turbo vs supercharger discussion

[dragnazz5.0]

alright let me start off by saying that this kid i go to school with is actually pretty damn intelligent and knows what hes talking about most of the time.....but this time he went too far. hes claiming that top fuel cars will be turbocharged in probably 5 years because turbos make so much more power than superchargers. he was trying to say that they make more power because if you look at a indy car or f1 engine it makes over 1000hp with under 100 cubic inches and they make more power per cubic inch than a 500 cid top fuel engine. but what he didnt understand is that if a top fuel motor could turn to 14k rpms it would be devastating to the earth. the cars would probably change the rotation of the earth every time one launched.

discuss

 

[90]

lol... change the rotation of the earth ? seriouly and i stand by my answer " NO "!

 

[dragnazz5.0]

lol... change the rotation of the earth ? seriouly and i stand by my answer " NO "!

well yeah i know they wouldnt actually do that....but could you imagine what a motor that makes 8000 hp and can only spin to about 9k rpms would do if it could spin to 14k rpms. the motors would probably make close to 15k hp.

my other argument is that top fuel chassis are only certified for 330 mph through nhra (unless its changed in the last two years) and what would making more power do for them. nhra would have to spend big bucks to design a new chassis that would hold the power and speed. plus how would they make it work because top fuel cars use the exhaust as downforce to help keep the car on the track and what kind of materials would you need in the turbo to make it withstand 7000 degree exhaust temps and the massive amount of exhaust gas

 

[bubba-dough]

So what is the argument? Which makes more power, a charger or turbo. Or that top fuel will go to turbos or what. Turbos do make more power than a charger. But I don't see top fuel doing turbos.

 

[dragnazz5.0]

that top fuel would be running turbos because they make more power. i dont think turbos make more power but the fact that it doesnt take any power to use a turbo.

 

[poneypower89]

here is my answer to why it will not happen...

In short.

A) They already make ENOUGH hp.
B) These engines need broken down with EVERY pass. To mess with the TONS of extra piping that it took to plum a turbo in there would mean cars wouldn't be ready for the next round.
C) Extra plumbing period.
D) The size of the turbo needed for the project would offset the weight of the car more than likely.
E) Added weight with extra piping, turbo, intercooler, Bov, etc. thats a no no.
F) Top Fuel exhaust is DESIGNED to keep the car on the ground. In fact, facing the exhaust upwards produced 800lbs of the force to the ground. A turbo would not only kill some of this thrust, but make it impossible to utilize the exhaust thrust because of the plumbing deisng that would need to be used. (one turbo exaust outlet vs 4 on each side of the dragster. And we all know a car with as much as a top fueler needs all the traction it can get.. so adding power and taking away traction would NEVER be a good idea.


I could go on.. but Ill wait to see if others agree with what I've already said.. there could be flaws in my reasoning.

 

[SoCal89GT]

Im going to throw in a few points here too, as well as agreeing with the fact that Top Fuel wont be going turbo anytime soon.

I think this might be of some help... if you add a boost controller to a turbo system you can potentially push infinite boost. now I have never actually seen a boost controller on a s'charged motor, but that doesnt mean that it can not be done. So that might be why he is saying that turbos create more HP. Another point, along the lines of ponypower, is that the size of the turbo needed on a TF car would need to be unreal, along with a BOV that would be monsterous bc with a motor with a lot of cubes pushes very large volumes of exhaust. So if you stuff turbo in the way then you are restricting flow and losing power. Unless of course you have a turbo and BOV that are larger than any ever conceived by man.

 

[blackened88lx]

here is my answer to why it will not happen...

In short.

A) They already make ENOUGH hp.
B) These engines need broken down with EVERY pass. To mess with the TONS of extra piping that it took to plum a turbo in there would mean cars wouldn't be ready for the next round.
C) Extra plumbing period.
D) The size of the turbo needed for the project would offset the weight of the car more than likely.
E) Added weight with extra piping, turbo, intercooler, Bov, etc. thats a no no.
F) Top Fuel exhaust is DESIGNED to keep the car on the ground. In fact, facing the exhaust upwards produced 800lbs of the force to the ground. A turbo would not only kill some of this thrust, but make it impossible to utilize the exhaust thrust because of the plumbing deisng that would need to be used. (one turbo exaust outlet vs 4 on each side of the dragster. And we all know a car with as much as a top fueler needs all the traction it can get.. so adding power and taking away traction would NEVER be a good idea.


