BaschBoost update, from MB

Originally posted by 4g62bt2c30a:
I have just noticed in the deletion on the posts how one sided this topic has become
Click to expand...

I have deleted a number of posts from this thread and will continue to delete any further "outbursts" posted from accounts with anonymous e-mail addresses. I expect that such people would eventually notice it takes me about 2 seconds to delete a message which I'm pretty sure is a lot less than tI takes them to write one, and once deleted it's like they were never even here, so it sure seems like a waste of effort on their part.

If that turns it into a one-sided thread, then the "other side" has only themselves to blame because any SERIOUS and LEGITIMATE discussions, without insults and insinuations, posted by people willing to register with their real e-mail addresses, are welcome.

For example I would never consider deleting your post a few messages back about your concerns on fuel injector rate and duty cycle vs. HP produced. Discussion like that is good, relevant and educational for all. Certainly fuel management is a critical issue in a new forced induction setup on a high-compression engine. It deserves lots of discussion and hopefully everyone's questions will eventually be answered.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 28 November 2001).]
 
Originally posted by Lud:
I have deleted a number of posts from this thread and will continue to delete any further "outbursts" posted from accounts with anonymous e-mail addresses. I expect that such people would eventually notice it takes me about 2 seconds to delete a message which I'm pretty sure is a lot less than tI takes them to write one, and once deleted it's like they were never even here, so it sure seems like a waste of effort on their part.

If that turns it into a one-sided thread, then the "other side" has only themselves to blame because any SERIOUS and LEGITIMATE discussions, without insults and insinuations, posted by people willing to register with their real e-mail addresses, are welcome.

For example I would never consider deleting your post a few messages back about your concerns on fuel injector rate and duty cycle vs. HP produced. Discussion like that is good, relevant and educational for all. Certainly fuel management is a critical issue in a new forced induction setup on a high-compression engine. It deserves lots of discussion and hopefully everyone's questions will eventually be answered.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 28 November 2001).]
Click to expand...


I agree......
 
Thank you Lud. It would be nice if people would start being held responsible for their comments on open forums. God knows I try to be tactful, even with trolls.

From now on, I plan to publicly embarass anyone who plays the anonymous game and causes trouble here.

My knowledge of cars is above average at best. My knowledge of security is not. You are not anonymous. I will have all your personal information in a matter of minutes. Anyone who follows suit, expect to have it posted.

It's in his favor that the posts were deleted and he was blocked from posting further. I was minutes away from posting some extremely embarassing personal info about this person.

I admit it's a juvenile way to respond, but the only way (aside from ignoring them) in an anonymous forum. If it'll help keep this place clean, I'm game for nailing every one that tries.
 
ilya,

I think the point is that although the stock injectors may not be used at max capacity on a stock engine (and should not be) the fact is that a given injector does have a limit above which no magic or trickery can take it. You can add pressure and increase duty cycle, and both have practical and absolute limits. It look like the stock ones will just about get there at 90+ PSI and a very high duty cycle, but even then it's close considering the calculations are based on HP a the crank.

If I had the Basch system in it's present state I would not rely on my stock fuel pump especially if it has many miles on it. (Note, just because you can supply 100+ psi with more voltage doesn't mean it can sustain anywhere near that under full throttle) The one in my 93 was totally incapable of such demands, pressure or volume, even with the resistor out. I considered a voltage up-converter but found a new killer pump was 1/2 the price and I didn't need to worry about an already weak pump being worked to death, eventually taking my engine with it.

So, I don’t doubt any of Mark’s claims, but I would ask to alter the package to include a better pump, and I'd consider slightly larger injectors. I think it would reduce complexity and risk, but if the rising pump voltage with boost is an integral part of the overall fuel mapping that might not be a simple change.
 
