yes but for size vs. size the Turbo will put out more power overall, b/c the S/C is limited by the belt that is driving it where as the higher RPM you have the more the turbo spins, so technically the turbo is feeding itself... LETS SEE A S/C do that! hahaha :-P a turbo's lag is the same as when the s/c quits making MORE powee (when it reaches its max. efficiency... so yea idk you can have fun spinnin your tires all day from a stop... ill just burn your butt on the top end where your s/c quits on ya... lol <3 youuuuu haha

 

Hey Izero ya know I love yer input and posts and everything, but I have to disagree with you on this one... I cant honeslty say that SCs are worse than a turbo, even for our cars... I think that it can be relativelyeasier to get a bit more out of a turbo on engines with similar displacement like ours, but here is a good argument and I would love someone to come up with better technical reasons why the following is true:

You want to see the most horsepower per displacement when it comes to forced induction, and the best 1/4-mile times for the traditional combustion engine, look no further than the 4.4+ -second 1/4-miles passes of the Top Fuel dragsters and funny cars... and they all have 1471 blowers on them churning as hard as they freakin can off the belt drive... never seen a turbo car run anything close to the 4-second window, or even 5 for that matter. The most I ever PERSONALLY saw a turbo-FA car do was a 6.7-sec pass, and that was a 02 Mustang churning out about 2000+ hp (out of a 540 CI and VERY modified engine and drivetrain, to say the very least). 4.4 seconds compared to 6.7 ... that's a HUGE difference... a 5000 hp difference to be exact.

Maybe its because superchargers are more consistent in nature than a turbo (i.e., predictable boost, no lag, etc etc)... maybe it's because a supercharger is more reliable at higher RPMS under SERIOUS horsepower levels, dont know... I think in a daily driver, tubros can last a bit longer with proper maintenance compared to a screw SC, maybe even cetrifugal... and dont get me wrong, I am not a fan of one over the other, in fact I am partial to turbos in many cars just because I like the cars... like a Hennessy Viper or a Supra, etc... and I am not in anyway comparing a nitro motor with a 1471 blower chugging out 7000 horspower to a 2.0-liter turbo-d Neon that can be a daily driver... but the dominance of superchargers in the FAST FAST gut-wrenching world of serious drag racers has to make you wonder... I know, pump gas can't take 50:1 compression... but a turbo can't provide that kind of compression either like a SC can.

 

hehe no i know what you mean... but we are still talkin about daily drivers here... not all out pro race cars... the reason they use S/Cers is b/c according to the rules they can't use a turbo... :-\ so yea...........gonna quote this guy from another forum....

so thats why they use them in top fuel.... to put it simply a S/C is NOT connected to the exhaust, while a turbo is.... now unless they can figure out how to keep the turbo cool enough that it wont melt into a puddle of gooey liquid metal it just wont happen... so yea that is THE ONLY factor that limits their use... :-P take that mister....


oh oh oh also.... check this link out it explains a lot

http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/turb...-up-29060.html

 

Izero, I'm not picking a fight with you on this at all, but let me start off again with this simple premis:

Don't believe what you read, not always anyway.

From EXPERIENCE, the quote that you posted is wrong about a few things. Yes, nitro-methane burns hot on a top-fuel dragster... but given the adverse compression of 50:1 to 60:1, it is required obviously to spray as mch fuel as possible into those engines... actually, I'm probably low on the compression numbers. A top fuel dragster will usually consume over 11 gallons of fuel in a single 1/4-mile pass... fuel for thought.

Also, in your quote it cites in a nutshell that the stuff burns hot and that's why you see it coming out of the exhaust. This is partially correct but nottrue in the same instance... true, that it does burn hot and very violently indeed, but in all actuality a decent relative part of it is burned inside of the chamber... what you see on TV as the bright yellow or white blow-torch flames coming out of the exhaust is actually the HYDROGEN in theATMOSPHEREigniting as the hot exhaust gases pierce by it, which therefore is an "afterefect" of the burning process... you see atmoshpere exploding around the radiation from the heat, like a nuclear bomb... you are not seeing the nitromethane burning more.I'm not saying that the in-cylinder burn is efficient by any means at all, dont get me wrong, Im just saying that most of the flame you see is NOT uncombusted nitromethane... its the air you and I breathe every day that you see going up in flame.

As far as the article you provided a link to, that's good stuff, but only generally speaking. But by reading it, I can see that the author is biased againstSCs something fierce... first of all, he cites his referrences way too much. A true motor-head wouldn't do that, he would speak from experience, instead ofciting other people's publishings... hell, even Hitler wrote best-selling books. ... lol ... I'm not saying he's wrong in what he says, but he isnt right either...he is being very biased, and leaving out critical details. He is very good though in highlighting the basics...

Yes, obviously heat is the biggest issue in driving a turbo... well, Titanium is not only a hard metal, but also has EXCELLENT insulative properties to temperature spikes (which most people are unaware of). So from MY EXPERIENCE, being skilled in machining and automation, don't you think that someone by now, at least just as an experiment, would have milled or forged a turbo vane out of military spec T7-AII titanium and done an easy EDM burn on the bearings to accomade something like CO2 cooling, even just to withstand a 4-second pass on a 1/4-mile drag?

Haven't seen it. And the technology has been around for decades to prove it wrong... it would have been done by now otherwise, but I'm sure people have tried and failed. The bottom line is that when it comes down to daily drivers like our Neons, yes, turbos are EXCELLENT. But when it comes down to raw horsepower on a scalable level with displacement as the only limitation, SC's win. And like I said, I am a fan of the turbo, not the SC. Bottom line, a turbo is efficient at levels that suit us as in a daily driven machine, and mild to modified drag motors. But at the end of the day, a turbo just can't beat the sure atmospheric displacement that aSC can... you reach a limit where a turbo gets choked but a SC would keep going, period, end of story. Like I said before, bolting an SC on your car (specifically, a Neon) can produce the same results, but with higher maintenance. A turbo CANNOT physically produce 7000 hp like a supercharger can, for reasons due to thermal and liquid dynamics, regardless of what they are made of.

This is a huge argument, and honestly it cannot be proven either way in a Neon. Basically its a moot point to argue because there is no bolt-on SC kitfor a Neon. As half of the "good" points stated in that other article you posted, yes, there were things left out of the therorerical SC kit that would have added to expense, and the author dwelled on that point... but we weren't talking about up-front costs, we were talking about horsepower... so what if you added up the left-out parts of an SC kit and it turned out to be the same price as a turbo kit or more with the same components? Most guys that care about true performance don't flinch at the price differences... truthfully, most guys that care about performance THAT MUCH don't try to mod Neons, period. And obviously I'm not one of them, at least not here and now in this forum, because I drive a Neon and although I might be fluent at the track with a variety of V8's and components, these I'4s in a Neon like mine still baffle the s*** out of me sometimes!

That being said, everyone sigh and laugh... 1, .... 2,.... 3,... [sm=feedback.gif]we'll go nowhere arguing this.

 

im not arguing at all just voicing my opinion and backing it up... besides titanium still melts when it gets hot enough.... :-P its allllll good man, i like turbos better simple as that

 

well me too, like I said, I am partial to turbos anyway.

I really LOVE the tandem-turbo setup that the tractor-pull guys like to use, blowing fresh fuel right into the exhaust to spool those suckers up @ idle before they even hit the throttle...LOTSA instant horsepower and torque on-demand (if you don't mind going through an assload of fuel).