Gerald, i agree with the dirty oil there is no question about that and yes they use more fuel however the more fuel you can use the bigger the explosion which equals more power. C16 is for high boost levels ie: 25lbs or more with my buick. I have not had a Turbo Viper but the principles show be the same. Gerald i do run Fel Pro FAST system not the Motec but they serve the same purpose. Remember i said with a turbo you can run low boost therefore pump gas or high boost therefore high octane like C16. Your car and others make great power that is not in question i only stated you have more control with turbo's however the trade off is higher maintance, oil changes etc. The same way you control boost with your sc car you can do the same with a turbo, boost is always control by throttle. Put your foot to the floor you have full boost with turbo or sc.
HENNESSEY TURBO PERFORMANCE
- Thread starter ronviper
- Start date
Actually with a centrifugal SC you get full boost at redline.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronviper:
Gerald, i agree with the dirty oil there is no question about that and yes they use more fuel however the more fuel you can use the bigger the explosion which equals more power. C16 is for high boost levels ie: 25lbs or more with my buick. I have not had a Turbo Viper but the principles show be the same. Gerald i do run Fel Pro FAST system not the Motec but they serve the same purpose. Remember i said with a turbo you can run low boost therefore pump gas or high boost therefore high octane like C16. Your car and others make great power that is not in question i only stated you have more control with turbo's however the trade off is higher maintance, oil changes etc. The same way you control boost with your sc car you can do the same with a turbo, boost is always control by throttle. Put your foot to the floor you have full boost with turbo or sc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronviper:
Gerald, i agree with the dirty oil there is no question about that and yes they use more fuel however the more fuel you can use the bigger the explosion which equals more power. C16 is for high boost levels ie: 25lbs or more with my buick. I have not had a Turbo Viper but the principles show be the same. Gerald i do run Fel Pro FAST system not the Motec but they serve the same purpose. Remember i said with a turbo you can run low boost therefore pump gas or high boost therefore high octane like C16. Your car and others make great power that is not in question i only stated you have more control with turbo's however the trade off is higher maintance, oil changes etc. The same way you control boost with your sc car you can do the same with a turbo, boost is always control by throttle. Put your foot to the floor you have full boost with turbo or sc.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Supra i had a supra for 10 years 1987 turbo, silver in colour, Cartech intercooler, 3" stainless steel exhaust no cat, HKS wastegate, larger turbo, 55lbs injectors, VEC from HKS. fuel management system. The car would pull like a mother, wheel hop like crazy, bad et's but great mile per hour. The weak point was the clutch always slipping under high boost, even tried center force with no luck. Those cars rock with the right bolt on because the bottom end is very strong. Problem i had was always playing catch up but usually passed most cars in the top of third.
HP
Enthusiast
Just one last comment on turbo applications for the Viper.
I'm not anti-turbo, and it inspires me that there are some
groups out there taking on this challenge. I try to keep
an open mind, and if I sounded negative, it was only to balance
the discussion and bring out relevant questions. I think
most of us admire the passion and persistence involved in
these types of projects. Plus, knowledge is power, and hopefully, some of the technology and solutions, can be applied to non-turbo Vipers. Good luck!
I'm not anti-turbo, and it inspires me that there are some
groups out there taking on this challenge. I try to keep
an open mind, and if I sounded negative, it was only to balance
the discussion and bring out relevant questions. I think
most of us admire the passion and persistence involved in
these types of projects. Plus, knowledge is power, and hopefully, some of the technology and solutions, can be applied to non-turbo Vipers. Good luck!
getbit
Enthusiast
well said!
Eddie N
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronviper:
yes they use more fuel however the more fuel you can use the bigger the explosion which equals more power.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ummmm.. ? boost is boost.. 10 supercharged psi is 10 turboed psi.. the amount of air is the same, therefore the amount of fuel required is the same..
more power comes from more air in the combustion chamber, not more fuel, although with more air comes a need for more fuel..
trey,
i walked away from the thread for 5 minutes and i missed the party.. am i crazy or do i remember most of us telling you that a supercharger or turbo was the way to go? oh the irony!!
its good to see that you are keeping the car though (kinda).. call doug levin and work something out.. hmmnn, you can have the first and only supercharged or twin turbo 650R..