I agree. I would have no problem paying the extra cash for larger injectors and/or pump.
If anything, even more power could be had.
For those that can already barely afford the $5600 tag, price was a concern. Apparently Mark has figured out a way to do it with stock injectors and pump. Maybe not. I guess we'll know after some more testing.
You're getting closer to 7K once you factor in the larger injectors and pump (right?).
I don't know if Mark would disagree about having a better pump and injectors. Maybe he has just found a way to avoid that extra cost?
 
ilya et al

I would like to think that we can always give people the benefit of the doubt here. More than one person has gotten off on the wrong foot with this group, re-evaluated how they were coming across in their messages and adjusted their posting style to fit in better with our group. Many other message forums are very confrontational and such exchanges don't raise an eyebrow there. I have re-instated his posting priviliges after an e-mail discussion and I hope the public discussion can continue in a more agreeable manner. Even if we do not all agree there is no reason to be disagreeable!
 
You got it! I'll refrain.....
unless you ask.
biggrin.gif
 
Originally posted by ilya:
Thank you Lud. It would be nice if people would start being held responsible for their comments on open forums. God knows I try to be tactful, even with trolls.

From now on, I plan to publicly embarass anyone who plays the anonymous game and causes trouble here.

My knowledge of cars is above average at best. My knowledge of security is not. You are not anonymous. I will have all your personal information in a matter of minutes. Anyone who follows suit, expect to have it posted.

It's in his favor that the posts were deleted and he was blocked from posting further. I was minutes away from posting some extremely embarassing personal info about this person.

I admit it's a juvenile way to respond, but the only way (aside from ignoring them) in an anonymous forum. If it'll help keep this place clean, I'm game for nailing every one that tries.
Click to expand...


Heh heh...... I want you to try it on me. Please Ilya Please.... I want to try the circus trick....

PLEASE, You know that kind of behavor is what got hitler in trouble!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by ilya:
I agree. I would have no problem paying the extra cash for larger injectors and/or pump.
If anything, even more power could be had.
For those that can already barely afford the $5600 tag, price was a concern. Apparently Mark has figured out a way to do it with stock injectors and pump. Maybe not. I guess we'll know after some more testing.
You're getting closer to 7K once you factor in the larger injectors and pump (right?).
I don't know if Mark would disagree about having a better pump and injectors. Maybe he has just found a way to avoid that extra cost?
Click to expand...

Perhaps he gets a great deal on the up-converter, but a super new pump is less than 1/2 the best price I could find on one so that saves about $125. (Of course, I did my own install.) As for the injectors, sure that adds up. The savings on the converter should pay for one so you're looking at another $500 or so. Not chicken feed, but now you don't overwork already well used lower capacity parts, and you don’t need the extra complexity of programming more voltage to get more pressure to get more flow potential, and you still have the rising rate regulator also driven by boost pressure. Each layer greatly compounds the difficulty in predicting the final result under all conditions, and increases the number of variables that can change to throw things off from optimal, long after you finish tuning it.

Again, I’m not criticizing the system, just wondering “out loud” whether it could be better. Everyone is super sensitive to reliability (for good reason) and although as-installed the system may be fine, the margin for error in fuel mixture is small. Things like a marginal and slowly deteriorating pump, or an old small injector that can’t cut it under sever conditions or sticks because of high pressure don’t necessarily show up while you’re on the dyno. I’d rather add 10% to have new parts and less complexity in such a critical area.



[This message has been edited by sjs (edited 28 November 2001).]
 
excellent lud, as far as posting I will be a little more clear and try to refrain from implying instead of asking. Now with that settled I have this to say. Using math and some commen sense you can see clearly that there will not be enough fuel period to produce that amount of horsepower with the given 240cc injectors and stock fuel pump. I don't care if there is any sort of trickery to a ecu or anything. It doesn't change the fact that the injectors are still 240cc and that they are operating over 100% duty cycle past 92 psi and at 92 psi it still doesn't support the desired 380 whp. If you do the math for that at 100% duty cycle and 92 psi those injectors can only support 345 hp and that's at 100% duty cycle, you're supposed to keep around a 80% duty cycle. Now then in order to get the desired 380 whp you would need to have over 110 PSI which I would have to say if your running over 80 psi to begin with your injectors are most likely going to go static and stay open at WOT and that's not good. This is where I am coming from, you need fuel to make power and when you say you're making around 380 whp with only 6 240cc injectors then that's not correct. If you were to say that you were using 6 290cc injectors or 6 310cc injectors than I would have to say that it's mathmatically possible and logical that you could produce that amount of power. I however feel that their claim of running 380 WHP on stock 240cc injectors cannot be done period. It's not logical nor can you do it on paper. That's my .02


--------
Have you seen the tailights on the new mustangs? I haven't.
 
