yes, R&D is research and development. costly in both time and $$$.

and i doubt the diesel option would be any good at all personally. restrictive exhaust housing and compressor, probably a dodgy inlet and exhaust manifold just like all factory turbo diesels (bar the VW Golf TDi - YUM!) and you'd still have to position your injectors.

what about these new rear mount turbos made by sts the turbo is located unerneath the trunk along with all the rest of the hardware u wont need to fabricate a new header maybe all u need is to fabricate a new intake manifold? i dunno its just a thought

will that type of turbo setup(in the back)work well.(in my truck)????????

tell me more about it!!!!

this was discussed not long ago, it would be lucky to work at all, let alone work well!

1000Coupe is on the money there.

oil drain back, oil return issues, water feeds, manifolding...oh and lag. LOTS AND LOTS of lag.

typical seppo invention. it's great to solve one problem (space) but creates 3 more in practise (lubrication, manifolding, gas speed).

keep the turbo as close to the exhaust ports as possible.

ok from what i heard many people have said it has A LOT of lag, but when i saw the true air pressure difference in hot rodding magazine i was amazed on how little the lag was let alone on an ls1 engine and sts did come out with its own patened oil ump system for it to reach the turbo so from what i heard it is a win win situation

... which adds more cost to the equation - and more things to go wrong.

gas "speed" might be the same - but there's gas speed and there's gas speed so to speak.

at the rear of the car, it's cooler and expanding less quickly (grammar?) therefore you're losing out on the expansion effect on the exhaust turbine - and expanding gas with nowhere to go is faster through a hole than cooler gas.

now, put a turbine in front of that hole...

which option is going to spool up quicker?

obliviously the front mount turbo will, but also creates more heat, which almost needs an intercooler, and takes more time to install, and there is only .5 cubic feat of air in the tube of the rear mount turbo and took.04 seconds for the boosted air to reach the intake but it all boils down to one thing "looks over performance"

intercoolers aren't used to cool the engine bay air and underbonnet temps, they're used to cool the inlet charge.

when air is compressed - as in a turbo or supercharger setup - it heats up. hot air introduces more likelyhood of detonation. so you can try to cool it back down to ambient temps by running an intercooler - or a more appropriate term, aftercooler.

if you can, get a hold of some surgical syringes. now with your finger over the small end, pump the plunger up and down inside the syringe (it'll only move a bit) and feel the temp of the syringe cartridge. it will be noticeably hotter and there will be condensation inside the syringe from the heat created.

that's why you need an intercooler. to cool this -now- hot air that has been compressed.

in which case, you would still need one regardless of where your turbo is mounted. although, the length of pipe required to run a turbo to the rear of the car would act like a heatsoak for a little bit, it would eventually heat up and be useless as a cooling medium.

i assumed the rearend mounted turbo was not driven by a dump pipe, but by the exhaust system after the cat, centre muffler, and maybe even main rear muffler...gas volume and subsequent velocity would have dropped a lot.
then the inlet air...how dirty and wet will the airfilter get under the boot? or does that need to travel front to back as well?
then the compressed air back to engine, would cool only a little bit en route to the engine, but not enough if u had decent boost, so where would an IC sit? at the front making the air travel how faaar?

if you do go ahead with it let us know if it works anyway.