- eddie -
yes they use more fuel however the more fuel you can use the bigger the explosion which equals more power.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
ummmm.. ? boost is boost.. 10 supercharged psi is 10 turboed psi.. the amount of air is the same, therefore the amount of fuel required is the same..
more power comes from more air in the combustion chamber, not more fuel, although with more air comes a need for more fuel..
trey,
i walked away from the thread for 5 minutes and i missed the party.. am i crazy or do i remember most of us telling you that a supercharger or turbo was the way to go? oh the irony!!
its good to see that you are keeping the car though (kinda).. call doug levin and work something out.. hmmnn, you can have the first and only supercharged or twin turbo 650R..
- eddie -
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
10 psi of boost is not the same...
A S/C car must extract all the HP required from the crankshaft.
The TT car gets a large portion of the HP from recovery of exhaust gas energy which is totally wasted in NA or S/C.
Thermodynamically, the TT car is much more efficient due to this energy recovery.
In a way, a TT car is not totally unlike a jet engine. The Engine is the Gas Generator (High Spool) and the TT is the Low Spool.
Also, the neat thing about making all your HP at redline is that at max BMEP you are not contending with max boost and hence detonation is less of an issue.
Of course, nowadays, you may be able to achieve a Centrifugal S/C w/a fancy turbo controller...
A S/C car must extract all the HP required from the crankshaft.
The TT car gets a large portion of the HP from recovery of exhaust gas energy which is totally wasted in NA or S/C.
Thermodynamically, the TT car is much more efficient due to this energy recovery.
In a way, a TT car is not totally unlike a jet engine. The Engine is the Gas Generator (High Spool) and the TT is the Low Spool.
Also, the neat thing about making all your HP at redline is that at max BMEP you are not contending with max boost and hence detonation is less of an issue.
Of course, nowadays, you may be able to achieve a Centrifugal S/C w/a fancy turbo controller...
Eddie N
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom and Vipers:
10 psi of boost is not the same...
A S/C car must extract all the HP required from the crankshaft.
The TT car gets a large portion of the HP from recovery of exhaust gas energy which is totally wasted in NA or S/C.
Thermodynamically, the TT car is much more efficient due to this energy recovery.
In a way, a TT car is not totally unlike a jet engine. The Engine is the Gas Generator (High Spool) and the TT is the Low Spool.
Also, the neat thing about making all your HP at redline is that at max BMEP you are not contending with max boost and hence detonation is less of an issue.
Of course, nowadays, you may be able to achieve a Centrifugal S/C w/a fancy turbo controller...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
efficiency aside, for the sake of my point boost is boost..
- eddie -
10 psi of boost is not the same...
A S/C car must extract all the HP required from the crankshaft.
The TT car gets a large portion of the HP from recovery of exhaust gas energy which is totally wasted in NA or S/C.
Thermodynamically, the TT car is much more efficient due to this energy recovery.
In a way, a TT car is not totally unlike a jet engine. The Engine is the Gas Generator (High Spool) and the TT is the Low Spool.
Also, the neat thing about making all your HP at redline is that at max BMEP you are not contending with max boost and hence detonation is less of an issue.
Of course, nowadays, you may be able to achieve a Centrifugal S/C w/a fancy turbo controller...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
efficiency aside, for the sake of my point boost is boost..
- eddie -
jcaspar1
Enthusiast
"The TT car gets a large portion of the HP from recovery of exhaust gas energy which is totally wasted in NA or S/C."
This boost is not completely free as it induces an exaust outflow restriction which reduces HP.
This boost is not completely free as it induces an exaust outflow restriction which reduces HP.
1Tony1, heads ,cam and Nos will win for now but it is only a matter of time induced air will prevail in the long run. The Mustang boys were all Nos at first now Turbo's rule in Pro 5.0. I have dealt with Ken Duttweiler in CA. for over 15yrs with respect to Turbo cars. I know if i sent him a Viper motor he would make ungodly horsepower that no heads, cam and Nos package could touch. Driving and hooking it up would be another problem at that point to deal with.
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
That's right, T/C boost is not completely free, but S/C boost has no free component whatsoever.
There is a tremendous energy waste by dumping the exhaust.
Simply put, energy can be recovered here - and this energy cannot be recovered by a S/C.
Trucks started off with superchargers, then they went to turbos.
Turbos are the standard for industrial and marine applications.