Originally posted by primetime_vtec:
... I however feel that their claim of running 380 WHP on stock 240cc injectors cannot be done period. It's not logical nor can you do it on paper. That's my .02
Click to expand...


You may be putting a bit too much faith in at least a couple of things. The calculations are based on certain assumptions including engine efficiency in creating power from a given amount of fuel. The NSX may be better than the old designs that were used to establish those assumptions for such calculations many years ago. Actually, you can bet on it, but those calculators will outlive us all. Plus, the rated delivery capacity of the stock injectors is not necessarily their true limit.

All of which brings me back to my prior posts. I want plenty of "headroom".
 
The dyno chart on the SOS website http://www.scienceofspeed.com is on a 3.0 l car. However, the table on one page says it's dyno info from a bone stock "1991" NSX, http://www.scienceofspeed.com/products/engine_performance_products/superchargers/B aschBoost/
but on the same page the GIF file containing the dyno graphs says it's "1992" NSX that's apparently all stock http://www.scienceofspeed.com/products/engine_perform ance_products/superchargers/BaschBoost/baschboost_rwh_1992_stock.gif

The discrepancy in model year may be just a typo.

Chris RSVP?

PS. The SOS website advertises the following:

"The BaschBoost Supercharger includes:
Paxton Novi-1000 supercharger
SmartMap & Paxton Fuel Management System
CNC T-6 6061 aluminum machined brackets and bases
induction track and filter
aluminum coolant reservoir bottle"

(No mention of new or bigger injectors)

------------------
NSXY
95 NSX-T, 5 sp, Red/Tan, Stock, except Dunlaptya SP9000s

[This message has been edited by NSXY (edited 28 November 2001).]

[This message has been edited by NSXY (edited 28 November 2001).]
 
I'm too lazy to find it, but I'm pretty sure that either Mark, Mark or Chris specifically indicated that it uses stock injectors. Mark B. I think.

If the 3.0 is putting out 390 at the wheels, then it must be something like 440 plus SC losses at the crank. What do you suppose the SC uses at max output? Even if it's only 10hp (sounds low) that puts you at around 450, which is definitely pushing what seems to be accepted as the safe limit for a stock block. My point is, any talk of changing pulleys for more boost would seem to be asking for a stressed and warped block, if it isn't a risk already.

Any thoughts or comments?
 
Here's Mark Basch's Fuel management answer that no one seemed to pay attention to.

And the fuel system- oh yeah, did someone have a real question? My fuel system contains a minimum of four
new parts-
1)a new, adjustable fuel pressure regulator, which allows for adjustability in both boosted and non boosted
modes. It allows for almost double the fuel pressure and quantity, not by formulae- but by testing.
2)A rising rate fmu which adds 8 psi fuel per psi boost, for a total at 5psi boost of 96 psi fuel pressure.
3)A voltage inverter triggered by a hobbs switch that changes fuel pump voltage from 13.7 to 20v, which
allows up to 35 percent more fuel IF NEEDED, by testing, not formulae. BTW, the dc motor that drives the
pump is rated 12 to 24v, so no- it will not fail prematurely because of higher voltage.
CT does the same thing.
4)A black box of my own desighn which manipulates the map signal during boost to control injector operation,
and the rest of that story is proprietary, IOW, its between me and BZ, who builds them for me.
 
