ORIGINAL: 1 Bad Mirada
bootcamp, do you mean nitrous, or do you mean the performance stuff from the LX cars fitting the challenger?
I was referring to the STS turbo kit - universal application. I agree about the distance between the turbo and the intake, spooling time, and lag issues you mentioned. While the location of the turbo in that kit helps with heat issues, it creates too many other problems to overcome (that you mentioned) to be what I'd consider "efficient".
I had a 1978 Mustang III with the 2.3L Turbo. I had to overcome detonation and pre-ignition issues with that system, as well as turbo-lag since this was very new technology in American passenger cars at that time and there was little documentation to troubleshoot from. The wastegate on that car was set for 7 lbs, which wasn't extreme by today's standards, but the lag was very noticible (I would guess it was around .3 - .5 seconds). The odd part is that the system was fairly compact and all of the plumbing was in the engine compartment, with the turbo sitting in the rear of the engine well near the firewall - yet the lag was so noticible. I can only imagine what the lag would have been like if the turbo was mounted by the differential.
Nitrous is pretty straightforward. As you stated, there are "bottle pressure" issues, but the efficiency of the nitrous systems inherently overcome most of the "location" problems they create.
My understanding of the Nitrous system (and it IS limited) is that the HP gain from using it is a result of the extreme drop in intake temperature - more than anything else. The bigger the jet, the more nitrous is delivered and the lower the intake temperature. Subsequently, the amout of fuel (gasoline) has to be adjusted to compensate for the engine's efficiency with the cooler combustibles being brought to the power stroke of the cycle, as well as running cooler spark plugs so as not to "lean out" the engine.
Am I on the right track here?