10.48 @ 139 mph HP Performance car

Elite · 16 October 2007

scorp965 said:
Jimmy,

This is the same formula I was referring to, PSI/14.7 is a quick way of converting to BAR, you add 1 BAR to account for the atmosphere, and multiply the total intake pressure (atmosphere + generated boost pressure) by the car's NA output to obtain its theoretical power level.

All things being equal this should provide an accurate number, assuming similar dyno conditions, and an accurate boost reading. For instance, prior to my last tune my HP turbo nsx was producing 383rwhp at 0.55 bar (8psi) - the theoretical value provided by this formula for 0.55 bar is 387.5rwhp, so my true power was close to the theoretical value.

The last time I had the car tuned, perhaps a month ago, we disabled the VVIS system, and advanced timing slightly to offset the low end loss this resulted in; the resulting power level was 418.8rwhp, but we also noticed boost creep up to a peak of 0.6 bar, or 8.7 psi. Using the formula for 0.6 bar we see a theoretical value of 400rwhp, but this formula doesn't take into account the increased timing, or the disabling of the VVIS system. When we ran the old map with the only change being the disabled VVIS we found a +20rwhp peak gain, and when we adjusted timing we didn't see much change in the peak value, only a nice bump in midrange values - so, if we have a theoretical value of 400rwhp, and an increase of +20rwhp from the VVIS system being disabled, we have a theoretical value of 420rwhp, compared to my actual value of 418.8rwhp - it seems to be rather accurate.

If Craig's nsx produced 222rwhp in stock form on your dyno, how was he able to produce 605rwhp at *only* 1.07 bar? This is triple the power with an increase of only 1 atm; it just doesn't make sense unless you have a very aggressive tune, and more than 15.5psi of boost. Craig also made a post last month where he said his car makes 474rwhp on his 'street' tune of 8.8 psi - this is almost the exact same boost level I have, with the same stock 3.0L engine, the same turbo kit piping, the same disabled VVIS system, and the same diameter turbo, yet I have 418.8rwhp, and he says his car has 474rwhp - is this the result of timing, boost creep, or something else? When I showed Craig's earlier thread to my tuner he could not explain the resulting numbers, at that boost level.

Isn't Craig running a 67mm turbo and you a 61mm turbo? That would explain the difference in power at the same boost level.

And that trap speed backs up the dyno estimate of around 600whp.

Nice work guys.

scorp965 · 16 October 2007

Elite said:
Isn't Craig running a 67mm turbo and you a 61mm turbo? That would explain the difference in power at the same boost level.

And that trap speed backs up the dyno estimate of around 600whp.

Nice work guys.

My replacement turbo is 67mm

areout · 16 October 2007

Impressive! Whats the model of those street tires?!

ccathey · 16 October 2007

areout said:
Impressive! Whats the model of those street tires?!

They are ET streets which is a street legal drag tire.
I think they are 26.5x10.5 on the factory 16 inch wheels.
Craig

HP_Performance · 16 October 2007

The factory VVIS works in NA form but when pressure is added it does not operate correctly. For it to be a fair comparison you would have to disable the VVIS. The factory timing curve is much more aggresive than your boosted curve. For a fair comparison you would have to dyno with identical timing numbers.

If anything our dyno is conservative, we have tested it against cars on a dynojet in Lubbock TX, and given the trap speed and weight of Craigs car the mph calculator shows it is making 660 RWHP. We have datalogs for his dyno and track runs which show the boost curves. He does have an increasing boost curve from 10psi at 4000 rpm to 15.5 psi at 8000 rpm which is controlled with the AEM boost control option.

Everything we have said is proveable and has hard data to back it up, track, dyno and datalogs. Craig said he would be willing to go to Texas Speed in Lubbock to dyno on their Dyno Jet.

On another note we are looking for a factory 3.2 crank and rods for Craigs car next year, maybe a winter project. If someone went to a stroker and has their old parts, maybe we can make a deal.

God bless, Jimmy

da3dalus · 16 October 2007

Holy Crap! I was impressed the last couple times you posted up your results but this is just damn crazy!

So you've got the HP Bolt on kit running 15.5psi, Spec clutch and flywheel and some sticky tires? Thats it?

How did you raise the boost? I thought the wastegate spring needed to be replaced or something? Also, which turbo are you running with the kit, the 61 or 67? Is it dual ball bearing GT-series?

adrenaline_nsx · 16 October 2007

Damn your car just cant suprise me anymore

I think you might own the quickest nsx in the world, sadly not enough people care to drag race these cars like me.