There is a tremendous energy waste by dumping the exhaust.
Simply put, energy can be recovered here - and this energy cannot be recovered by a S/C.
Trucks started off with superchargers, then they went to turbos.
Turbos are the standard for industrial and marine applications.
1TONY1
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronviper:
1Tony1, heads ,cam and Nos will win for now but it is only a matter of time induced air will prevail in the long run. The Mustang boys were all Nos at first now Turbo's rule in Pro 5.0. I have dealt with Ken Duttweiler in CA. for over 15yrs with respect to Turbo cars. I know if i sent him a Viper motor he would make ungodly horsepower that no heads, cam and Nos package could touch. Driving and hooking it up would be another problem at that point to deal with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ron, Will not debate that. I am personal friends with many of the top "street series racers" .....Matt & Jay Scranton=turbo
Joel Greathouse=ATI s/c, and others including the N02 guys. What I said about VOI ..... I still stand by it. The reason is not who is making the most power but who has the experience to apply and get down the track. I DID NOT say it is easier to get the nos down the track ......experience is the key. I think the power of the cars out there now is very close but I don't see the s/c guys out beating on their cars, **** I see very few attempting real good times at the track. I think some of the guys that havn't had their DLM cars long will get there but right now they are way behind the learning curve. The southern style 10.5" tire stuff that I race in is still dominated by n02 because 1. more n02 cars 2. 1/8 mile tracks only except for the one race at Orlando and the turbo cars don't get to fully use the power 3. 10.5" tires and it is tougher to apply the massive turbo power. Several very fast turbos and they have won a few but are still dominated by n02. I agree Duttweiler could do that but for how much $$$ ? Also making a streetable package in a Viper is a WWHHOOLLEEEE lot different then a turbo or s/c on a race/non street driven car, In fact there is so much difference they should not even be compared....kudos to DLM and Sean Roe (I hope). Personally I would rather have a t/t on a Viper if $$$ were no object.....meaning if s/c, t/t, n02 were the same price. So the fact remains is anybody going to dispute my theory that the n02 guys will dominate VOI unlimited and they will be doing it for THOUSANDS less ??????
1Tony1, heads ,cam and Nos will win for now but it is only a matter of time induced air will prevail in the long run. The Mustang boys were all Nos at first now Turbo's rule in Pro 5.0. I have dealt with Ken Duttweiler in CA. for over 15yrs with respect to Turbo cars. I know if i sent him a Viper motor he would make ungodly horsepower that no heads, cam and Nos package could touch. Driving and hooking it up would be another problem at that point to deal with.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ron, Will not debate that. I am personal friends with many of the top "street series racers" .....Matt & Jay Scranton=turbo
Joel Greathouse=ATI s/c, and others including the N02 guys. What I said about VOI ..... I still stand by it. The reason is not who is making the most power but who has the experience to apply and get down the track. I DID NOT say it is easier to get the nos down the track ......experience is the key. I think the power of the cars out there now is very close but I don't see the s/c guys out beating on their cars, **** I see very few attempting real good times at the track. I think some of the guys that havn't had their DLM cars long will get there but right now they are way behind the learning curve. The southern style 10.5" tire stuff that I race in is still dominated by n02 because 1. more n02 cars 2. 1/8 mile tracks only except for the one race at Orlando and the turbo cars don't get to fully use the power 3. 10.5" tires and it is tougher to apply the massive turbo power. Several very fast turbos and they have won a few but are still dominated by n02. I agree Duttweiler could do that but for how much $$$ ? Also making a streetable package in a Viper is a WWHHOOLLEEEE lot different then a turbo or s/c on a race/non street driven car, In fact there is so much difference they should not even be compared....kudos to DLM and Sean Roe (I hope). Personally I would rather have a t/t on a Viper if $$$ were no object.....meaning if s/c, t/t, n02 were the same price. So the fact remains is anybody going to dispute my theory that the n02 guys will dominate VOI unlimited and they will be doing it for THOUSANDS less ??????
1Tony1, point well taken, i totally agree with you. I believe Doug Levin is now starting to focus on Turbocharging "maybe" Treynor's car will be his first project. NO MATTER THE OUT COME ALL VIPER OWNERS WILL BENEFIT FROM ALL THIS HORSEPOWER WAR...
