Bingo!
Remember, the NSX has been around for a long time. Yet, no one/company can pull the cheap mods to make 300WHP. Yeah, it sucks to own an NSX! so little power!
300 whp without opening your engine?
- Thread starter BBVNSX
- Start date
Bingo!
Remember, the NSX has been around for a long time. Yet, no one/company can pull the cheap mods to make 300WHP. Yeah, it sucks to own an NSX! so little power!
I don't think it's possible to get 300 whp with bolt-ons
My pure stock 91 dyno'd at 225 whp at NSXPO in Las Vegas.
If we assume a slightly tired motor and a 15 % drivetrain loss I might have about 265 flywheel hp.
To get from 225 whp to 300 whp is a 33 % gain and can't see anything one ca do to find 75 whp by bolting on parts.
I think after headers and exhaust which might yield 25 whp you are into rapidly diminishing returns on the next incremental changes.
It might be more productive to go for increased torque multiplication through gearing and final drive ratios as long as top speed is not an important consideration.
For example third gear in a 6 speed transmission is 1.428 and if coupled with a Comptech 4.55 final drive you are multiplying the engine torque 6.5 times.
In my 91 the third gear is 1.23 with a 4.06 final drive giving a multiplcation of 5
The 6 speed with a 4.55 yields 30 % more torque at all rpm.
NSX performance has always been about torque multiplication coupled with a high redline rather than big hp.
Jim
My pure stock 91 dyno'd at 225 whp at NSXPO in Las Vegas.
If we assume a slightly tired motor and a 15 % drivetrain loss I might have about 265 flywheel hp.
To get from 225 whp to 300 whp is a 33 % gain and can't see anything one ca do to find 75 whp by bolting on parts.
I think after headers and exhaust which might yield 25 whp you are into rapidly diminishing returns on the next incremental changes.
It might be more productive to go for increased torque multiplication through gearing and final drive ratios as long as top speed is not an important consideration.
For example third gear in a 6 speed transmission is 1.428 and if coupled with a Comptech 4.55 final drive you are multiplying the engine torque 6.5 times.
In my 91 the third gear is 1.23 with a 4.06 final drive giving a multiplcation of 5
The 6 speed with a 4.55 yields 30 % more torque at all rpm.
NSX performance has always been about torque multiplication coupled with a high redline rather than big hp.
Jim
Hi,
weird... from all the data i read from you US guys...i can only think that US cars have less power for whatever reason...
my car had 264whp and the only mods were:
- test pipes
- KN filter in OEM air box
- CF side vent duct
it's not a single example...several NSX here have about the same results:
- about 260whp and about 300 crank hp
weird stuff....
Nuno
PS - and compared with other cars, it seems that they have in fact 260whp
weird... from all the data i read from you US guys...i can only think that US cars have less power for whatever reason...
my car had 264whp and the only mods were:
- test pipes
- KN filter in OEM air box
- CF side vent duct
it's not a single example...several NSX here have about the same results:
- about 260whp and about 300 crank hp
weird stuff....
Nuno
PS - and compared with other cars, it seems that they have in fact 260whp
Good point JD. I think Rao will hit his mark or get very close to 300rwhp. We discussed in the other thread that I am at 277 and he should be around the same or slightly more IIRC with the same mods. That's only <25whp away and I will go out on a limb and say he may get 15-20 whp from his throttle body and manifold experiment. Add in the ran-up oil additive for 2% more and you're there. Sadly us DBW guys will miss that big TB party so I will postulate that the oldest cars will end up being capable of more NA power than the 3.2L guys. 300 whp with aggressive gearing would be a blast but I believe 4.55 was too aggressive and destroyed many transmissions. 4.44 woulda been great...
Last edited:
Re: USDM J-vin...
Correct,
Add:
'90-'95 Mazda Cosmo 20B (320HP)
'97-'13 Toyota Century V12 (320HP)
'98 Subaru Impreza STi 22B (300HP)
But the NSX engine in NA trim is by far the most efficient
Correct,
Add:
'90-'95 Mazda Cosmo 20B (320HP)
'97-'13 Toyota Century V12 (320HP)
'98 Subaru Impreza STi 22B (300HP)
But the NSX engine in NA trim is by far the most efficient
Last edited:
Bingo!
