Squires Turbo

RE: Squires Turbo

Chris,

I understand you know people that have it, but my thing is what works good on one type of car may have different effects on another type of car. The other thing I wonder about is thias system looks like a single pipe out, so what would the rear look like with only one pipe coming out of it? I am not sure I would like the look of just 1 pipe coming out compared to a dual setup. running the pipe for this looks pretty straight forward. I wonder if it could be put in the center of the car somewhere alittle behind where the third cat is and then use a y-pipe to slit into a dual and have it look stock from behind? Now that might be pretty nice.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

Yeah, I read through most of it. Is it definitely a good option for a mild Mark. I don't think you gonna see 380rwhp from this setup, more like 300 or so. Still, with the amount of money it would cost to build one of these, it's definitely worth it.

Exhaust is no problem, just split it into two, like it's done on base marks. I don't think there is enough room in place of the 3rd cat, you will run into clearance issues.

The kit they sell has some things I don't like. The return oil is dropped into the valve cover through the oil cap ??? I wonder what kind of oil pump are they using ? What size garret would be best suited for the 4v auto ? Come on guys, let's get this done and beat Chris to the first turbo mark ever !!! LOL
 
RE: Squires Turbo

I'll stick with the tried and true but this looks interesting... my friend has about 4 grand to spend on his cobra... maybe i can talk him into a squires?
 
RE: Squires Turbo

The problem of the single tail pipe is solved.There are two pipes.One is the exhaust, the other is the air Inlet.

I havent touched my car in a LONG time.I'm not in any kind of a race to finish mine.Financing has it on the back burner right now.

I think it will make 380 RWHP no problem.It wont do it at 5 lbs, but it will do it at 8-10 LBS.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

I saw a GMC truck at the track run 12's with a STS turbo. It has the 6.0 Vortec (iron LS1) engine.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
The problem of the single tail pipe is solved.There are two pipes.One is the exhaust, the other is the air Inlet.I havent touched my car in a LONG time.I'm not in any kind of a race to finish mine.Financing has it on the back burner right now.I think it will make 380 RWHP no problem.It wont do it at 5 lbs, but it will do it at 8-10 LBS.
[/div]

Whats this all about?
http://www.lincolnsclub.org/forum/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=58&topic_id=99&mode=full&page=
 
RE: Squires Turbo

I don't have my automotive engineering book in front of me, but a good estimation for hp increase when adding a supercharger is:
Boosted HP= stock HP* (Atmospheric pressure + boost - pressure losses)/Atmospheric pressure. I won't go into detail about what this means, but atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi, pressure losses are the loses through the extra intake plumbing needed for the turbo (1-2 psi, depending if you have an aftercooler/intercooler). So if your car has NA 230rwhp and you are running 5psi boost (and assume no losses from the extra tubing) Boosted HP = 230*(19.7/14.7)= 308rwhp. You would need 10lbs boost to get 380.

Also, it is VERY important that your turbo get hot exhaust. A turbo is essentially converting thermal energy into mechanical (rotational) energy. Heat is energy, and the hotter the air the higher the pressure= the more force it has to push on the turbine blades= the faster it spins= the more power out. Any heat lost through the exhaust is lost energy. It would be very beneficial to use header wrap on your whole exhaust sytem to insulate it if you plan on going with a setup like this.

Really cool idea though.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

Good explanation, but you didn't consider something. The HP that you multiply by is the power at the flywheel, not at the rear wheels. This is because drivetrain losses will remain about the same.

For example, 230 rwhp on a 280 HP engine car = 50 HP due to drivetrain loss.

((380+50 loss)/280)*14.7-14.7=~8 psi boost to get 430 at the flywheel.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
I don't have my automotive engineering book in front of me, but a good estimation for hp increase when adding a supercharger is:Boosted HP= stock HP* (Atmospheric pressure + boost - pressure losses)/Atmospheric pressure. I won't go into detail about what this means, but atmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi, pressure losses are the loses through the extra intake plumbing needed for the turbo (1-2 psi, depending if you have an aftercooler/intercooler). So if your car has NA 230rwhp and you are running 5psi boost (and assume no losses from the extra tubing) Boosted HP = 230*(19.7/14.7)= 308rwhp. You would need 10lbs boost to get 380.Also, it is VERY important that your turbo get hot exhaust. A turbo is essentially converting thermal energy into mechanical (rotational) energy. Heat is energy, and the hotter the air the higher the pressure= the more force it has to push on the turbine blades= the faster it spins= the more power out. Any heat lost through the exhaust is lost energy. It would be very beneficial to use header wrap on your whole exhaust sytem to insulate it if you plan on going with a setup like this.Really cool idea though.
[/div]



There are still some variables you left out.Like how efficient the combusation chamber is, and how well the heads flow.Because boost is the pressure of the air that is NOT getting into the engine.Its the pressure on the OTHER side of the throttle body.So 5 LBs of boost on a car with a well ported head will make more HP than a car with a more restrictive head.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

head and intake design don't really factor into that little formula if they are constant (the same before and after boost). And that formula gives you a rough ballpark figure at best.

