Joined
·
5 Posts
cummins also supercharged some of their earlier motors. look up iron lung 275 or iron lung 300 built in 50's and early 60's
supercharged cummins
-
March's Cummins of the Month challenge is now open for entries!
61 - 62 of 62 Posts
Joined
·
16 Posts
Enigami...
As far as Superchargers taking power to make power, yes they do...BUT, so do turbo's and I'll explain this later. As for the 800 hp claim with J.F's funnycar...it would not surprise me at all! You, and many others, are only looking at the negative part...the 800 hp that it takes to run the unit. What about the positive part...the fact that the engine produces about 8000 hp with the charger and only about 3000 without it (assuming it would even run without it...and that's a BIG assumption considering they often run as high as a 1:1 ratio of fuel:air)!!! As for turbo's being "free power"...THAT'S A MYTH!!! This has been explained in several other posts but I will try to "say it a different way" in the words that follow. A turbo, as far as the engine is concerned, is simply an exhaust brake and it functions accordingly. It takes power from the motor in the form of exhaust restriction and, believe me, that CAN amount to a tremendous strain far exceeding the 10:1 seen in J.F's machine. Granted, this is only for a short period, and exponentially decreasing, but it is still there! For anyone who feels the desire to argue my point, relax for a second and ponder this huge run-on sentence...we all agree turbos make power, we all agree bigger turbos make bigger power, we all agree superchargers develop a given amount of power based on RPM, we all agree turbos make power based on their RPM, we all agree superchargers are direct-drive and turbos are indirect-drive or inertial drive...now...IF it didn't put a load on the engine to "spool" a turbo then WHY do those big trucks sit there spewing out black smoke at the beginning of a tractor pull? Why don't they just "stomp it" and shoot down the track? THEY CAN'T...they would not have crap for power. It's the same thing. The super takes crank power, the turbo takes inertial power. Both of these "powers" are taken from the engine's "final output" hp. The only reason people want to say a turbo is free power is because they don't look at the big picture and they are naive. NO, I AM NOT CRACKING ON ANYBODY...I AM NAIVE when it comes to some things just like everybody else! Physics just happens to be something I understand. A MUCH MORE CORRECT, but still not exact, statement for all these turbo lovers to convey would be something like this..."a supercharger takes a given amount of constant power to produce MORE power whereas a turbo takes a ever-fluctuating amount of power to produce MORE power." AND, they could even expand on that by saying, "a turbo is generally considered a more efficient power producer because they often create more "boost" without the extra charge heat often associated with a supercharger".
As far as Superchargers taking power to make power, yes they do...BUT, so do turbo's and I'll explain this later. As for the 800 hp claim with J.F's funnycar...it would not surprise me at all! You, and many others, are only looking at the negative part...the 800 hp that it takes to run the unit. What about the positive part...the fact that the engine produces about 8000 hp with the charger and only about 3000 without it (assuming it would even run without it...and that's a BIG assumption considering they often run as high as a 1:1 ratio of fuel:air)!!! As for turbo's being "free power"...THAT'S A MYTH!!! This has been explained in several other posts but I will try to "say it a different way" in the words that follow. A turbo, as far as the engine is concerned, is simply an exhaust brake and it functions accordingly. It takes power from the motor in the form of exhaust restriction and, believe me, that CAN amount to a tremendous strain far exceeding the 10:1 seen in J.F's machine. Granted, this is only for a short period, and exponentially decreasing, but it is still there! For anyone who feels the desire to argue my point, relax for a second and ponder this huge run-on sentence...we all agree turbos make power, we all agree bigger turbos make bigger power, we all agree superchargers develop a given amount of power based on RPM, we all agree turbos make power based on their RPM, we all agree superchargers are direct-drive and turbos are indirect-drive or inertial drive...now...IF it didn't put a load on the engine to "spool" a turbo then WHY do those big trucks sit there spewing out black smoke at the beginning of a tractor pull? Why don't they just "stomp it" and shoot down the track? THEY CAN'T...they would not have crap for power. It's the same thing. The super takes crank power, the turbo takes inertial power. Both of these "powers" are taken from the engine's "final output" hp. The only reason people want to say a turbo is free power is because they don't look at the big picture and they are naive. NO, I AM NOT CRACKING ON ANYBODY...I AM NAIVE when it comes to some things just like everybody else! Physics just happens to be something I understand. A MUCH MORE CORRECT, but still not exact, statement for all these turbo lovers to convey would be something like this..."a supercharger takes a given amount of constant power to produce MORE power whereas a turbo takes a ever-fluctuating amount of power to produce MORE power." AND, they could even expand on that by saying, "a turbo is generally considered a more efficient power producer because they often create more "boost" without the extra charge heat often associated with a supercharger".
61 - 62 of 62 Posts
