Loco Honkey
Banned
I'm not even sure where to start with this thread, so I'm just going to jump around...
My article is biased for a reason- because it's the truth based on proven facts and first hand experience.
Havok- I have said my piece in the article. I wholeheartedly encourage you to dispute my article. In fact, I welcome it, because nobody has been able to prove to me that superchargers are superior to turbos when it comes to performance.
So what? My dad ran mid 12's with a '69 Chevelle 454SS back in the 70's without any blower. What's your point?
And you will NEVER have a turbo last more than a few hundred miles. If you're going to use an anti- lag setup like rally cars, you vent the BOV air into the exhaust upstream of the turbo. Either way, expect to replace turbos with every tank of gas.
Yeah, might suck for 2K RPM, but for the other 7000 RPM, it goes like a raped monkey. Turbo lag has to do with turbo sizing and several other factors. Like I've pounded into all your thick heads, you can make a turbocharged car act like a blown or NA car, response wise. Go drive any of the new Saabs.
You have the right answer for the wrong reason- the real killer is volumetric efficiency. Roots type blowers are about 50% efficient, which makes a shitload of heat. Heat = no power. Centrifugal compressors (turbos) are around 75% efficient. Less heat = more power. 25% VE differential is a HUGE difference.
Where do they make that power? How much area is under the curve? How much HP do they make in the 3000- 7000 RPM range compared to a similarly sized turbocharger on the same engine?
Go root around Honda Tech. You'll find about 40 people that are making ~300 or more HP on stock B series blocks with "just" a bolt on turbo.
Read my Turbo 101 article. Boost is only as safe as your fuel delivery.
I'm done my ass kicking. I'll now retire to my cave from which I crawled from. If Havok can muster a compelling argument, I'll reply, otherwise, ponder my wisdom.
My article is biased for a reason- because it's the truth based on proven facts and first hand experience.
Havok- I have said my piece in the article. I wholeheartedly encourage you to dispute my article. In fact, I welcome it, because nobody has been able to prove to me that superchargers are superior to turbos when it comes to performance.
So what? My dad ran mid 12's with a '69 Chevelle 454SS back in the 70's without any blower. What's your point?
And you will NEVER have a turbo last more than a few hundred miles. If you're going to use an anti- lag setup like rally cars, you vent the BOV air into the exhaust upstream of the turbo. Either way, expect to replace turbos with every tank of gas.
Yeah, might suck for 2K RPM, but for the other 7000 RPM, it goes like a raped monkey. Turbo lag has to do with turbo sizing and several other factors. Like I've pounded into all your thick heads, you can make a turbocharged car act like a blown or NA car, response wise. Go drive any of the new Saabs.
You have the right answer for the wrong reason- the real killer is volumetric efficiency. Roots type blowers are about 50% efficient, which makes a shitload of heat. Heat = no power. Centrifugal compressors (turbos) are around 75% efficient. Less heat = more power. 25% VE differential is a HUGE difference.
Where do they make that power? How much area is under the curve? How much HP do they make in the 3000- 7000 RPM range compared to a similarly sized turbocharger on the same engine?
Go root around Honda Tech. You'll find about 40 people that are making ~300 or more HP on stock B series blocks with "just" a bolt on turbo.
Read my Turbo 101 article. Boost is only as safe as your fuel delivery.
I'm done my ass kicking. I'll now retire to my cave from which I crawled from. If Havok can muster a compelling argument, I'll reply, otherwise, ponder my wisdom.
