I'm off Friday if you want me to tune that heap again. I can do it Saturday too. Hopefully we can get it to work this time.

Going to OKC. Might have the cancel the trip as 99 power > going to see grandma :party:

You're gonna need more than 280hp to do the job, Jeff.

Meh you won't you big baby.

A guy in the UK made 277 on a stock motor for years, Chargers don't hit as hard when torque peak arrives.

You are making more power and torque at the engine to create the same whp / wtq as you are mechanically driving your compressor vs using a turbo. If this guy could make that power SC'ed reliably then you should be able to make more power with a turbo without grenading, though you may have something in the gentler onset of power.

That is unless I've completely missed something.

I have a feeling that it could be measured someway. It's pretty easy to see how much power is used to drive a blower. Not sure how to accurately measure the power needed to drive a turbo. It's surely less than what it takes to drive the blower....but the laws of high school physics tells me it's not "free" to drive a turbo.

Not free but I had an mech eng prof that was discussing supercharger vs NA vs turbo who was illustrating why turbo's are easier on engines vs SC's but NA is easiest on the engine (duh), all other things equal.

I didn't quite take it all in but the guy is a genius who is a lead design engineer of nuclear power plants by day and teacher by night. I think there is some discussion on the subject in Corky Bell's book as well.

Blower compressor maps have drive power ratings on them, usually.

Call me tomorrow between 1 and 3 and we'll discuss it.

The green lines are drive power:

http://www.lysholm.us/pdf/diagram_lys1200ax.pdf

The way the power is delivered. Huge uplift in torque at torque peak vs a slow and steady rise in torque throughout the rev range.

That's how I understood his engine to have survived.