Elite · 16 October 2007

scorp965 said:
My replacement turbo is 67mm

Hmm, that is weird then. What are the differences between your cars? From the looks of it not much. How many miles does your car have on it? It's possible he has some buildup on his pistons and his compression is a tiny bit higher. Speaking of compression, who knows what yours is.

It's also possible you may have some bent valves. For some reason, almost every customer car with a stock motor I've taken apart has had bent valves.

Otherwise the gas may be an issue and maybe your timing is being pulled(or not being able to run as much)? Who knows, it's very hard to pin down a reason without having both cars next to each other and checking every angle bit by bit.

Vega$ NSX · 17 October 2007

Yes, I too would like to know what the "secret" is. I can't see what the major differences are between Scorp's turbo and Craig's, yet the power difference is huge. Also, my Factor X turbo boost and HP numbers are more in line with Scorp's. Also from what I could tell, the LoveFab turbo seems to be pretty consistent with both me and Scorp's as well. How are you pulling those numbers? If you are doing something special or different, I wouldn't expect you to reveal your secret to the world for free. But it would be nice to know if you've actually developed something that seems to generate more power than everything else out there given the same boost pressures.

scorp965 · 17 October 2007

Elite said:
Hmm, that is weird then. What are the differences between your cars? From the looks of it not much.

I have a larger heat exchanger for the air/water cooler, and I have removed my muffler entirely, allowing the turbo to spool faster. Aside from this there should be no difference between the two cars - the kit is the same, the turbo size is the same, and the engine is the same, although I have 32k less miles.

Prior to going forced induction my car produced very good NA numbers, 272rwhp with headers/exhaust, so I feel comfortable in referring to my engine as strong, and capable of performing at the maximum possible level. I am not cranking the boost to 15.5psi, but at the same boost levels the disparity in performance is alarming - 70rwhp difference, when my car has a better flowing exhaust, and I live at sea level.

Vega$ NSX said:
But it would be nice to know if you've actually developed something that seems to generate more power than everything else out there given the same boost pressures.

Considering I have the same HP Performance kit, I would like to know this secret as well

My involvement on this thread is not to cast doubt on Craig's numbers, but rather it is concern over my setup - if the kit should be producing these power levels what is wrong with my kit, and how can I fix it?

If the kit is not producing these numbers, but is instead producing these drag times, that is even more impressive, and is cause for the nsx community to celebrate what the car is capable of doing with (relatively) minimal power increase.

HP_Performance · 17 October 2007

Hey John,
Your turbo system is no different than Craigs. Email me a data log and your tune up. I am sure your tune up is consevative and I know Steve is not a fan of the Cali pump gas. Craigs car has been on our dyno several times and the tune is spot on. Craig is going to post up some dyno sheets with boost #'s on the graph.

HP is here to share information, build a great product and help the NSX community. All the testing we do is only an aid for eveyone to use and in no way are we trying to give false information.

God Bless,
Jimmy

da3dalus · 17 October 2007

Are we comparing apples to apples dyno machines here? Not dynojet vs mustang or anything?

My guess is boost creep, being the most logical conclusion, but who knows.

ccathey · 17 October 2007

da3dalus said:
Are we comparing apples to apples dyno machines here? Not dynojet vs mustang or anything?

My guess is boost creep, being the most logical conclusion, but who knows.

The boost level does increase throughout the rpms. This was done intentionally using the aem to control the boost. The boost level at the maximum HP is the level that we are referring to. It is safer to run higher boost at higher rpm. We do not want a flat boost curve.

Craig

ccathey · 17 October 2007

Here is a dyno at 14.4 psi. I don't know why it shows 14.6 max. It must be some kind of boost spike that isn't shown on the curve. When you scroll the mouse across it only goes to 14.4 at the top.

Here is the 605 pull with the boost curve. Once again. The max boost is shown a little higher than what we could find on the graph. 15.5 psi is where it makes the max power on the graph.

Here is a low boost tune.

Craig

Flexer · 17 October 2007

HP_Performance said:
Hey John,

HP is here to share information, build a great product and help the NSX community. All the testing we do is only an aid for eveyone to use and in no way are we trying to give false information.

God Bless,
Jimmy

HP will get my business because of that statement right there.

