Racing is more interesting when the cars aren't mandated to be identical.

I'm confused was Chevy using turbochargers or superchargers?
First "Chevrolet squared dual superchargers"
Then later "Chevrolet... it decided to use a dual turbo rather than Honda's single turbo"
Turbochargers are different than superchargers, where as superchargers derive their power to compress more air into the engine directly from the crank shaft turbos use the exhaust gases from the engine. Each have their benefits and draw backs. The supercharger provides air to the engine at low RPMs as it is physically connected to the drive shaft but this also causes more load to be running on the engine reducing power gained from the extra air. Turbocharges tend to provide more power in the high RPM range and suffer from something called turbo lag. Turbo lag occurs because the turbo is power by the exhaust gases which take moments to build up pressure. Turbo systems also cause more back pressure on the engine decreasing the advantage of more combustible air in the engine.

Agreed with Pin... This is dumb! Where is the innovation?!

@Pin: I don't agree. When you have a runaway car, like the Chevy motors enabled, or a runaway tire (think Michelin vs. Pirelli in WRC a few years ago) you get something very boring. You have a few that completely dominate and everyone else is an also-ran. That's not fun for anyone.

Give me one of the 195 hp axial vector engines putting out 610 ft. lb. tq. weighing @ 200 lb.. and getting @ 40 mpg. designed in built in the UK back @ 2006 possibly 2007 and I will wipe the field clean... vroom,vroom,vroom... what a joke.

I agree with Pin. And identical cars may squash innovation.

Pin, you are correct... They keep losing their fan bases, and wonder why... It's because the fans can no longer root for their favorite car or engine manufacturer. Just like NASCAR, (National Association of SAME CAR Auto Racing). It's sad that the controlling bodies have gotten away from the intent of these races (entertainment for the fans, rivalries between manufacturers, and development of better engines, cars, etc.)...Oh well

Hang on a minute- by what standard is a 2.2 litre engine considered 'small'? Most of the cars in Europe are powered by engines smaller than this!
Back in the late 70's and through much of the 80's Renault's V6 turbocharged and twin turboed Formula 1 engines developed between 500 and 1200 bhp- from 1.5 litres!
So this Chevy engine hardly represents progress...

Pin -- You must be an American, likewise. Where's the ingenuity to become stronger through engineering. What happened to America being the strongest, and more dominant force in building better performing vehicles. Should we just sit back and watch racing for the drivers? BORING! I'd rather sit and watch my grandson play in the sandbox.

Making the cars have identical performance limits the cost to get in.
I would be much more interested in true stock car racing. The cars having to be identical the cars on the showroom floor, no additional safety equipment, options, or stripping. Just bare boned, base model econo-boxes. It would be all driver cheap cars and you can drive a car identical to the one your hero drove Sunday to work on Monday.
Alternatively limiting the rules to; 250cc maximum displacement engine. 3m-3.1m long, 1.7m-1.8m wide, 1m -1.1m tall. Four tires on the ground. 20liter maximum fuel capacity. 2tonne weight as handicapped with the cars dry except for the brake fluid. The same crash cage specifications as say Indycar.