Has anyone done a remote-mount turbo on a Fiero?

Chris-Nelson · Post by **Chris-Nelson** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:24 pm

What would be the cons of doing a remote mount turbo setup on a v6 fiero? I was thinking that instead of doing a bunch of custom manifold stuff, you could just insert a turbo where the catalytic convert should be. Add a Wastegate right before it so you can just vent it under the car, and I think this would make intercooler/intake plumbing much easier also. It'd make it a pain to service/tune, but I think the initial installation would be easier and it would be easy to make it look totally sleeper.

I just thought of something though... oil drain.
How would you do an oil drain if it is gravity-fed if it is that far down... owell. back to the drawing boards!

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 12:30 pm

you would have to get like a scavenge pump to pump it back to the pan or to like a reservoir that sits high and then gravity drains to the pan.

I think Rockcrawl here did that with his turbo N star. Its not hard, just one more thing that would have to be done to run the turbo with of course the additional cost.

I say go for it.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:11 pm

Shaun41178(2) wrote:
I say go for it.

just for the humor factor right?

TurboGT · Post by **TurboGT** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:51 pm

My turbo is remote mounted

product1620 · Post by **product1620** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:20 pm

Dude, I love ur car. :salute:

befarrer · Post by **befarrer** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:16 am

I was thinking of doing a remote turbo also. When I do the ecotec swap, it the exhaust should be simmilar to my quad 4:

Instead of having that 90Âº bend going to the passenger side after the manifold, I will make it go to the drivers side, put the turbo there, then figure out the exhaust. Do you think that will work well? There is alot of room there for plumbing and stuff.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:21 am

I just watched an episode of horsepower tv that installed an sts twin turbo sstem (remote mounted at the rear of the car) on an 05 vette. No lag, 534+hp. They used a propietary system to pull the oil from the turbo and put it back into the valve covers. Also because of the length of the charge pipes and the intercooler piping, the intercooling system efficiency was an astounding 97% thats awesome. Obviously on a fiero you wouldnt have that because your not running to the front of the car with the charge pipes.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:26 am

http://ststurbo.com/benefits

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:26 am

I will never be convinced of STS systems, and I'll never use one.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:41 am

Aaron wrote:I will never be convinced of STS systems, and I'll never use one.

http://ststurbo.com/fast_customers

whipped · Post by **whipped** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:49 am

p8ntman442 wrote:I just watched an episode of horsepower tv that installed an sts twin turbo sstem (remote mounted at the rear of the car) on an 05 vette. No lag, 534+hp. They used a propietary system to pull the oil from the turbo and put it back into the valve covers. Also because of the length of the charge pipes and the intercooler piping, the intercooling system efficiency was an astounding 97% thats awesome. Obviously on a fiero you wouldnt have that because your not running to the front of the car with the charge pipes.

I saw that. Stock was 340whp? 57% more power on 7psi

I still wonder if there are benefits to spool time with dual small turbos vs one large turbo. Even if the duals are floating bearings, and the large is BB....

TurboGT · Post by **TurboGT** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:13 pm

whipped wrote:I still wonder if there are benefits to spool time with dual small turbos vs one large turbo. Even if the duals are floating bearings, and the large is BB....

STS is based out of Utah and there are a lot of cars around here running them. There are several mustangs running around with dual remote mount turbos. If I remember correctly at one of the car shows I went to the mustang with duals produced less than a comaro with a single. But that also has to do with internal engine mods, which I cant remember. Either way they were impressive results ~450++

TurboGT · Post by **TurboGT** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:35 pm

befarrer wrote:I was thinking of doing a remote turbo also. When I do the ecotec swap, it the exhaust should be simmilar to my quad 4:

Instead of having that 90Âº bend going to the passenger side after the manifold, I will make it go to the drivers side, put the turbo there, then figure out the exhaust. Do you think that will work well? There is alot of room there for plumbing and stuff.

I think you could put a turbo there but it may be low enough that you will probably need to get a scavange pump to help pull the oil out of the turbo. I would go for bolting it directly to the manifold. Ther are several companys that make turbo headers for the eco.

MNFatz · Post by **MNFatz** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:54 pm

9.33 at 150mph.

I'm convinced, but I don't understand how they overcome lag issues with that much volume to pressurize.

The only thing that scares me is 'financing available' being mentioned on their website.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:12 pm

Aaron wrote:
Series8217 wrote: They are often easier to install. In many engine bays it's hard to find enough room for turbos.
So they are easier to install. That's it. From now on I'm going to swap 3.4 OHV engines into my Fieros, because they are easier to install. And that's crucial.

So what are the facts? How is a remote mount better? As Steven said, they are easier to install. I agree, and that's why 2.8 liters are better in Fieros than Northstars right?

Your analogy sucks. 2.8s don't make as much power as Northstars. The remote mount turbo makes about as much power as a turbo in the normal location.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:14 pm

Series8217 wrote: Your analogy sucks. 2.8s don't make as much power as Northstars. The remote mount turbo makes about as much power as a turbo in the normal location.

As far as I've seen, this isn't true, they don't make as much power. In addition, they also lag much more as far as I've seen/heard.

product1620 · Post by **product1620** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:24 pm

and what have you seen heard??? all Ive seen here is you spouting whatever shit that comes off the top of your head. lets see some dyno sheets/articles.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:37 pm

Aaron wrote: As far as I've seen, this isn't true, they don't make as much power. In addition, they also lag much more as far as I've seen/heard.

http://oi.b5z.net/i/u/1473169/f/Video/S ... SION_2.mpg

You are a FOOL.

Shaun41178(2) · Post by **Shaun41178(2)** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:56 pm

Moderator?

Also with that link posted of the vette, that turbo sounds like it spools pretty damn fast to me.

With STS turbo setups arod, they use smaller exh housing to get the spool quicker since the exh has to travel farther.

I bet you would be the person on the street that would laugh at someone for having an STS turbo because it can't beat you because of the super long lag. Then they blow your doors off and you think, but the lag!!!!!! He shouldn't have beat me. Lag is overrated you homo.

MNFatz · Post by **MNFatz** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:20 pm

Don't feed the trolls--just ignore him. Everyone here knows he's an idiot so don't bother to point it out.