Sup /o/. I've got an electrical water pump and A/C compressor

File: 1293978511979.jpg (160KB, 402x460px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 402x460px

>>15864712
I'm curious as well

File: i-troll-u.png (87KB, 755x1255px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 755x1255px

>>15864712

>saged

File: 0.jpg (17KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 480x360px

>yfw all alternators are electrically driven

>>15864741
then why the fuck do you need a belt to run them?

>>15864747
>I is troll u

>>15864737
I'm serious. I hate the look of belts on my engine. Can't I get an electric battery powered motor or something to power my alternator instead of the engine?

File: when your tires are smoking.png (140KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 300x300px

>>15864712

File: 148_0502_turbo_12_z[1].jpg (44KB, 480x426px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 480x426px

>>15864753
mount the alternator at the back so it doesn't clutter up your engine bay

File: 1474309675301.jpg (177KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1200x900px

>>15864712
Shit post/10

good question, op

on a related note why aren't there electrically powered power plants?

>>15864809
>All that lag.

>>15864814
>>15864812
>>15864792
>>15864750
>>15864741
>>15864737
ITT: a bunch of fucking morons.

OP, look up exhaust driven alternators.

>>15864809 has it almost right.

>>15864822

If you chose the proper turbo setup for your application then you won't even notice the difference over a conventional setup. I've driven a twin turbo GTO with remote mount STS turbos and there was no lag. It felt pretty much the same as a turd gen I drove with convention twin turbos in the engine bay.

File: DEI.jpg (21KB, 437x369px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 437x369px

>>15864831

>>15864822
10kwh@3000rpm

File: 1471235592608.jpg (33KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 500x376px

>>15864831
You didn't post an alternator man.

>>15864753
Probably, but you'll need a second belt driven alternator to power it.

>>15864875
What if I just get a spare battery that powers the alternator? That way it can charge my main battery independently.

File: turbo-profile.gif (38KB, 591x361px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 591x361px

>>15864712
>how to get elecricty
a bigger battery or install a cogwheel.
Elon Musk has dreams of Mars and beyond, why can't you?

>>15864888
This is amazing. You are either a very dedicated shitposter, and I respect that, or the dumbest person on the planet

>>15864888
Just as long as you get a >100% efficiency alternator that should be great!

>>15864888
yes then top up that battery with a roof mounted wind turbine that spins when you drive

>>15864812
>>15864848
Every inch further away you move the turbo away costs you efficiency. Lag or not, it's a terrible idea for that reason alone. You're willingly giving up a ton of power with a remote mount.

>>15864911
But that would cause resistance and make me slower. What about a solar panel?

On you front wheels you can put the alternator between your CV axles.

As long as you are moving you generate power, the rest will be up to your battery.

>>15864923
but then you can't drive at night

>>15864940
3rd battery for night driving.

File: 1198775319[1].jpg (77KB, 430x288px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 430x288px

>>15864945
why not just use one of these?

>>15864955
I don't have a tow hitch.

>>15864937
What's a CV axel?

>>15864983
It's like a rear axle, but you can turn with it. It's the future.

I've decided to do away with the alternator all together. I'm going to put a few batteries in my trunk and charge them at night when I need them. It'll basically be a hybrid.

>>15864914

I'll have to dig up the magazine article, but I saw a test with the same car and setup. The performance difference between engine mount and remote mount wasn't statistically significant in any relevant category.

You've probably never even touched a remote mount turbo car let alone driven one so kindly fuck off. Remote mount is perfectly fine for a street car and I've even seen it work great for a drag car. I've even seen remote setups that work better because it's much easier to keep inlet temps down.

>>15866016
I work for a small company. The president and three guys I work with run a drag team, a twin turbo promod. They put some serious money into it and have the best everything. I go by their shop sometimes since it's not far away, and there's some really neat stuff there.

I can tell you definitely, 100%, the distance between the turbo and the engine makes a huge difference in power. If you care at all about installing turbos for anything more than to say you have them, you won't install them FEET away from where the heat source is. No one is dumb enough to throw power away.

>I've even seen remote setups that work better
Bull fucking shit. All you've done is "see" setups. Anecdotes are not dyno pulls.

File: IMG_8273.jpg (46KB, 435x290px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 435x290px

>>15864712

To get rid of alternator this is obvious choice

>>15866072

Yeah, no you don't. You've never even been next to a pro mod car. We don't all drive max effort pro mod cars where you can build a chassis around the engine. Many cars can't easily package a twin turbo setup except remotely. Your saying no turbos is better than remote turbos. You're full of shit. Remote mount can work just fine. Will you see it on an all out drag car? Probably not. Just another neck beard basement dweller.

>>15866148
>Yeah, no you don't
Okay.

You're wrong. You are arguing against very basic physics, further from heat source = less power. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

>>15866160

is that because of the expanded air?

>>15866160

Look I run my own business too. It's call GFY, LLC. I paid my secretary of state a fee so now I run my own business.

Take a 5.7/6.0 GTO or C5/C6 Corvette which are both popular cars for remote mount setups.

Baseline the car at the strip stock. Then add a remote mount turbo kit cheaper and easier than completely gutting the engine compartment and see which one can run the best ET and trap speed.

>>15864712
You could put a big hydraulic pump on the front of your motor and run hoses to your trunk and have your alternator hidden back there driven by a hydraulic motor. I have seen it done before on an old volvo coach that had been repowered with an L10 cummins and (like you) the guy hated the look of belts so he hid the alternator and air con compressor in the locker and drove them with a remote motor

>>15866200
>Baseline the car at the strip stock
>Then add a remote mount turbo kit
>see which one can run the best ET and trap speed
No kidding, I never said remote mount turbos are worse than stock. But you will have objectively worse performance compared to a conventional front mount turbo. The only benefits are packaging and potentially cost. Otherwise, there is no reason to put a turbo that far away.

File: alternator mount.jpg (88KB, 640x361px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 640x361px

You could put a pulley on the pinion flange of your diff and drive your alternator off that, so it's hidden under the car

>>15866200
>drive stock LS1 T/A
>considered turbo setup
>have to delete A/C and relocate alt

the alt is no problem, but
>NO A/C

remote mount seems like it makes sense at this point


>too expensive now

f-fuck

>>15866242
>solid axle

inb4 memes

>>15866200
>>15866160

wait wait, turbos work off of pressure. so you can't have any more power than the wastegate allows because it would just bleed off.

but it would affect power delivery because of a longer spool time. more volume to pressurize = longer time to reach desired psi. and like he said, the exhaust gas would be marginally more dense because of the heat lost from all the surface area of the pipe, so you're gaining even more spool time there.

unless there is something you guys know that i don't

>>15866263
>turbos work off of pressure
Heat is energy. Thinking a turbo will work better further from the heat source when all other factors are equal is to disregard the total enthalpy of the system.