ADVANTAGES OF TURBOCHARGING

By 460-BBF-Turbo-In-CC

 

Car Crafters often ask why turbocharge instead of building a bigger engine or using nitrous oxide as a "power adder."

 
Here are some of the advantages of using a turbo over "all motor"

1. "Area under the curve"-- A proper turbo engine can have a huge advantage in midrange and top end torque compared to a naturally aspirated engine.

For example, Here's the torque curve for a Dodge Viper 8.4 liter engine:

RPM Torque
3600 500 lbs/ft
4000 530
4400 545
4800 560
5200 560
5600 550
6000 525

Here's a torque curve for a turbocharged 4.6 liter Ford tested by Richard Holdener at 14 psi:

RPM Torque
3600 490 lbs/ft
4000 615
4400 720
4800 730
5200 755
5600 740
6000 705
6500 670

Here's the torque curve for a Gale Banks turbocharged 6.0 liter SBC on 91 octane at 8-12 psi:

RPM Torque
3800 590 lbs/ft
4400 605
4800 650
5200 650
5600 675
6000 650
6500 625

2. Fuel economy -- a smaller turbo engine with the same peak power as a radical big block is obviously a smaller engine when its off-boost. In cruise conditions, the turbo mill can yield 3-5 m.p.g. better fuel economy, or even better.

At $3.00+ per gallon, that can add up fast on a daily driver. For example, let's say you wanted to run the Hot Rod Power Tour at a round trip of 2,500 miles. With a 11 m.p.g. big block, it would cost $682 at $3.00/gallon. But with an 18 m.p.g. turbo engine, it would only cost $417. And a 22 m.p.g. turbo mill would run the trip for a paltry $340.

3. Drivability -- a 750 lbs/ft "all motor" engine is going to require a fairly big cam, carb and head combo. That usually means a rough idle and fairly crude low-speed manners. A loose torque converter and steep gears are generally necessary to keep the engine in its narrow powerband.

A 750 lbs/ft turbo engine can run a mild cam with a near-stock idle. Off-boost it can be so docile that you could let your grandma drive it. Turbos tend to work well with tighter torque converters and highway gearing.

4. Greater use of stock parts -- big "all motor" power typically requires high r.p.m. That means thousands for valvetrain and induction parts that can stand the revs. The lifespan of these parts is often much less in street driving than stock components.

The same power from a turbo mill can be achieved with mostly stock valvetrain parts. Reliability is measureably increased. Moreover, because high r.p.m, isn't necessary, the rest of the engine can use more stock parts.

For example, the April 2011 issue of Hot Rod magazine features the turbo build of a 150,000 mile GMC Denali engine (5.3-liter 5.3 LM7 engine). With nothing more than a mild LS6 camshaft (203.8/ 212.1 duration; .523/.522 lift; 115.9-degree Lobe Separation Angle) and a cheap Chinese turbo, the engine reportedly produced a massive 594 horsepower and 585 lbs/ft of torque.

5. Power density -- A turbo engine can be smaller and lighter than a big block of similar peak output. That can mean better weight distribution and more power-per-pound of engine.

6. A turbo engine can actually be cheaper to build -- Unless you're building a stock-based combo, building a big block can be expensive nowadays. It's not uncommon for an 800+ h.p. "all motor" big block to cost in excess of $15,000. The same level of power with a turbo engine often costs a fraction of that.

Now for nitrous

7. More tractable than nitrous oxide -- Most nitrous systems are on/off. A sudden 100-300 h.p. can be hard to manage. Even an expensive multi-stage nitrous system can have harsh transitions. Turbo engines can be more tractable because they can be modulated with the accelerator and boost controllers.

8. No bottle to run out-- A nitrous rule of thumb is 1 lb for 10 seconds = 100 h.p. A "200 shot" burns through 15 lbs of N20 in about 75 seconds. That can get expensive in a hurry.

75 seconds of turbo power doesn't really cost anything more than the fuel burned. And the turbo is still there for another 75 seconds . . . and another . . . and another . . . .

9. No nitrous backfires or other accidents -- Many heavy squeezers have stories to tell about intake manifold explosions, fireballs, clogged jets, melted pistons and other horrors of living on the edge with spray. A dialed-in turbo system simply doesn't have the same level of "drama." Many serious turbo racers report much longer engine service intervals than with N20.

10. Nitrous on the street is illegal in 38 states. And nitrous is banned in many forms of competition (drag racing is one of the few places where N20 is legal). There are a lot more places where you can run a turbo.

11. Less "prep" before a pass is needed with a turbo -- Turbos require no "purging" and no bottle heating. They're always ready for immediate action.

12. Easier to adjust for track conditions -- Dialing back a nitrous system for a "loose" track can be time-consuming (especually if it's a staged system). Dialing back a turbo system usually only takes a couple of seconds.