4g62bt2c30a,
Not really a circus trick. Since you don't have an email registered, it would be too much work from my end. As an admin of the site, I could monitor the connections, and when you posted, trace their IP. Then I have all the info I need.
As it stands, I wouldn't be able to do that without violating the security of Prime which I would never do. sorry

Comparing tracing an IP to hitler is a bit of a stretch though.
biggrin.gif
 
Originally posted by Edo:
Here's Mark Basch's Fuel management answer that no one seemed to pay attention to...
Click to expand...

I beg your pardon! That's pretty much the way I said on all major components and issues related to fuel delivery capacity. It does not change the theoretical requirements for stated HP or limits of the injectors, but the fact that he has developed from actual measurements does support my point about those theoretical calculations.
 
Ehhemm!Excuse me, but while getting away from all the technical jargon for 1 second .Is it not fairly clear with many units already installed,track testing,shop testing and Marks reputation and experience that he actually might know what he's doing?I feel it is highly unlikly Marks plan was to make a lot of quickl, close up shop and explode the motors of all his customers motors,"along with his own"!With all the time you've spent arguing and doing research trying to prove how these units wont work.You could have gone got a job, made some money and purchased one,meanwhile there are more and more tailights you stare at and stomp your feet screaming "the earth is flat" and "it will never fly".Funny how common sense excapes you when "all" you base the facts on is history,"Not todays reality"
HAPPY HOLIDAY'S
MYNSX

------------------
 
The importance of this discussion on supercharging resides with its questioning of theory and educational content. I believe that questions on technical considerations are very important. I and many other members of this board have learned much or most of what I know about the NSX here, in the NSX Prime General Discussion Forum. The challenging of ideas and authority and asking of questions is what this country's people are all about. However, let's continue this educational process without getting personal or obnoxious. As Mark Basch and his beta-testing associates continue to perfect their product, they'll read our concerns here, and we'll read their responses and results here. I predict the net result will be that the finally released Basch Boost SC product( and its owners) will be all the better for it.

------------------
NSXY
95 NSX-T, 5 sp, Red/Tan, Stock, except Dunlaptya SP9000s
 
Wow this has turned into a really interesting thread!

I have two things on my mind. First some questions....

1. Are 4g62bt2c30a and primetime_vtec actual NSX owners? How is your knowledge of the NSX obtained? If you are an owner so prove it by posting your vin or it to Lud to validate.

2. Are either of you performance tuners? If so what are your creditials? Who's NSX have you tuned? References would be nice.

3. Are either of you trained and practicing engine designers? Many of us know several people at manufacturers and on racing teams.

4. Are either of you an engineer? If so can you please give me the university you attended and specifically what classes you took on engine design to really prove that you understand the theory. BTW what textbook was used in the class?

Secondly I agree with sjs unless you understand how the formulas were developed then it's not clear they are 100% acurate because the assumptions to develop them may not properly apply to the efficiency of the NSX engine in creating power from a given volume of fuel. BTW the calculations for fuel systems for internal combustion engines involve fluid mechanics and thermodynamics theory is incredibly complicated. Theory gets validated through actual testing. In engineering there's often times "factors" that are used to calculate results. These "factors" are determined through actual testing. Unless you know how the "factors" were obtained and the conditions the "factors" apply you're calculated results can always be suspect.

If the findings through testing are different than the results obtained through formulas either the formulas and assumptions are wrong or the testing method is flawed. Given Mark is posting actual results from a respected dyno I'd have to say either the formulas are wrong or the assumptions being used in the formula are wrong. One possibility is that the assumptions about the injectors are based on published marketing specs versus specs obtained through actual testing based on his custom mods. In any event I wish the market would come back so I could have one of his systems on my NSX.

BTW the answers to questions for me are:
1. yes
2. and 3. No
4. Yes, 1981 BSME Cal Poly, ME412 http://www.csupomona.edu/~academic/catalog/CoEng.pdf, page 51 of 52, Prof. George F. Engelke, not to give away the book but it was written by a Prof. at MIT.

Also my old university was and is seriously into SAE check out: http://www.csupomona.edu/~fsae/ http://www.csupomona.edu/~minibaja/

Any donations would be greatly appreciated.
wink.gif


[This message has been edited by hejo (edited 29 November 2001).]

