If you had your chance to design a setup, how would it be like? I know there are proven setups. But since now there are folks now who have run them for a while, it's be interesting to see what we ourselves could come up with if we could.


So here goes..

I'm partial to the top-mounts.... I, though, would not make a top-mount it would be a front mount cause believe it or not it would just be easier to work with based on how I would do it. Here's what I would do...

I would start with simplifying the manifold packaging.. a log setup may not be as pretty but it wouldn't be as bulky after the merge and would be dramatic in reducing the radiant radiant heat. Also, no more folks wondering how plugs would be changed. I really think Andy (A&A) had the right idea..


A V-clamped intermediate pipe extension allowing much cooler and lower mount location of turbo's and WG's (with associated plumbing). This provides the advantage of easy to access clamp locations (quick & easy R&R) and overall a cleaner up-top setup. Imagine releasing two V-Clamps to drop a turbo.. How about having an option to run even smaller packaged, proven T3/T4 setups...

Instead of dropping the radiator/condensor move them up and forward. There's a good 4 to 5 inch's of clearance on top and IC plumbing and fresh air source is nice and cool from the bottom. The key is to keep the charge pipe to the TB from going over the radiator and instead down, below it.

Since these setups pretty much need extraction to begin with I'd get a hood with hood mounting similar to the C6's. This would free up the space the bulky hood mounts that the C5's take up and give the clearance to fully raise the IC/Condenser.


That's my version of the ultimate.. still no need to pump the oil, just a better and different way to use the space we've got.

How would you design your ultimate setup?


Arnel

 

I would use the v band clamp as you mentioned but I wouldn't do a TT...I would just do a single and put it on the passenger side to offset the weight of the driver. Somebody had a pretty sick single turbo they were working on...haven't seen it in a while. For endurance the Indy cars especially Toyota and Chevy had great success running a full header merge collector into a single setup.

 

I agree.. When you make it down here you need to go for a ride in Russ' single setup..

BTW.. try making it to THill 7/8.

Arnel

 

I have to agree with the comment about the plugs. I to prefer the top mount tt set up. But the lack of space and heat issue is definitely a problem. And packing all that tubing and wastegates and everything else in there is more than alittle difficult. But give me top mount any But I would design the headers to bolt together in 3 pieces for easier dissassemble or easier access to plugs. Thats my 2cents. Jason
[IMG][/IMG]

 

AVB would you use the stock manifolds?? this would save cost and be stronger than headers.

how about mounting the turbos next to the rocker covers?? would def look cool!

Chris.

 

These new tial housings will be your friends, by using a v-band instead of a 4 bolt flange it makes mounting and maintenance way easier not to mention the reduction in overall size.

 

A turbo next to the Master Cylinder wouldn't make me feel too comfortable. Back there "down-low" like the TTiX really can't be beat.

 

Plugs only need to be swapped once every 50,000 miles or so. That's five to ten years of driving for many of us. Not sure why easily swapping them would be a big whoop..

 

This design is courtsey of "Crazychris" and "417 Motorsports" I give them HUGE props for what I think is one of the best single front mounts made so far..

This is a version of a design i'm using on my newest project. It just got a few variations. Were gonna incorporate the intercooler into the crash bar, angle the radiator and condensor for larger capacity, and relocate the ABS module for different routing of the header pipe, and run a much larger fan system.. Plus, change around the col air inlet, and shroud the turbo from the radiator. My car will be shipped out to 417 M.S. for te initial mockup of the piping. There was now way, given the clearences, that they could make me the hot parts without the car.

 

I have commented on a lot of different threads that the plugs are not that difficult to change once you know how to do it. I can do all of my plugs in 1 hour. BTW this is the first that I have seen your setup....looks very nice. I would suggest shielding the plastic master cylinder though.
I think the stock manifolds would work I tried to reverse them and face them forward but the brake booster got in the way. It's always about space.

once the tune is set the plugs don't really foul. I have had two cases where plugs fouled....once with the NGK TR7s and too rich a tune and onces with NGK TR6s and too rich a tune....the other times I pulled the plugs I asked myself, "why the hell did I change these plugs?".

This was/is the system I was referring too...very impressive but it looks like way too much work (maybe). For guys that want a project Turbo kit this would be fun...for those that want a "miny" project tuner setup then the PTK(S) or knock off would be good. For those that want a (comparitively) plug and play kit that doesn't require as much work the TTi and APS kits are the way to go.

I think Cartek's single rear mount (Stealth's setup) obviously works really well.

Boosted V8s don't have problems with lag...people think a 8.5:1 CR V8 behaves like a 7:1 CR 4 or 6 cylinder....it doesn't.

