Supercharger kit from ZZP
02-10-2017, 06:47 PM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: 09-11-2015
Location: Stevens Point, WI
Posts: 273
HHR's are " heavier than most of the 60's or 70's era muscle cars "
??? Chevelles, 442's, etc. I don't think so. Fwiw. I've owned a 70 Chevelle and numerous 69-72 Cutlass' and 442's. The last project I had was a 72 Cutlass S
(not a 442) with the Hurst pkg. A rare car because of the Hurst pkg being in a non 442.
??? Chevelles, 442's, etc. I don't think so. Fwiw. I've owned a 70 Chevelle and numerous 69-72 Cutlass' and 442's. The last project I had was a 72 Cutlass S
(not a 442) with the Hurst pkg. A rare car because of the Hurst pkg being in a non 442.
Did a little Googling...
A 66 GTO with V8 and Stick goes about 3,400 LBS
A 1st Generation Camero or Firebird V8 with Auto goes 3100 to 3200 lbs
A mid-to-late 60's Mustang base weighs 2,445 pounds, that would be with a six popper and 3-speed though
A 68 Chevelle 2-door with V8 goes 3,330 lbs.
A HHR, according to posts on this forum is about 3200 pounds so I guess maybe the HHR is a couple hundred pounds lighter than a few of the Muscle cars, but about the same as Camero, Firebird and Mustang.
09-10-2017, 12:18 AM
#12
Senior Member
Join Date: 07-08-2012
Location: texas
Posts: 189
I agree that todays 4 poppers are far quicker than they were back in the day...but to make speed you need power, and to get power you need cubic inches....something the 4-cylinders just don't have much of.
Supercharges will pack far more air into the cylinders than a turbo, thats why a super charger is driven by engine power, I forget now how much power to operate a typical street/strip set up but I think we used to figure about 50HP average...of course that figure would be much higher for a all out race engine with tighter clearences. Turbos run for free, the exhaust gas spins them but they can not provide the compression that the Superchargers do which is why race cars don't use turbos.
Our HHR's are as heavy (or heavier) than the 55/56/57 Chevys I used to run, heavier than most of the 60's or 70's era muscle cars and those cars were producing well over 400 HP in street trim and had gobs more torque, which is what you feel in the seat of your pants. My Vette (with a TPI 350) was a 165 MPH car...I had it briefly up that fast on Alligator Ally some years ago...it got 22 to 24 MPG on the highway if I didn't run the AC and was stock except tor the intake and exhaust and a re-program on the PROM.
While I love my HHR panel, I just will never think of it as even remotely fast or quick.
Supercharges will pack far more air into the cylinders than a turbo, thats why a super charger is driven by engine power, I forget now how much power to operate a typical street/strip set up but I think we used to figure about 50HP average...of course that figure would be much higher for a all out race engine with tighter clearences. Turbos run for free, the exhaust gas spins them but they can not provide the compression that the Superchargers do which is why race cars don't use turbos.
Our HHR's are as heavy (or heavier) than the 55/56/57 Chevys I used to run, heavier than most of the 60's or 70's era muscle cars and those cars were producing well over 400 HP in street trim and had gobs more torque, which is what you feel in the seat of your pants. My Vette (with a TPI 350) was a 165 MPH car...I had it briefly up that fast on Alligator Ally some years ago...it got 22 to 24 MPG on the highway if I didn't run the AC and was stock except tor the intake and exhaust and a re-program on the PROM.
While I love my HHR panel, I just will never think of it as even remotely fast or quick.
Turbos can't force as much "compression" into a cylinder? What does that even mean? Forced induction in any form increases cylinder pressure regardless of where it comes from. Any increase in atmospheric pressure will increase compression in a cylinder. Nitrous will do the same.
Engine clearances have nothing to do with power levels. Rotating mass in the assembly plays a MUCH bigger role in creating "free" power.
Superchagers are belt driven which create more parasitic loss. I don't even understand your comment about "engine driven". They are belt driven, not "engine driven". Closer to the phrase used "engine driven" would mean a turbo since it is driven by exhaust gases. Turbos run off of exhaust gases and will put out the same and in almost all cases more power than a supercharged car. I've owned both. And if you think four cylinders cant put out power, take a look on youtube where you will find a ton of street driven 1000+hp 4-bangers running around. I've raced several here in Texas and have been beaten by a few even with a 434 ERL solid roller motor with twin 76's @ 24psi with the same power output. There's a reason why I don't run a supercharger in my Texas mile car and run twin 76's to hit 200+mph in the standing mile. Also, take a look at supras on youtube, I doubt you will find many that aren't running 1000+hp and all are 6-bangers running single mm turbos. Google turbo funny cars and you will see more and more "race cars" switching to turbo setups and running just as fast or faster with more efficiency. I apologize for the rant, but the lack of knowledge or "old school" thought and misconception of superchargers, turbos, cubic inch vs. hp debate gets the conversation started.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post