And that's just it, The power curve will be different and wider on the NOS motor. Take advantage of that with a lower stall and a NA motor would need more HP to make up for that. How much, there will be no one solid answer, just depends.

Properly geared and with right converter........700hp is 700hp and should run the same in the same car.

Nitrous does ONE thing, it allows you to burn more fuel, which makes more power. So a 700hp N/A motor and a 500hp motor with a 200hp shot are doing the SAME thing.

As far as torque...........that's why we have these things called "torque converters"...........LOL!!

Interesting, Mike Thermos thinks that you have more area under the curve and the nitrous car would be faster. I was just throwing this out there.

Would seem to me that if an engine made 700 hp continuously over a wide range of rpm(let's say from 3000 to 7000 rpm) that it would be faster in a quarter mile than an engine that makes 700 hp at finally at say 7000 rpm only.

Isn't this why electric motor power vehicles are so quick,,,,peak torque begins at zero rpm?

Therefore if using or not using nitrous,,,,all the the numbers might change the quarter mile et's and mph based upon rather or not nitrous(or super or turbo chargers) were part of the formula, even if peak hp of each combination remained at 700 hp.

Some of you into HI Fi systems recall that an amp rated at peak 200 watts performs far differently driving low efficiency speakers than one that produces 200 watts over a wide range of frequencies.

I have no idea of all this, just wondering.

When does the ground war begin!

Sure, that might be true but like I said before, it gets complicated. You have to get all of that extra area under the curve to the track which might be difficult. Too much power down low and the car won't hold it. Transmission gearing also becomes important when you compare a peaky powerband to a broad powerband.

The combination is always more important than one particular number.

The power curve will be different and wider on the NOS motor.

X2
And there will be an advantage to a car with only 2 or 3 gears (vs. 4 or 5): the big RPM drop on shifting won't be as important.

Since HP is derived from tq/time, an equal hp is an equal hp. If you can get a power curve from a nitrous engine and an equal power curve from a n/a engine, and they weigh the same, the e.t mph will be the same. An Allison engine making 1000 hp will make more power in the curve than a 1000 hp nitrous car engine. A n/a bbc that makes 700 hp will have more power and tq than a 700 hp nitrous turbo'ed rotary trough the power band.

So let's say you take a 440 with decent heads, cam, and carb and fuel delivery and put a 200 shot on it to get to 700 HP, everyone would probably agree that is doable.

But could you take something more anemic with a tiny cam and restricted heads like a bone stock 318 with 230 HP, upgrade the fuel system and throw a 200 shot at it to get 430 HP?

There's got to be some point where it doesn't work right? Where is that point? I mean you can't put a 200 shot on a 3 HP Briggs and Stratton motor and get 203 HP right?

What does the baseline motor have to be for the 200 shot to more or less actually equal close to 200 extra horsepower when given a 200 HP shot.

Maybe this is what the OP was asking?

I am of the belief that the less efficient a motor is to start with, the more nitrous will help it.

On my 232 a 150 shot picked it up about 2.5 seconds and 14 mph in the quarter. Pretty sure it won't do that on a 632.

Hilarious what some peoples concept of what "power" is.

You can have 1000 ft/lbs of torque and 0 HP.

It's I M P O S S A B L E to make 1000 HP and 0 ft/lbs of torque.

A 700 HP NOS motor that makes 600 ft/lbs at 4000 RPM is making more POWER than a 700 HP N/A that is making 500 ft/lbs at 4000 RPM.

An engine makes torque - a calculator makes HP. Period.

A 700 peak HP engine - 500 engine/200 NOS should have more torque under peak HP and should be quicker than a 700 HP N/A engine, unless you have a converter that stalls about 50 RPM under peak HP. You should be able to run a tighter, more efficient converter and take advantage of the extra torque below the peak HP.

"1000 ft/lbs of torque and 0 HP"

Electric motor or steam engine stalled at 0 RPM.

The "point of diminishing returns" with a small engine is where the exhaust valve and port won't flow the volume.

Correct. An engine that hits that point the earliest in it's power curve, as in a NOS engine that has more torque at lower RPM's, will make the max power for a broader RPM range. For example, a N/A engine may only "max out" the exhaust port from 6500-7000, where the NOS one may do it from 4500-7000, making more average "power".

900 NA HP = 20,000$ 900 N20 HP =9,000$

900 hp NOS motor after going a tad lean just one time $18000, hood blown off from backfire, sturdier drive train (converter, trans, drives-haft, upgrade to 9 inch because them are the most awesome rear known to man )to handle the extra TQ $$$... it may end up cheaper but it is not as easy or cheap as just hanging a hose from the bottle to the air cleaner and certainly not as fun having to go get the special sauce all the time in my opinion. Also a lot more hoses and wires running all around under your hood and that just annoys me.

Easily understood question, but hard to give an accurate answer as to the additional hp needed. Seeing how no engine stays at peak hp as it accelerates through it's power curve on the track, one peak hp number doesn't determine performance, the average hp in the rpm range your engine sees as it runs down the track will.

Seeing how a N2O engine will produce a larger avg. hp in the rpm range your engine sees as it runs down the track, yet may have the same peak hp, it will out-accelerate the N/A engine.

Got any more using nitrous clichés you want to throw in there. I think you missed a few