Got my CTech SC/AEM dyno'd!!!

[Racerxjling]

I finally got my NSX/CTech SC tuned. The guys at Autowave in Huntington Beach, CA did an incredible job; very much attention to detail. The AFR was very linear in the low 12's and high 11's.

FYI

92 NSX 5 spd 36xxx miles stock internals
CTech SC ("9 lb")/headers/exhaust/CF intake/550cc RC inj./AEM ecu/AEM MAP sensor/Walbro HP fuel pump/AEM FPR

377 rwhp
268 ft/lb torque

Car pulls very smooth and strong...no hiccups. Idles beautifully.

Let me know what you guys think.

Jeff

 

[Racerxjling]

AFR plot

 

[WOODY]

9 lbs with no intercooler you may want to be a little more rich/conservative from 6-7000 rpm. may i ask your fuel pressure numbers for the walbro hp? mine put out ~90 psi and i had to add an aem fuel pressure regulator to decrease it enough to lean it out.

 

[NetViper]

I didn't think you can put an intercooler on the CTSC setup?

I don't know squat about a/f rations, but your power is impressive.

 

[donwon]

Nice numbers. What exactly does the 9psi kit consits of other than a pulley?

 

[Racerxjling]

As you probably know the kit is advertised as a 9 lb kit but truly puts out about 6.5 to 7.5. Autowave's dyno measured mine at 6.5. That being said, don't know if I should have them still richen it. I also edited my mods list to include an AEM FPR. I don't know the psi of the fuel system...but I recall Shane at Autowave saying 40 psi.
I don't think an intercooler is necessary at 6.5 psi but ICBW.
The 9lb kit consists of 330 or 360 injectors/fuel mod unit/pulley. However, I scrapped the system with the standalone AEM ECU w/ the mods listed above.

Jeff

 

[WOODY]

if the true boost is only 6-7 lbs, IAT should be low enough to allow relatively more aggressive tuning without an aftercooler. sounds like the walbro 255 hp is way overkill even for 550 injectors(my car is at 10.5 lbs and couldnt tune afr's over 10.2 without AEM FPR)

 

[ctnsupra1]

Impressive results. Talk about a linear HP curve. Okay, now I'm jealous and trying to not pick up the credit card

Conor

 

[sjs]

if the true boost is only 6-7 lbs, IAT should be low enough to allow relatively more aggressive tuning without an aftercooler. sounds like the walbro 255 hp is way overkill even for 550 injectors(my car is at 10.5 lbs and couldnt tune afr's over 10.2 without AEM FPR)

I would not say that the Walbro is overkill at all. Having some headroom is always good, especially as it ages. If you had problems with your car running to rich then the return orifice on the stock FPR was probably overwhelmed. The AEM FPR comes with several replaceable orifices so you can pick one of the appropriate size. A always recommend it with the HP version of the Walbro.

 

[Racerxjling]

I believe Autowave left the stock orifice in the AEM FPR. AEM agreeed to start with the stock and change it accordingly. I can double check w/ Shane at Autowave (chime in Shane if you are reading this).


Thanks for the comliments.

Jeff

 

[drew]

I'm getting a used CTSC. Can you give a run down on the install, tuning and generals on the cost? Did you install the CTSC, but have the newport guys tune it? Did they add the ECM or was this your idea?

 

[Racerxjling]

Drew-

I bought the car w/ the CTSC installed. Autowave does AWESOME work. Shane is very fair and honest. I would just get a quote from him. He had to modify the blower and R&R it in order for the vacuum to work with the AEM.

Are you getting the standard or "hi boost/9 lb" kit? This will determine if you should upgrade your injectors/fuel pump/fuel pressure regulator etc. The AEM ECU is about $1500. You will have to contact Shane at Autowave for the tuning costs. His # is 714 841 2433.

Good luck.

Jeff







I'm getting a used CTSC. Can you give a run down on the install, tuning and generals on the cost? Did you install the CTSC, but have the newport guys tune it? Did they add the ECM or was this your idea?

 

[D'Ecosse]

Great job of tuning, very nice charts, A/F looks fine, very flat - nice!
Most impressive stat is that it is making "stock" hp at ~ 5000rpm!

 

[Ryanmcd2]

That power rocks! If you were on a Dynapack it would be about 440.

 

[sjs]

That power rocks! If you were on a Dynapack it would be about 440.

Why do you think Dynapacks would read that much higher? Do you know of a comparison between them and the one used for these charts? (and which Dynapack?)

 

[STLNSX]

Steve-
i can tell you this, when i had my car there after i bought it, on the same dyno completely stock it rated at 220hp, or maybe even less "IF" i remember correctly.

this may be apples to oranges.. NA to SC, different day, and even year but it seems to me on mine at least that it rated a bit lower than most dynos do

Randy

 

[nsxlr8]

HP Rating

Was this on a Dyno Jet? Also what gear did they dyno in? IS this at the wheels, or did they adjust for Transmission Parasitic loss?

Thanks.

 

[Racerxjling]

The Dyno graphs are AT THE WHEELS and on a Dyno Dynamic Dynamometer. I don't know what gear the pulls were done in...I meant to ask. ..believe it was 2nd. I will find out.

Jeff

 

[Ryanmcd2]

Dynapacks suck compaired to the DynoDynamics, of course the dynodynamics are 2x as much money too but they are a better dyno. Here check this out


http://www.vishnutuning.com/How_Big_Is_Your_Horsepower.xls

Why do you think Dynapacks would read that much higher? Do you know of a comparison between them and the one used for these charts? (and which Dynapack?)

