Thread: Turbo Vs. Super
View Single Post
Old 10-30-2003, 05:28 PM   #19
454Casull
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Posts: 615
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Turbo Vs. Super

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypsi87
As you all probabally can tell I'm a turbo nut. Something about superchargers I just don't like. ( they rob too much horsepower.)

Here are some other little tid bits on turbochargers.

Everyone always says "If a turbo is so great then why don't top fuel funny cars run them. The anwser is....In the NHRA rule book it states that they are not allowed to use any other type of forced induction.

A turbo will not increse the ammount of accuall air that your engine flows. That is because a turbo is a pressue multiplier not a preessure adder. for example lets say that the room you are sitting in has 1000 cfm of air in it. Well a turbo will take that 1000cfm and stuff it in the soda can you have sitting next to your computer. It's still 1000 cfm it is just more dense.

Boost is accually the ammount of air that your cylenders don't use. If your cylenders used all the air that was supplied by your turbo then how could pressure be built in the mainafold???

You can not build boost just by simply reving your engine ( I.E. building boost in neutral.) the turbos need exaust to spin and a engine under no load does not produce the exaust to spin the turbo fast enough.
Do you know what cfm means? It's an acronym for "cubic feet per minute"... How can you use a unit for fluid flow for volume? That would be like saying a lawnmower engine makes 20lb-ft of power...

Next - boost increases the density of the air, so the cylinders actually do use the boost.

</me owned>
__________________
Some things are impossible, people say. Yet after these things happen, the very same people say that it was inevitable.

Last edited by 454Casull; 11-02-2003 at 01:19 PM.
454Casull is offline