On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 Kabuki2@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 9/24/98 6:55:37 PM, you wrote:
>
> << Not really... You're comparing apples to oranges. >>
>
>
> I wasn't intending on it. I was simply implying that there IS a replacement
> for cubic inches..... forced induction. Wether it be from a turbo, a
> supercharger, or a chemical, they all function pretty much the same.. and the
> results ARE impressive :-)
>
Ahhh, ok I see what you're sayin'. :-) We were just coming at it
from different perspectives.
Yep, I completely agree. To accomplish a specific goal, forced
induction or nitrous CAN replace cubic inches, and usually cheaper
than you'd be able to do it naturally aspirated too. (Case in point:
people running Pro-Stock times with engines that cost $20,000 less.)
However, if you're trying to build the most powerful engine
possible (putting aside the cost issues), the more cubes you start
with, the better. (That's how I was looking at it.)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu ----------------------------------------.
| Jon Steiger * AOPA, DoD, EAA, MP Race Team, NMA, SPA, USUA * RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT CC (14.77@92.97), '96 Kolb FireFly 447 |
`--------------------------- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:10:00 EDT