Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: hudsonhornet7x]
#1800720
04/10/15 11:20 PM
04/10/15 11:20 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,623 Millinocket, Maine
JonC
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,623
Millinocket, Maine
|
If they both make the same power, I would take the one that made the most torque at the given torque/HP curve I desired.
11B40
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: hudsonhornet7x]
#1800745
04/10/15 11:49 PM
04/10/15 11:49 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699 Newport, Mi
Evil Spirit
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,699
Newport, Mi
|
My head says the blown motor will have more torque, a milder idle and properly tuned, be more street friendly. My heart says nothing sounds as good as a high compression engine with a lopey idle, and that anything else sounds boring.
Free advice and worth every penny... Factory trained Slinky rewinder.........
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: Evil Spirit]
#1800749
04/10/15 11:51 PM
04/10/15 11:51 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 733 jacksonville,FLORIDA
slammedR/T
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 733
jacksonville,FLORIDA
|
My head says the blown motor will have more torque, a milder idle and properly tuned, be more street friendly. My heart says nothing sounds as good as a high compression engine with a lopey idle, and that anything else sounds boring. I agree, while I like the blown or turbo better power wise, nothing sounds like a nasty motor with a big lopey lope cam. But a blower motor with extreme blower surge at idle is pure sex also
Last edited by slammedR/T; 04/10/15 11:52 PM.
2000 Dakota R/T, 408 magnum, 727, Indy heads 1000cfm 4150 carb, 93 octane fuel. motor; 10.258 @ 132.78 200 shot; 9.262 @ 144.69 racemagnum
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: hudsonhornet7x]
#1800814
04/11/15 12:37 AM
04/11/15 12:37 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,255 Canada
WO23Coronet
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,255
Canada
|
On paper they should be equally as quick, but realistically the blower motor would get there easier and would be a lot more fun to drive. I also think the blower motor would be quicker with a not so ideal set up (who ever has a perfectly dialed in set up). I'd go forced induction
Last edited by WO23Coronet; 04/11/15 12:38 AM.
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: WO23Coronet]
#1800820
04/11/15 12:42 AM
04/11/15 12:42 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,543 USA
hudsonhornet7x
OP
pro stock
|
OP
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,543
USA
|
Thank you guys for the help, believe it or not this is a high school shop class project, you might have read about it in Chrysler Power. We have a chance to build a supercharged engine and it will be a first for us.
Picture this: 6.4 " Hellcat esque" blown motor, caged, General Lee fresh off the rotisserie.
Think Galen would certify that as a 1 of 1 lol.
Last edited by hudsonhornet7x; 04/11/15 12:44 AM.
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: hudsonhornet7x]
#1800928
04/11/15 10:40 AM
04/11/15 10:40 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,256 Benton, IL.
DaveRS23
Special needs idiot
|
Special needs idiot
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,256
Benton, IL.
|
The blower motor should have a flatter torque curve and hold more torque longer so it would have an performance advantage in the real world. Is budget an issue? The blower stuff will take more coin than the N/A.
Master, again and still
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: Evil Spirit]
#1801028
04/11/15 01:02 PM
04/11/15 01:02 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 19,318 State of confusion
Thumperdart
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 19,318
State of confusion
|
My head says the blown motor will have more torque, a milder idle and properly tuned, be more street friendly. My heart says nothing sounds as good as a high compression engine with a lopey idle, and that anything else sounds boring. I agree cos we've all seen too many slower than they should be blower motors and a FEW fast n/a cars.........
72 Dart 470 n/a BB stroker street car `THUMPER`...Check me out on FB Dominic Thumper for videos and lots of carb pics......760-900-3895.....
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: Thumperdart]
#1801043
04/11/15 01:41 PM
04/11/15 01:41 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,292 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,292
Bend,OR USA
|
I would think of how much added strain driving the blower makes on the motor, compressing air driven off the crankshaft takes HP and adds strain on every part of the motor, before making the final decesion. As far as turbos I've been told that( by racers who use them) they do add additional concerns off the back side of the motor so I guess there are no free lunches. Adding boost into a motor definetily makes more power easier per C.I. than N/A motor do.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: hudsonhornet7x]
#1801127
04/11/15 05:00 PM
04/11/15 05:00 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,210 New York
polyspheric
master
|
master
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,210
New York
|
And as we all know, that rilly kewl sound is why we build motors...
Boffin Emeritus
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#1801282
04/11/15 09:22 PM
04/11/15 09:22 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,182 Plymouth, MI
Blusmbl
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,182
Plymouth, MI
|
I would think of how much added strain driving the blower makes on the motor, compressing air driven off the crankshaft takes HP and adds strain on every part of the motor, before making the final decesion. As far as turbos I've been told that( by racers who use them) they do add additional concerns off the back side of the motor so I guess there are no free lunches. Adding boost into a motor definetily makes more power easier per C.I. than N/A motor do. It can take 100+ extra horsepower to drive a supercharger even on a mild 600-700hp street engine, so the entire rotating assembly is going to see additional stress from the cylinder pressures over an n/a motor. However, for the same displacement the n/a motor would have to spin at higher rpm, which requires more expensive valvetrain components. Both are cool. I like torque so I prefer big blocks, or supercharged/turbocharged smaller displacement engines.
Last edited by Blusmbl; 04/11/15 09:22 PM.
'18 Ford Raptor, random motorcycles, 1968 Plymouth Fury III - 11.37 @ 118
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: Pale_Roader]
#1801632
04/12/15 12:51 PM
04/12/15 12:51 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302 Nebraska
72Swinger
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Nebraska
|
That wasn't a Shivvy, that was a Ram with a 420" Gen III Hemi.
Mopar to the bone!!!
|
|
|
Re: 700 N/A vs 700 Blown
[Re: Blusmbl]
#1801641
04/12/15 01:03 PM
04/12/15 01:03 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,635 Oakland, MI
dizuster
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,635
Oakland, MI
|
It can take 100+ extra horsepower to drive a supercharger even on a mild 600-700hp street engine, so the entire rotating assembly is going to see additional stress from the cylinder pressures over an n/a motor. However, for the same displacement the n/a motor would have to spin at higher rpm, which requires more expensive valvetrain components.
Cranks see maximum stress near TDC. Because boosted motors run less timing, the cranks actually see a lot less stress vs. a N/A motor.
|
|
|
|
|