20b swap by scott
11-24-2007, 09:14 AM
#177
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont' think that the fresh air inlet is a big deal. It has to end up going through an intercooler anyway. Not as big a problem as people think.
The issue is how the intercooler is sized and flowing...that will be key. Many turbo systems pull air from the engine compartments behind/near radiators, hot spots. A few degrees I don't think is a problem particularly when the car is moving, air is flowing pretty good through that area and the thermostat should at least maintain a consisten temperature going through the radiator.
Yes having a fresh air inlet would be better, but inlet air temeperatures are what should be monitored.
The issue is how the intercooler is sized and flowing...that will be key. Many turbo systems pull air from the engine compartments behind/near radiators, hot spots. A few degrees I don't think is a problem particularly when the car is moving, air is flowing pretty good through that area and the thermostat should at least maintain a consisten temperature going through the radiator.
Yes having a fresh air inlet would be better, but inlet air temeperatures are what should be monitored.
11-24-2007, 11:25 AM
#178
This engine has been set-back and lowered under the dash/cowl area and behind the front subframe. Not the custom lower intake that makes this possible. There are pictures in the early part of the thread that show this. IMO it's a much more desirable engine placement and better for handling performance, both in weight location and chassis stiffness. Save the "cleaner" look for show cars, not get up and go cars
The following users liked this post:
sharingan 19 (07-22-2021)
11-24-2007, 01:33 PM
#181
This engine has been set-back and lowered under the dash/cowl area and behind the front subframe. Not the custom lower intake that makes this possible. There are pictures in the early part of the thread that show this. IMO it's a much more desirable engine placement and better for handling performance, both in weight location and chassis stiffness. Save the "cleaner" look for show cars, not get up and go cars
Chris
11-24-2007, 02:18 PM
#185
Unregistered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the current turbo placement wasn't for show. i know scott originally was trying to get the turbo behind the front axle line, but quickly realized it wouldn't fit.
i think it's hard to grasp how big the turbo actually is.... to give you a perspective. here's the identical turbo rgonza's using.
and here's the photo of his current setup (i hope you don't mind my using your pictures rgonza. i'll take them down if you ask)
as you can see, it will not fit behind the axle even if you tried. so given the static factors, current placement is really the only place to mount it as low and as far back as possible imho.
now if you ask me why we chose such a huge turbo... i don't really have any good answer haha. how about reliability?
i think it's hard to grasp how big the turbo actually is.... to give you a perspective. here's the identical turbo rgonza's using.
and here's the photo of his current setup (i hope you don't mind my using your pictures rgonza. i'll take them down if you ask)
as you can see, it will not fit behind the axle even if you tried. so given the static factors, current placement is really the only place to mount it as low and as far back as possible imho.
now if you ask me why we chose such a huge turbo... i don't really have any good answer haha. how about reliability?
11-24-2007, 04:09 PM
#190
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a look at where the alternator is in two cars. Compare that to the upper intake manifold. Although this is not the most accurate way to measure, but I think both alternate drives off the pully closest to the engine.
Stick's engine is a lot futher back!
Stick's engine is a lot futher back!
11-24-2007, 04:17 PM
#191
the engine is so far back and so low, that unless you're standing within 4 feet of the car (before the intake manifold was installed) there would be no way for you to tell that it even had an engine installed or anything in the engine bay.
11-24-2007, 05:16 PM
#192
lol... i have seen this car in the shop and all i have to say is that its amazing... the placement of the motor is so far back that the entire thing is behind the front axle by a few or more inches ... from rgonza's picture i would say the turbo is quite a bit lower.. if i can recall correctly i believe everything is considerably lower then the rad support bar... i believe that as far back and low the motor is set that it will no doubt out weigh the huge turbo... it will undoubtably nullify the additional weight all the way in the front...
in fact if you look at this picture (rgonza)
and then compare it to this one (sticks)
you will notice the frame rail is toward the above the turbo in scotts build and rgonza turbo is at the bottom of the turbo... that alone should make allow you guys to see how well this is built
if you were to look in your engine bays you would notice what a difference that is... and how amazed i was
in fact if you look at this picture (rgonza)
and then compare it to this one (sticks)
you will notice the frame rail is toward the above the turbo in scotts build and rgonza turbo is at the bottom of the turbo... that alone should make allow you guys to see how well this is built
if you were to look in your engine bays you would notice what a difference that is... and how amazed i was
Last edited by whoneedspistons; 11-24-2007 at 05:25 PM.
