Spy Report

[Z28SSMAN]

Received a spy report from Brainerd yesterday that a local well known racer with a newer Shelby was running 10.30s @ 82 mph obviously on the brakes. Also...a few newer 5.0 Mustangs with DRs running 12.30s to 12.40s. That can't be right because according to Kris R, they run 11.40s "stock".

[Quadroflux]

i was there and saw that dumass shelby guy. if shelby are such a big deal why do they have to put a turbo on? i didn't know shelby came with automatic?

[fast toys]

i was there and saw that dumass shelby guy. if shelby are such a big deal why do they have to put a turbo on? i didn't know shelby came with automatic?

It stands to reason that if you cannot make a car go fast n/a put a power adder on it, makes up for the lack of brains it takes to make it go without a power adder.

Adding drag radials is not "stock"

[MR.hp]

Hey, I run NA, but I have been know to add a little giggle juice from time to time. LOL

[Fast Eddy]

It stands to reason that if you cannot make a car go fast n/a put a power adder on it, makes up for the lack of brains it takes to make it go without a power adder.

Adding drag radials is not "stock"

I think with a bunch of money I could build a N/A car that would run as fast as my car, but with a turbo I get to drive the shit out of my car.

[Fast One]

It stands to reason that if you cannot make a car go fast n/a put a power adder on it, makes up for the lack of brains it takes to make it go without a power adder.

Adding drag radials is not "stock"

Power adders include things like aftermarket cams, aftermarket heads, featherweight pistons, and anything else that you add to your engine to increase its power output beyond what it had stock. After all - if it adds power, it is, by definition, a power-adder.

Any fool with enough money can send the heads off to get shaved, ported & polished (or simply buy a set of aftermarket heads), install a lumpy cam that was recommended to them by someone else, bolt-on an aftermarket intake & exhaust system that was also recommended to them by someone else, buy a carb that was (you guessed it - recommended by someone else), and then take their car to a dyno & let someone else tune it.

Those who don't think it takes brains to add a turbo to a factory n/a engine that was never intended for forced-induction (and isn't one of the popular Chevy or Ford engines that the masses have been huffing for so many decades that every high-school kid knows the formula for success), figure out the internal improvements required to make it reliable, figure out the external supporting mods that need to be done, and then tune it yourself to make a crapload of RELIABLE power, have most likely not done it.

That is far more impressive to me than yet another formula build of a common engine to add to the countless clones that are out there already. That doesn't take brains or creativity. All that's needed is the ability to read & comprehend a car rag build article, the ability to turn a wrench, and money.

Some of us were smart enough to learn many decades ago that the laws of thermodynamics heavily favor turbocharged engines. And we are not so set in our ways that we simply plod along, doing the same old thing decade after decade, while technology passes us by. Going faster is the name of the game in hot-rodding, and the most intelligent way to go faster is to increase efficiency. 500 HP without having to turn 6 grand or more to get there, daily-driver reliability, grocery-getter drivability, and 25 MPG on the highway? Now I'm impressed.

Joel

[MR.hp]

Maybe, instead of being call power adders it should be power boosters.

[Fast One]

That would be more descriptive, but it's still semantics.

Engines are just big air pumps. Move air in & out of the the pump faster and/or more efficiently so that you can dump in more fuel per second, use a fuel with a higher BTU content, or use a fuel that doesn't need as much air), and you can generate more BTU per second. (1 HP = 0.707 BTU/sec) Call it whatever you wish, but it doesn't really matter. Whether it's done by increasing displacement, spinning the pump faster, making the pump more efficient, increasing the compression ratio, force-feeding the pump with another pump, injecting an oxidizer, switching to a fuel with a lower stoichiometric air/fuel ratio, switching to a fuel with a higher BTW content, or a combination of the above - the end result is the same: More power in the same box.

Four things are clear:

1) A boosted engine can make far more power and still remain drivable & practical than a n/a engine of the same displacement.

2) A given engine at a given crank HP will be under less stress when turbocharged than when supercharged because it doesn't have to generate the extra HP required to spin the blower.

3) Since a turbocharged engine is essentially a variable-displacement engine, it will be much more efficient at part-throttle than the same engine with the same peak power, but blown or n/a.

4) Using nitrous oxide in n/a engines or water/alcohol injection in boosted engines to temporarily boost power when needed is a very smart idea if you only need a short burst of extra power to get the job done. Why carry the extra weight of a larger engine or put up with the poor drivability & shorter lifespan of a highly-strung smaller engine when you only need the extra power for a few seconds at a time? The combination of turbocharging & water/alcohol injection allowed us to win the air war during WWII. Brilliant, I'd say.