Vega$ NSX · 17 October 2007

I too am not trying to refute the information from HP, I just want to learn and understand more about the turbo setup in general to perhaps help increase my boost numbers. I am certainly no expert when it comes to turbo setups so I'm coming from a position of ignorance. As I understand it, basically the three factors that control turbo power is, fuel quantity, boost air pressure and boost air temperature. I'm assuming that a given boost pressure, say 8.5 lbs, for the proper air/fuel mixture, the fuel quantity is about the same for each turbo setup. That means the only variable is boost air temperature. So unless one system is getting significantly colder air than the next system, I don't see what other factors could contribute to significantly higher power numbers. I understand that that some heat exchangers could be more efficient than the next, but since we are talking about passive heat exchangers, the cooling is all related to the approach on ambient temperatures. I can see it affecting it by 10-20 whp, but not like 60whp. Also I understand better welds, smoother transitions etc will help but that can't be more than 10 whp either. So what I've seen so far:

My Factor X
8 lbs boost
405 whp / 350 ft-lbs

LoveFab
9 lbs boost
431.3 whp / 330.0 ft-lbs.

Scorp's HP
8 lbs boost
418.8 whp / 317.3 ft-lbs.

Craig's HP
8.8 lbs boost
474 whp / 338 ft-lbs.

Craig's numbers are so much higher than everyone else's and not by a small margin. That a huge gain that simply cannot be explained by better piping, cooler temperatures, or better welds.

I'd love to know what the secret is because I'd love to gain another 50 whp if I could.

HP_Performance · 17 October 2007

Vega$ NSX said:
I too am not trying to refute the information from HP, I just want to learn and understand more about the turbo setup in general to perhaps help increase my boost numbers. I am certainly no expert when it comes to turbo setups so I'm coming from a position of ignorance. As I understand it, basically the three factors that control turbo power is, fuel quantity, boost air pressure and boost air temperature. I'm assuming that a given boost pressure, say 8.5 lbs, for the proper air/fuel mixture, the fuel quantity is about the same for each turbo setup. That means the only variable is boost air temperature. So unless one system is getting significantly colder air than the next system, I don't see what other factors could contribute to significantly higher power numbers. I understand that that some heat exchangers could be more efficient than the next, but since we are talking about passive heat exchangers, the cooling is all related to the approach on ambient temperatures. I can see it affecting it by 10-20 whp, but not like 60whp. Also I understand better welds, smoother transitions etc will help but that can't be more than 10 whp either. So what I've seen so far:

My Factor X
8 lbs boost
405 whp / 350 ft-lbs

LoveFab
9 lbs boost
431.3 whp / 330.0 ft-lbs.

Scorp's HP
8 lbs boost
418.8 whp / 317.3 ft-lbs.

Craig's HP
8.8 lbs boost
474 whp / 338 ft-lbs.

Craig's numbers are so much higher than everyone else's and not by a small margin. That a huge gain that simply cannot be explained by better piping, cooler temperatures, or better welds. I'd love to know what the secret is because I'd love to gain another 50 whp if I could.

The dyno graphs that ccathey posted are a mix of the GT-35R and the 67mm Ball bearing. The low boost tune (the last graph) is actually 460 horsepower and not 474. The car did make 474, but that was with the upgraded turbo. There are many other factors that can attribute to differences between different cars. Timing, air density, humidity, air temp, even wheel and tire combos (we have seen as much as a 10-20 horsepower difference at the wheels from a wheel change), are just a few. I would love to be able to pinpoint it to one specific thing, but i can't. I would say that the dyno numbers are incorrect, but the car consistently runs faster than the numbers suggest that it should. We are more than happy to share any info that we think will help you guys in your quest for HP.

This just in ( I spoke with craig and he said the secret is a hole just below the gas pedal that allows him to push the throttle 20% more than stock) J/K

thanks for the feedback

God Bless

Nathan

Vega$ NSX · 18 October 2007

HP_Performance said:
The dyno graphs that ccathey posted are a mix of the GT-35R and the 67mm Ball bearing. The low boost tune (the last graph) is actually 460 horsepower and not 474. The car did make 474, but that was with the upgraded turbo. There are many other factors that can attribute to differences between different cars. Timing, air density, humidity, air temp, even wheel and tire combos (we have seen as much as a 10-20 horsepower difference at the wheels from a wheel change), are just a few. I would love to be able to pinpoint it to one specific thing, but i can't. I would say that the dyno numbers are incorrect, but the car consistently runs faster than the numbers suggest that it should. We are more than happy to share any info that we think will help you guys in your quest for HP.

