who makes a good rear mount turbo?

v606er · May 4th, 2008, 09:47 PM

almost everyone here says sts is crap and powerhouse is the best, but i dont think powerhouse has a rear mount

HMUSN · May 4th, 2008, 09:48 PM

sts

v606er · May 4th, 2008, 10:05 PM

are they really the only one?

00vabchgt · May 4th, 2008, 10:06 PM

Originally Posted by HMUSN

sts

v606er · May 5th, 2008, 01:05 AM

i wish powerhouse had a rear. I just dont like all the extra heat that fronts add to the engine compartment

fogged306 · May 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM

Yea, but you loose a good amt of PSI with all the extra tubing required for a rear mount.

NXstang · May 13th, 2008, 12:27 AM

I dont get the big deal. Front mounts are what areo n the fast cars...rear mounts areo n peoples cars who have too much money to spend and not enough common sense.

sorry to sound harsh but a front mount kit will work alot better than a junk rear mount. Save yourself the headache and trouble and run a conventional front mount.

TurboLX · May 13th, 2008, 08:01 AM

rear mounts is most retarted things i had ever seen i my life

v606er · May 15th, 2008, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by fogged306

Yea, but you loose a good amt of PSI with all the extra tubing required for a rear mount.

its actually 1psi loss

v606er · May 15th, 2008, 11:39 PM

Originally Posted by TurboLX

rear mounts is most retarted things i had ever seen i my life

i must be missing how they are so dumb

pros of rear:
easier install, dont have to get all new exhaust, no heat soak of engine components, more sweet turbo sound cause they are the exhaust

cons
1psi loss due to the distance from the headers

i am missing how they are so crappy

Goblin · May 16th, 2008, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by fogged306

Yea, but you loose a good amt of PSI with all the extra tubing required for a rear mount.

Not true.

Originally Posted by NXstang

I dont get the big deal. Front mounts are what areo n the fast cars...rear mounts areo n peoples cars who have too much money to spend and not enough common sense.

sorry to sound harsh but a front mount kit will work alot better than a junk rear mount. Save yourself the headache and trouble and run a conventional front mount.

Do your homework, before you share you under-educated opinion with us.

Originally Posted by TurboLX

rear mounts is most retarted things i had ever seen i my life

I dont understand why so many people believe rear mount turbos are retarded. There is no difference in performance. It doesnt matter where the turbos are located, they will charge the system just the same. You think all the "fast" cars use only front mounted turbos? Take a look at Mike Murrilos Outlaw 10.5 car. Rear mounted, twin T88s. 6.70s @ 200+mph.

Yeah, rear mounts are retarded.

nba1341 · May 16th, 2008, 03:50 AM

lol

Arctic Fox · May 17th, 2008, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by v606er

cons
1psi loss due to the distance from the headers

Isn't there also much more lag compared to front mount systems?

Goblin · May 17th, 2008, 07:50 PM

Originally Posted by Arctic Fox

Isn't there also much more lag compared to front mount systems?

No. That a foolish rumor. Ive driven 05 GTs with the STS twin rear mounts, the boost response is amazingly quick.

v606er · May 17th, 2008, 09:11 PM

well it seems like its really just preference

Goblin · May 18th, 2008, 04:20 PM

Well, there are some spooby bullshit turbo systems out there, that arent worth the weight they add. Its mostly preference, just be careful of internet parrots, and people who love hearing themselves talk.

fogged306 · May 19th, 2008, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by Goblin

Well, there are some spooby bullshit turbo systems out there, that arent worth the weight they add. Its mostly preference, just be careful of internet parrots, and people who love hearing themselves talk.

I stand corrected, 1psi loss seems to be the consensus with a rear mount turbo and the lag seems to be different with each car, so I'm guessing the lag depends on the quality of the kit and the car itself.

Squak, polly wants a cracker.

forst1 · May 19th, 2008, 08:56 PM

has anyone actually handled the sts kit? if you have you would know that the quality is not the best as far as the components go. for 6-7 grand i would expect more than 20 gauge stainless. the silicone is two ply and they also use blatantly chinese tbolt clamps. they have made great attempts at handling the oil scavenging problems that are notorious with turbos mounted this low. in my opinion the hassle of the oil in the turbo makes these kind of a pain in the ass. although even the hellion twin as well as the hp twin have these oiling issues. for the money they should spend a bit more towards their quality but they do have a bottom line to hit. i will never go back to these guys but the response and performance from the kit was fine. i do like my single 76 much better

v606er · May 19th, 2008, 09:29 PM

i dont know about other cars, but for my car the turbo is 4600$

TurboLX · May 20th, 2008, 01:47 PM

you bottom out, BOOM there goes the whole kit, and to much work is involved

May 4th, 2008, 09:47 PM	#1
v606er Admanistrator Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 11,413 iTrader: 1 reviews	who makes a good rear mount turbo? almost everyone here says sts is crap and powerhouse is the best, but i dont think powerhouse has a rear mount