Thank the air racers of the 1930s for N2O injection. Thank the exceptional aircraft engine hot-rodder & inventor, Frank Walker, for water/alcohol injection. He invented it for the P-47 Thunderbolt in 1943. He worked for Pratt & Whitney back in WWII & was responsible for developing the P-47 Thunderbolt's legendary & still amazing R-2800 engine - an 18-cyl, 2800 cube radial with an intercooled turbo the size of a coffee table, feeding a pair of cascaded superchargers - that could safely run @ WOT for over 100 hours non-stop at staggering 60 pounds of boost while making 3800 HP (190% of rated power) on 145 octane avgas!

Anyone who states that using turbos, blowers, nitrous, or water-injection to increase power indicates a lack of brains is simply affirming their own serious deficiency in that department.

The way I see it - he who makes the most power most efficiently & most reliably for the least amount of money is the smartest hot-rodder.

Joel

[Z28SSMAN]

I hear ya Joel, but a "power adder" is kind of a deceiving description. Technically--you're right...any item to gain extra power would be a power adder. But the term "power adder" was thrown into the racers lingo to differentiate between a NA engine from a FI.

I think we can all agree that either engines are NA=naturally aspirated or FI=forced induction which is supercharged, turbocharged or nitrous.

I've seen some crazy quick cars through the years. I've seen turbo cars trap 160 in the 1/4. Quite impressive. On the other hand--I've can't recall seeing those cars ever win anything. I call them "exhibition" cars.

I prefer to bracket race my NA cars against FI cars, because from what I've experienced in all the years I've raced, FI cars are the most inconsistent. Of course, I'm talking grass roots bracket racing with money payouts, which is what keeps the drag strips open. If the car is consistent and the driver has a razor sharp reaction time, that car will be in the winners circle.

Remember--a turbo or S/C doesn't help one bit in reaction time. In fact--a turbo usually hinders the reaction time. For the majority of competitors, trying to build boost and have a superior reaction time--those two don't go well together.

As far as a turbo being superior over a NA car? It all depends on what ones needs are. I find it hard to believe that a turbo engine running 25-30 lbs of boost is going to be able to use 92 unleaded fuel which you can find most anywhere. You'll have to use race fuel or convert and run E85 to protect the investment. From what I've researched--there's a lack of octane consistency in E85. Obviously the tune is critical.

I'm glad I don't have to screw around with trying to find race gas at 2 AM or worry about if my bottle has enough pressure or if the bottle has enough left in it.

It's great that we all have choices--that's what makes our sport interesting.

[Fast One]

I know where the term comes from. I just think it's kinda goofy.

Yeah, turbo cars require more skill to run consistently - which is why they're rare in bracket-racing. But they're popular in other forms of drag-racing. In fact, there's a turbo revolution going on in Pro Modified this year. Some are worried that the turbo cars will make the nitrous & blower cars obsolete. The turbo cars are running well into the 5s, with trap speeds over 250 MPH. And with the current rules, they're making 800 more HP than the blown or nitrous engines. So turbo cars are superior if you know how to tune 'em & drive 'em. And modern technology can solve the spool-up issue off the line.

Of course, you know that Buddy Ingersoll single-handedly scared the crap out of Pro Stock with his stock-block V6 turbo Regal. He laid down a few passes that scared the shit out of the V-8 guys. They contended that if he ever got the turbo figured out that they wouldn't have a prayer. The drivers and sponsors essentially forced the IHRA to ban the car from Pro Stock competition.

That should put to rest any doubts about the capabilities of turbocharged cars at the strip.

As far as race gas goes - I see a lot of n/a guys also buying race gas. But they still don't make as much reliable power as a properly set-up turbo engine. But I never had to worry about finding it at 2AM because the GN got 17 MPG while doing the Uni cruise, and 24 MPG on the Interstate @ 75 MPH. And yes, there are inconsistencies in E85. But many people are running it successfully.

BTW - I ran 20 pounds of boost in the GN on 92 octane pump gas for years with no issues at all - thanks to Frank Walker. Water-injection works just as well in today's turbocharged cars as it did in the world's fastest & most powerful WWII fighters.

Regarding turbo cars not winning races - I've seen quite a few GNs beat the pants off the competition at the strip. And I don't think the problem with the "exhibition" cars you mentioned is due to the turbo itself. I'm betting that it's because they make so much low-end torque that it's tough to couple all of it to the ground. I expect that a similarly-equipped n/a car that puts down the same amount of power would have the same problem.

At any rate - yeah, it's great that we have a number of choices regarding how to go faster. It would be pretty boring if everyone did the same thing. Even worse - there would be nothing to learn, and no progress would be made.