This just in ( I spoke with craig and he said the secret is a hole just below the gas pedal that allows him to push the throttle 20% more than stock) J/K

thanks for the feedback

God Bless

Nathan

So did the GT-35R hit on the boost earlier (less lag) than the 67mm? In other words, did you see a bit of a trade off for a higher top end versus low end lag when you went to the bigger turbo?

BTW, thanks for the hole/gas pedal mod trick. I just took my jigsaw to my floorboard and was able to get another 40 whp! Best mod ever! Weight reduction too!

ccathey · 18 October 2007

Vega$ NSX said:
So did the GT-35R hit on the boost earlier (less lag) than the 67mm? In other words, did you see a bit of a trade off for a higher top end versus low end lag when you went to the bigger turbo?

BTW, thanks for the hole/gas pedal mod trick. I just took my jigsaw to my floorboard and was able to get another 40 whp! Best mod ever! Weight reduction too!

Actually, it didn't appear to change the spoolup at all when the graphs were overlayed. Very surprising.

Factor X Motorsports · 18 October 2007

Vega$ NSX said:
I too am not trying to refute the information from HP, I just want to learn and understand more about the turbo setup in general to perhaps help increase my boost numbers. I am certainly no expert when it comes to turbo setups so I'm coming from a position of ignorance. As I understand it, basically the three factors that control turbo power is, fuel quantity, boost air pressure and boost air temperature. I'm assuming that a given boost pressure, say 8.5 lbs, for the proper air/fuel mixture, the fuel quantity is about the same for each turbo setup. That means the only variable is boost air temperature. So unless one system is getting significantly colder air than the next system, I don't see what other factors could contribute to significantly higher power numbers. I understand that that some heat exchangers could be more efficient than the next, but since we are talking about passive heat exchangers, the cooling is all related to the approach on ambient temperatures. I can see it affecting it by 10-20 whp, but not like 60whp. Also I understand better welds, smoother transitions etc will help but that can't be more than 10 whp either. So what I've seen so far:

My Factor X
8 lbs boost
405 whp / 350 ft-lbs

LoveFab
9 lbs boost
431.3 whp / 330.0 ft-lbs.

Scorp's HP
8 lbs boost
418.8 whp / 317.3 ft-lbs.

Craig's HP
8.8 lbs boost
474 whp / 338 ft-lbs.

Craig's numbers are so much higher than everyone else's and not by a small margin. That a huge gain that simply cannot be explained by better piping, cooler temperatures, or better welds. I'd love to know what the secret is because I'd love to gain another 50 whp if I could.

B,

HPs numbers are pretty much right in line with what we ran with a similar turbo some years back. Here is a pic of the 35R dyno at 9psi (yellow) to validate what they are seeing out of their system. Remember your turbo is smaller than the 35R

Dylan · 22 October 2007

Vega$ NSX said:
I too am not trying to refute the information from HP, I just want to learn and understand more about the turbo setup in general to perhaps help increase my boost numbers. I am certainly no expert when it comes to turbo setups so I'm coming from a position of ignorance. As I understand it, basically the three factors that control turbo power is, fuel quantity, boost air pressure and boost air temperature. I'm assuming that a given boost pressure, say 8.5 lbs, for the proper air/fuel mixture, the fuel quantity is about the same for each turbo setup. That means the only variable is boost air temperature. So unless one system is getting significantly colder air than the next system, I don't see what other factors could contribute to significantly higher power numbers. I understand that that some heat exchangers could be more efficient than the next, but since we are talking about passive heat exchangers, the cooling is all related to the approach on ambient temperatures. I can see it affecting it by 10-20 whp, but not like 60whp. Also I understand better welds, smoother transitions etc will help but that can't be more than 10 whp either. So what I've seen so far:

My Factor X
8 lbs boost
405 whp / 350 ft-lbs

LoveFab
9 lbs boost
431.3 whp / 330.0 ft-lbs.

Scorp's HP
8 lbs boost
418.8 whp / 317.3 ft-lbs.

Craig's HP
8.8 lbs boost
474 whp / 338 ft-lbs.

Craig's numbers are so much higher than everyone else's and not by a small margin. That a huge gain that simply cannot be explained by better piping, cooler temperatures, or better welds. I'd love to know what the secret is because I'd love to gain another 50 whp if I could.

