This is pretty impressive, Mark. I believe this RWHP figure is one of the better CTSC numbers I've seen posted (at ANY boost level), even for a 3.2L.MarkB said:
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
CTSC underwhelming...?
- Thread starter Arshad
- Start date
vdavie said:
You should realize that a stock early NSX only puts 220-235 to the wheels, so even a relatively "poor" showing by the CTSC has bumped him 80 RWHP, which is not shabby no matter how you slice it. If you want more HP, then you need to either use a one-off turbo, or have FX or GJ do some work for you. for $6500 they have great experiences with NSX and turbos. If you want to keep it SC'd then look into the BBSC or CTSC. my bbsc @ 6.4 psi gave me approx 110 HP at the rear wheels, with zero supporting mods.
Don't know that you can get from either one for that price .... at least not a full kit of everything you need.peiserg said:
Actually, peiserg, that's not true. 75rwhp gain is what I was expecting from a low boost CTSC based on Comptech's claims as well as other peoples dyno's with similar setups. Prior to the CTSC, I had 251 (headers+exhaust), and after I had 308 = 57rwhp gain. If it was an 80rwhp gain, I wouldn't be complaining in the least bit! I don't know of a single CTSC setup which is making as little HP as mine. If I hadn't done a pre-install dyno I would have attributed it to an abnormally weak engine, but that's clearly not the case.
I realize that I could have had better performance with an FX400 setup for roughly the same money, but I wasn't looking to go down that route. I was simply expecting around 325rwhp which is common for my type of configuration.
So at NSXPO, Shad looked at all the wiring and plumbing and concluded that there were no issues with the install as far as he could tell. He also took it for a drive to see if there were any fuel delivery issues that he could hear or feel, and he said that it felt "smooth and strong". He couldn't say whether it was as strong as it should be since he didn't have a reference car to compare against.
Right now, I'm looking into getting my fuel injectors flow tested. I had them cleaned prior to install but it's possible that they are not flowing at full effiency which is contributing to my slightly lean condition and lower HP.
I realize that I could have had better performance with an FX400 setup for roughly the same money, but I wasn't looking to go down that route. I was simply expecting around 325rwhp which is common for my type of configuration.
So at NSXPO, Shad looked at all the wiring and plumbing and concluded that there were no issues with the install as far as he could tell. He also took it for a drive to see if there were any fuel delivery issues that he could hear or feel, and he said that it felt "smooth and strong". He couldn't say whether it was as strong as it should be since he didn't have a reference car to compare against.
Right now, I'm looking into getting my fuel injectors flow tested. I had them cleaned prior to install but it's possible that they are not flowing at full effiency which is contributing to my slightly lean condition and lower HP.
ok my mistake i thought you were stock prior to the ctsc. yeah 57 hp is a low yield.
RE the $6500. that's the price GJ quoted me for an installed 6 psi single turbo non intercooled. I think FX was similar for a bare bones type of setup. Intercooler, AEM, etc is added to it.. my bbsc was 6500, but then i did the cold air for $175, and aftercooler for $2200 and install $600. So pushing $10k without my gauges, FJO etc..
RE the $6500. that's the price GJ quoted me for an installed 6 psi single turbo non intercooled. I think FX was similar for a bare bones type of setup. Intercooler, AEM, etc is added to it.. my bbsc was 6500, but then i did the cold air for $175, and aftercooler for $2200 and install $600. So pushing $10k without my gauges, FJO etc..
Arshad said:
I thought that 60-80 hp would be pretty typical. I don't think that 57 hp is too far off of the mark given margin of error from dyno run to dyno run.
I just read through this whole story (3 pages) and no punch line or solution at the end. Was there nothing wrong with this car the whole time? Feels good until the dyno numbers come in?
Is everyone underwhelmed with the CTSC? I'm seriously thinking about buying one but have never had a chance to ride in a car that has one. This story worries me a bit.
Is everyone underwhelmed with the CTSC? I'm seriously thinking about buying one but have never had a chance to ride in a car that has one. This story worries me a bit.
Last edited:
If you are still questioning whether or not to put a CTSC on your car later this year, I will gladly let you ride with me on the track at either Brainard, Gingerman, or Grattan later this year.
Arshad said:
This depends on what type of aftermarket filter you use. Not all filters are the same. Higher flow does not necessarily mean lower filtration. Some filters, like the Uni filter, use an efficient dual-stage foam matrix that allows better flow but still offers good filtration. Due to this, the Uni filter product has been very popular for use on the two stroke moto engines running in high dust conditions. A big plus is the ability to reuse the Uni filter by washing the element in warm soapy water. Regardless, it's probably splitting hairs since the actual airbox of the NSX is a dyno proven good design.
Cheers,
-- Chris
Unfortunately I haven't really had a chance to drive the car a whole lot after coming back from NSXPO. After I got back from there, I had the shop re-adjust the ESM back to the recommended voltage and I felt I got some power back. I'm guessing that I'm making about 310RWHP which I still feel is a little lower than I should have, but it's MUCH better than when I originally got the CTSC installed and I felt quite underwhelmed.
I don't know why I didn't have a stronger showing against that '97 I briefly raced, but in normal day to day driving, I'm quite happy with the performance. This spring after I pull the car out, I'm going to put in the Uni filter and redyno the car to see what it's doing. I'm also going to do some further testing to make sure my fuel pump and injectors are operating to spec.