 

I've seen Crazy Chris's set-up in action...and its a bad, bad boy.

 

I'd make some minor improvements to the intercooler plumbing on the ttix kit and call it a day.

if you want to go over 1k hp, mount a big rear mount and have at it, but you might as well go "full chassis" to hook that with a solid rear.

I like the Hall design very much as it's ultra sexy and looks great with the coated pipes and top mount design, but for me the ttix is "function over form" and gives me the daily driver reliability I require with all the power I can hope to put down.

it's enough!

 

soo would you mount the trubos on custom cast manifolds in a similer position to the PTK stuff?? i can see some real advantages to it.

1. you can run bigger turbos like the PTK gusy do
2. the manifolds will hold up much better then the headers do.
3. you dont need to run oil pumps

it would cost more though, and probably be harder to design. although you may beable to build in things like twin scroll.

also why not route the cold piping straight into the manifold and run an intrigrated inletmanifold and chargecooler?? that would cut down on pipeing (increasing responce), still give good cooling (you could run a MUCH biiger core than the roots guys do) and mena there is less stuff infront of the rad. you could then have 2 heat exchangers mounted in the brake ducts (like the procahrger guys). could this work??

also how about tilting the rad forward?? this would give more room in front of the engine for turbos.

Cheers

Chris.

 

what if you could have the reliability of the TTi but with the bigger turbos of the PTK????

 

Cast manifolds are nice.. they're stronger and keep the heat in better (less radiant heat). The key is if it can look better than the header style since that's a big reason for not going with the more OEM look of the tti and aps. Maybe a Yoskin type shield on top of the cast manifold could take care of the aesthetics and add some radiant heat control. If it does, it'll have to be called "the yoskin" . As it currently stands, the potential of the PTK goes without saying and as far as being more reliable, it's a setup that if precautions aren't taken can lead to more maintenance. For the weekend warrior and an occasional run at the strip, all it needs is the all important shielding in the proper places.

In the case of the PTK, if you want to make it run as hard and long as the NA setups in the twisties or DE's, the cooling setup needs to be tweaked and maintenance starts becoming more annual. With very little work, I've repositioned the IC and the cool air source for the turbo's and have proven the setup CAN stay cool when one is throwing all they can at it. Definitely not some feeble attempt to improve on something that will give little in return.

The goal is improve/update the areas that could use it. A half-inch here and there would make a big difference in controlling temps and a reduction of hot surfaces would make a huge difference. The current turbo locations aren't bad but, like I said an extra inch of clearance would be an improvement and mean the difference between an area to keep an eye on and just a plain non-issue.

Lowering the turbo's a tad would almost require that year C5 with the ABS at the rear. For the other's, unless the ABS gets layed down or relocated, a single would do nicely. Then it's all about rethinking how the cooling equipment gets laid out so there's more room for cool looking plumbing.

If there's an intermediate pipe you can run whatever size turbo suits you. Here's Andy's idea from a while back..

 

[QUOTE=AVB;1566048258]Cast manifolds are nice.. they're stronger and keep the heat in better (less radiant heat). The key is if it can look better than the header style since that's a big reason for not going with the more OEM look of the tti and aps. Maybe a Yoskin type shield on top of the cast manifold could take care of the aesthetics and add some radiant heat control. If it does, it'll have to be called "the yoskin" .






the sheild makes a HUGE difference in radiant heat

 

a couple of kits not mentioned in this thread are the HP and the STS! now both have their positive and negative ones. but could one of these provided a great starting point for a build??

as said before a single rear mount has been provne to work and work well. could twins be made to do the same?? cooling demands are not as high as with fornt mount setups, buit there would be more lag! is there any way to do a compound setup?? small turbos at the front and BIG ones at the rear?? how about an anti-lag system?? or even venting the BOV's directivly into the exhausts to help sppol??

what about a HP style kit?? could you use the stock manifolds to reduce cost and increase strength?? would a lowered car be an issue??.....

just trying to think outside the box!

Chris.

 

I would say yes, especially on turns. Stock height there is no problem

 

What would Dr.Phil do?

 

The rear mounts may not have more engine bay heat but they will still tend to have the same temps as front or side mounts when pushed hard for any length of time... like for 20 minutes. The difference will be air management although the engine bay parts that remain cool do appreciate it I'm sure

I guess a big part of being the ultimate in anything may depend on it's use. The rear mounts seem to do well when the big hit of a front mount is undesirable and the opposite is true (to some) in a street application. All setups have a limitation in one form or another and have been around long enough now that the owners can realize areas of improvement. The initial engineering didn't have the luxury of hindsight so that's the value. Don't forget the bling'age!!