9000 Rpm?

[Westrock]

I was wondering how possible a (useable) 9000 RPM would be.

If one was to upgrade:

1. AEM EMS
2. Bigger Camshaft
3. New Valvesprings & Retainers
4. Lighter Flywheel
5. Comptech Billet Oil Pump
6. Intake/Header/Exhaust of course

Do you think you could maybe hold 180 ft-lbs out to 9000 RPM? That would give you just over 300HP. This would probably be on a NA1 (3.0L) just because it would be easier to implement the AEM. However does the NA2 just use a bigger bore for the displament increase? If the stroke didn't change then I guess it might work too. I guess by the time you add all that up a CTSC is still more effective ehh :biggrin:

 

[MvM]

I was wondering how possible a (useable) 9000 RPM would be.

If one was to upgrade:

1. AEM EMS
2. Bigger Camshaft
3. New Valvesprings & Retainers
4. Lighter Flywheel
5. Comptech Billet Oil Pump
6. Intake/Header/Exhaust of course

Do you think you could maybe hold 180 ft-lbs out to 9000 RPM? That would give you just over 300HP. This would probably be on a NA1 (3.0L) just because it would be easier to implement the AEM. However does the NA2 just use a bigger bore for the displament increase? If the stroke didn't change then I guess it might work too. I guess by the time you add all that up a CTSC is still more effective ehh :biggrin:

Engine-wise I am certainly not an expert in any way.
But even with all the mods you mentioned, it would not change the fact that your piston-speed would be much higher (technically 12.5% for 9000 rpm versus 8000rpm) and your crankshaft bearings would be equally more stressed and perhaps/probably beyond their design specifications Valve-float could be countered with different valves and valve springs and inlet- and outlet problems with bigger injectors and larger exhaust valves.
Maybe if you would change your pistons with equally strong (or stronger) but still lighter weight ones the stresses would be minimizes but that would involve major costs modifying your engine.
For the same money it would be much better to just enlarge the displacement. After all, there is a reasons why the quest for more power has always been to just build a bigger (displacement) engine.
ScienceofSpeed (and others) could answer these questions for you in detail.

 

[nsxtcy85]

I am also very interested in this as I just made up my mind to stay NA

 

[Tomrev]

MvM's right about piston speed increase. When in doubt, bore it out!

 

[Bob Kenney]

9K is within reach; but at what cost. There are Prime members that have gone to this RPM and can elaborate on what it took and the durability issues. If you are looking for the biggest HP increase for the dollars expended, I feel there are better ways than building a 9K engine.

To stay NA you will need to increase the displacement and that will be expensive.

Nitrous is probably the most cost effective; it does have its limits but it does produce HP when needed. FI is the way I have chosen using a CTSC; reliable, easy to do and will put you over 300 HP. Turbos; bigger $ but you can achieve BIG HP gains. Now to take advantage of the higher boost pressures, you are looking at going internal to at least replace the pistons with forged ones with lower compression ratios.

I would advise that you pick a dollar figure that you feel you can live with and see which options fit in that range and then decide. A CTSC has worked for me up till now but I must admit I am addicted to the HP increase and am venturing even further down the FI path.

Good Luck no matter what you decide.

 

[lowellhigh79]

9K is within reach; but at what cost. There are Prime members that have gone to this RPM and can elaborate on what it took and the durability issues. If you are looking for the biggest HP increase for the dollars expended, I feel there are better ways than building a 9K engine.

To stay NA you will need to increase the displacement and that will be expensive.

Nitrous is probably the most cost effective; it does have its limits but it does produce HP when needed. FI is the way I have chosen using a CTSC; reliable, easy to do and will put you over 300 HP. Turbos; bigger $ but you can achieve BIG HP gains. Now to take advantage of the higher boost pressures, you are looking at going internal to at least replace the pistons with forged ones with lower compression ratios.

I would advise that you pick a dollar figure that you feel you can live with and see which options fit in that range and then decide. A CTSC has worked for me up till now but I must admit I am addicted to the HP increase and am venturing even further down the FI path.

Good Luck no matter what you decide.

Back in 1994, I had my headwork, SS valves, dual springs with stock cams. I ran 9000 rpm for over 5 years. Reason was at 8200, the HP curve was still climbing. Reached 325 rwhp at 9200 rpm. Can't recall the torque though.

Regards,

Danny

 

[myhui]

Reason was at 8200, the HP curve was still climbing. Reached 325 rwhp at 9200 rpm. Can't recall the torque though.

I remember a thread three months back comparing torque curve of a Ferrari 360CS vs. an NSX NA2. The 360CS's torque held out at least 1000 rpm higher than the NSX. Both cars were ran on the same dyno at Autowave, and both were not FI cars. I think the NSX was VanceHu's personal car at the time.

It could have been due to many things, but if it was due to cylinder head design differences, then I'm afraid it's curtains for NSX unless someone comes up with a vastly improved design for the NSX's cylinder head.

 

[Hondatech]

Back in 1994, I had my headwork, SS valves, dual springs with stock cams. I ran 9000 rpm for over 5 years. Reason was at 8200, the HP curve was still climbing. Reached 325 rwhp at 9200 rpm. Can't recall the torque though.

Whom, may I ask, did the headwork? :wink:

 

[lowellhigh79]

Whom, may I ask, did the headwork? :wink:

Javier Gutierrez. Back in the day, JG Engine Dynamics was one of a very few shops that did that type of head work and was willing to touch the NSX.

Regards,

Danny

 

[menfou]

Back in 1994, I had my headwork, SS valves, dual springs with stock cams. I ran 9000 rpm for over 5 years. Reason was at 8200, the HP curve was still climbing. Reached 325 rwhp at 9200 rpm. Can't recall the torque though.

