I'm sure it will be a lot cleaner once it gets to a point where things start to get buttoned-up.
Stuff like the alternator bracket, water and air lines and piping will probably get addressed once their positioning is finalized.

 

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.

 

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

 

+1000

 

Obviously, you have no idea how IATs affect outlet temps, even after the intercooler.

 

I see that. I am wondering however if the effect will be offset by having the huge turbo all the way in front. RGonza has his engine a few inches in front of this setup. This allowed the use of the stock LIM and his turbo, manifold and wastegate are all way behind the front axle. A turbo/wastegate/manifold that size is pretty heavy. We'll have to see when it is all done.

Chris

 

Though the air entering the compressor will be a bit more dense it's still getting charged/heated to a certain extent...

 

huh?

beers

 

It was sort of a question, about getting cooler air to the compressor

 

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?

 

maybe this pic can show the turbo location little better. it's actually quite low almost at the level of the e-shaft.

 

Oh I see, it kinda looked higher up and more forward in the other pic. Its quite a bit in front but it certainly is down low. That should help when cornering.

Chris

 

Do you have brackets to help support that massive Summbich

 

That turbo could eat my face

 

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!

 

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.

 

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

 

wonder if my bicycle will fit under the hood.

 

Like to hear from Scott on this set up.. His points of view.

 

With the turbo weight right at the nose of the car, this will affect handling for sure. Not to mention that the piping for the turbo manifold is now longer which also affects turbo spooling and performance. Cleaner look has nothing to do with show cars as far as this is concerned. But again, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to observe this.

 

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.

 

not to mention that the turbo is lower than everything removed...

beers

 

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.

 

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

 

So, you are saying that this turbo is heavier and more poorly placed than the OE battery?