May 4th, 2008, 09:48 PM	#2
HMUSN Doc 1986 SVO 48.47@ 12.58 Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 37,044 iTrader: 10 reviews	sts __________________

May 13th, 2008, 12:27 AM	#7
NXstang Enlongated Member 2002 Mustang GT 11.95@113MPH Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 301 iTrader: 0 reviews	I dont get the big deal. Front mounts are what areo n the fast cars...rear mounts areo n peoples cars who have too much money to spend and not enough common sense. sorry to sound harsh but a front mount kit will work alot better than a junk rear mount. Save yourself the headache and trouble and run a conventional front mount. __________________ 2002 Mustang GT 4V swapped Nitrous best: 7.47@93MPH 1.60 60ft Turbo best: N/A 2008 Pontiac G8 GT Grocery Getter Mineral Gray Club Member #5

May 13th, 2008, 08:01 AM	#8
TurboLX I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1988 Mustang LX Turbo Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NY Posts: 8,778 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	rear mounts is most retarted things i had ever seen i my life __________________ 1988 LX Coupe 2.5L, GT35R, 44mm WG, 32psi, C16.

May 16th, 2008, 03:50 AM	#12
nba1341 Banned 1965 Mustang Fastback Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Los Angeles, Cal Posts: 24,982 Posts: 2,194 iTrader: 0 reviews	lol __________________ I'm a good boy now. [COLOR=red][B]slow car club - crew member 7 of 9 [COLOR=White]Mood: Cool :cool: [/COLOR][/B] [/COLOR]

May 13th, 2008, 12:08 AM	#6
fogged306 MM Fanatic 89 GT Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 4,875 iTrader: 2 reviews	Yea, but you loose a good amt of PSI with all the extra tubing required for a rear mount.

May 18th, 2008, 04:20 PM	#16
Goblin Hardcore Enthusiast 88mm Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Tucson, AZ Posts: 2,111 iTrader: 0 reviews	Well, there are some spooby bullshit turbo systems out there, that arent worth the weight they add. Its mostly preference, just be careful of internet parrots, and people who love hearing themselves talk. __________________

May 19th, 2008, 08:56 PM	#18
forst1 Newbie Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 40 iTrader: 0 reviews	has anyone actually handled the sts kit? if you have you would know that the quality is not the best as far as the components go. for 6-7 grand i would expect more than 20 gauge stainless. the silicone is two ply and they also use blatantly chinese tbolt clamps. they have made great attempts at handling the oil scavenging problems that are notorious with turbos mounted this low. in my opinion the hassle of the oil in the turbo makes these kind of a pain in the ass. although even the hellion twin as well as the hp twin have these oiling issues. for the money they should spend a bit more towards their quality but they do have a bottom line to hit. i will never go back to these guys but the response and performance from the kit was fine. i do like my single 76 much better

May 20th, 2008, 01:47 PM	#20
TurboLX I Post Entirely Way Too Much 1988 Mustang LX Turbo Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NY Posts: 8,778 Blog Entries: 1 iTrader: 0 reviews	you bottom out, BOOM there goes the whole kit, and to much work is involved __________________ 1988 LX Coupe 2.5L, GT35R, 44mm WG, 32psi, C16.

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
Ford Mustang Forum Advertisement

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums/general-tech/69462-who-makes-good-rear-mount-turbo.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
who makes a good rear mount turbo?	This thread	Refback	May 5th, 2008 07:22 AM

Threads Similar to: who makes a good rear mount turbo?
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Rear lower shock mount rubs on tire	Bad4u2	General Tech	7	June 1st, 2008 07:46 PM
Who makes good thru-floor subframe connectors?	Mike Johnson	5.0 Mustangs	17	March 26th, 2008 10:55 AM
WHO MAKES A GOOD SET OF SEATS!!	Iownastang	5.0 Mustangs	14	September 7th, 2007 08:00 PM
Who makes a good sepentine belt? (duramax brand sux for me)	markush	96-98	5	April 12th, 2007 08:13 PM
STS Remote Mount Turbo	703StangGT	96-98	16	November 5th, 2006 10:59 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:12 AM.
Contact Us - Modded Mustangs : Ford Mustang Forums - Privacy Statement - Top
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company. Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.