Joel

[Z28SSMAN]

It's hard to argue with any of your points, Joel.

I remember Buddy Ingersoll and how they banned him from running his turbo in NHRA. Obviously they were afraid he'd dominate them. They nixed that right away.

As far as boost goes, the tune is critical to getting reliable performance. Some people only run 5-6 psi and can get away with not having to use race fuel, while others "go for the gusto" and run 20-26 lbs or more. Standard pump gas won't cut it there.

Turbo cars create so much TORQUE, they are prone to blowing the tires off without proper boost controlling. I've seen it happen an number of times watching local racers. I also have seen GNs beat the pants off cars at the track in time trials and occasional heads up events.

JR was never much of a fan of S/C. He used to call 'em "belt driven turbos". Maybe the pressure a "belt driven turbo" puts on the front of the crankshaft has to be something to be concerned about?

The bottom line? I think it doesn't matter what mods one has--if the whole package isn't set up properly, it won't be competitive.

[Fast One]

....The bottom line? I think it doesn't matter what mods one has--if the whole package isn't set up properly, it won't be competitive.

Ain't that the truth! That was my problem when I took the GN to the track. With 403 HP & 485 pounds of torque at the wheels & a race weight of 3850 pounds, I should have been able to run anywhere from the 12.30s to the 11.90s - depending upon whom I ask or which calculator I use. But the best I ever did was a 12.76 because I suck at launching a turbo car, and I had way too much low-end torque for my tires & suspension setup. Launching at anything over 5 PSI would just blow the tires off. I was running 20-22 pounds of boost. I bet I'd have ran better with less boost. But I wasn't thinking that way at the time.

Another way to look at it: A "10-second engine" in an 11-second car, driven by a 12-second driver, will probably run 13s.

Joel

[Z28SSMAN]

Yeah, but who would have thought back in the 60s 12.70s not being satisfactory? Or if a v6 would run those times. 12.70s under your conditions is still pretty impressive for a basic GN with the boost bumped.

[Fast One]

True. Back in the late 70s, I thought my '67 GS 400 ragtop w/factory 4-speed with ~400HP at the crank was quick & it "only" ran 13.8s on a really good day on street tires. Back then, 11-sec cars showed up at the track on trailers, and now we have street/strip cars that drive to the track & run 9s.

During the the early to mid-70s, a guy in my hometown had a '67 Coronet with a high-strung 440 & 4:10 gears that reportedly had run mid-12s at Donnybrooke. The local hot-rodders pretty much bowed at his feet. Hell, hot-rodders as far away as Grand Forks drove to Warroad just to race him out on the county road where we had marked out a measured 1/4-mile - complete with double lines for the front wheels, 'START' painted in huge white letters, a finish line, and 'FINISH', also painted in huge white letters. Nobody could touch that Dodge for quite awhile. One day, a couple guys from Grand Forks showed up in a jet-black '70 Camaro with a really nasty-sounding BBC, wanting to race that Dodge. There must have been a hundred of us out there lining the road just to watch the race. The Camaro got him by a couple lengths. That was a big deal back then.

Regarding the GN - I did do a few things to it besides crank up the boost & dump in more fuel.

I installed a low-restriction mandrel-bent 3" intake & up-pipe, 3" LT1 MAF, MAF Translator Plus, TA-49 ported turbo, walbro 225 fp w/adjustable regulator, 30lb injectors, race chip, mandrel-bent 3" dp & 3" cat into mandrel-bent dual 2 1/2" cat-back, LT1 valve springs, double-roller timing chain, did the Duttweiler neck mod on the intercooler, beefed-up the electrical system, switched to polygraphite body bushings, added the 6 missing GNX bushings, installed the GNX frame & trunk braces, a full PST polygraphite front & rear suspension bushing kit, driveshaft loop, had the trans built by Art Carr w/3000 RPM tc, replaced the stock Eaton posi with their HD unit w/Redline clutch-pack & 400lb springs, switched to Moser 30-spline forged axles, and ran airbags in the back with staggered air pressure to help plant the right-rear. But I was afraid that I'd pretzel the stock driveshaft on slicks, so I ran BFG 275/50 TA street tires.

That 12.76 was the quickest 1/4-mile I've ever ran in any car. I was really pumped until I saw other GNs run better times that day with fewer mods & less boost. Funny how that works... Given the mods I had done, I figured that I should have ran quicker. But then, I had only raced the car at the track a few times before I made that pass. It was the 9th time I had ever raced anything at an actual dragstrip. I suppose my times would have improved a bit with more practice. Or a pair of slicks.

Joel