Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's only about 2 bars. Yawn.
Though an easier way is to up the displacement (like 572 or 612 CI). Then you can run it more easily on pump gas, with less likelihood for pinging.
That's only about 2 bars. Yawn.
Though an easier way is to up the displacement (like 572 or 612 CI). Then you can run it more easily on pump gas, with less likelihood for pinging.
you could not make that kind of hp on a naturally aspirated engine, and IF you could you would SURELY not be running it on pump gas
you could not make that kind of hp on a naturally aspirated engine, and IF you could you would SURELY not be running it on pump gas
That is true. We could only get about 900HP on a naturally-aspirated 572... but that is why they invented roots blowers.... reliable, (well, not very efficient), but then you can use a much milder cam. Simplicity is what I believe is the secret. Won't catch me using exhaust-driven turbos anytime soon. Also, near where I used to live, you could get 104 gas at the pump at a local Haffner's. Built the motors with a reduced compression ratio, and then ran a lot of boost. Could use it as a daily driver.
Even a SBC, roots blown, with basic mods, would deliver 140HP at WOT at IDLE speed. This is not rocket science. A decent torque curve is your friend.
Here is my unscientific view on these HP wars. I watch more that I should of Pass Time but what is consistent is that the cars running turbos are kicking butt and running quicker times than the big cube nitrous fed or supercharged cars.
They are mostly amateur racers with the occasional high buck racer showing up but when you see Mustangs and Camaros running turbos running quicker times than 500CI dragsters you have to think there is something to this turbo thing.
This nonsense about there is no replacement for displacement was disproved when the 392 CI Hemi's were running quicker than the 1,700 CI Allison engined dragsters of the 50's.
That is true. We could only get about 900HP on a naturally-aspirated 572... but that is why they invented roots blowers.... reliable, (well, not very efficient), but then you can use a much milder cam. Simplicity is what I believe is the secret. Won't catch me using exhaust-driven turbos anytime soon. Also, near where I used to live, you could get 104 gas at the pump at a local Haffner's. Built the motors with a reduced compression ratio, and then ran a lot of boost. Could use it as a daily driver.
Even a SBC, roots blown, with basic mods, would deliver 140HP at WOT at IDLE speed. This is not rocket science. A decent torque curve is your friend.
very true.. I just posted that for all the nay sayers here who say the 4 v mod motors are the only way to go and the 3v motors are nothing.. In all actuality the 3 v heads flow as much much if not more MORE then the 4 v heads.
very true,. Turbos are better for the simple reasons that you can mount em anywhere and you can change boost on the fly of you want. 2 turbos and you eliminate lag..
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDD
Here is my unscientific view on these HP wars. I watch more that I should of Pass Time but what is consistent is that the cars running turbos are kicking butt and running quicker times than the big cube nitrous fed or supercharged cars.
They are mostly amateur racers with the occasional high buck racer showing up but when you see Mustangs and Camaros running turbos running quicker times than 500CI dragsters you have to think there is something to this turbo thing.
This nonsense about there is no replacement for displacement was disproved when the 392 CI Hemi's were running quicker than the 1,700 CI Allison engined dragsters of the 50's.
Plus turbos utilize engine waste a.k.a. spent exhaust gasses, to make their power. Superchargers OTOH require engine power to make power.
But then again superchargers are easier to install in most applications whereas plumbing the engine bay for a turbo (or turbos) can be a challenge. Unless of course if you go with a tail pipe turbo.
Plus turbos utilize engine waste a.k.a. spent exhaust gasses, to make their power. Superchargers OTOH require engine power to make power.
But then again superchargers are easier to install in most applications whereas plumbing the engine bay for a turbo (or turbos) can be a challenge. Unless of course if you go with a tail pipe turbo.
Turbos generate exhaust back-pressure.... which affects power.
My motto is "easy-in, easy-out".
And engine is essentially a tuned circuit, where the intake operates with an efficiency curve, and the exhaust operates with an efficiency curve.
While supers take power to make power, so do turbos. No free lunch here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I just posted that for all the nay sayers here who say the 4 v mod motors are the only way to go and the 3v motors are nothing.. In all actuality the 3 v heads flow as much much if not more MORE then the 4 v heads.
