Why only nitrous?!?!

[-The Stig-]

All motor is alot more sleeper... especially if you're racing somebody and you check each others cars out. F&F styles...

On a Chevy smallblock... unless you know exactly what you're looking at... you couldn't tell the difference between a 250hp 350V8... or a 500hp 350V8.


A stock LS1 can look just like a bored and stroked 427ci LS1.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by 209 neon

The only reason why I give allmotor more props is that you could bring out the full potential of the stock motor with just milling, port and polishing, angled valve jobs, replacing internals with aftermarket performance up grades ect................and do so without any power additives such as force induction turbo, S/C and chemical mods. But when your dragging it, and did all you could do to the allmotor setup you could and you couldnt break into lower e.t.s then force induction and chemical mods are a must. As far as being dumb for the amount of money you spend there is no subsitution for doing things right! It will be costly to build your set up and make it last, but it will be more costly to just slap it on a stock motor, be fast for a minute and later find out the results the hard way. No respect from me at all.

I will give anyone, that goes any direction when modding their car and does it right, respect. I don't think you understand how hard it is to run all motor and be fast on smaller displacement engines. Also, go ahead and build it up N/A and then decide to go F/I and you will find that a lot of the things you did to run all motor will have to be undone to run forced induction. You can't simply build up a motor N/A and then slap on some form of forced induction. It takes just as much work to run forced induction as it does N/A. That is why I don't feel that running all motor is any more respectful than F/I. Besides, anyone that would simply slap on forced induction without doing any of the work behind it is just as disgraceful as the moron who builds up an N/a motor poorly. What you're talking about is rice. I prefer turbo-charging, but I don’t think that super-charging, N2O, or all motor is any less work or somehow any lower than what I do.

[drag1320neon]

Originally Posted by Polygon

I will give anyone, that goes any direction when modding their car and does it right, respect. I don't think you understand how hard it is to run all motor and be fast on smaller displacement engines. Also, go ahead and build it up N/A and then decide to go F/I and you will find that a lot of the things you did to run all motor will have to be undone to run forced induction. You can't simply build up a motor N/A and then slap on some form of forced induction. It takes just as much work to run forced induction as it does N/A. That is why I don't feel that running all motor is any more respectful than F/I. Besides, anyone that would simply slap on forced induction without doing any of the work behind it is just as disgraceful as the moron who builds up an N/a motor poorly. What you're talking about is rice. I prefer turbo-charging, but I don’t think that super-charging, N2O, or all motor is any less work or somehow any lower than what I do.

i dont think thats what hes trying to say, as far as building all motor, and then slapping on turbo. i know this guy and hes not that stupid. i dont know too many people that are. most people know turbo requires low compression

[Sluttypatton]

If you think about it, turbocharged cars are the ones making the most out of what they have.
(These figures are from one of Neutrino's posts)
Around 1/3 of the potential power your motor makes is dumped out your tailpipe as heat, turbochargers take that otherwise wasted power and use it to make more power. Another 1/3 is dumped into your coolant and pissed out the radiator, leaving only one last third actually going to the wheels (less if you count in frictional losses). Seems it makes more sense to try and reclaim some of these lost horsepower. A turbocharger is just another way of bringing out the full potential of the stock motor.

I still agree that any well built motor deserves equal respect, and have never differentiated. Cool is cool, and it doesn't need to have a turbocharger to qualify.

[209 neon]

Originally Posted by Polygon

I will give anyone, that goes any direction when modding their car and does it right, respect. I don't think you understand how hard it is to run all motor and be fast on smaller displacement engines. Also, go ahead and build it up N/A and then decide to go F/I and you will find that a lot of the things you did to run all motor will have to be undone to run forced induction. You can't simply build up a motor N/A and then slap on some form of forced induction. It takes just as much work to run forced induction as it does N/A. That is why I don't feel that running all motor is any more respectful than F/I. Besides, anyone that would simply slap on forced induction without doing any of the work behind it is just as disgraceful as the moron who builds up an N/a motor poorly. What you're talking about is rice. I prefer turbo-charging, but I don’t think that super-charging, N2O, or all motor is any less work or somehow any lower than what I do.