[This message has been edited by hejo (edited 29 November 2001).]
 
Originally posted by hejo:
Wow this has turned into a really interesting thread!

I have two things on my mind. First some questions....

1. Are 4g62bt2c30a and primetime_vtec actual NSX owners? How is your knowledge of the NSX obtained? If you are an owner so prove it by posting your vin or it to Lud to validate.

2. Are either of you performance tuners? If so what are your creditials? Who's NSX have you tuned? References would be nice.

3. Are either of you trained and practicing engine designers? Many of us know several people at manufacturers and on racing teams.

4. Are either of you an engineer? If so can you please give me the university you attended and specifically what classes you took on engine design to really prove that you understand the theory. BTW what textbook was used in the class?

Secondly I agree with sjs unless you understand how the formulas were developed then it's not clear they are 100% acurate because the assumptions to develop them may not properly apply to the efficiency of the NSX engine in creating power from a given volume of fuel. BTW the calculations for fuel systems for internal combustion engines involve fluid mechanics and thermodynamics theory is incredibly complicated. Theory gets validated through actual testing. In engineering there's often times "factors" that are used to calculate results. These "factors" are determined through actual testing. Unless you know how the "factors" were obtained and the conditions the "factors" apply you're calculated results can always be suspect.

If the findings through testing are different than the results obtained through formulas either the formulas and assumptions are wrong or the testing method is flawed. Given Mark is posting actual results from a respected dyno I'd have to say either the formulas are wrong or the assumptions being used in the formula are wrong. One possibility is that the assumptions about the injectors are based on published marketing specs versus specs obtained through actual testing based on his custom mods. In any event I wish the market would come back so I could have one of his systems on my NSX.

BTW the answers to questions for me are:
1. yes
2. and 3. No
4. Yes, 1981 BSME Cal Poly, ME412 http://www.csupomona.edu/~academic/catalog/CoEng.pdf, page 51 of 52, Prof. George F. Engelke, not to give away the book but it was written by a Prof. at MIT.

Also my old university was and is seriously into SAE check out: http://www.csupomona.edu/~fsae/ http://www.csupomona.edu/~minibaja/

Any donations would be greatly appreciated.
wink.gif


[This message has been edited by hejo (edited 29 November 2001).]

[This message has been edited by hejo (edited 29 November 2001).]
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm


1.
That was a great post.......
2.
I am an owner. (The Nsx is the least built and powerful car that I have owned and tuned) http://www.dvsracingcrew.com/images/blacknsx/index.htm
3.
Prove My Math Wrong. http://www.rceng.com/technical.htm

I have extensive experience with performance...If you question my information prove me wrong. What have you tuned lately?What have you done in the performance world? Ever build a 10 second honda? didn't think so.



[This message has been edited by 4g62bt2c30a (edited 29 November 2001).]
 
Originally posted by MYNSX:
Is it not fairly clear with many units already installed,track testing,shop testing and Marks reputation and experience that he actually might know what he's doing?I feel it is highly unlikly Marks plan was to make a lot of quickl, close up shop and explode the motors of all his customers motors,"along with his own"!
Click to expand...

I agree with that part of your post, but then we part. I don't doubt Mark's claims but I think the exchange of ideas here are valuable even if they are not entirely correct. Some people would benefit from a less antagonistic approach, but there is nothing wrong with questioning anything that appears to contradict generally accepted principals and theory.

I for one am perfectly willing to believe the dyno results but am still most curious to get responses to my various points. Why else am I here?
 

Similar threads

A
Track tires
Replies
3
Views
281
fastfwd
fastfwd
v-tecpwr
November 2024 Monthly Meet
Replies
0
Views
238
v-tecpwr
v-tecpwr
TANTO
R - MIRROR QUESTION
Replies
10
Views
302
TANTO
TANTO
TANTO
6 SPD W/4.23 PLEASE
Replies
3
Views
386
Honcho
Honcho
1
Third NSX 30 years after my first!
Replies
6
Views
228
18000rpm
1
Back
Top