King GTS
Enthusiast
trey,
i walked away from the thread for 5 minutes and i missed the party.. am i crazy or do i remember most of us telling you that a supercharger or turbo was the way to go? oh the irony!!
its good to see that you are keeping the car though (kinda).. call doug levin and work something out.. hmmnn, you can have the first and only supercharged or twin turbo 650R..
Irony's a good thing.
i walked away from the thread for 5 minutes and i missed the party.. am i crazy or do i remember most of us telling you that a supercharger or turbo was the way to go? oh the irony!!
its good to see that you are keeping the car though (kinda).. call doug levin and work something out.. hmmnn, you can have the first and only supercharged or twin turbo 650R..
Irony's a good thing.
GTS Dean
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 1TONY1:
3. 10.5" tires and it is tougher to apply the massive turbo power. Several very fast turbos and they have won a few but are still dominated by n02.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In case you haven't heard - there is now a 17"x13" radial slick available for the Vipers at $65 a pop. Time will tell if the extra 2+" of tread is worth more than an extra inch of sidewall.
3. 10.5" tires and it is tougher to apply the massive turbo power. Several very fast turbos and they have won a few but are still dominated by n02.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
In case you haven't heard - there is now a 17"x13" radial slick available for the Vipers at $65 a pop. Time will tell if the extra 2+" of tread is worth more than an extra inch of sidewall.
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
How are the NOS guys going to fill their bottles at VOI?
John Moore
Enthusiast
10psi boost S/C is not 10psi TT. Between 1000rpms and 2200rpms I drive a completely stock feeling Viper. It even sounds stock, a total sleeper. Between 2200 and 2500 a few pounds of boost are kicking around and you know it. 2500 to 3000 and you get launched so you better be pointed straight if you're in anything less than 3rd because at just under 3000 you have your full 10psi.
You now have whatever boost you want to hold at until you let up. This is the key difference between turbos and S/Cing. This is why turbos require more fuel....because you're making more power, more heat, more torque, and yes more OMG factor. Yes, that's 10psi from 3000 to 6000 in the TT not 10psi at only the top (and less from there down I might add). If you want 20psi and have enough fuel and a motor strong enough to take it, all you have to do is ask. No keyed cranks, pulleys, belts, bigger blower etc., just swap out a spring. Yep you get to have it at 3000rpms too....but you better watch out because you might make your oil brown.
Ask Rob at Axis how much boost he thinks our blocks can tolerate because that's the limiting factor to the HP. Anyone have a guess as to what SVSI's TT horsepower is? All I know is it's something WAY bigger than anything I've heard mentioned here... well past 1200.
Ask Rob at Axis how much boost he thinks our blocks can tolerate because that's the limiting factor to the HP. Anyone have a guess as to what SVSI's TT horsepower is? All I know is it's something WAY bigger than anything I've heard mentioned here... well past 1200.
Craig 201 MPH
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Moore:
I drive a completely stock feeling Viper. It even sounds stock, a total sleeper.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I drive a completely stock feeling Viper. It even sounds stock, a total sleeper.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1TONY1
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GTS Dean:
In case you haven't heard - there is now a 17"x13" radial slick available for the Vipers at $65 a pop. Time will tell if the extra 2+" of tread is worth more than an extra inch of sidewall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dean, I was talking about a different car/class on the 10.5"...these cars run 4.80's to 5.10 in the 1/8 at 140+ on these...actually called a 10.5W. As far as the 17x13, I think you are talking a Michelin but either way a radial any thing will be no where as good as a 10.5" et street or slick.
In case you haven't heard - there is now a 17"x13" radial slick available for the Vipers at $65 a pop. Time will tell if the extra 2+" of tread is worth more than an extra inch of sidewall.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dean, I was talking about a different car/class on the 10.5"...these cars run 4.80's to 5.10 in the 1/8 at 140+ on these...actually called a 10.5W. As far as the 17x13, I think you are talking a Michelin but either way a radial any thing will be no where as good as a 10.5" et street or slick.
Does anyone know whether Hennessey will be at Vo17, if so his twin turbo could be the dark horse. If John is willing to gamble and turn up the boost look out. I don't believe that car has reached it's potential yet, with a good driver and fuel management system dialed in it should be running much faster than what we have seen so far.