13. You can still have fun without race gas in the tank -- A big-power nitrous 'plant will require race gas to keep detonation at bay. On pump gas you've either got to change the jets or keep off the bottle.

But you can still make decent power with most turbo systems even when there's no race gas in the tank.

EPA ENDANGERMENT FINDING THREATENS TO "NUKE" HOT RODDING

[Get the latest "Truth With Speedzzter" here]

As probable as the Sun rising in the East, the United States Environmental Protection Agency -- corrupted by the Obama Administration's radical greeniac political agenda and a dodgy "scientific consensus" -- has made a finding of "endangerment" under the Clean Air Act on "six key greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride."

This, of course, is the regulatory prelude to draconian limits on our automotive liberties and more tampering in what little is left of the free market.

This finding of "endangerment" basically empowers the E.P.A. to outlaw many practices near and dear to the hearts of American hot rodders and motoring enthusiasts.

Over at Bangshift.com, the threat to nitrous oxide is the focal point of the discussion thus far.

(Nitrous oxide (N20) is a popular "power adder" used by many hot rodders and tuners to make additional horsepower by allowing their vehicles' engines to burn additional fuel)

While some Bangshifters still don't believe that N20 use by hot rodders is threatened, Truth With Speedzzter has attemped to set the record straight:

DanStokes: "As so often happens, the idiot who writes the article had NO @#$%!% clue what he/she is writing about and gets it wrong. Oxides of nitrogen (NOx) is NOT the same as N2O - nitrous oxide. The concern is NOx which is the catalyst that works with sulpher compounds and atmospheric hydrocarbons to form smog. This concern is reasonable. Banning N2O makes no sense at all and, I'm pretty sure is not on the table - I'll check in with my EPA buddies and verify that. A case of crappy reporting and a failure to fact check."
* * * *

The Silver Buick: "Nicely said Dan. I didn't read the article, no sense in it I figure. Let us know if your EPA buddies get back to you."

TWS: Sorry, but the threat to N20 is real.

In the infamous MASSACHUSETTS v. EPA decision, "Petitioners maintained . . . that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are 'heat trapping greenhouse gases.'"

The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Clean Air Act "embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word "any." Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt 'physical [and] chemical . . . substance(s) which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.' The statute is unambiguous."

The EPA now says "Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a clear, colorless gas, with a slightly sweet odor. Due to its long atmospheric lifetime (approximately 120 years) and heat trapping effects -- about 310 times more powerful than carbon dioxide on a per molecule basis -- N2O is an important greenhouse gas."

http://www.epa.gov/nitrousoxide/scientific.html

Bangshifters are being put on the defensive here because we've not come together and fought hard enough to preserve our automotive liberties.

Some of us debated all this back in 2008 over at Car Craft.com (when there was more we could do about it). Here's a few choice "sound bites:"

"More horsepower means more CO2. And nitrous oxide is a much more "heat-trapping" greenhouse gas than CO2 when released into the atmosphere. If the radical greeniacs obtain unfettered power in Washington -- look out!"

"Carbon emissions are not something that you can just "adapt" around. Carbon production is proportionate to fuel consumption (on anything but hydrogen fuel). Fuel consumption is proportionate to horsepower. In other words, cutting carbon means cutting horsepower. It's that simple."

"BTW, methane is a far more "offensive" greenhouse gas than CO2 to the Sierra Clubbers. (Not because of smell but because of heat-trapping ability) Some of the more radical elements on the left have even called for forced reductions in the consumption of beef and dairy products (fewer cows, less methane. Less methane, less climate change). That's crazy!

Perhaps we ought to all go eat a huge steak, wash it down Indy 500-style with a quart of ice-cold "victory" milk, then vent our nitrous bottles to the atmosphere in a huge plume and do a massive tire-popping burnout to protest this greenhouse gas madness . . . ."


http://forums.carcraft.com/70/7142901/car-craft-magazine/get-ready-to-kiss-your-chance-at-a-v8-goodby/index.html

Truth With Speedzzter hates to say "I told you so" . . . but I did:

October 16, 2008: Car Craft has been mostly silent about the impending end of V8 street machining in America.

In less than a month, the die will apparently be cast that will guarantee the end of affordable V8s in new vehicles. Without V8s, Car Crafting will either become another form of "import tuning" or will shrink into an prohibitively expensive sport based on an increasingly scarce pool of "classic" muscle cars.

Ordinary working Joes need not apply.

Of course, a few rich guys will still trade impossibly expensive rides at Barrett-Jackson. But what, if anything, that's left of genuine high performance will be so limited in supply and so expensive that ordinary Car Crafters would have to live in their cars to afford one.