At NSXPO, I had a ride in Johnny's 97 w/ CTSC and it felt a *LOT* stronger than my car, and I think he's making about 352RWHP. I know Mark B and Lud are making closer to 375RWHP (I believe both are running 6lb kits on 3.2l engines).
So bottom line: Am I happy with the CTSC? Yes. It's a huge improvement over stock. Do I wish I had more power? Yes. Then again, it doesn't matter what you have, you'll always want more
I'll update this thread in the spring once I get a final dyno done.
Chris: Thanks for the info on the Uni filter, I will be putting that in this spring...
I don't know why I didn't have a stronger showing against that '97 I briefly raced, but in normal day to day driving, I'm quite happy with the performance. This spring after I pull the car out, I'm going to put in the Uni filter and redyno the car to see what it's doing. I'm also going to do some further testing to make sure my fuel pump and injectors are operating to spec.
At NSXPO, I had a ride in Johnny's 97 w/ CTSC and it felt a *LOT* stronger than my car, and I think he's making about 352RWHP. I know Mark B and Lud are making closer to 375RWHP (I believe both are running 6lb kits on 3.2l engines).
So bottom line: Am I happy with the CTSC? Yes. It's a huge improvement over stock. Do I wish I had more power? Yes. Then again, it doesn't matter what you have, you'll always want more
I'll update this thread in the spring once I get a final dyno done.
Chris: Thanks for the info on the Uni filter, I will be putting that in this spring...
Kinda off the subject but not really, what's the most HP anyone's seen using the stock airbox? I'm pushing 454hp through a Uni filter and I suspect it's about maxed out. K&N has some surface area calculations on their website but they're about worthless. Thanks, mark
The engines aren't blueprinted from the factory, so there are measurable deltas in performance from one to the next. In my case, I did a pre-install dyno and my results were more or less in line with what others were seeing with similar bolt-on's, ie DC-headers + exhaust. If my engine were let's say 15hp lower than the average baseline, I would expect that post-CTSC I would also be lower. (Understanding that it's not a 1:1 relationship after FI and the difference could be magnified).
An example of a particularly strong NA engine is an owner on this forum whose car is putting down 315RWHP without any forced induction! I believe that is an NA2 with headers+exhaust only, but I could be wrong. The average RWHP for a similar setup is substantially lower.
An example of a particularly strong NA engine is an owner on this forum whose car is putting down 315RWHP without any forced induction! I believe that is an NA2 with headers+exhaust only, but I could be wrong. The average RWHP for a similar setup is substantially lower.
I wonder if you tried the AEM on there Arshad if you could tune it to make more power?
Yeah I'm thinking AEM, and possibly 9lb. I wanted to get some feedback from others with similar setups to see what kind of gains they achieved over a standard 6lb setup. If I do go this route, I think I'll take it down to Devin @ Payn for installation and tuning. He's about 4.5 hours from me... but I don't know of any AEM tuners in Toronto who are anywhere as familiar with NSX's as Devin.
Arshad said:
I don't know if there are any as familiar with the NSX as Devin, but in a city of 5 million people, I have to think there are some experts only 30 minutes or less away from you. Can you call some local speed shops and get some recommendations?
Typicall the High-boost kit will get you +20hp and TQ to the wheels. With an AEM, who knows. I would guess 380 or so to the wheels on a NA1.
Has anyone ever run a CTSC on a forged engine with 8.5 or so compression? I would be interested to see what a CTSC could do with a smaller pulley and 12-15 psi.
If I have my blowers right and it is a 2.3 Whipple it will produce over 650rwhp worth of airlfow. I'm just wondering what it would do if someone really tried to spin it.
If I have my blowers right and it is a 2.3 Whipple it will produce over 650rwhp worth of airlfow. I'm just wondering what it would do if someone really tried to spin it.
Arshad, this is percisely the approach I would take if I was in your boat. There may be some glitch somewhere that junking the stock ECU set-up altogther and converting to AEM with its far superior controll of a/f & timing throughout the rev band will eliminate. So you'd see the gains in what the AEM tuned properly is *fixing/eliminating* on top of the regular gains you would see doing the AEM mod and increased boost.Arshad said:
I believe from what i've heard here is that the CTSC loses a lot of efficiency above 8+ psi. The only one i know for sure running 11 psi is "pulp storyteller" as outlined in his website.. He has 408 to the wheels, and that is with literally every single performance part comptech makes...plus the AEM.. i just don't think the CTSC is made to run that much boost. if you want that much, use the GruppeM, turbo, or BBSC setup.
So, the comptech is not a 2.3 liter Whipple? 2.3L Whipple blowers have put down over 650rwhp on C5's and Cobra's the airflow is there to make the power.
I always thought the CTSC was a Eaton based unit until someone pointed out that I was wrong. 2.3 Whipple's don't max out at 400rwhp.
I always thought the CTSC was a Eaton based unit until someone pointed out that I was wrong. 2.3 Whipple's don't max out at 400rwhp.
I think the CTSC is sized closer to the Eaton M90 at about 1.5L. I know the pulley ratios are about the same and they're putting out similar boost. A 2.3L spinning at 14000 rpm (typical CTCS speed) would be 1100 cfm and over 20psi easy (around 700hp).
Thanks Mark and that answered my question.
Similar threads