Remember, the NSX has been around for a long time. Yet, no one/company can pull the cheap mods to make 300WHP. Yeah, it sucks to own an NSX! so little power!
it's that lack of flat power band that bothers me more.
The RX7 FD in stock was similiar power to weight ratio than the NSX. Yet it felt faster and was more fun to drive.
Why? Thank god someone at Mazda appreciates a flat power band that the V8 guys enjoyed for years.
With the NSX linear power band I have to wind that thing up like a rubberband.
Now with the SOS SC the flat power band feels good since my starting power is much more well endowed.
I think the torque from that twin turbo what make rx7 more responsive and fun to drive. Can't really beat the torque from fi car
Talking about Mazda's a 20B Cosmo is a torque monster even down low.
But then again we're talking about 3 rotors 2 litres and twin sequential turbochargers.
But then again we're talking about 3 rotors 2 litres and twin sequential turbochargers.
I think the only way to know whether you have really cracked 300 rwhp is to put your car on a chassis dyno that has been recently calibrated. Unfortunately, almost no dynos are regularly calibrated.
I can also remember that Vance Hu had a dyno sheet stating that his NSX put out just over 300 rwhp even though his engine had only minimal modifications. I have a dyno sheet stating that my naturally aspirated 3.0 liter NSX puts 408 horsepower to the rear wheels. Unfortunately, the dyno was not recently calibrated and there was no bone-stock NSX along to serve as a baseline. Does my NSX really put 408 horsepower to the rear wheels? No way. Even though I have a dyno sheet that says so.
In the same state of tune, another dyno said my NSX puts 270 horsepower to the rear wheels. Unfortunately, that dyno was not recently calibrated either and again, there was no stock NSX along to serve as a baseline.
I think it’s hard to say whether you can crack 300 naturally-aspirated rwhp without opening up the engine since we have just about no reliable dyno measurements to judge that by.
If you want an accurate dyno measurement, make sure the operator measures the engine rpm from the tachometer pickup loop in the engine compartment and either take a bone-stock NSX along as a baseline so that you can calculate the percentage difference or put your car on a dyno that has been recently calibrated. If you don't do that, you could just shop around until you find a dyno that says you have cracked 300 rwhp. With a bit of luck, you could probably find a dyno like that relatively quickly.
I can also remember that Vance Hu had a dyno sheet stating that his NSX put out just over 300 rwhp even though his engine had only minimal modifications. I have a dyno sheet stating that my naturally aspirated 3.0 liter NSX puts 408 horsepower to the rear wheels. Unfortunately, the dyno was not recently calibrated and there was no bone-stock NSX along to serve as a baseline. Does my NSX really put 408 horsepower to the rear wheels? No way. Even though I have a dyno sheet that says so.
In the same state of tune, another dyno said my NSX puts 270 horsepower to the rear wheels. Unfortunately, that dyno was not recently calibrated either and again, there was no stock NSX along to serve as a baseline.
I think it’s hard to say whether you can crack 300 naturally-aspirated rwhp without opening up the engine since we have just about no reliable dyno measurements to judge that by.
If you want an accurate dyno measurement, make sure the operator measures the engine rpm from the tachometer pickup loop in the engine compartment and either take a bone-stock NSX along as a baseline so that you can calculate the percentage difference or put your car on a dyno that has been recently calibrated. If you don't do that, you could just shop around until you find a dyno that says you have cracked 300 rwhp. With a bit of luck, you could probably find a dyno like that relatively quickly.
Last edited:
That's why I don't trust chassis dyno's there is just so much inherent and conditional variation that it's only a benchmark if it's calibrated and if a bone stock car serves as test and can be run the same day.
I don't think FI cars are more responsive... yes they are faster on straight and have more torque but there is also turbo lag... that's why i prefer the NA route + weight reduction. Just my opinion but when you use FI you will be compromising some of the things i love most about the NSX, like V-tech engagement and the friendly high revving engine that reacts like a lightning when you play with the throtle on twisted roads.
^^ what r u talking about? How any car that stay na with same size motor be more responsive than fi one? Thats not talk about in vtec range where most turbo already in full boost. U can use gt30r like spoon turbo nsx and it probably start making boost at idle( Not really lol)
have u driven a rx7 sequential twin turbos?
when the first turbo kicks in at 2k rpms. lag is nil.
BBVNSX, is completely right NA will always be more responsive than FI.
A couple here are confusing torque with throttle response.
