Thread: turbo for 4bd1, who,what where ??

So we'll get no straight answers then

Originally Posted by clean32

LOL

the first picture is NOT Marine

but i will give you a hint, 7 seconds, the second picture is the teams first motor, there second motor still in the first car is apparantly coming ( or come) to australia.

any way it makes a monkey of any statements like
"from a thermal efficiency and fluid mechanics perspective, the wouldn't work"

Have a look at my edited post. The first picture is a compound set in what appears to be a marine engine. I can see now it's a dragster, but the same layout fits a tunnel hull.

Both are compound setups, they aren't remote turbo applications. They don't even have the same number of turbos.

Originally Posted by clean32

"from a thermal efficiency and fluid mechanics perspective, the wouldn't work"

Who has said that? I certainly didn't.

If you actually READ the sentence, I said:

Originally Posted by isuzurover

That's what I mean. I am sure these remote turbo setups "go great" and are a huge improvement over an NA 4BD1, however from a thermal efficiency and fluid mechanics perspective, the[y] wouldn't work as well as an identical engine with the same turbo, but mounted instead on the factory manifold.

Whether or not that difference is noticeable except on a dyno is another matter.

Posting pics of manifold setups on dragsters and the like with compond turbos is hardly relevant to the current discussion.

Only in recent years have we been able to accurately simulate manifolds using CFD and optimise them. As Dougal mentioned, all factory manifolds since then have been the minimum volume type, which place the turbo as close as practicable to the exhaust ports.

The only significant advantage I can see of a remote mount in a 4BD1T landie, is it is the easiest way to keep the factory AC, which I suspect is the reason Mike Vine went that way.

OK you guys are correct in all respects and I know ****.

When I drop off and pass the pearly Gates I will look up Mr Newton and inform him that he should refer to you two guys and he is wrong.

Originally Posted by clean32

OK you guys are correct in all respects and I know ****.

When I drop off and pass the pearly Gates I will look up Mr Newton and inform him that he should refer to you two guys and he is wrong.

Old Isaac is on our side.

Originally Posted by Dougal

Old Isaac is on our side.

prove it, do the bloody maths!!!!

atleast a mod is, my last post with maths has gone

[QUOTEis it is the easiest way to keep the factory AC, which I suspect is the reason Mike Vine went that way.[/QUOTE]

That was the main reason I went for this type of setup, and I am pleased I did as aircon is a must up this way and I can honestly say that even with the remote turbo setup and no intercooler my setup pulls as good if not better than manifold mounted setups, and runs cooler!

i went to mike vines and he was saying that it is aprox $5500 with a turbo provided by me !! i thought that was over the top ! am i right ??