NSteXpo Dyno day report

Eggman · 16 April 2002

I just wanted to "officially" drop a line to all the people I met at the dyno function. I was the tall white guy with the 300ZX Twin Turbo (and white polo shirt which read "TwinTurbo.net".) Thanks for showing me your rides. Cool community. Next year I will be part of the fold.

PS - I will be posting several pictures on my web site in the next day or so.

Thanks,
Chris

------------------
1994 300ZX TT
Stage VI+ (auto)
338 rwhp - 380 rwt

mdoan300 · 17 April 2002

Originally posted by Eggman:
I just wanted to "officially" drop a line to all the people I met at the dyno function. I was the tall white guy with the 300ZX Twin Turbo (and white polo shirt which read "TwinTurbo.net".) Thanks for showing me your rides. Cool community. Next year I will be part of the fold.

Hey Chris, I thought I saw your Z in one of those pictures. Are you planning on adding to your "car collection" or replacing?

Michael.

------------------
1994 300ZX Twin Turbo

Eggman · 17 April 2002

Originally posted by mdoan300:
Hey Chris, I thought I saw your Z in one of those pictures. Are you planning on adding to your "car collection" or replacing?

Michael.

Hey, Michael. Well, I haven't decided yet, but I am leaning toward selling my Vette. I never drive it; or should I say, maybe 150 miles a year. Plus, I bought a new Lexus RX300 (I haven't posted pics yet), so I really have more than I need. It's been a difficult proposition on which will be the next sports car (my fiance blessed off on it)

, but I think the NSX is my favorite. Especially supercharged!!!

Chris.

------------------
1994 300ZX TT
Stage VI+ (auto)
338 rwhp - 380 rwt

[This message has been edited by Eggman (edited 17 April 2002).]

scottjua · 18 April 2002

I am SO Surprised that no one is talking about the Dyno results for the Superchargers.

I mean there was a whole lot of talk earlier...and I figured this might be one of the few instanceds so far where everyone had a direct comparo on all three at once.

No one has any discussion about them?

NSXY · 18 April 2002

scottjua:

Ok, I'll tech talk. I'm about to send my $5,600 to Mark Johnson (Dali Racing) for a BBSC.

Also, I gather that another item to be added to the BB SC is an aftercooler. What's the difference between an intercooler and an aftercooler, and can the exisitng BBSC be readily used with such?

------------------
NSXY
95 NSX-T, 5 sp, Red/Tan, Tubi exhaust, Dali street anti-sway bars, Dunlop SP9000s

8000RPM · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by erobbins:
The report looks good, though.

The most important data to me are the dyno chart plots. They tell the whole story. As such, I am more interested in seeing the overall usable power improvements across the entire power band.

In other words, I think the total "area under the curve" tells a more compelling story of the kit's real-world capabilities than the overall peak hp reading itself.

scottjua · 18 April 2002

As far as the rumors i have been hearing are that there was going to be an intercooler for the BBSC. Aftercooler? Beats me...what does that imply andhow would something like that work practically? I've honestly never heard of it...

I can't honestly say that I remember what the dyno plots looked like...I was jsut looking at the numbers and the fuel mixtures mostly. But I know someone should have a scan or two floating around now.

One of my friends who drove the BBSC car over the weekend said that it had little to no noticeable increase in performance below 5000 rpm...and then came on like a freight train in the higher revs. I think that was the jist of the description anyway. So maybe that means that in application the BBSC may only make gobs of power high up and that the CTSC may have the edge in everyday and track usefullness by having a more linear and smooth development of power across the range. ?????? Do I make any sense? Or am I a moron?

AJKS · 18 April 2002

Well here is my 2 cents worth.....
I have run the same type of SC set up on Marks car on Mustangs for years. Paxton!!! This thing on Mustangs worked from 3000 RPM and up, It pulls harder and harder as RPM goes up. I can see were one would say it came on strong at 5grand for that is right were my NA 94 NSX starts feeling like a 50 shot of NOS is hit. That is were an NSX comes alive.
As far as long lasting and tracking a MBSC some of you folks can look back into the Mustang and Fast Ford 92-95 issues when they first started use of Paxtons on the Mustangs. They kicked ass.
One Mustang put a Vortech (same type of SC) on a 90 coupe Mustang and got 405 RWHP with minimal other mods & 9 lbs boost. He ran that car on the 90mile race out west and AVG 178 mph plus, top speed was in the 190 mph range. SO if this is what Paxton type SC did for a 225 hp Mustang I am sure the MBSC is the way to go.
Also the intercooler will go between the SC and the throttle body. It is still an Intercooler. It cools intake air. It just does it in a diffrent place than a turbo system.
Lastly pullely's on a Paxton are very specific. If you put a 4 lbs psi pulley on it it will do 4 lbs psi. It may be a hair off but you could not read it on a normal boost gauge in the car.
Paxton has been making SC for 30 years or so. I met the owner of Paxton, J.R. Granatelli (owner back in 93 not sure if he is still owner now) and they new their shit then.
If you thought about a SC for your car the MBSC is the way to go. I still run NOS on my NSX and get high 11's out of it from a 75 RWHP kit but I will soon join the MBSC club.

