1997+ OBDII FX400 runs...

Factor X Motorsports

Factor X Motorsports

Experienced Member
Joined
19 March 2002
Messages
1,117
Location
In a big building with many toys
12.3@119mph on OEM 16/17 wheels/tires, 91octane.

We were running off the spring resulting in 6-6.5psi. This was his second run of the night and first day in the car with the FX400.

After the race he was so pumped up he forgot that the exit to the LVMS is not the drag strip resulting in a rent a cop confrontation. Mellow out!

This Sunday he will be testing the top end power against a modded Viper GTS, hopefully there will be some footage to share.
 
Sounds very nice. The 119 trap is strong for a 12.3 et. What was the 60'?

Do you have recent dyno numbers/graphs for the FX400?

How much does it cost to get the 400, all in? I have heard around $12k. I am currently debating the SOS NA builds and the CTSC, but the ability to trap 120 or so with an FX400 is pretty attractive.

Keep it coming guys. :biggrin:
 
brahtw8 said:
but the ability to trap 120 or so with an FX400 is pretty attractive.
Click to expand...


Ditto
 
brahtw8 said:
Sounds very nice. The 119 trap is strong for a 12.3 et. What was the 60'?

Do you have recent dyno numbers/graphs for the FX400?

How much does it cost to get the 400, all in? I have heard around $12k. I am currently debating the SOS NA builds and the CTSC, but the ability to trap 120 or so with an FX400 is pretty attractive.

Keep it coming guys. :biggrin:
Click to expand...
Yes, what is the total cost for an FX400 ?? (I have a 91' OBD-1) I thought you guys had it priced closer to $9,500 installed.
 
Thank you for the compliments, the 1997+ FX400 costs 11.5k installed and tuned. The system capability is in excess of 550rwhp with a motor build and larger injectors. There are a multitude of options available for the FX400. It is truely a custom turbo system designed for what you want out of your NSX. Turbo sizing and your goals are the primary contributor to the system. We will post the dyno of the 97 FX400 in the next few days.

Ok, here is the downside… The FX400 will not be available for the 1991-1996 NSX model runs. The upside is the FX500 is:) We apologize in advance for not offering the FX400 to the above mentioned model runs, but we are doing it with your best interest in mind.

In our opinion, for the money the CTSC for the 1991-1996 model runs is very tough to beat. With additional tuning you should be able to achieve 375+rwhp and plenty of torque without any issues.
 
I don't understand why the FX400 is not available for 91-96? From what I understand, the 3.0 motor is a lot stronger than the 3.2. :confused:

Also, there are very very few 91-96 CTSC making anywhere near 375HP. I can think of only 1. Most typically make 320-340.
 
NetViper said:
I don't understand why the FX400 is not available for 91-96? From what I understand, the 3.0 motor is a lot stronger than the 3.2. :confused:

Also, there are very very few 91-96 CTSC making anywhere near 375HP. I can think of only 1. Most typically make 320-340.
Click to expand...


Sorry we are not going into this more in depth, it is a judgment call on our part. With the proper modifications 375rwhp is obtainable with the CTSC. Prior to the FX turbo system, we modified our CTSC to produce similar numbers.
 
I understand why from a business perspective it doesn't make sense to offer a FX400 kit for OBDI cars if the CTSC can match peak HP numbers for those cars.

My question is how different are the torque characteristics and hp curve for the two engines? ie. do they accelerate differently, are there any potential advantages to the FX kit besides upgradeability to the FX500?

Mike, if you can hook up us OBDI guys with a 400 kit, our first taste of speed smack might bring back a few of us for a bigger hit later....just a thought.
 
swbatte said:
My question is how different are the torque characteristics and hp curve for the two engines? ie. do they accelerate differently, are there any potential advantages to the FX kit besides upgradeability to the FX500?.
Click to expand...

I don't think in a race they would even be close. Most CTSC that I have heard about or read about run 110-115MPH run 1/4. The FX400 is nearly 120. Also, the comptech unit makes no where near the TQ that the FX400 does. I would guess they are a totally different driving experience.
 
I would like to see the FX400 as an option for all year NSXs, particularly the 1993 that I have. :biggrin:

To the extent the decision is based on the perception that there is a limited market, I ask you to reconsider or ask the membership to give you an idea of the level of interest that exists among the more than 50% of NSX owners that have 1991-1996 models . . .
 
NetViper probably has the most unbiased opinion, as he has driven and or ridden in nearly all the FI systems out there. Although he may be biased now with his new acquisition:)

The FX400 makes around 60-100 more ft/lbs than the CTSC and is definitely a different experience than the CTSC. Other than the obvious advantage mentioned above, the FX400 system also includes an air-water aftercooler system, stand-alone EMS, in-tank pump capable of up to 600rwhp, larger injectors, an exhaust note that is heavenly, and the ability to push in excess of 550+rwhp with a built motor.

Nothing would make us more happy than to offer this system to the 91-96 NSXers! But we are not recommending it to you fine NSX owners for a reason. (Not based on economics, just care :redface: ) Just go the FX500 route, think of all the money you will save with your t-belt/ water pump, clutch, etc :wink:
 
Factor X Motorsports said:
NetViper probably has the most unbiased opinion, as he has driven and or ridden in nearly all the FI systems out there. Although he may be biased now with his new acquisition:)
Click to expand...

LOL. I honestly thought the FX400 was amazing. I think my new acquisiton though feels damn near just as fast blasting through the gears, and based off the performance numbers, it is pretty close. I have never been in a CTSC that felt near as strong as either the FX400 or the 12lbs BBSC and that includes MarkB's 375rwhp NSX. From a low RPM standpoint though, the FX400 and CTSC are better for every day driving IMO.
 