11-24-2007, 08:59 PM
#195
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This engine has been set-back and lowered under the dash/cowl area and behind the front subframe. Not the custom lower intake that makes this possible. There are pictures in the early part of the thread that show this. IMO it's a much more desirable engine placement and better for handling performance, both in weight location and chassis stiffness. Save the "cleaner" look for show cars, not get up and go cars
11-24-2007, 09:07 PM
#196
Grab the turbo and hold it in one hand.
Now, grab the battery in the other (if you can).
People re-locate their battery to the trunk for better balance, but I dare you to demonstrate any observable effect in handling from that change in weight alone.
The mass of the turbo and its piping is negligible.
11-24-2007, 09:29 PM
#197
Are you guys smoking crack?
Grab the turbo and hold it in one hand.
Now, grab the battery in the other (if you can).
People re-locate their battery to the trunk for better balance, but I dare you to demonstrate any observable effect in handling from that change in weight alone.
The mass of the turbo and its piping is negligible.
Grab the turbo and hold it in one hand.
Now, grab the battery in the other (if you can).
People re-locate their battery to the trunk for better balance, but I dare you to demonstrate any observable effect in handling from that change in weight alone.
The mass of the turbo and its piping is negligible.
not to mention that the turbo is lower than everything removed...
beers
11-24-2007, 09:53 PM
#198
Unregistered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
with the battery relocation, handling should be back to neutral, probably even better with the lower cg. rx820bna, turbo location may not seem ideal at the first glance, but given the turbo size and the available space, i think we can all agree it's in the best possible place right now.
the extra spooling time is no big deal because 3rotor already has enough torque to smoke my tires at low rpm with or without the turbo. same will hold true for corner exits. the added torque should cover the basis until boost kicks in.
besides, i asked scott to keep everything including the a/c! obviously, this isn't a track dedicated car. if i told scott to build me a track car, i'm sure he'd done a v-mount if he thought spool time would become an issue. but given my budget and the car's daily use (v-mount sucks in rain), i think scott has done an amazing work. even now, i'm sure i can blow by most cars on the straights and corners.
the extra spooling time is no big deal because 3rotor already has enough torque to smoke my tires at low rpm with or without the turbo. same will hold true for corner exits. the added torque should cover the basis until boost kicks in.
besides, i asked scott to keep everything including the a/c! obviously, this isn't a track dedicated car. if i told scott to build me a track car, i'm sure he'd done a v-mount if he thought spool time would become an issue. but given my budget and the car's daily use (v-mount sucks in rain), i think scott has done an amazing work. even now, i'm sure i can blow by most cars on the straights and corners.
11-24-2007, 11:29 PM
#199
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you guys smoking crack?
Grab the turbo and hold it in one hand.
Now, grab the battery in the other (if you can).
People re-locate their battery to the trunk for better balance, but I dare you to demonstrate any observable effect in handling from that change in weight alone.
The mass of the turbo and its piping is negligible.
Grab the turbo and hold it in one hand.
Now, grab the battery in the other (if you can).
People re-locate their battery to the trunk for better balance, but I dare you to demonstrate any observable effect in handling from that change in weight alone.
The mass of the turbo and its piping is negligible.
That turbo right there could easily weight as much as an RX-8 stock battery. But weight is not the issue, its the placement of that weight. Ideally those weight should be inside the front axle and not hanging by the nose. And now if the car is in dynamic motion that excess front weight means a lot.
http://www.gamedev.net/reference/art...rticle1610.asp
I highly suggest, that you "change" the brand of "crack" your smoking to a more potent one. hehehe
11-24-2007, 11:43 PM
#200
That turbo right there could easily weight as much as an RX-8 stock battery. But weight is not the issue, its the placement of that weight. Ideally those weight should be inside the front axle and not hanging by the nose. And now if the car is in dynamic motion that excess front weight means a lot.