Yellow Bullet Forums banner

1 - 20 of 303 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was always impressed by the times and performance of the V6 turbos of the 80's and even by the achievements of BUDDY INGERSOLL back in the 80's. If he was able to take 262 cubic inches and go bottom 7's, how is it impressive to be in the 6's with powerplants using 800 cubic inches nowadays? I have plenty RESPECT for the Turbo guys doing the do these days but this doesn't strike me as impressive. Maybe a small fry like myself can't imagine what it really takes to go these astronomical numbers, but it does leave me wondering about all the HYPE for turbo charged race cars. I'm not singling anyone out or any CREW of guys, just wondering what is and isn't impressive in 2008???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
how about a 186cid running 6.40's @2370lbs..single turbo...2 years ago...what going on crunch?
Well, that's fuggin' impressive! LMAO! But, given those cubic inches, how can an 800 inch twin turbo be impressive running that time or slower??? This is my question basically. Why all the HYPE for the turbo guys with BIG inches nowadays...

What's up? Same old same old...trying to stay in the mix is all...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,386 Posts
I was always impressed by the times and performance of the V6 turbos of the 80's and even by the achievements of BUDDY INGERSOLL back in the 80's. If he was able to take 262 cubic inches and go bottom 7's, how is it impressive to be in the 6's with powerplants using 800 cubic inches nowadays? I have plenty RESPECT for the Turbo guys doing the do these days but this doesn't strike me as impressive. Maybe a small fry like myself can't imagine what it really takes to go these astronomical numbers, but it does leave me wondering about all the HYPE for turbo charged race cars. I'm not singling anyone out or any CREW of guys, just wondering what is and isn't impressive in 2008???
IMO they are putting turbo's on engines that are too large. Whack the stroke down to 3.50-4.00 and you get instant results..like Jensens 3.99 on a shakedown pass..with 427 cubes w/ 1 turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,375 Posts
I don't think i've ever heard of an 800 CI turbo motor...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
I was just thinking out loud fellas...

I might have to throw a turbo in the trunk of my car just to say I have one too...
 

·
The Enemy
Joined
·
22,068 Posts
Who has an 800ci turbo engine?

BB&T has a 773, but it hasnt run yet. Other then that, the biggest ones are 632s. Most are under 600ci.

Why? Its pretty damn easy and cheap to convert your old nitrous engine over to a turbo setup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I was using 800 as a reference for BIG CUBES for our day and time presently. My example is about the difference in cubic inches from Ingersoll's day and time compared to now. I'm just not impressed by the 'TURBO' fad lately...

I get tired of seeing the dual holes and non functional scoops...
 

·
الكتاب ا
Joined
·
6,697 Posts
Sounds like you got outrun by a turbo car. lol.

I think others would agree...the larger motors are just a bigger scale so that parts are more robust. Case in point...Lynch/Petty. That car goes how many passes on the same motor? Probably more than a high-winding V6 making 2000hp.
 

·
The Enemy
Joined
·
22,068 Posts
I was using 800 as a reference for BIG CUBES for our day and time presently. My example is about the difference in cubic inches from Ingersoll's day and time compared to now. I'm just not impressed by the 'TURBO' fad lately...

I get tired of seeing the dual holes and non functional scoops...
How heavy was ingersolls car? Surely it wasnt 3000 + lbs.

How many guys have turbos with non functional scoops? BB&T.

Who else?

I think you are getting carried away.

Im not impressed by the 860 ci $100,000 nitrous engines either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Sounds like you got outrun by a turbo car. lol.

I think others would agree...the larger motors are just a bigger scale so that parts are more robust. Case in point...Lynch/Petty. That car goes how many passes on the same motor? Probably more than a high-winding V6 making 2000hp.
Actually, never raced against one...

But, if the numbers are correct for Ingersoll in 1986 or so, then are the turbo cars of 2008 impressive???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
How heavy was ingersolls car? Surely it wasnt 3000 + lbs.

How many guys have turbos with non functional scoops? BB&T.

Who else?

I think you are getting carried away.

Im not impressed by the 860 ci $100,000 nitrous engines either.
Show me a pic of a BB&T car please...

I understand your point as well. But, the 860 ci nitrous engine of 2008 isn't running the same times as the engines of the 80's that had less cubes. Performance differences are recognizable from the BIG cubed engines of the 80's until now, no? I'd also have to read up to see how heavy the Ingersoll car actually was at the time.
 

·
الكتاب ا
Joined
·
6,697 Posts
Powerwise...the big motors are not any more impressive, no. And again. Durability is the name of the game.

The only thing better than a turbo motor is a BIG TURBO MOTOR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,836 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I just saw the pics of the blue stang with PRO STOCK hood scoop and all with two turbos...maybe they like the look of the scoop cause the car does look sweet. I'm just all turboed out as a HOT ROD enthusiast...
 

·
الكتاب ا
Joined
·
6,697 Posts
Crunch said:
...Actually, I never raced against [a turbo car]...
I'm just all turboed out as a HOT ROD enthusiast...
Hmm. Maybe you need to race one and experience the trend. You might "join 'em."
:supz:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,530 Posts
I just saw the pics of the blue stang with PRO STOCK hood scoop and all with two turbos...maybe they like the look of the scoop cause the car does look sweet. I'm just all turboed out as a HOT ROD enthusiast...

I'm not going to try and reinvent his original message but I think the last sentence of his quote was his underlying meaning. And I can understand where he's coming from. "if you can't beat them, join them" is certainly applying in this day and age and personally, it's cool to see the insane turbo creations but it is also disheartening to see many of the s/c and nitrous guys go that route. I understand their reasons but many still love and root for the "underdogs" in the power adder game. Outlaw 10.5 is great, but it seems that every new car coming out is a BB/TT setup. Again, that's cool but we(the racing community as a whole) is losing some diversity. People like diversity and options.

Crunch, please step in and correct me if I am wrong with my interpretation of what you said/meant. There's no disrespect meant at all to any Turbo racers...I'm just point out some people's position on the current state of heads up racing
 

·
King Shit on Turd Island
Joined
·
33,367 Posts
Light weight car, small displacement, big tire and a manual transmission vs. heavy car, large dispacement, 10.5W tire and an automatic. Apples and oranges, apples and oranges.

Anther thing you've got to remember is a turbo is going to only flow so much air. If you put the same turbo on two different displacement engines the power potential is virtually identical, just completely different power bands. The bigger motor just has the durability advantage like has already been stated.
 
1 - 20 of 303 Posts
Top