can i put a turbo on my 1999 3.0 ranger - Page 2 - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


New Ideas Have a new idea for your Ford Ranger? General discussion of new ideas for the Ford Ranger.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #26  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by fddriver02 View Post
Hey buddy. STS turbo has been around for a while now and they have lots of kits for different cars and trucks. I think they are here to stay. There is no problem with lag and they are way easier to mount than trying to fit a turbo under the hood.

Check them out: http://ststurbo.com/
I already posted STS.

In any case, they make it seem like having a turbo after the cats is the best idea since sliced bread. It is easier, but some of their claims (MORE efficent?) are bull ****. It works, I am not denying that. It just isnt the most efficent way.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh5Edge View Post
Straight from your website "Exhaust Outlet and Wastegate Discharge Pipe:
Smaller exhaust outlets help a turbo spool up faster on a street car."

And I refuse to believe that HEAT is what drives the turbo. Heat is what raises the intake air temp. Air is what essentially "spins" the turbine.
Which is why I said heat, per-say.

The turbo doesnt use the flow from stroke of the engine to run. When the exhaust gasses exit the combustion chamber they are still under high pressure. Once they are pushed out and the exhaust valve snaps shut the hot gasses continue expanding causing a rise in pressure and the higher that pressure the faster the turbo will spool. Thus, the smaller the volume of the manifold and tubing before it enters the turbo the more efficent it will be and it will spool sooner. Once a turbo spools it is essentially self feeding. More air means more fuel which means more heat. So STS is right when they say putting a blow torch to your turbo wont make it spool any faster. They are wrong when they say turbos dont work off heat. They do, the heat of the exhaust gasses. If you check out the turbo set-up on almost any vehicle that was designed for a turbo from the factory or a turbo kit the turbo is usually bolted right to the manifold. There IS a reason for this.

The downfall to the remotely mounted turbo is that you have a large volume between the heads and the turbo AND a long distance. Thus, the exhaust gasses have time to cool back down and condense. STS makes a BS claim that this more dense exhaust spins a turbo better. Does that make any sense at all? Turbines work on pressure differences, exhaust density is neither here nor there.

The one benefit of the remote mounted turbo is slightly cooler intake temperatures without an intercooler. You still have to run a while hell of a lot of piping, though. Just as much as you would have for a front mounted intercooler.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-23-2008
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Muncy, PA
Posts: 8,470
i dont understand why you guys think its not an advantage for the turbos to be in the back horsepower did it with a corvette they did a twin turbo set up with the turbos all the way in the back of the car and they intercooled it too and the tubing from the turbos from to the intake helps cool the air more from the back of the car to the front. with turbo technology these days theres next to zero turbo lag. there is no differecne in the around of air coming out the exhaust weather its in the front or the back and the think about heat runs a turbo is a bs claim.




Seriously dude get a car back system and get an inter cooler if you can find a place to mount it and then you will have a cooler denser charge of air going into your motor thus producing more hp and tq. is not about where the turbos mounted it about the temp of the air when it goes into the intake.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downey View Post
i dont understand why you guys think its not an advantage for the turbos to be in the back horsepower did it with a corvette they did a twin turbo set up with the turbos all the way in the back of the car and they intercooled it too and the tubing from the turbos from to the intake helps cool the air more from the back of the car to the front. with turbo technology these days theres next to zero turbo lag. there is no differecne in the around of air coming out the exhaust weather its in the front or the back and the think about heat runs a turbo is a bs claim.




Seriously dude get a car back system and get an inter cooler if you can find a place to mount it and then you will have a cooler denser charge of air going into your motor thus producing more hp and tq. is not about where the turbos mounted it about the temp of the air when it goes into the intake.

Did you read the whole thread?

I explained how turbos run on "Heat".

STS has some fast cars, but manifold mounted turbos will spool sooner, are capable of producing more boost (not relevant here, however), and run more efficently (less drag on the engine).
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-23-2008
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Muncy, PA
Posts: 8,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
Did you read the whole thread?

I explained how turbos run on "Heat".