In my humble opinion, the best way to play the "am I running the same boost as the other guy game" is to compare not HP but torque. Torque is really the best indicator of cylinder fill or mixture density. HP is just a function of that static value over time.

All of the above references are with 2-3% of each other on torque, its the HP that varies the widest. The question then becomes: Why is Craig's car enjoying better volumetric efficiency at higher rpms? I, for one, am very interested in this answer.

Dylan

HP_Performance · 22 October 2007

Dylan said:
In my humble opinion, the best way to play the "am I running the same boost as the other guy game" is to compare not HP but torque. Torque is really the best indicator of cylinder fill or mixture density. HP is just a function of that static value over time.

All of the above references are with 2-3% of each other on torque, its the HP that varies the widest. The question then becomes: Why is Craig's car enjoying better volumetric efficiency at higher rpms? I, for one, am very interested in this answer.

Dylan

There are a few reasons that you can have similar torque numbers and different HP numbers. The most obvious is air flow. For Example: Let's say for the sake of argument that you are running a 50mm turbo and i am running a 60mm turbo, both setups are running similar boost numbers. Your 50mm and my 60mm will probably make similar hp and torque numbers until your 50mm runs out of it's efficiency range. The 50mm will only be able to efficiently supply the motor with the amount of boost that you are asking for part of the rpm range. After a certain rpm, the demands that the motor puts on the turbo to maintain that certain boost level will overcome the abilities of that turbo. Efficiency will drop and then boost will drop. We have seen it many times in full effort drag cars. When you reach the limit of the turbo it may be able to spike a good boost number, but it will start to drop as you get closer to peak hp. What this does is give you a very good torque number, but the hp numbers suffer as a result of the turbo's inability to produce the volume nessecary to maintain the boost level. There are also other factors that can attribute to a difference, exhaust flow, intake flow, intercooler effieciency, atmospheric conditions, and turbo system design all play a major role in power production. Unless you are running the same setup with the same turbo and the same atmospheric conditions, the numbers are going to be different, even if you are running the "same" boost.

Thanks

Nathan

Dylan · 22 October 2007

HP_Performance said:
There are a few reasons that you can have similar torque numbers and different HP numbers. The most obvious is air flow. For Example: Let's say for the sake of argument that you are running a 50mm turbo and i am running a 60mm turbo, both setups are running similar boost numbers. Your 50mm and my 60mm will probably make similar hp and torque numbers until your 50mm runs out of it's efficiency range. The 50mm will only be able to efficiently supply the motor with the amount of boost that you are asking for part of the rpm range. After a certain rpm, the demands that the motor puts on the turbo to maintain that certain boost level will overcome the abilities of that turbo. Efficiency will drop and then boost will drop. We have seen it many times in full effort drag cars. When you reach the limit of the turbo it may be able to spike a good boost number, but it will start to drop as you get closer to peak hp. What this does is give you a very good torque number, but the hp numbers suffer as a result of the turbo's inability to produce the volume nessecary to maintain the boost level. There are also other factors that can attribute to a difference, exhaust flow, intake flow, intercooler effieciency, atmospheric conditions, and turbo system design all play a major role in power production. Unless you are running the same setup with the same turbo and the same atmospheric conditions, the numbers are going to be different, even if you are running the "same" boost.

Thanks

Nathan

Nate, I am well aware of all of these complexities. I was simply stating that, for a given boost level, torque varies less than HP. I say this precisely becuase of the factors that you mentioned.

Greg Z · 22 October 2007

Factor X Motorsports said:
B,

HPs numbers are pretty much right in line with what we ran with a similar turbo some years back. Here is a pic of the 35R dyno at 9psi (yellow) to validate what they are seeing out of their system. Remember your turbo is smaller than the 35R

<img src="http://www.nsxprime.com/photopost/data/500/medium/5309FX500.jpg" />

WOW, Factor X's Sig. boasts 813hp and pulls a 10:9 in the 1/4
Craigs pulls a 10:8 with 4 something hp!!!!!!!
???????????????

Elite · 22 October 2007

Greg Z said:
WOW, Factor X's Sig. boasts 813hp and pulls a 10:9 in the 1/4
Craigs pulls a 10:8 with 4 something hp!!!!!!!
???????????????

I think they(FX) can verify, but I don't think they were running the full 813 during that run, not to mention I think they were on DR's on 18's I think?

Craigs 10.8 was somewhere over 600whp during that run.

10.48 @ 139 mph HP Performance car

Similar threads