psi-20psi+).The drag on the engine,even though it is pulley driven, will be insignificant compared to the results of power increase. I have seen some trucks with a turbo mounted in a "fake" tool box that was real stealthy. But the fabrication costs alone were several grand by itself.And whether the power results were conclusive with all that extra length of tubing was undetermined! So im sure that the installation cost would be comparable for mounting one even farther back in a vehicle, unless you can do most of it yourself. I didn't know if you were dead set on using a turbo, or had some other reason....

I cannot add the cog pulley to the front of the damper for the serpentine conversion, the fan paddles right in front of it,,I read that Paxton used to do v-belts, but they really don't support it now, I haven't found any first hand info if the v's slip terribly,,,to buy one used, I never even seen one w/v-grooves,
To have a damper with the serpentine on it instead of v-grooves, is supposed to exist but I can't find them,,I thought of a sbc pulley from an early lt1 might work, something told me no, but I don't remember,, I think it was off the HAMB board,,

LT1, maybe not, but the 1st gen (okay, post 86, so 1 piece rear seal, and a block set up for roller tappets) went serpentine before they went to the LT series (2nd gen). Would that work?

FWIW my understanding was the V belt setup required excessive tension to keep the belts from slipping (hard on the blower drive and the crank snout).

Check with JG Loomis, he put an Eaton blower on his, I'm sure he's got pointers on how to do it (even if you use a centrifucal, he already sussed out the drive pulley).

The link to his pictures is in his sig (he posted earlier in this therad).

His thread on his setup is here:


https://www.inliners.org/ubbthreads/ubbth...=true#Post41436

I've seen that,,there is even a few in the local yard, last time I was there,, I would try to go centrifical,, I even looked at vintage Mccollughs, but technology probally beats them hands down, I'll PM JG Loomis to see if he used an add on cog,,

A turbo can be mounted in a chevyII body In front of the shock tower? If i remember right I had checked the T03 I have when I still had my 3x4 mounted to the motor Before I removed the motor.
But that was almost 3yrs ago now.So brain isn't a 100%

I know it's not the same chassis, but IIRC someone in hot rod had a Camaro with twins (BBC V8) with the turbo's mounted right behind the headlights (battery in the trunk). Draw through too, been a few years though (6 or 7 anyway).

Larry, can I borrow that t03 for fitting,, when I get the side cover back,,

here are the pics of the tubular turbo header.





at the furthest point near turbo flange it sticks toward the drivers side 11".
from the front header bolt to turbo flange is 9" or center between # 2,3 header tubes. the wastegate flange can easily be moved. tom

You know my thoughts were that a turbo was a cleaner easier (ha ha ) way to produce more power. I am sure I could set one up but the plumbing is the real trick.
You do have to watch for heat build up. Especially with this rear mount unit.

I will wait on Tom Lowe and this new Brazilian manifold and hopefully that piece alone doesn't cost the price of a government bailout. I already own a nice turbo unit off of a Buick Grand national, I thought that would be the most expensive article in this set up..but its just sitting on the shelf staring at me at this point.

James

I am sure there is room in front of the shock tower. Tom have you the dimensions to accommodate that kind of set up in a Chevy II? I am not sure from your picture here that the tubular would work. Is that what you describe here?


James

The STS camaro kit puts the turbo right under the gas tank. They measured surface temperatures with a probe and there was no change. When the turbo is spooling and making heat, you are generally moving rather quick so there is lots of cooling air down there, especially in our older less aerodynamic cars. Also remember that the turbo can hang down a little and never hit a speed bump as long as it is relatively close to the rear axle. Don't give up on your idea. It is a good one and there are lots of successful rear mount setups out there.

Wow; just looking at some of the shots of what you all have done with your 6-cylinders rides makes me salivate.

I have been toying with the idea of fuel injection. I know that Clifford has a nice kit that I could use on my 57 chevy passenger car. But the price and the changes I would have to make have deterred me a bit.

I am using a Fenton intake (2 single barrel carbs) along with Fenton headers at this point (plus dual exhaust). I like the sound, but I would like a bit more uumph. Going with Clifford would require the kit, a Clifford intake, Clifford headers (I assume), and some slide mods to mate up the headers to the exhaust pipes.

What is the effort involved with the turbo options that you all have taken? How much of a hassle was it for you?

Let me know please. I am open to any and all thoughts. I am really curious.

Eddie

Freds Garage,
that manifold that Tom posted looks to be a worse choice over the SPA turbo,does not look like it would even be close to fitting in an early Nova.

Might be able to install the standard SPA manifold & make an adaptor to position the turbo where you want it.
Then you can make the transition from a 4 bolt flange to your 3 bolt flange.
Just a thought.

You say you have a Buick GN turbo?
That has a three bolt turbine flange that would require a different mount or use an adaptor that is 4 bolt to 3 bolt flange.
Also the 3 bolt turbine housing does not flow as good as a T3 or T4 turbo,but it will work fine up to a certain HP level.

Just something to think about,if need be.

MBHD

For the 292 in '38 Dodge that I was/may still be working on, I have a SPA turbo manifold I purchased from TLowe a couple of years ago. I had considered mounting the intake and exhaust manifolds inverted on the engine and mounting the turbo up high as for for that application, there exists much more room in the engine compartment up high than down low.

Obviously, this wouldn't work with a down-draft carb, but with either TBFI or MPFI, orientation of the air valve shouldn't matter much. It would get the turbo up away from the path of the steering shaft, and have an in-your-face appearance. Could it be that a similar thought would work for the ChevyII?

NO the chevyIIs would not have hood clearance for that either.
PLUS i dout the ports would match. They only match-up one way.
Same goes for the bolt patteren.

This is why I even focused on the STS system, because you use your stock manifold and do the routing or splitting out of the engine compartment.

So what if I did a number routing the exhaust back under the steering and next to the bellhousing and then up over (or next to) the starter then into the turbo right there and up into the carb hat? Not as far to go and there is some room on that side of the Six.

James

I like that idea better,but I think I would run the crossover pipe under the torque converter area.
Then mount the turbo on the right side engine compartment fwd of the shock tower high enough so the oil return hose will gravity feed into the top portion of the oil pan,(no electric oil return pump like what is needed on the STS system).

Install one of these on the cross over pipe,or something simular.
http://www.pacesetterexhaust.com/perf_exhaust.htm

And continue making plans,good job! :-)

MBHD

I am going to start mapping this out. If I have to move the battery to the trunk no problem. I might even employ an intercooler in front of the radiator and then route the pressurized air out on the drivers side back to the carb hat.
I won't have to have headers but could. The trick will be the design of exhaust plumbing.
Overall this should mean less engine clutter too.
Men I have a vision and am moving forward with it.
Happy New Year
James