Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihu1e.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihu1e!genesis
From: genesis@ihu1e.UUCP (R. Sehnoutka)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: superturbochargers
Message-ID: <430@ihu1e.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Apr-85 10:02:34 EST
Article-I.D.: ihu1e.430
Posted: Mon Apr 15 10:02:34 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Apr-85 01:25:09 EST
References: <541@hou2e.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 22

> I was recently involved in an argument concerning SUPERcharging versus
> TURBOcharging.  Can I inspire anyone to discuss differences, inherent
> advantages/disadvantages, which is "better", etc.?  Can anyone tell me
> why all abnormally-aspirated F1 racers are of the turbo-sort, while most
> "funny cars" are supercharged?
> 
> Dan Masi

I think the main difference between the two is quite simple.
SUPERcharging, as in funny cars, is done to achieve the highest
horsepower from the engine.  Since these engines are NOT water cooled,
they have a short life span.  Some of the funny car engines and
rail engines are supplying 2500 horsepower for a quarter-mile race.

TURBOcharging is usually done to normal engines (water cooled),
to give the engine more horsepower, without really affecting
the life of the engine.


-- 
	Russell N. Sehnoutka ------- AT&T Bell Laboratories 
	 ihnp4!ihu1e!genesis -------  Naperville, Illinois