With the proper modifications 375rwhp is obtainable with the CTSC. Prior to the FX turbo system, we modified our CTSC to produce similar numbers.


Is that with 9lb + AEM? I would be ecstatic if I could hit 375rwhp. Do you guys have any reservations on the 9lb (vs the 6lb)? I read about some issues with a wandering idle on the 9lb.
 
Factor X Motorsports said:
Nothing would make us more happy than to offer this system to the 91-96 NSXers! But we are not recommending it to you fine NSX owners for a reason. (Not based on economics, just care :redface: ) Just go the FX500 route, think of all the money you will save with your t-belt/ water pump, clutch, etc :wink:
Click to expand...

So what is the reason exactly? GJ does it, and it seems to be reliable (compared to the other FI options). While I'm doing all the work on my own car myself, I'd like to know if I'm going down a path that will obviously lead to disaster (atleast sooner than I'm planning!).

If you don't want to state it publicly, will you divulge it offline? If so send me a PM and I'll give you my work number or give you a jingle. I'm not looking to spread rumors or scare people, just to keep my own early year car from self-destructing on the track.... Thanks! :-)

-mike
 
NetViper said:
LOL. I honestly thought the FX400 was amazing. I think my new acquisiton though feels damn near just as fast blasting through the gears, and based off the performance numbers, it is pretty close. I have never been in a CTSC that felt near as strong as either the FX400 or the 12lbs BBSC and that includes MarkB's 375rwhp NSX. From a low RPM standpoint though, the FX400 and CTSC are better for every day driving IMO.
Click to expand...


Just don’t race KGP when he is running 12psi :biggrin:
 
Arshad said:

With the proper modifications 375rwhp is obtainable with the CTSC. Prior to the FX turbo system, we modified our CTSC to produce similar numbers.


Is that with 9lb + AEM? I would be ecstatic if I could hit 375rwhp. Do you guys have any reservations on the 9lb (vs the 6lb)? I read about some issues with a wandering idle on the 9lb.
Click to expand...

Yes, the 9lb with an EMS, fuel upgrades, and a few other mods. We have not experienced a wandering idle on the 9lb. A good tuner should be able to smooth it out with the EMS.
 
mikeh said:
So what is the reason exactly? GJ does it, and it seems to be reliable (compared to the other FI options). While I'm doing all the work on my own car myself, I'd like to know if I'm going down a path that will obviously lead to disaster (atleast sooner than I'm planning!).

If you don't want to state it publicly, will you divulge it offline? If so send me a PM and I'll give you my work number or give you a jingle. I'm not looking to spread rumors or scare people, just to keep my own early year car from self-destructing on the track.... Thanks! :-)

-mike
Click to expand...


Lets just say we have seen way too much variation in the early model motors due the age and amount of previous owners.
 
Factor X Motorsports said:
Yes, the 9lb with an EMS, fuel upgrades, and a few other mods. We have not experienced a wandering idle on the 9lb. A good tuner should be able to smooth it out with the EMS.
Click to expand...

If people went that route, wouldn't they be spending pretty much the same cost as your FX400 kit?
 
Factor X Motorsports said:
Just don’t race KGP when he is running 12psi :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Haha. I have seen the numbers he is putting down and I think I will pass on that one. :biggrin:

You can bet if I ever win the lottery there will be a 2005 NSX at your doorstep waiting for the FX500 install. :wink:
 
NetViper said:
If people went that route, wouldn't they be spending pretty much the same cost as your FX400 kit?
Click to expand...
Actually, I bet they would be spending more, and without an aftercooler. ctsc, high boost, ems, install and tuning - I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd bet it would be more than 11.5K.

Mikey, the "you can't have it ploy" seems to be working. :biggrin: j/k guys, I know no more than you about the policy.
 
Last edited:
NetViper said:
LOL. I honestly thought the FX400 was amazing. I think my new acquisiton though feels damn near just as fast blasting through the gears, and based off the performance numbers, it is pretty close. I have never been in a CTSC that felt near as strong as either the FX400 or the 12lbs BBSC and that includes MarkB's 375rwhp NSX. From a low RPM standpoint though, the FX400 and CTSC are better for every day driving IMO.
Click to expand...


KGP, how does your car feel as a daily driver, (asuming it's driven daily), do you do think it is too much power for cruising around town? does the car tend to brake lose easily with all that power?
 
I only use my NSX for having fun. The suspension setup might be rough for some people, so that might be an issue for "daily driving." The clutch takes a bit getting used to (day or two) the on/off engagement. It's not quiet when your on boost. Power wise, it's not a big a deal if you're not "on it." Break loose? Sure, if you want it to. When I drove it out in Vegas a few weeks ago it broke loose in third (while on channel 2 - 550hp).
 
I think it's time for the FI NSX equivalent of "biker buildoff". Anyone who wants to participate gets together at point A and we drive 1000 miles to point B (with unbiased observers noting any problems along the way). I suggest two performance indicators. Since everyone is so fascinated with 1/4 mile performance I suggest we start at the drag strip. The only exception to the basic drag race ritual would be a 10 mph max (no clutching) rolling start. This will help balance the playing field as not everyone has their best reaction times and launching techniques down pat. This is not a drivers test, but an engine test. In addition, it will reward the cars with better "real world" roll-on power. Low ET wins. The second will be a 2 hour endurance road race event. The road event won't be a race to win, just finish each lap under an agreed upon lap time. The lap time selected will be one which puts a sufficient load on the engines to weed out the systems that can only go fast for a few minutes. Sounds fun to me. What say you?????
 
Back
Top