Thread: Talk to me guys. Turbo for my comp g

Originally Posted by SJAndrew

Sure it is. If it wasnt it would violate the first law of thermodynamics (and every powerplant in the world would have infinite streams of serial turbines running off of exhaust stacks creating power without cost).

The work done by the turbo requires energy (taken from the exhaust stream) and ultimately from the engine itself via increased backpressure.

The sc vs turbo is an efficiency debate (as you alluded to).

To the OP - there are a million articles available about forced induction choices. There are sc guys and there are turbo guys - but the both do fundamentally the same thing: they use engine power (directly or indirectly) to compress incoming air so that more fuel can be shoved into the intake and burned (creating more power).

Turbocharger > supercharger. Don't even go there.

I disagree. SC>turbo for daily use. And if you get a real SC like a CSC or whipple then they make a good match for a turbo.

the whipple wasent that much more effcient then the gen v. now a csc....novi 2000 all the way

Originally Posted by SJAndrew

My point was that the turbo boost isn't free - that would be energy generation which flies in the face of physics and reality.

Lets not get off point here. I think he was trying to say that a blower takes power from the engine to run, when a turbo essentially uses engine waste to create power. Sure it uses engine power to run a turbo in the form of back pressure and heat, but the point is that a turbo doesn't use nearly the amount of power from an engine as a blower does.

The stop sign is mega win

Originally Posted by footballplaya3k

I disagree. SC>turbo for daily use. And if you get a real SC like a CSC or whipple then they make a good match for a turbo.

Comparing a Whipple and a CSC is like comparing apples to oranges...totally different setups.

Also...maybe a roots blower USED to be better for boost than a turbo...but with advancements in hair dryer techniques...that statement is no longer true...ceramic, ball bearing, variable vein...so many things you have to take into effect...Acura's new turbo powerplant they use in the RDX along with the new Porsche 911 Turbo...all have no lag...and don't take power to make power.

I feel an endless convo coming on

Originally Posted by boostedcompg

I feel an endless convo coming on

****

no way.

Originally Posted by footballplaya3k

I disagree. SC>turbo for daily use. And if you get a real SC like a CSC or whipple then they make a good match for a turbo.

They aren't putting superchargers in daily drivers anymore. More often its a turbo.

Many other applications the argument of whether you can safely daily drive a turbo car would be a joke of a question, but here in our application it is a common question because of our transmissions or their lack of handling power. There is not much a basic turbo kit would do to affect daily driving when you take the trans out of the question. More often it is better for daily driving, you get good mpg but you always have the power when you need it and it's still more efficient at making power vs. a supercharger. The other thing is it will make the power of a supercharged/ic/cammed car and still sound and behave like stock.

The only problem becomes the owner, if they do not understand the basics and try turning up the boost without knowing the consequences then you have issues.

and yet theres still no turbos in the 3's. thats a blower

Ok so we went from displacement vs boost and now SC vs turbo...

inb4 wrongwheeldrive vs rearwheeldrive

Hahaha its progression. Back to the op. Seems like a blower setup is more suited for your terms and needs. But again the choice is yours. Tons of info and first hand knowledge on both around here

Originally Posted by boostedcompg

and yet theres still no turbos in the 3's.

attempt to explain to me why they do this and why a turbo would be a stupid idea, then maybe ill think your point is valid (which it's not). please humor me.

I never said a turbo was a stupid idea. Far from it. I could venture a few guesses as to why they don't run them but for an exact "that's fact" I don't know. Figured if it made sense and could be done some one would have done it by now. And to my knowledge, they haven't. So unless they have id consider my point "there's no turbo's in the 3's" valid...unless there is, in which case I stand corrected

Originally Posted by boostedcompg

I never said a turbo was a stupid idea. Far from it. I could venture a few guesses as to why they don't run them but for an exact "that's fact" I don't know. Figured if it made sense and could be done some one would have done it by now. And to my knowledge, they haven't. So unless they have id consider my point "there's no turbo's in the 3's" valid...unless there is, in which case I stand corrected

They don't have turbos in top fuel because the nhra banned it for making too much damn power. Gale Banks made a nitro top fuel turbo car and they were banned shortly after. Page 12 - http://assets.bankspower.com/landing...ies-042010.pdf

They still run a damn roots blower because they know they can limit the power. The top fuel dragsters aren't looking for more power anyway, they are looking for a way to put that power to the ground. I think they said turbo cars were making 1000-3,000whp more but the problem was keeping the car on the track. There is also a reason they cut the track down to just a 1,000 feet because the cars were getting too damn fast to be able to slow down in time.

So again there's no turbo cars in the 3's?

Originally Posted by boostedcompg

So again there's no turbo cars in the 3's?

So again we were talking about a comp g, or we can start to talk about your lack of knowledge or comprehension...