STS has some fast cars, but manifold mounted turbos will spool sooner, are capable of producing more boost (not relevant here, however), and run more efficently (less drag on the engine).
yes i read the whole things and i think your theory is out the window.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-23-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 647
So, where does the exhaust from the engine stroke go? It goes through the turbine to spin it. It doesn't matter what temp the air is, it will spool. The air could be 50 degrees farenheit and it would spool. Your claim about air still expanding in the exhaust can be summed up like this, air that is hotter has less density under no pressure, air that is cooler is more dense. So why is it that I can put my hand in my tail pipe and not get burned by the air? Because it's not hot enough. If I were to somehow put my hand in the cylinder while it was firing under high compression I would get burned because THAT is where the exhaust is at it's hottest. From that point the gas is "pushed" into a pipe of lower temperature where it cools and becomes more dense. I believe that if the exhaust gas was going to expand anymore that car makers would have harnessed this exerted energy making more power instead of blowing out the tail pipe.


Basically, the exhaust gas will never be as hot as the combustion chamber (meaning the same volume of air cannot increase going to a lower temperature).

Use physics........
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-23-2008
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Muncy, PA
Posts: 8,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh5Edge View Post
So, where does the exhaust from the engine stroke go? It goes through the turbine to spin it. It doesn't matter what temp the air is, it will spool. The air could be 50 degrees farenheit and it would spool. Your claim about air still expanding in the exhaust can be summed up like this, air that is hotter has less density under no pressure, air that is cooler is more dense. So why is it that I can put my hand in my tail pipe and not get burned by the air? Because it's not hot enough. If I were to somehow put my hand in the cylinder while it was firing under high compression I would get burned because THAT is where the exhaust is at it's hottest. From that point the gas is "pushed" into a pipe of lower temperature where it cools and becomes more dense. I believe that if the exhaust gas was going to expand anymore that car makers would have harnessed this exerted energy making more power instead of blowing out the tail pipe.


Basically, the exhaust gas will never be as hot as the combustion chamber (meaning the same volume of air cannot increase going to a lower temperature).

Use physics........



thank you and thats why a turbo in the back would be better because the exhaust temps would be cooler and more dense.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-23-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 647
The only draw backs to this set-up are that you have to have a lot of tubing for intake and it'd take a couple more strokes of the engine to compress the larger volume of air to spool the turbo.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-23-2008
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Muncy, PA
Posts: 8,470
yeah but with the amount of tubbing the compressed air temp will be down making a cooler denser charge to go into the motor for my hp and tq its a good pay off imo.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Downey View Post
yes i read the whole things and i think your theory is out the window.
Do you a deny physics and all of the research companies like garrett have done? STS USES garrett turbos, BTW.

Are you sure you dont work for STS? It simply isnt the most efficent way to turbocharge a car. If it were comapnies like Subaru would be putting their turbos behind the cat and turbos in LeMans cars wouldnt be right after the manifold either. STS doesnt have a grounbreaking patent on their systems...they are simply making a turbo kit that requires only basic mechanical skills and a day of work.

Last edited by CBFranger; 05-23-2008 at 01:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh5Edge View Post
So, where does the exhaust from the engine stroke go? It goes through the turbine to spin it. It doesn't matter what temp the air is, it will spool. The air could be 50 degrees farenheit and it would spool. Your claim about air still expanding in the exhaust can be summed up like this, air that is hotter has less density under no pressure, air that is cooler is more dense. So why is it that I can put my hand in my tail pipe and not get burned by the air? Because it's not hot enough. If I were to somehow put my hand in the cylinder while it was firing under high compression I would get burned because THAT is where the exhaust is at it's hottest. From that point the gas is "pushed" into a pipe of lower temperature where it cools and becomes more dense. I believe that if the exhaust gas was going to expand anymore that car makers would have harnessed this exerted energy making more power instead of blowing out the tail pipe.


Basically, the exhaust gas will never be as hot as the combustion chamber (meaning the same volume of air cannot increase going to a lower temperature).

Use physics........
What? Use physics yourself. Pressure is not a factor of density. Pressure is a factor of temperature and ammount of air and volume. PV=nRT. Pressure is the variable that we WANT. Assume volume is fixed (though the lower the volume the higher the pressure). If volume are fixed and the ammount of exhaust gass is fixed (moles, not volume) then the only thing we can change to increase the pressure is TEMPERATURE.

