Wasn't saying that a mustang or any other car engine should be turbine compounded, but I don't think it is as bad as you portray.
I was talking about the differences between how superchargers and turbochargers work in general, and offsetting the kinetic drag of a supercharger.
You criticize something not being similar, yet you draw a parallel between road car superchargers, and a Top Fuel dragster?
Top fuel isn't a road car in any stretch, and a multi-thousand horsepower engine that goes a quarter mile at a time from a standing start, with gigantic drag slicks, might just want the ultimate hole-shot power of a positive displacement supercharger larger than most street legal car engines entirely.
Mustang Shelby GT500 is already criticized, Super Snake even moreso, for being dangerous if the driver is the least-bit careless with throttle application, because the tires can't keep the car under control once the engine breaks traction. Probably more violent at breaking traction than a ZL1 Camaro, or an SRT8 Challenger.
Perhaps maybe even less traction than a V10 SRT Viper with the engine and driver more balanced between the front and rear tires, with less of a front weight bias than the Mustang, and truly massive rear tires.
If all one wants is burnouts, and replacing very wide rear tires VERY often... and risking the car careening out of control... have fun with a positive displacement supercharger on an already large-ish V8.
Or, jack up the car on gigantic racing slicks, and keep an expensive Mustang on the drag strip, rather than driving it in the real world, and fish-tailing it into a tree.