You say that the turbo it converting thermal energy... not really. It's being driven off of the pressure of the exhaust gases. The reason people try to put them as close to the engine as possible is because the pressure is highest there, not because the temperature is highest there. If you mount it downstream a little, the pressure is a little lower but you have less of the heat migrating over to the intake air. So there's benefits either way.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

A turbo is driven mainly by the hot expanding exhaust stream (as air cools it expands, when compressed it gets hot) to power a centrifugal compressor. This stream contains a lot of thermal, sonic and kinetic energy. The turbo uses all of this wasted energy to drive the turbine and power the compressor.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
head and intake design don't really factor into that little formula if they are constant (the same before and after boost). And that formula gives you a rough ballpark figure at best.You say that the turbo it converting thermal energy... not really. It's being driven off of the pressure of the exhaust gases. The reason people try to put them as close to the engine as possible is because the pressure is highest there, not because the temperature is highest there. If you mount it downstream a little, the pressure is a little lower but you have less of the heat migrating over to the intake air. So there's benefits either way.
[/div]

We are really saying the same thing here. Using the correlation PV=RT (Pressure *Volume = constant* Temperature) and assuming that you have a constant Volume, pressure and temperature are proportional, so if temperature rises, pressure must rise. Yes you want the turbo as close as possible because the pressure is hightest there, because energy can be defines as the integration of P*dV, so pressure is a part of energy, so to speak.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

But absolute pressure is unimportant. We need a pressure drop across the turbo to cause it to spin. The temperature near the head is higher, but the temperature just past the turbo when mounted at the head is nearly as high. So the temperature factor will nearly cancel out. Granted, temperature is dropping faster near the head than further down the exhaust stream, so the pressure differential will be slightly greater closer to the head.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

Whoa, How on earth do you guys understand this... I need to read more. LOL.


Jon Ike
95 MKVIII[font color="#CC0000"]
MIDWEST CHAPTER [/font]
 
RE: Squires Turbo

IMO, (Flamers dig in))

The Squires Turbo is a lame band aid.. either do it right or live with the super long Lag and a multitude of exhaust and return intake leaks. Flame me if you want.. but 30 feet of return path (exhaust plus return intake) is asking for serious issues plus several seconds of LAGG. It's hard enough to seal a normal exhaust, but with serious exhaust pressure, it's a PITA.

I'd say "Forget about it"

mark
 
RE: Squires Turbo

[div class="dcquote"][strong]Quote[/strong]
IMO, (Flamers dig in))The Squires Turbo is a lame band aid.. either do it right or live with the super long Lag and a multitude of exhaust and return intake leaks. Flame me if you want.. but 30 feet of return path (exhaust plus return intake) is asking for serious issues plus several seconds of LAGG. It's hard enough to seal a normal exhaust, but with serious exhaust pressure, it's a PITA. I'd say "Forget about it"mark
[/div]


I KNOW it sounds like it wont work, but I have personally ridden in a camero with the kit and there is NO lag whatsoever.NONE, ZILCH, NADA!!!

I'm not flaming you at all, just letting you know my personal experience with this kit.
 
RE: Squires Turbo

According to a recent Popular Hotrodding article, the turbo is designed to "eliminate lag", and in the article they state, "an air molecule only takes .05 seconds to get from the turbo to the intake".

How they were able to determine that, find a molecule and measure the time it took to travel through the system, I certainly haven't got a clue. Sound more like conjecture and speculation than anything else to me . . .

While I believe it works (it appears to have quite a following), I'm inclined to agree with M8SHOSCGUY and say IMHO I think it's a lame system, and everything about it goes against the stuff I've learned about turbochargers over the last 15-20 years.

I highly doubt that you would ever be able to get more than 5-7lbs of boost--maybe 10lbs MAX, and if you tried to get more by installing a bigger turbo, that would just cause the lag that this particular combination was designed to eliminate.

I agree with him also that if you want to put a turbo on a car, do it the RIGHT way; after all, if it's going to cost $4000 and up (according to the PHR article), IMHO you might as well install a kit that can boost in the 20lb-and-up range--it will be nearly the same price.

If this were a $1000-$1500 kit, I'd say go for it, but it ain't, it costs about as much as a conventional kit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top