AJKS
John Sanzo
The soon producer of superior quality Carbon Fiber NSX parts.

NSXGOD · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by NSXY:
scottjua:
Also, I gather that another item to be added to the BB SC is an aftercooler. What's the difference between an intercooler and an aftercooler, and can the exisitng BBSC be readily used with such?

An Aftercooler comes after the SC and before the throttle body. We are making our own as there was no off the shelf part that fit in the space that we had or did what we wanted. It needs to be an air/water cooler due to space and airflow restrictions and efficiency requirements.

The BBSC kit as tested at NSteXpo cannot be used with the aftercooler without swapping out parts. The SC housing is different, and the air filter is different.

Vortech says this about adding in an aftercooler to their systems:

"The most effective means of reducing forced induction air intake temperatures is by using an air to water aftercooler. Air to water aftercoolers are currently being used by OEMs like Ford and Jaguar for supercharging systems. This superior air cooling technology is proven to reduce air intake temperatures by as much as 200ºF with minimal pressure drop. Air to water aftercoolers provide cooler, denser air charges allowing more timing, more boost, reduced chances of engine damage due to detonation and excellent driveability without the surge problems that are associated with air to air intercooler systems. The Maxflow Power Cooler utilizes a closed-loop water circulation system with a front mounted heat exchanger that allows for effective street operation with minimal boost loss. Gains of 25 to 100 additional horsepower are possible depending on the application, engine, and boost level. This system also allows the use of ice water for drag racing providing even greater performance."

We expect similar results.

------------------
need more info? please private me @

[email protected]

Mark Johnson, CEO of Custodial Services @ Dali Racing, a Not For Profit Company.

Sensei · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by 8000RPM:
The most important data to me are the dyno chart plots. They tell the whole story. As such, I am more interested in seeing the overall usable power improvements across the entire power band.

In other words, I think the total "area under the curve" tells a more compelling story of the kit's real-world capabilities than the overall peak hp reading itself.

Yes, good answer! Once you've reached your highest point reading the line can tell you many things. "Spikes" can show boost control problems, sudden drops may be
ignition problems. Gradual drops may be heat problems, a change in the rate of climb may be fuel...speaking of fuel.

Running a 13:1 to 14:1 A/F mixture in boost, isn't what I consider "the best", but I guess that depends, I have'nt seen the others. Of course its a fact that any engine will develop more horsepower by just running leaner. This may explain the higher horsepower figures but I would'nt recommend anyone ruuning that. One must also remember the great difference between using pump 91 and pump 93 octane or even race gas at 100 octane... For the sake of bragging rights on the dyno and to find your maximum, it's okay...I do it, but usually when monitoring with exhaust temp meters and quickly letting off, just as I'm entering the danger zone. Once you've determined this particular limit, one must then either add more fuel, turn down boost, or retard timing to make it safe. This will reduce your power of course, but is done for reliability, and the fact your going back on the streets.Pulling those numbers on a dyno will surely mean leaner A/F under real road condition. There is less load when on the dyno, on the streets the load is greater so the engine works harder. So, intercooler? aftercooler?... Vortec this, Comptech that...c'mon can we please see the graphs?

[This message has been edited by Sensei (edited 18 April 2002).]

scottjua · 18 April 2002

Thanks for all the explaination so far guys. I am learning as I go too, and as I cannot say I personally drove the car I am just relaying the story. In fact I may even have missed something or represented the comments slightly differently than they were intentionally given. However...the dyno plots would show how the power is being developed and since this is a "in development" kit wouldn't there be reason to believe that power is not being made very smoothly?

Maybe it's a silly thing to argue when we have nothing to go by as far as visual evidence goes.