 

[KGP]

Dynapacks suck compaired to the DynoDynamics...Here check this out

http://www.vishnutuning.com/How_Big_Is_Your_Horsepower.xls

Okay, I checked it out. I see an Excel spreadsheet made by some guy who works for a tuning shop in San Fransisco, where they happen to own an AWD Duo Dynamics dyno. Where did he get his forumlas I wonder? What is the driveline loss multiplier column pertain to? Is it a loss factor for the dyno's? I assume so, but I don't know.

Next, I'm really not sure I'm reading things the same way your are. Maybe you can help me here. If I plug-in 500 as the desired flywheel hp, i get results returned showing the Dyno Dynamics requires 357whp to produce that number, where the results for the Dynapaks show 420whp to produce the 500 flywheel hp number. So, if I'm reading this right (and I very well might not be), the Dynapaks will indeed return a much lower Wheel HP number on any given car versus the Dyno Dynamics equipment. I might have this backwards. I really don't know. Maybe it comes down to how you interperate the words Approx. Required Wheel HP in the spreadsheet.

I also notice that all the systems in comparison are AWD dynos, and the spreadsheet also does not spell out any correction factors which might be in play.

 

[KGP]

That power rocks! If you were on a Dynapack it would be about 440.

Also, not to burst anyone's bubble here, but if the way I am reading that spreadsheet is right, then the numbers that Racerxjling showed us would have to be corrected downward to what would be power output levels we are more familiar with for the CTSC ([Edit]: I forgot Jeff has a 9lb CTSC, so now I'm reeally confused!). Again, I might be way off base. Just thought I'd toss it out for discussion.

[Edit]: I also can't see where the cost of a Dyno might have anything to do with how the results are interpreted. Repeatable within tighter tollerances, yes. Quality of build, yes. But the resulting output levels are simply based on their (each given manufacture) formulas, right?

 

[Ryanmcd2]

You are right, also the DD costs about 165k and the dynopack costs about 80k and the DD you don't have to pull the wheels off. I know I can take a evo put it on a DD and it will put down about 440whp, take this same car and put it on a Dynapack it will put down about 520whp down on the Dynapack. I like the DD a LOT better then the other dyno's and I think it's about 17% lower but the number is much CLOSER to being correct. A stock evo will put down 240whp on a Dynapack and will put down 180-190 on a DD. Some people like the big #'s to stroke there ego but I will take a 440-450whp on a DD that can run a high 10 @ over 130mph then something that "says" it has 440-450 and runs a high 11.

Okay, I checked it out. I see an Excel spreadsheet made by some guy who works for a tuning shop in San Fransisco, where they happen to own an AWD Duo Dynamics dyno. Where did he get his forumlas I wonder? What is the driveline loss multiplier column pertain to? Is it a loss factor for the dyno's? I assume so, but I don't know.

Next, I'm really not sure I'm reading things the same way your are. Maybe you can help me here. If I plug-in 500 as the desired flywheel hp, i get results returned showing the Dyno Dynamics requires 357whp to produce that number, where the results for the Dynapaks show 420whp to produce the 500 flywheel hp number. So, if I'm reading this right (and I very well might not be), the Dynapaks will indeed return a much lower Wheel HP number on any given car versus the Dyno Dynamics equipment. I might have this backwards. I really don't know. Maybe it comes down to how you interperate the words Approx. Required Wheel HP in the spreadsheet.

I also notice that all the systems in comparison are AWD dynos, and the spreadsheet also does not spell out any correction factors which might be in play.

 

[Ryanmcd2]

If you take that SAME car and run it on a Dynopack it will put down over 420whp UNLESS the dyno operator put in a correction factor, if he ran it at 0 he will put down 420+ whp on a Dynopack.

Also, not to burst anyone's bubble here, but if the way I am reading that spreadsheet is right, then the numbers that Racerxjling showed us would have to be corrected downward to what would be power output levels we are more familiar with for the CTSC ([Edit]: I forgot Jeff has a 9lb CTSC, so now I'm reeally confused!). Again, I might be way off base. Just thought I'd toss it out for discussion.

[Edit]: I also can't see where the cost of a Dyno might have anything to do with how the results are interpreted. Repeatable within tighter tollerances, yes. Quality of build, yes. But the resulting output levels are simply based on their (each given manufacture) formulas, right?

 

[KGP]

If you take that SAME car and run it on a Dynopack it will put down over 420whp

But the spreadsheet says the opposite as I read it. I have to believe you know what your talking about, but it would be nice to have a few third party sources confirm it instead of just drinking the kool-aid. Or, show us some graphs from the same car on the two different dyno's.

In reality, Dyno graphs mean little to me. They are a tool, and also something we can talk about here amongst fellow enthusiests. What I do care about is real-world acceleration numbers, and not the 1/4 mile variety. Something else that is of interest is the efficiency of systems. I have a feeling there will be a real-world FI NSX shoot-out and comparison later this summer in St. Louis. We have two CTSC's, a BadCarma NOS setup, a GJTC, an FXTC and a Bell TT. All we need is for DaveD to buy my BBSC and we will have about everything to compare.

 

[KGP]

More thought

As I think about this further, the spreadsheet makes even less sense. Using how you think the spreadsheet works, if you plug-in a 3.2 NSX flywheel HP of 290, the calculation returns 207 rwhp for the DD. That would mean the NSX drive train robbs the NSX engine of 28% of its power. Now I'm not a Honda engineer, but I know darn well that the NSX drive train is not that inefficient.

Using the Dynapak calc in the spreadsheet, we are returned 244rwhp for the 290hp NSX. That equates to a 15.8% drive-train loss. Sounds a bit more realistic to me. Given those results, the Dynapak look much more like a true representation of the power being put to the pavement.

Not saying the DD is not a nice tool, but someone is fudging with some numbers here.