Turbo vs. Supercharger.

[rocco16v at netzero.net (L F)]

Neal,
You are right about the high octane rating of 'fuel'.  
Now, I have heard about the unbelievably high amounts of power required to spin a TF's blower at the top end, but I've never heard of a "non-internal-compression" air compressor (supercharger) and I am very familiar with Roots-type blowers.

Larry 
sandiego16v 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Neal Tovsen 
  To: Dan Bubb ; L F ; Mike Smith ; car 
  Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 7:46 PM
  Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.


  >From what I've read, nitro methane (and alcohol) cools
  the air/fuel mixture so much and is so
  detonation-resistant that intercoolers aren't needed.
  And though I'm sure they've tweaked the design as much
  as possible, those blowers (REAL
  "blowers"...non-internal-compression roots
  superchargers) are said to eat up over 1000hp in
  parasitic drag. Just look at the belt they have to
  run!

  As I mentioned, the real reason they don't use turbos
  is because they aren't allowed to.

  There's an Integra "funny car" that is producing much
  more HP per Liter displacement than a true NHRA Funny
  Car. It's all based on NHRA technology (custom
  large-bore casting, huge bearings, massive head
  retainers, etc) but in a 4-cyl turbocharged format.
  Makes you wonder what would happen if they
  turbocharged a big-block V8...could they even find a
  way to use it?

  Neal

  --- Dan Bubb <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
  > Well, that's the exception! It is a fact that
  > superchargers have much worse
  > efficiency than turbos. But, clearly, in this
  > application it works. Maybe
  > they don't care how much power it takes to turn the
  > super and maybe
  > nitromethane works really well at really high intake
  > air temps. Or maybe the
  > air temp doesn't matter when you're pumping as much
  > mass fuel flow as mass
  > air flow!!! (not really but close ;^)
  > In any event this really is the exception and NOT
  > very relavent to street
  > applications.
  > I stand corrected on the point though.
  > Dan
  > 
  > 
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: L F <rocco16v@netzero.net>
  > To: Dan Bubb <jdbubb@ix.netcom.com>; Mike Smith
  > <smithma7@yahoo.com>; car
  > <scirocco-l@scirocco.org>
  > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 8:14 PM
  > Subject: Re: Turbo vs. Supercharger.
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  >   A million opinions!
  >   Superchargers tend to be less efficient
  > particularly at higher pressure
  >   ratios. So, they aren't as good at making really
  > high power.
  > 
  >   YOU'D BETTER TELL THAT TO JOHN FORCE, HE COULD USE
  > SOME ADVICE ABOUT NOW.
  > 
  >   OTOH a big really high power laggy turbo is the
  > last thing you need for an
  >   autocross car. Superchargers, particularly
  > positive displacement types,
  > have
  >   fast response.
  >   The primary issue then is quick response vs. power
  > producing capability.
  >   There are a million secondary issues!
  >   just my .02
  >   Dan
  > 
  >   AS FOR THE REST, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH DAN.
  >   HAVE FUN!
  >   LARRY
  > _______________________________________________
  > Scirocco-l mailing list
  > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > Scirocco-l mailing list
  > Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  > http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l


  __________________________________
  Do you Yahoo!?
  SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
  http://sbc.yahoo.com

  _______________________________________________
  Scirocco-l mailing list
  Scirocco-l@scirocco.org
  http://neubayern.net/mailman/listinfo/scirocco-l