I would figure that IF that is or isn't the case, a smooth delivery of power would be the best way to go, and is it possible for a car like the NSX to have TOO much power? Where is the line where the car is no longer driveable on a daily basis and reliability is compromised? Does it makes sense to assume that once you have all this power from a SC that you NEED to have just about everything else on the car changed in order to harness and make use of it all? Or will the extra HP and stress on the stock internals eventually win?

Sorry for the tangents...

As for the inter/aftercooler, it's interesting to me about how this works and the implications it has. Does this mean that since the unit on the BBSC car here this past weekend could not use the inter/aftercooler that this is not the final design? Or will there be two seperate designs to accomodate your desire to run with or without the inter/aftercooler? Or will there be one design that will be able to use this extra piece and then the only option is to add or delete it depending on budget and preference? OR...will the BBSC just have it as a standard piece?

What are the gain implications?

Can anyone who actually drove all three different SCs comment on the delivery of power and how each felt to drive?

BryanZublin · 18 April 2002

An intercooler and aftercooler are different words for the same device. They are placed in the same location regardless of forced induction type (SC or turbo): between the SC or turbo and throttle body. The word intercooler seems to be more common, but aftercooler is a more accurate description.

One design challenge when using the Paxton SC is choosing the RPM range of operation. The Mustang application quoted earlier can make boost at 3000 RPM, but also has a limited redline (6000 RPM?) compared to the NSX. For the NSX, if the SC pulley was sized to make boost starting at 3000 RPM, it would be spinning so fast at 8000 RPM that it would be making too much boost, be inefficient, and probably exceed the maximum RPM of the SC turbine. Turbos do not have this problem because of the wastegate which limits the turbine speed (thus limiting boost). A solution for the SC would be to insert a continuously variable transmission between the SC and engine.

Bryan Zublin

------------------
Zublin Engineering
http://www.zublin.com

NetViper · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by scottjua:
is it possible for a car like the NSX to have TOO much power? Where is the line where the car is no longer driveable on a daily basis and reliability is compromised?

Too much power for a car? Yes, I think it was called the Viper Venom 830

As far as for an NSX. David is making the most power of the bunch, so maybe he can chime in.

------------------
NetViper -= 100% Stock EBP 2000 Civic Si =- Still looking to get an NSX, but at least I can live life at 8,000 RPM!

[This message has been edited by NetViper (edited 18 April 2002).]

Lud · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by scottjua:
I am SO Surprised that no one is talking about the Dyno results for the Superchargers.

Peak HP numbers mean very little to me. I will be interested to see the graphs. It's all about the shape of and area under the curve. It sounds like there are A/F readings too which would also be interesting.

true · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by 4g62bt2c30a:
In the process I found a few more issues with the factory fuel system in the NSX. We belive the mysterious peak and valley look @ apx 5k is a lean condition formed in commbination by the intake manifold and poor factory ecu tunning.

I think you mean you found a bug in YOUR previous tuning with those modifications. You did not find any issues with the factory fuel system.

------------------
jack of all trades, master of some.

4g62bt2c30a · 18 April 2002

Originally posted by true:
I think you mean you found a bug in YOUR previous tuning with those modifications. You did not find any issues with the factory fuel system.

Umm.... not true "true"... There have been many posts in reguards to this. Do a search and you will see

mdoan300 · 19 April 2002

Originally posted by Eggman:

Hey, Michael. Well, I haven't decided yet, but I am leaning toward selling my Vette. I never drive it; or should I say, maybe 150 miles a year. Plus, I bought a new Lexus RX300 (I haven't posted pics yet), so I really have more than I need. It's been a difficult proposition on which will be the next sports car (my fiance blessed off on it)

, but I think the NSX is my favorite. Especially supercharged!!!

Heh, I hear you loud and clear. I've been thinking about unloading the Z for an NSX, a Porsche (Boxster, 964, or 993), or an M3 (e36 or e46) for about a year now.

BTW, we missed you at the Carson's meet last Friday. There was a really nice deep yellow Lotus Esprit there. I might have to throw that one on my wishlist as well.

Michael.

Eggman · 19 April 2002

Originally posted by mdoan300:
Heh, I hear you loud and clear. I've been thinking about unloading the Z for an NSX, a Porsche (Boxster, 964, or 993), or an M3 (e36 or e46) for about a year now.

BTW, we missed you at the Carson's meet last Friday. There was a really nice deep yellow Lotus Esprit there. I might have to throw that one on my wishlist as well.