I agree on some points, you have a stock turbo charged lebaron which would be smart to build it for turbo, due to its factory upgrade. of course it would be retarded to build an allmotor set up on you car because it built for turbo right, I all ready know this, you cant buil a car that can be use on universal modifications, of course turbo setup, allmotor setup are built differently no mistaken high compression vs low I know, I know. for example pro dragger scott moler allmotor class running 10 flat while mike crawford turbo nitrous class running mid 9s both full chasis. both neon 1st gen drivers. that half a second between them is more respectable for scott because hes only doing a half less with out nitrous and turbo. but again not all cars are the same.

[MrCrazy]

i hate when people think thy are better than evreyone just couse thy have and ALL MOTOR car apossed to a turbo powered car

[drag1320neon]

Originally Posted by 209 neon

I agree on some points, you have a stock turbo charged lebaron which would be smart to build it for turbo, due to its factory upgrade. of course it would be retarded to build an allmotor set up on you car because it built for turbo right, I all ready know this, you cant buil a car that can be use on universal modifications, of course turbo setup, allmotor setup are built differently no mistaken high compression vs low I know, I know. for example pro dragger scott moler allmotor class running 10 flat while mike crawford turbo nitrous class running mid 9s both full chasis. both neon 1st gen drivers. that half a second between them is more respectable for scott because hes only doing a half less with out nitrous and turbo. but again not all cars are the same.

not to correct you my friend, but i must, mike crawford runs mid 8's. sorry

[209 neon]

now he does but back when scott was barely running those times so was crawford

[beef_bourito]

I thought this thread was about which setup everyone liked best. I've read the pros and cons of the three f/i setups and here's what i got.

Unless your doing drag, nitrous is really a last upgrade cuz it gives you a short big boost. for drag thats good cuz they dont last too long but for track it's better to have a permanent upgrade.

For track, i hear turbo is best cuz you get more top end power then supercharging without the loss of power due to the spinning of the compressor and the turbo lag is pretty much overcome after the start.

Again for drag i heard supercharging is the best because you get instant power with no lag and it lasts you the whole race.

If you can get an all motor car that has the same output as a turbo setup, i think this is best for all aplications because there's no lag, you dont necessarily need to worry about knock/detonation, i dont think you need to build up the engine as much to withstand the extra compression. although it's more expensive, in my oppinion its a little more respectible because, for casual drivers not strictly racers, because which looks better, a civic, for example, that has 200hp with a turbocharger, or a civic with 200hp without one. the turbo is easier but the all motor is more impressive cuz you say to yourself "wow, you got that much hp N/A" instead of "oh, so all you did was add a turbo?" plus for casual driving, unless you changed the compression, you dont necessarily have to worry about higher octane gas and knocking.

[Evil Result]

If you don't press the gas hard you could avoide boost not to mention you can adjust the wastegate to allow you to use lower octane fuel.

[Neutrino]

Originally Posted by beef_bourito

For track, i hear turbo is best cuz you get more top end power then supercharging without the loss of power due to the spinning of the compressor and the turbo lag is pretty much overcome after the start.

Just a small correction here, despite popular belief turbos are not only designed for top end(except boneville style cars). Turbo's are load driven therefore you don't necesarily have to be at high rpm to make full boost.

Originally Posted by beef_bourito

Again for drag i heard supercharging is the best because you get instant power with no lag and it lasts you the whole race.

If you have enough traction then you are correct, however if traction is an issue (which can happen quite often) turbos have the flexibility to compensate. With turbos you can specify the amount of boost required in each gear.. this way you can set to run lower boost in 1st or even second to have less traction issues.

Originally Posted by beef_bourito

If you can get an all motor car that has the same output as a turbo setup, i think this is best for all aplications because there's no lag, you dont necessarily need to worry about knock/detonation, i dont think you need to build up the engine as much to withstand the extra compression.

that is often not true, the turbo car will have a much better powerband not to mention torque than the same one in NA form. The NA engines with similar ouput of turbo engines (given the same displacement) have much narrower powerband and way less torque.

Just take a look at the powerband of an s2000 compared to an Sr20DET tuned also for 240HP as the honda.

Also high output NA engines will be more often strained to the max and under much more stress than an equivalent power/displacement turbo engine.


Oh and another thing, turbo cars will have a better specific output since they are more thermodynamically effcient. As slutypatton pointed out you recover soem of the energy going down the drain...I meant exaust