I actually purchased a Super Street magazine. I just wanted to look at the Endless GT-R on page 92 and the hot little piece on page 146, very spankable.

So I am flipping through ye old ricerag and they have a comparison article: NA-vs-Nitrous-vs-Turbo-vs-Supercharger. It's exceedingly basic, tailored to their mainstream readership, 16-year-old boys with no car but not completely useless.

They give a comment section for each school of engine power production, pro and con, and I agreed or at least agreed to disagree respectfully with most of them.

One comment though made me damned near choke on my frosty beverage:

Page 102, in "turbos" and in the "nope" column I see the following pearl of wisdom, two big bottles of direct port sarcasm of course... regarding turbocharging, Brian Gillespie from Hasport has this to say and I quote:

"With a turbo you supply gas, which adds exhaust, in turn creating boost, which causes more exhaust, leading to more boost and forming even more exhaust. You can keep a constant foot on the gas and the power still goes up. In the end, you wind up with too much acceleration."

Uh, umm, huh?

Did he actually just say that? I read it again and again and he just kept saying the same thing! Power keeps going up?

Well I won't stand for something like that! Too much acceleration indeed, why I almost went faster than the other guy there, can't have that!

I would like to thank Brian for taking a stand in life, for taking customers' money to build them slower cars.

All this pursuit of power and speed can lead to no good and it takes a man of principles to hold back the tide of increasing power and acceleration.

Brian from Hasport:




Post Title: Re: possibly the most retarded thing I have heard next to ... (themadscientist)
Posted by: bone_stock_240 at 9:01 PM 7/16/2007

Maybe I'll donate it to the starving pygmies in New Guinea.



Post Title: Re: (AZhitman)
Posted by: themadscientist at 10:07 PM 7/16/2007

On the downside of natural aspiration, Tyler Tanaka (I'll say the company name in a minute) says this:

"The naturally aspirated guys are gluttons for punishment. No offense. I love Pro Stock-for the racing aspect. But to spend $100,000 dollars to get 2 more horsepower baffles me. I don't like hitting myself on the head with a hammer and hoping for a different result. With $4000.00 to $5000.00 plus a couple of six-packs and wrenches over a weekend, you can double your horsepower with a turbo"

No doubt, NA power comes at a higher cost but $50,000 per pony is a serious misrepresentation.

A weekend, some beer and a couple of wrenches, for twice the power, eh?

Maybe some of us can do that, I can, but there are several busted motors in the past that showed me what I know now. Not entirely untrue but certainly exaggerated. Why the dogma?

Second quote from Mr. Tanaka, on superchargers, opposing them:

"Because superchargers deliver boost via RPM, the shock on an engine's internals is dramatic. You're slamming forced air directly onto those components and they are getting pounded."

Now should I read anything into the fact that this guy works at Turbonetics?

Now if the supercharger is delivering boost parallel to RPM wouldn't that be stunningly linear? Cmon, give me "parasitic drag", "complexity of aftercoolers", something better than that.

Slamming forced air in? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that what your products do? Dramatic shock to the engine internals? Something like a big turbo spooling up and screaming to 15lbs in a matter of seconds perhaps?

Sorry, that dog won't hunt, Tyler. Call Brian at Hasport, he will explain how to de-power your engine to protect those pussified pistons.



Post Title:
Posted by: AZhitman at 10:19 PM 7/16/2007

Perhaps Mr. Tanaka is unaware that there are a TON of benefits to supercharging over turbocharging.

Then again, installing a supercharger doesn't pay his mortgage, so it's no surprise.

But I'd hoped they could come up with some better reasoning than the nonsense we're seeing.

Shame on StupidStreet for publishing such self-serving drivel. No wonder the ricers are retarded.



Post Title: Re: (AZhitman)
Posted by: redtop91 at 10:22 PM 7/16/2007

Either that or its exactly like where I work... Where the sales idiots (managers) open their stupid mouths again. I never really understood why companies never send a tech with the sales idiot to a demo. Darwin's law doesn't apply to business I guess.



Post Title: Re: possibly the most retarded thing I have heard next to ... (themadscientist)
Posted by: redtop91 at 10:26 PM 7/16/2007

Quote, originally posted by themadscientist »

That's what I meant when I said "it wasn't completely useless". She made me spool up.

Gotta refill now.



Post Title: Re: possibly the most retarded thing I have heard next to ... (redtop91)
Posted by: themadscientist at 10:28 PM 7/16/2007

Quote, originally posted by themadscientist »

Bottles are for babies.

I like that. also will some scan said female on page 146 for the rest of us to see.



Post Title:
Posted by: JustinStrife at 5:53 PM 7/17/2007

< Contact Us - NICO >