A huge flat torque curve is easy with FI IF it's setup properly so it remains in spool map/band fall out of that curve and your just left waiting.
A couple here are confusing torque with throttle response.
A huge flat torque curve is easy with FI IF it's setup properly so it remains in spool map/band fall out of that curve and your just left waiting.
Yes, responsivity is not all about torque, it's the sharpness of response when you touch the throttle, and the cirurgic way the throtle will respond to your right foot moviment... and how you can control all of that :wink:... i'm not saying that equal engine size FI's cars aren't faster than NA's (at least in straight), and that a turbo won't smash your back against the seat like no NA's same size engine... a turbo car is even much more friendly to tune and go high HP, but that route will transform the NSX in a way that not everyone would like.
I've never driven an RX7, and I'm shure it's a great car, but Turbo cars will allways have lag, even if almost nil... unless you have an electric turbo, but that is still in development.
I could use more power and torque, but i would like to keep drivability and the original feeling of the NSX, that's my goal when pursuing 300 whp without opening the engine... is it possible? maybe... I will keep following some of the good work this great comunity is doing...
NA's can be very fast and responsive :tongue:, and this thread needs some videos too :biggrin::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWDxWOhzSCE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OJ4pKwlZNw
I've never driven an RX7, and I'm shure it's a great car, but Turbo cars will allways have lag, even if almost nil... unless you have an electric turbo, but that is still in development.
I could use more power and torque, but i would like to keep drivability and the original feeling of the NSX, that's my goal when pursuing 300 whp without opening the engine... is it possible? maybe... I will keep following some of the good work this great comunity is doing...
NA's can be very fast and responsive :tongue:, and this thread needs some videos too :biggrin::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWDxWOhzSCE&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OJ4pKwlZNw
3.5l or 3.8l should cure that need nicely
I recalled this too, but think his motor was a freak, or one massaged quite carefully by Honda.
Did I said with the same motor? Not stroker
... or he didn't have a bone stock NSX along as a baseline and the dyno wasn't recently calibrated.
My SOS SC feels just as responsive as when it was NA.
The only difference is that there is much more power on tap.
BATMANs is correct drive a 400+rwhp positive displacement supercharger and get back to us.
Now I will admit when the clutch is not engaged ala free revving in neutral or between shifts the engine feels like is has a much heavier flywheel, so I miss the very very quick blips but throttle response is linear (with load) and if you perceive drag (like some people have stated) in a supercharger just push your right foot down a little farther --- problem solved.
This is not about FI vs NA, each route has Pros/cons...
Having in mind claimed power gains, and knowing that you can't just add all the power gains, the list of upgrades would be for now:
Scoop + Stack Intake System: +10hp (dyno tested)
Phenolic gaskets to insulate the manifold (3% increase in power): +10hp (no dyno)
Exhaust + Headers: +26hp (dyno tested)
rdx injectors + tune: +16hp (dyno tested)
ATI Super Damper: +5hp (dyno tested)
Ran Up Oil Additive (2% increase in power): +7hp (dyno tested)
L/W Flywheel: +??hp (does any member have information about possible power gains?)
jet hot coat the entire exhaust system: +??hp (does any member have information about possible power gains?)
keeping in mind the goal of not opening the engine and no ITB are there any other upgrades/bolt-ons? any other sugestions?
Having in mind claimed power gains, and knowing that you can't just add all the power gains, the list of upgrades would be for now:
Scoop + Stack Intake System: +10hp (dyno tested)
Phenolic gaskets to insulate the manifold (3% increase in power): +10hp (no dyno)
Exhaust + Headers: +26hp (dyno tested)
rdx injectors + tune: +16hp (dyno tested)
ATI Super Damper: +5hp (dyno tested)
Ran Up Oil Additive (2% increase in power): +7hp (dyno tested)
L/W Flywheel: +??hp (does any member have information about possible power gains?)
jet hot coat the entire exhaust system: +??hp (does any member have information about possible power gains?)
keeping in mind the goal of not opening the engine and no ITB are there any other upgrades/bolt-ons? any other sugestions?
Have you seen my engine build thread?
One of the things that I did was thermal coat not only my full exhaust, but also the intercooler, SOS SC adapter plate and the manifolds/plenum.
It pretty much negated the need for phenolic spacers since the areas where the phenolic spacers would be in contact with are coated as well.