A car's cylender volume is only so big. When the cylender is at BDC after the intake stroke it is the ONLY time that the cylender pressure is equal to that of ambient air pressure. When the charge is ignited the fuel is burned. These exhaust gasses push the piston back to BDC with more force than it took to compress the intake charge to TDC. THAT is how an engine makes it power. These exhaust gasses are still under emmense pessure because they are extremely hot. The exhaust stroke pushes this charge (at almost constant pressure because of valve restriction) out of the cylender and the exhaust valve closes. THEN the hot exhaust gasses are able to expand into a large volume to match atmospheric pressure. As they move down towards the outlet of the exhaust system they expand and cool, thus reducing pressure.

The engine CAN NOT harness this energy that is wasted to run the turbo. If it could we wouldnt need a turbo and our engines would be a lot more efficent. A naturally asperated iron block engine has a maximum theoretical thermodynamic efficency of somewhere in the high 20's (percentage). This means that 70% + of the energy in the fuel you burn is released as heat and sound. A turbo uses some of the HEAT loss to increase the overall efficency of the system (higher pressure means more efficent burn and fuel usage etc...)

If you cant understand this ask and I will explain. If you dont want to beleive me head over to AF.com in the forced induction forum and ask a few questions. There are engineers there who are also extreme gear heads they will set you on the right track.

Agian, I am not saying their systems dont work. I am saying they are less efficent. They arent selling them as the best turbo kits around, they are selling them as a turbo kit that is easy to install and remove.

Last edited by CBFranger; 05-23-2008 at 01:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh5Edge View Post
The only draw backs to this set-up are that you have to have a lot of tubing for intake and it'd take a couple more strokes of the engine to compress the larger volume of air to spool the turbo.
This doesnt have a very large effect. Once the system is at presure the turbo only has to keep up with the flow of the engine. Large intercoolers will show the same sort of pressure drops as these long tubes.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-23-2008
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 647
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
What? Use physics yourself. Pressure is not a factor of density.

.........What happens when you manually turn over an engine WITH the plugs in it? What happens when you check the compression of a cylinder? The pressure is raised and the air becomes more dense...........Saying that you can't change the density of a set mass of air with pressure is pretty much the dumbest thing I've heard today. I'm done with this thread. And by doing so I am not admitting defeat. Use your own little ideal gas law, the volume changes the pressure too: just divide your gas constant, n, and your temp by the volume.......but volume is infinite once that valve opens.........kind of hard to equate the world into your formula that doesn't apply to the situation.........


Like I said, I'm done with this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-23-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oh5Edge View Post
.........What happens when you manually turn over an engine WITH the plugs in it? What happens when you check the compression of a cylinder? The pressure is raised and the air becomes more dense...........Saying that you can't change the density of a set mass of air with pressure is pretty much the dumbest thing I've heard today. I'm done with this thread. And by doing so I am not admitting defeat. Use your own little ideal gas law, the volume changes the pressure too: just divide your gas constant, n, and your temp by the volume.......but volume is infinite once that valve opens.........kind of hard to equate the world into your formula that doesn't apply to the situation.........


Like I said, I'm done with this thread.
Density is just a calculation of volume and mass. Density has nothing to do with energy. Pressure does. Good try.

Gas constant? n? n is the number of moles. R is the gas constant. Good try agian, though.

I dont know why you are getting angry. What do you have to gain by proving that a kit does what it was never intended to do? Agian, I ask you, where is the turbo located on LeMans cars? What are the rules for displacement in the lemans? Would they not want the most efficent setup to make the most power?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
1999 Ford 1999 Ranger Sport - $1,000 SeanL Ranger Based Vehicles 0 01-07-2012 05:29 PM
1999 Ranger turbo? hurley New Ideas 6 12-18-2010 02:54 PM
can i put tilt in a1995 ford ranger column shift toddjacks Exterior Semi-Tech 4 05-07-2010 09:36 PM
To turbo or not to turbo? hoosierdaddy5643 4.0L OHV & SOHC V6 Tech 6 06-10-2009 10:03 PM
To Turbo, or not to Turbo? Jardo87 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 4 03-26-2005 12:52 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.