Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
Top 8 Supercars selected for Road and Track
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tt335ci03cobra" data-source="post: 15035740" data-attributes="member: 68944"><p>??? I'm sorry but you are very misled or mistaken.</p><p></p><p>Ww2 fighters did run centrifugal superchargers but the altitude ceiling was decidedly broken by turbo and turbine powered engines. I think like doubled and tripled to be honest.</p><p></p><p>There is so little oxygen at 40,000 ft that a supercharger would be mathematically tested to even work today with modern technology.</p><p></p><p>Turbo wheels spin faster to maintain O2 counts and airflow. It's common for a wheel to spin 3-15% faster for 1000-5,000+ ft of altitude. 55,000rpm at sea level generating "x" O2 counts and flow will spin at say 63,000rpm at 2500ft or so to compensate for the needed oxygen. That's it. Boost is a metric based on an atmosphere compression of 14.7psi representing one bar. </p><p></p><p>Superchargers are mechanically driven. It's a fixed relationship. Turbochargers are regulated by wastegates and programming. They literally have a potential to spin faster when spinning against sparser air. </p><p></p><p>The same turbo car in the same location on a 20 degree day will see its turbo wheel(s) spinning slower than on a 100 degree day with sparse air. </p><p></p><p>Turbos are dictated by oxygen flow where as superchargers are mechanically belted and pullied.</p><p></p><p>The lobes of a supercharger also heat sink easier with sparser, hotter air. </p><p></p><p>I live at 4500ft. I've been around all kinds of performance cars for over a decade, turbo vettes, Cobras, vipers, Audi R8 v10's, lamborghinis etc all in various trims from na to sc to turbo and nitrous.</p><p></p><p>There is no discrepancy or question, turbos are the preferred and optimal power adder when working at altitude. </p><p></p><p>I would definitely own a blower car at sea level. I love the sound, torque, general simplicity, and did I mention the sound.</p><p></p><p>That said, I love turbos and would also own turbos at sea level. I own multiple cars now, and would if I lived at sea level. I love open down pipes. Open wastegates as well, to me the sound of a mean nasty open turbo v8 modular is sex on fire with brandy, and steak. I love it. I love blower wine as well but I'd take turbo whistle, howl and belch any day when done right.</p><p></p><p>Back on topic though, up here and living with them daily, there is no question that turbos are faster than sc cars.</p><p></p><p>I'll literally give you this opportunity to make $1,000. Come up to my town, baseline your car, see what it puts down uncorrected. If it makes the same power you make at sea level, uncorrected, I will pay you $1000 cash. If you can reach the same trap speed that you reach at sea level in the quarter mile, pulled and component list being the exact same, no funny business, I'll sign you the deed to my house. To put it in context, the fastest stock zr1 corvette times lip up here is a 11.8@121, from a hell of a hot shoe. That time is a complete laughing stock in the zr1 world. It corrects to a 10.9@130 from what I remember. We are 4500ft and the da that day was in the 4000 area from what I remember of the time.</p><p></p><p>Stock terminators struggle to run 13.8's up here, I went 13.6@105 with mufflers and a cai. I could have probably ran 13.3@107 power shifting.</p><p></p><p>Stock sti's and evo's hit 13.6's though at 100mph, which is barely off what they run at sea level. Stock cobalt ss's have gone 103 up here. They've done 106 at sea level. </p><p></p><p>It just isn't possible. I love blowers and they are great, but you are misinformed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tt335ci03cobra, post: 15035740, member: 68944"] ??? I'm sorry but you are very misled or mistaken. Ww2 fighters did run centrifugal superchargers but the altitude ceiling was decidedly broken by turbo and turbine powered engines. I think like doubled and tripled to be honest. There is so little oxygen at 40,000 ft that a supercharger would be mathematically tested to even work today with modern technology. Turbo wheels spin faster to maintain O2 counts and airflow. It's common for a wheel to spin 3-15% faster for 1000-5,000+ ft of altitude. 55,000rpm at sea level generating "x" O2 counts and flow will spin at say 63,000rpm at 2500ft or so to compensate for the needed oxygen. That's it. Boost is a metric based on an atmosphere compression of 14.7psi representing one bar. Superchargers are mechanically driven. It's a fixed relationship. Turbochargers are regulated by wastegates and programming. They literally have a potential to spin faster when spinning against sparser air. The same turbo car in the same location on a 20 degree day will see its turbo wheel(s) spinning slower than on a 100 degree day with sparse air. Turbos are dictated by oxygen flow where as superchargers are mechanically belted and pullied. The lobes of a supercharger also heat sink easier with sparser, hotter air. I live at 4500ft. I've been around all kinds of performance cars for over a decade, turbo vettes, Cobras, vipers, Audi R8 v10's, lamborghinis etc all in various trims from na to sc to turbo and nitrous. There is no discrepancy or question, turbos are the preferred and optimal power adder when working at altitude. I would definitely own a blower car at sea level. I love the sound, torque, general simplicity, and did I mention the sound. That said, I love turbos and would also own turbos at sea level. I own multiple cars now, and would if I lived at sea level. I love open down pipes. Open wastegates as well, to me the sound of a mean nasty open turbo v8 modular is sex on fire with brandy, and steak. I love it. I love blower wine as well but I'd take turbo whistle, howl and belch any day when done right. Back on topic though, up here and living with them daily, there is no question that turbos are faster than sc cars. I'll literally give you this opportunity to make $1,000. Come up to my town, baseline your car, see what it puts down uncorrected. If it makes the same power you make at sea level, uncorrected, I will pay you $1000 cash. If you can reach the same trap speed that you reach at sea level in the quarter mile, pulled and component list being the exact same, no funny business, I'll sign you the deed to my house. To put it in context, the fastest stock zr1 corvette times lip up here is a 11.8@121, from a hell of a hot shoe. That time is a complete laughing stock in the zr1 world. It corrects to a 10.9@130 from what I remember. We are 4500ft and the da that day was in the 4000 area from what I remember of the time. Stock terminators struggle to run 13.8's up here, I went 13.6@105 with mufflers and a cai. I could have probably ran 13.3@107 power shifting. Stock sti's and evo's hit 13.6's though at 100mph, which is barely off what they run at sea level. Stock cobalt ss's have gone 103 up here. They've done 106 at sea level. It just isn't possible. I love blowers and they are great, but you are misinformed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2015+ Shelby GT350 Mustang
Top 8 Supercars selected for Road and Track
Top