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
Actually, for this discussion S/C's must be broken down into CENTRIFUGALS (CSC) and POSITIVE DISPLACEMENTS (PDSC).
Further PDSC's should be broken down into ROOTS and SCREW.
ROOTS is obsolete. They are VERY inefficient (heat the air tremendously) AND they need a couple thousand rpm to reach their boost plateau.
SCREW is the new wave. The most popular is the Whipple. Efficiency is on the same level as CDC's AND you get to the boost plateau just off idle. This leads to monster torque at 1500 rpm and the absolute need for low compression.
I don't know where the Eaton falls into - the one that was used on the Thunderbird Super Coupe and the supercharged 3800 Buicks. (Did I get that right?)
Tom
PS.
I don't like the hassle of keeping NOS bottles full. So HOW will the big NOS hitters keep their bottles full at VOI? It's hard enough trying to score race fuel let alone NOS.
Further PDSC's should be broken down into ROOTS and SCREW.
ROOTS is obsolete. They are VERY inefficient (heat the air tremendously) AND they need a couple thousand rpm to reach their boost plateau.
SCREW is the new wave. The most popular is the Whipple. Efficiency is on the same level as CDC's AND you get to the boost plateau just off idle. This leads to monster torque at 1500 rpm and the absolute need for low compression.
I don't know where the Eaton falls into - the one that was used on the Thunderbird Super Coupe and the supercharged 3800 Buicks. (Did I get that right?)
Tom
PS.
I don't like the hassle of keeping NOS bottles full. So HOW will the big NOS hitters keep their bottles full at VOI? It's hard enough trying to score race fuel let alone NOS.
1TONY1
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom and Vipers:
PS.
I don't like the hassle of keeping NOS bottles full. So HOW will the big NOS hitters keep their bottles full at VOI? It's hard enough trying to score race fuel let alone NOS.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a problem, when I race my nitrous car we take 12 full bottles and the pumping station and if need be a large bottle to fill out of. I have no doubt the heavy hitters will be coming prepared accordingly. The guys that are not that serious and only have one bottle should make some plans......I can loan bottles if anyone has the need but they would have to be picked up in Chattanooga and I could probably get them home. I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS.
PS.
I don't like the hassle of keeping NOS bottles full. So HOW will the big NOS hitters keep their bottles full at VOI? It's hard enough trying to score race fuel let alone NOS.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not a problem, when I race my nitrous car we take 12 full bottles and the pumping station and if need be a large bottle to fill out of. I have no doubt the heavy hitters will be coming prepared accordingly. The guys that are not that serious and only have one bottle should make some plans......I can loan bottles if anyone has the need but they would have to be picked up in Chattanooga and I could probably get them home. I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE THIS.
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
12 full bottles and a pumping station.
That is the only way I can see to run nitrous.
I swear for the street, if you are serious, you have to run 2 bottles - just so you have a fresh one should some "emergency" arise...
Tom
RE: Pumping station: Has anyone looked at using a transfer pump to "inject" NOS into the engine as opposed to letting it blow down thru an orifice?
Could this not lead to a constant NOS supply even when the bottle is low?
Perhaps the transfer flow volume/pressure differential is too small...
I suppose what you really need to inject NOS is something not totally unlike the propellant pump in a rocket engine...
(Yikes!)
That is the only way I can see to run nitrous.
I swear for the street, if you are serious, you have to run 2 bottles - just so you have a fresh one should some "emergency" arise...
Tom
RE: Pumping station: Has anyone looked at using a transfer pump to "inject" NOS into the engine as opposed to letting it blow down thru an orifice?
Could this not lead to a constant NOS supply even when the bottle is low?
Perhaps the transfer flow volume/pressure differential is too small...
I suppose what you really need to inject NOS is something not totally unlike the propellant pump in a rocket engine...
(Yikes!)
King GTS
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ronviper:
Does anyone know whether Hennessey will be at Vo17, if so his twin turbo could be the dark horse. If John is willing to gamble and turn up the boost look out. I don't believe that car has reached it's potential yet, with a good driver and fuel management system dialed in it should be running much faster than what we have seen so far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He'll definitely be there with a Venom 800 TT.
Does anyone know whether Hennessey will be at Vo17, if so his twin turbo could be the dark horse. If John is willing to gamble and turn up the boost look out. I don't believe that car has reached it's potential yet, with a good driver and fuel management system dialed in it should be running much faster than what we have seen so far.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He'll definitely be there with a Venom 800 TT.
