Lessons In Stupidity: Muffler-Mounted Turbochargers

Epic fail. How does someone have the technical skill to do the welding and cutting, and yet not have any basic idea on how a turbo actually works. He might as well mount it on the outside of the car so that the wind going past spins the turbine. I get doing something 'because you can' but basic physics/common sense tells you it won't work, so why bother?

Maybe the dude just wanted some fully sick turbos, but already had some full sick turbos under the bonnet, so had no more room for some fully wicked sick turbos so attached the wicked sick fully ass turbos to the massiv' awesome fully rad muffler system bro?

Imagine the turbo lag you will be waiting 10 mins for boost to come on lol

good to see that those blow off valves are nicely plumbed back.... Don't want a fully sick BOF venting to the atmosphere stuffing up the MAF sensor.... :)

Do not start this conversation with the Yanks, because they get really defensive about it.

Rear mounted turbochargers are actually reasonably popular in the USA (especially on larger displacement engines, by our standards).

The position of the blowers violates pretty fundamental turbocharger physics, but criticise the STS Turbo design (who basically replace the rear muffler on a normally aspirated car with the turbocharger, instead of tacking it into a muffler) and you'll get a bunch of Seppos crying "Don't knock it if you have no experience with it".

They claim its good packaging, which I can understand if you're not trying to fit more stuff into the engine bay. What I am less sure about, from a physics perspective, is how this setup can be as responsive as a traditional mounting position and not require an intercooler.

this has got to be something a beaner did on his shoguned out accord...on a good note though, it is low key an cops wont thing to look under a seat for a turbo...it could work

At first glance it looks bad, th pumping losses over that distance can be large but assuming you compensated for them by putting in bigger pipes it would be ok. (they would have to be big though)
The extra lag created by larger tubing is almost a non issue due to the massive volumes of air engines use.

Ever thought someone might have done it as a massive piss-take? neither of those turbos on the mufflers will flow any gas at all look at the way they are plumbed up! not to mention the massive pressure drop over the length of piping back to the engine inlet, let alone with the addition of an intercooler.

Yup remote mounted turbos are nothing new and some credit has to be given at how sneaky this install is.
The amount of exhaust flow is no less, perhaps due to the elastic nature of gas there may be less boost spikes and there will be more lag between the engine and the turbo. Usually the airflow under the car (as opposed to the hot under bonnet air) helps cool turbo and the boosted air into the engine but these turbos look like they'd get pretty hot. Without seeing the final install it's hard to pass judgement. If the government seeks to ban all P platers from turbo cars we will see more of these under car and boot mounted turbo installs in Australia.

The exhaust mass flow would be the same, the volume is less, but the gas is denser. The heat energy is definately less of course. The pressure drop is from the pressure after the CAT to the outside atmosphere (the turbo is the muffler) vs. from the engine to the CAT + muffler. So on a system with a restrictive CAT/exhaust the pressure drop for the remote mount may even be better. The lag isn't a problem is the turbo is tuned for it. The time taken to inflate the intake pipe isn't too much. If the flow rate early on in acceleration at low rpm is only 30 cubic ft/minute, then a 2.5 inch pipe 8 foot long will take about a half second to fully pressurize. Less for larger initial flow rates. From what I've read I'd say that there are equal pros and cons. To compensate for the positioning and temperature drop the turbo has to be sized differently which likely leads to less top end power. But for many cars that isn't an issue as they do not require ultra high boost levels. The advantages are that there is less heat and clutter in the engine bay, less heat on the turbo (about 270 C less) giving longerlife and a reduced need for cooldown. Any vented wastegate gases are legal too as the whole turbo is placed after the CAT. There is no reason that an intercooler can't be fitted, but for low boost levels it likely isn't needed. Lastly the sound is quite good, two thirds truck turbo and one third jet engine. Especially when the screamer pipe opens up! That's what I like about remote turbo's.

Guy's the amount of time difference is neglable. I have a 5.0L V8 and rear mounted a T04E Turbo (0.98 turbine, 0.50 compressor)

It starts spooling at 2300 rpm and is making full boost of 6psi by 2700 rpm

Seeing after riding out a gear to redline and shifting the next gear starts around 3200 rpm.

Theres less than .5 seconds of lag between changes. And its pretty quick off the line. Racing a mates V6 Turbo i hit boost amost at the same time as him

Thats helped with 3.9:1 Diff gears and if auto a 2500 stall converter would see the rear mount boosted from the start line

It bends the laws of physics, remember when pressurised air goes in. Its gotta come out and it looks like some people here forgot that

Your half right, if you could take heat out of the turbo equation & they'd still work.

I made those.

Already had a Vasectomy, Thank You!