I could go on.. but Ill wait to see if others agree with what I've already said.. there could be flaws in my reasoning.

Good points. I agree.

 

[ms93gt]

if you add a boost controller to a turbo system you can potentially push infinite boost. .

I hope that is just an exxageration. A turbo will only produce until its max flow. If you run a turbo system without a wastegate it will run what the turbo will allow, never infinite. A boost controller has absolutely nothing to do with making boost, it is just a way of helping to control it. It's a wastegate that primarly controls the amount of boost to be provided with the addition of a boost controller fiddling with the wastegate spring. I repeat, no such thing as infinite boost otherwise we would have 10,000rwhp cars OR as you say it, INFINITE hp cars. Not trying to bash you just stating a point.

 

[SoCal89GT]

I hope that is just an exxageration. A turbo will only produce until its max flow. If you run a turbo system without a wastegate it will run what the turbo will allow, never infinite. A boost controller has absolutely nothing to do with making boost, it is just a way of helping to control it. It's a wastegate that primarly controls the amount of boost to be provided with the addition of a boost controller fiddling with the wastegate spring. I repeat, no such thing as infinite boost otherwise we would have 10,000rwhp cars OR as you say it, INFINITE hp cars. Not trying to bash you just stating a point.

Yea, your right, the use of the "infinite" was probably a poor choice. sorry for any confusion.

 

[bubba-dough]

Like I said before I really doubt top fuel would go turbo for numerous reasons. I don't really wanna debate the fact of chargers vs turbo's. Its tired. But I guess you guys are charger people. And thats cool. But I will say that with all sactioning bodies turbo cars are more restricted than s/c cars. If chargers can make the power, why the restrictions. Also about a year or so ago, proturbokits.com , challenged any supercharger company to a heads up race, run what you brung for I think $50,000. Not one company took up the offer. They even made it public in 5.0 Mustang magazine.

 

[FastDriver]

They run nitro methane, which provides its own oxygen, right? I guess, then, it's just a matter of how much they can cram into the cylinder in the short amount of time that the valves are open. Using a Supercharger to pressurize it gives an advantage, I'm sure..., but if turbos pressurize (boost) something more efficiently, then they should use them. Is there a built in disadvantage in the rules, or anything prohibiting the use of turbos....

I'm fairly sure that if it would make the cars faster, they'd already be using turbos.

Chris

 

[bluevenom867]

They run nitro methane, which provides its own oxygen, right? I guess, then, it's just a matter of how much they can cram into the cylinder in the short amount of time that the valves are open. Using a Supercharger to pressurize it gives an advantage, I'm sure..., but if turbos pressurize (boost) something more efficiently, then they should use them. Is there a built in disadvantage in the rules, or anything prohibiting the use of turbos....

I'm fairly sure that if it would make the cars faster, they'd already be using turbos.

Chris

I bet it has to cause a restiction on the exhaust,that much volume of gas.....open zoomie is best.

Not only that,BUT they dont need as much air as a gas motor (take for instance ProMOD were they use a MASSIVE 18-71 blower .....) cause they are using something like four times the amount of fuel (nitro is some super rich a/f ratio). I bet to match the a/f ratio one of thous kinda blowers could put out,you couldnt even get that much nitro in a motor,it would hydrolock on fuel!

 

[dragnazz5.0]

top fuel motors run a 1.7:1 air fuel ratio just to keep the motor from hydrolocking. technically a top fuel motor could run in space because nitro methane has its own oxygen. there are rules in top fuel that you cannot run a turbo charger....but that rule has been in place for a long time. not sure the reasoning behind it but im sure it will never change. top fuel motors use a blower bigger than promods im sure and they make 60 psi and push over 3000 cfm of air. granted it takes like 1500 hp to even turn the blower hard enough to make that kind of boost but who cares when the car goes 330 mph in a 1/4 mile