|
</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (BlackS14 @ Mar. 08 2002,12:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Turbo...all the way. Be it minute, the small parasitic loss of hp that it takes to run a s/c just bugs the crap out of me. Add to the fact that turbos of today are so damn reliable and the technology continues to grow regarding thier workings...it's hard to not want one.
my .02 cents!</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
About 6 months ago, in SCC, they had a supercharger vs turbo 12-part comparison in the 'suck squish bang blow' section.
The simple fact was they both had a parasitic loss.
The superchargers was from the crank driving the compressor, and was NOT a minute, small parasitic loss. It was 61 hp on a Prelude, and 800hp on a top fuel dragster.
The turbo charger's parasitic loss was due to the forced air moving in the cylinder as the piston was rising. This caused the piston to slow down on the upstroke more than it sped up the lowering of the piston in the other cylinder. The end result was that a supercharger drew 61 hp to make a positive 60 hp or so, and the turbocharger caused a 17hp loss to make a positive 80-some hp.
Please forgive me on the numbers if they are off, but I did read this half a year ago. And I am sure the 61 and 17 hp loss numbers are right, but not the end result and not the make of car.
Just bringing this up to help...
-Jeff
__________________
Whatup?
|