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
If turbos are not the standard for marine forced induction, what is? 2-stroke Cummins w/X71 S/C?
HP
Enthusiast
One difference with marine motors, that can't be overlooked, is
they have an end-less heat sink(water) available, and it doesn't
even add a weight handicap.
they have an end-less heat sink(water) available, and it doesn't
even add a weight handicap.
King GTS
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HP:
One difference with marine motors, that can't be overlooked, is
they have an end-less heat sink(water) available, and it doesn't
even add a weight handicap.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hugh do you have any pics of your RT that you could post. I just read your sig. very impressive.
One difference with marine motors, that can't be overlooked, is
they have an end-less heat sink(water) available, and it doesn't
even add a weight handicap.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hugh do you have any pics of your RT that you could post. I just read your sig. very impressive.
Tom and Vipers
Enthusiast
Turbos are the absolute choice in production automobiles - superchargers are a rarety.
Turbos are the choice in all other internal combustion applications such as marine, trucks, aviation and land based.
Historically, I believe superchargers were the 1st choice. The 671 was the traditional supercharger for cars. Of course it came from the Cummins 2-stroke diesel!
Radial aircraft engines had huge centrifugal SCers as did the NOVI Indy engine.
It took a while for the engineers to figure out that exhaust energy could be harnessed to produce the power for supercharging. This led to the TC and from then on, they have been the dominant form.
I think the DIY auto community is only beginning to make the transition. Ricers are definitely way ahead of the curve as far as turbos are concerned.
NHRA is like the stone age with roots style blowers and carburetors.
But I will admit, there is nothing so beautiful as dropping a set of jets into your carburetor to match your boost level and go driving. Fuel management with carbs while crude and inefficient is infinetly simpler than electronic fuel injection.
Turbos are the choice in all other internal combustion applications such as marine, trucks, aviation and land based.
Historically, I believe superchargers were the 1st choice. The 671 was the traditional supercharger for cars. Of course it came from the Cummins 2-stroke diesel!
Radial aircraft engines had huge centrifugal SCers as did the NOVI Indy engine.
It took a while for the engineers to figure out that exhaust energy could be harnessed to produce the power for supercharging. This led to the TC and from then on, they have been the dominant form.
I think the DIY auto community is only beginning to make the transition. Ricers are definitely way ahead of the curve as far as turbos are concerned.
NHRA is like the stone age with roots style blowers and carburetors.
But I will admit, there is nothing so beautiful as dropping a set of jets into your carburetor to match your boost level and go driving. Fuel management with carbs while crude and inefficient is infinetly simpler than electronic fuel injection.
GTS Dean
Enthusiast
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom and Vipers:
Historically, I believe superchargers were the 1st choice. The 671 was the traditional supercharger for cars. Of course it came from the Cummins 2-stroke diesel!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tom,
The 3-53, 6-71 and 8V-92 (first number is cylinder count, second is for cubic inch displacement per cylinder) series of 2-stroke diesel engines were developed at GMC's (hence the moniker "Jimmy blower") Detroit-Diesel division. Roots gear-drive blowers on the inline engines bolt to the side of the block to scavenge and fill the cylinders when the piston is near the bottom of the stroke. The wet sleeve cylinder liners have slots around their circumference like a dirt bike motor, but the exhaust flows thru valves in the flat head.
Why does the 6-71 seem to be the blower of choice on big blocks? 6*71=426 cubic inches.
Historically, I believe superchargers were the 1st choice. The 671 was the traditional supercharger for cars. Of course it came from the Cummins 2-stroke diesel!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tom,
The 3-53, 6-71 and 8V-92 (first number is cylinder count, second is for cubic inch displacement per cylinder) series of 2-stroke diesel engines were developed at GMC's (hence the moniker "Jimmy blower") Detroit-Diesel division. Roots gear-drive blowers on the inline engines bolt to the side of the block to scavenge and fill the cylinders when the piston is near the bottom of the stroke. The wet sleeve cylinder liners have slots around their circumference like a dirt bike motor, but the exhaust flows thru valves in the flat head.
Why does the 6-71 seem to be the blower of choice on big blocks? 6*71=426 cubic inches.
Similar threads