Don't believe it?

According to Barack Obama's campaign website, "Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years."

Apparently, that means that he supports an increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard from the recently-enacted 35 miles per gallon to SEVENTY miles per gallon! (Even if Obama merely wanted to "double" the old CAFE standard, he'd be imposing by big government mandate a FIFTY-SIX miles per gallon average on all light vehicles sold in the United States of America)

Such radical fuel economy proposals would plunge the world of high-performance and sports cars into an age of banishment far worse than the "dark ages" of the 1970s.

A tiny three-cylinder turbo diesel would be the "Shelby GT 500" or "Dodge Viper" "musclecar" of the Obama age of government-controlled motoring.

If Car Crafters still remain skeptical of Obama's intention to destroy all semblance of automotive freedom in America, his next proposal ought to remove all doubt: "Obama supports implementation of a . . . system to reduce carbon emissions by . . . 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050."

Such a "system" would undoubtedly target the new and used parts supplies for keeping "classic" and "special interest" motorcars on the road (if not the vehicles themselves) as energy-thirsty industries sought to "offset" industrial uses of power through "cap and trade" deals. Chevron's infamous car crushing program of the early 1990s is just a harbinger of what's sure to follow if "President Obama" attempts to roll back energy use to EIGHTY PERCENT LESS than 1990.

The automotive aftermarket won't go unscathed, either.

Energy conservation standards will likely be expanded to stop "tampering" that potentially increases greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, huge swaths of bolt-on parts could be regulated out of existence.

Many smaller aftermarket companies and shops will see huge tax increases and other expensive mandates which will be passed along to a shrinking customer base as higher prices.

Fewer new OEM performance cars will mean lower demand for hop-up parts. Reduced sales volumes will mean higher prices, less selection and slower product development times.

The forces that hate Car Crafting and all other automotive hobbies are betting that our sport will die from attrition and escalating costs. And they're probably right if we don't stand together to stop the Government from taking our freedoms away.

* * * *

April 23, 2007: EPA HACK: BACK TO THE DISMAL ‘70s AGAIN

The United States Environmental Protection Agency apparently sees the hysteria about "global warming" as another 1970s-style power-grabbing opportunity.

Undoubtedly buoyed by the twin engines of 40 m.p.g.-Democrat talking points and the U.S. Supreme Court’s command to take a hard look at carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, Margo Oge, director of the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality laid down the law at the SAE 2007 World Congress.

According to the Automotive News (www.autonews.com), she taunted the assembled SAE engineers (who are actually the ones required to "make bricks without straw" when the coming CO2 regulations decimate the Second Supercar Era): "For many the first reaction was, 'The sky's falling. We cannot do it.' Well, you know what? The sky didn't fall," Oge said.

"Not only were you able to do it; you were able to meet emissions standards and regulations put forward for the past 30 years, and do it better than the regulations required you to do, and do it earlier than what the regulations required you to do, and do it in a very cost-effective way."

TRANSLATION: Kiss your chance at a factory-built supercar goodby.

* * * *

October 12, 2006: SHOULD AUTOMOBILE ENTHUSIASTS BE POLITICALLY ACTIVE?

Imagine how much fun motoring will be in 10 or 20 years if:

--Fuel economy standards become so high that no V8s can be produced.
--The OEMs "can" all V8 crate engines and other performance parts out of fear of "carbon" litigation.
--Draconian "carbon use" taxes (sort of like the punitive cigarette taxes smokers now routinely pay under the various "tobacco lawsuit settlements") on gasoline, gasoline-burning equipment and the replacement parts for such equipment are enacted to curb "excess" emissions. (Far-fetched? I just read Al Gore (D) is now pushing a "carbon use" tax as a replacement for payroll taxes!)
--Harsh "clunker" legislation is passed, aimed at clearing the roads of C02-emitting "old" cars and drying up parts supplies for them.
--Increased state- or industry-sponsored "crusher" programs (such as UNOCAL's infamous one) are instituted in settlement of the lawsuits.
--Increased restrictions on registering "kit" and "continuation" cars (such as the "new" 1969 Camaros built from Chinese uni-body stampings or even "new" 1932 Ford-based "street rods") are enacted to force people into state-approved, factory-built economy cars.
--Competition for the shrinking number of "collector" cars drives prices even higher than they already are today.
--Lawyers and regulators begin turning their focus on extorting payments from racing venues, tuners and aftermarket supply companies for "carbon pollution."
--More force-fed propaganda fills the public school curriculum about the harms that motorsports and "gas guzzlers" (i.e. performance cars and race-car tow vehicles) allegedly cause to the environment (as if it couldn't get any worse)

All of these scenarios are foreseeable if this sort of California/Kyoto CO2 madness takes hold.