Michael.

Michael - It's always a tough choice for the car enthusiast. The Boxter is a neat car, but they are a bit too common for my tastes (S version excluded, but too expensive for what you get relative to other rides). 993 - nice, if *slightly* lagging in modern power levels. Ms are also a good choice for balance; I, too, went through the M dilemma. I ultimately nixed that idea because the power levels of the E36 IMHO are unimpressive. Even Super/Turbo- charged doesn't quicken the pulse rate. The new model is a vast improvement in the power department - but you pay for it now.

While the NSX also has power levels below what a car of this caliber should be having, you just can't escape it's beauty and refinement. Reliability too. With the M - well, you've got the balance and history. Although it's cool and all, it falls a little short in the looks deparmtment; a bit "average" and too close the the other 3 series. How do you feel?

I wanted to be @ the Carson's meet, but just couldn't make it. I will try and swing by tomorrow night @ the Starbucks meet, if it isn't rained out though. I will try to also make the Founder's Day deal too.

Chris.

------------------
1994 300ZX TT
Stage VI+ (auto)
338 rwhp - 380 rwt

scottjua · 19 April 2002

just to get back on topic

...

anyone have dyno plots yet?

Russ · 19 April 2002

Originally posted by Eggman:
Boxter is a neat car, but they are a bit too common for my

Sorry, I just can't get past the fact that you can't pop the hood on a Boxter to admire the engine. There is no hood. What kind of sports car is that?

------------------
Russ
'91 black/black

NetViper · 19 April 2002

Originally posted by Russ:
Sorry, I just can't get past the fact that you can't pop the hood on a Boxter to admire the engine. There is no hood. What kind of sports car is that?

I drove a boxster and it was slow and squeaky .. no thanks. But I tell you what, it has a lot of storage space! I was surprised.

------------------
NetViper -= 100% Stock EBP 2000 Civic Si =- Still looking to get an NSX, but at least I can live life at 8,000 RPM!

Web · 20 April 2002

How do you "tune" and "eliminate the lean condition" on a computer controlled car? Are you reprogramming or changing chips or .......?

cojones · 20 April 2002

Originally posted by AndyVecsey:
The report looks good, though. I'm debating on whether to include ALL the data.

I'd suggest limiting it to relevant variables that affect dyno results -- displacement, I/H/E, boost level (N/A is 0), ECU mod, other mods (enlarged throttle bodies, extrude-honed plumbing, NOS, etc). Weight, tires, gearing, clutches have less to do with this, although their real-world impact (road acceleration, etc) is another story.

cojones · 20 April 2002

Originally posted by scottjua:
I am SO Surprised that no one is talking about the Dyno results for the Superchargers.

Like many others the plots tell a more useful story. Peak #s serve two purposes:
- to sell aftermarket parts
- fodder for bench racing

More important are the actual plots -- the slope of the curves, and the areas under the power/rpm and torque/rpm lines.

Assuming the stock NA curve is good (IMO its okay from about 3500 RPM up), then the ideal pop would look like a discrete curve shift (increase up by 80-100 rwhp consistently through a usable rpm range)... only way to really do this is via displacement (bore AND stroke retaining the proportions, up to about a 3.8L motor), but this is geometrically impossible with the C30/C32, as bore diameters are constrained.

The turbo guys who want the high-end pop will say different, etc... NOS only kicks in at higher revs... different SCs shift the curve by different magnitudes at different rev ranges.

If rwhp/rwt data is available at, say, 500 rpm increments, it should be a simple matter to plot these and approximate a curve, no ??

cojones · 20 April 2002

Originally posted by scottjua:
is it possible for a car like the NSX to have TOO much power?

There ARE upper limits, or at least constraints:
- first upper limit is IMO the stock engine (block, bottom end, clutch) -- first point of failure seems to be in the 425-450 hp range (David and other hi-boosters can give you better #s)
- second is probably more "useful" power (actually torque). The torque/weight ratio on a stock Viper is probably the upper limit for a novice driver. Any more IMO
and you need to get more patient with the throttle, unless you like taking all corners sideways (which can be fun)

- an upper limit (even for drag racing) is getting the power to the ground... the big-bore high-boost Vipers that deliver NASCAR-level power will liquify most street tires.
- factoring all this in, $$ is certainly a limiting factor... NSXs currently have an expensive ratio (approx $5K per +100 hp with BBSC, double that for CTSC/GMSC)

NSteXpo Dyno day report

Similar threads