Regards,

Danny

You set the revlimiter to 9000rpm with just SS valves and dual springs ?

 

[lowellhigh79]

You set the revlimiter to 9000rpm with just SS valves and dual springs ?

9000 rpm was no problem at all for the heads with the lighter, swirled SS valves and dual springs. Probably the rods being pulled apart at the stem at the higher rpms would be of concern. Remember ITRs had 8400 rpm and S2Ks had 9000 rev limits. However, without the extra head work, raising the NSX rpm won't help much since torque and HP are dropping by ~7500.

Regards,

Danny

 

[nsxtcy85]

9000 rpm was no problem at all for the heads with the lighter, swirled SS valves and dual springs. Probably the rods being pulled apart at the stem at the higher rpms would be of concern. Remember ITRs had 8400 rpm and S2Ks had 9000 rev limits. However, without the extra head work, raising the NSX rpm won't help much since torque and HP are dropping by ~7500.

Regards,

Danny

I want to do this, but with cams. I almost think that 345hp NA could be in reach. Im also working on one of the nasties intakes ever for an nsx so be on the look out :tongue:

 

[satx]

Back in 1994, I had my headwork, SS valves, dual springs with stock cams. I ran 9000 rpm for over 5 years. Reason was at 8200, the HP curve was still climbing. Reached 325 rwhp at 9200 rpm. Can't recall the torque though.

Regards,

Danny

surprising, I always figured the intake was the limiting factor. I am also surprised that the stock cams were making power at that RPM.......anyway to dig up an old dyno sheet?

 

[satx]

Im also working on one of the nasties intakes ever for an nsx so be on the look out :tongue:

PICS OR BAN!

 

[lowellhigh79]

surprising, I always figured the intake was the limiting factor. I am also surprised that the stock cams were making power at that RPM.......anyway to dig up an old dyno sheet?

I'll try to find the dyno sheet, but that was over 10 years ago. Work was done to the TB and intake manifold as well. Most of the gains were above 5000 rpm with a vey nice push when the Vtec came on.

Regards,

Danny

 

[Westrock]

You wouldn't happen to have a scanned copy of your Sport Compact Car magazine article would you? The one in your avatar.

I was looking at the Science Of Speed 3.3L all-motor package and the dyno they posted.

I was surpised that with a individual throttle bodies, cams, and some headwork and AEM EMS the engine still lossed torque at 6800 RPM like any plain jane NSX. If you could keep 220 ft-lbs out to 8500 to 9000 you would have some wicked horsepower figures.

 

[lowellhigh79]

You wouldn't happen to have a scanned copy of your Sport Compact Car magazine article would you? The one in your avatar.

I was looking at the Science Of Speed 3.3L all-motor package and the dyno they posted.

I was surpised that with a individual throttle bodies, cams, and some headwork and AEM EMS the engine still lossed torque at 6800 RPM like any plain jane NSX. If you could keep 220 ft-lbs out to 8500 to 9000 you would have some wicked horsepower figures.

Hi David,

I haven't scanned the article yet but I'll send you a file as soon as I do. Here is the dyno from the event though

Regards,

Danny

 

[Bob Kenney]

Hi David,

I haven't scanned the article yet but I'll send you a file as soon as I do. Here is the dyno from the evet though

Regards,

Danny

Danny,

Great numbers! If you don't mind me asking; what is your engine's displacement, compression ratio and boost?

 

[lowellhigh79]

Danny,

Great numbers! If you don't mind me asking; what is your engine's displacement, compression ratio and boost?

Hi Bob,

3.0L, 9.2:1, 15 psi with increase to 17 psi after 7200 rpm.

Regards,

Danny

 

[Bob Kenney]

Hi Bob,

3.0L, 9.2:1, 15 psi with increase to 17 psi after 7200 rpm.

Regards,

Danny

Danny, thanks.
As I said; those are just GREAT NUMBERS out of 3.0 at even at 17 PSI.
I have a whole series of questions now but do not want to "Drift" to far from the original topic, achieving 9K.
How high are you comfortable spinning this engine?

 

[nsxtcy85]

Yea I saw that dyno sheet and got all excited and realised this was FI dammit you! lol j/k but yes back to N/a 9000k rpms..... :biggrin:

 

[nsxtcy85]

PICS OR BAN!

Lol You'll get to see it soon enough trust me it will be posted. I might make them for production as im a low budget college student in a High Po program and could use some extra cash and have all the finest equipment at my fingertips for free!

 

[satx]

I was surpised that with a individual throttle bodies, cams, and some headwork and AEM EMS the engine still lossed torque at 6800 RPM like any plain jane NSX. If you could keep 220 ft-lbs out to 8500 to 9000 you would have some wicked horsepower figures.

this is surprising.....anyone got the answer here, 235 lbs-ft @ 9000 rpm would make ~400 rwhp. It seems like the dyno curve wants to go there then suddenly takes a nose dive.

 

[BATMANs]

Yes, it's an old thread, but I like to get some updates if anyone else has ran 9k RPMs.

I have lighter SS valves, stock valve springs, lighter pistons, and balanced/blue printed.

 

[Mac Attack]

With the dry sump after my engine rebuild I ran 9k RPM redline breaking it in N/A.

Now, I backed it down to 8500 RPM with the twin turbos and a highly modified OEM oil pump and custom cooler/filtration, etc.

Both configurations are 3.0L, ATI damper, OEM valvetrain with new OEM springs/retainers, reshaped combustion chamber, custom Wiseco 10.2:1 CR pistons, modified OEM crank, modified OEM rods, custom rod bearings, DLC coatings internally, and other stuff I'm forgetting.