Depending on the car, there's not much room underhood. I assume the intake charge is cooler from not being so close to the turbo(s) too.

>>14778682
simplicity

>>14778688
It just seems like a lot more risk for reward, could be just me though

disadvantage: running the oil lines

>>14778682
You lose power with every inch you move away from the engine. Turbos should be as close as possible, move something less critical if there's no room.

There isn't a single benefit
Prove Me wrong

>>14778729
what if it's a choice between rear mount or nothing?

>>14778744
I can't imagine a situation where that would be the case

>>14778729
Rear engine car

>>14778697
>shit load of plumbing
>simplicity

>>14778755
The equivalent to that would be a front mounted turbo setup on a rear/mid engined car

>>14778712
Why would they lose power over distance? Isn't all the exhaust gas passing through them either way? I can understand more lag, but I can't think of how less power would be an issue unless you have an exhaust leak.

>>14778772
>front mounted turbo setup on a rear/mid engined car
now you're on to something. What we need is a 4WD car with turbos on every wheel, though.

>>14778774
The more plumbing between the turbo and the engine, the more loss in pressure in between. Compressed air is subject to friction losses and shit like that. Think about how in badly designed buildings with long lengths of plumbing, the water pressure is lower further from the source.

only acceptable in V8 cars that lack engine bay space.
a huge V8 makes good power off boost so lag isn't an issue.

>>14778729

Keeps all that heat out from under the hood.

Better weight distribution.

But rear mounted turbos are failgasms