• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

HP Numbers

The Mustang Dyno gives corrected numbers only. Yes the number you see on the left is for both. This was @ 15psi so comparing it to the other posts would not be fair, however you will get close to the same curves at lower boost levels with a turbo just not as much power.
This is tuned the way I drive it everyday, I could have added timing and made more power but it wouldn't be something I would be comfortable with on the street.
 
Last edited:
OK, how do I say this without it coming out wrong? Hmmm....

Without a doubt those are great power curves, but at the same time they are as they should be. If you start with the basic design of the NSX engine, build the bottom end to handle power, select the right compressor and plumb it cleanly, then control fuel and timing correctly, this is what you should get. I'm not saying that's easy, because the devil really is in the details, but blow hard enough on an engine, especially an NSX engine, and you get big power. (We all remember Larry Garcia, and look at what people get out of their Supras, Civics, etc.) The basic principals are long established, and the trick is applying them to a given engine, finding and dealing with any weak links and surprises along the way.

So I too applaud Gerry (loudly) because he is one of the few to step up and apply his experience to the NSX and fine tuning it to limits. No simple task for sure. But what I'm saying is what I've said all along, which is that this type of torque curve is what you should expect from a properly designed turbo NSX engine. Whether running modest boost levels like the Bell TT or higher levels like Gerry, David and Factor X, the torque curve should be very strong and therefore deliver massive area under the power curve relative to the peak. As I've said more than once, I think NSX engines are ideally suited to turbo charging because stock they inherently have a comparatively low but extremely broad power band. By contrast, most SCs, and especially centrifugal ones, are better suited to a large displacement low-reving engine that already has enough grunt torque at the low end but need the top end beefed up and extended.

Will we someday see an SC NSX come close to this? Perhaps, but not without lot's more R&D and expense, and possibly more weight and parasitic losses than the current ones. There's always someone who will if they can, but that doesn't make it the choice of the masses.

Anyway, what you see in those charts is exactly what I expect and why I've always been a tubo guy.

Sorry for the lengthy post.
 
Tow Rig

More tq than my 7500 lb. turbo diesel Excursion. :eek:
 
(unability to get the car strapped down well enough)

I need these kind of problems. :eek:
Gerry, Your the man!

How long is your waiting list? :D
 
Re: FX500 or FX600???

Factor X Motorsports said:
18psi. 91-100oct mix. 639.4rwhp 497.8ft/lbs. As recorded on our Dynapacks in Las Vegas, NV.

Is that the FX500 running that? Or a different kit?

And, I almost forgot... DAMN!:eek:

I will be in Vegas next week and want to check out the cars!
 
Damn is right, Can we see the Dyno sheet to silence the naysayers? KGP I know your mouth is watering right now.
Ken or Mike, What does the torque curve look like?
When does the power start to come on?
 
Turbo NSX said:
I am thinking about this and I cannot understand why Factor x never posts any dyno plots. You own a dyno put up the plot.:rolleyes:

I don't understand why you are stating that. Gerry just posted a dyno sheet on the previous page :confused:
 
K said:
gerry,
how much would it cost for u to build my nsx into a 450hp reliable, daily driver

I am not going to answer this question for Gerry, but from my experience with people in the tuning business, they usually answer this with another question: "How much $$$ do you have ?" Then they determine how many reliable ponies you can get for that amount...
 
Re: FX500 or FX600???

Factor X Motorsports said:
18psi. 91-100oct mix. 639.4rwhp 497.8ft/lbs. As recorded on our Dynapacks in Las Vegas, NV.
Quit clowing around with your groupee-mobile and get back to work on the important stuff. ;)

Len, my mouth is probably not watering much more than yours.
 
apapada said:
I don't understand why you are stating that. Gerry just posted a dyno sheet on the previous page :confused:

Apapada FactorX and Gerry are 2 different companies.
Turbo was asking Factorx to post a dyno sheet.
KGP, I am now dehydrated. All dried up. You guys will be on the ground before me.
 
apapada said:
I don't understand why you are stating that. Gerry just posted a dyno sheet on the previous page :confused:

Gee I am sorry I didn't realize that Gerry worked for Factor X. I guess I have been sending my money to the wrong company. PAY ATTENTION.
 
KGP should be excited. I think I may know one other guy that has that same level of excitement;)


These numbers are a great example of their turbo system's efficiency. But don't expect them to release a car with that kind potentcy(640rwhp) to the general public. Even the best NSX pilots will be challenged to handle 550 at the wheels.
 
Gerry Johnson said:


pansxd.jpg

Gerry or TurboNSX-

Without revealing any of hard-earned tricks of the trade, how did you get a Honda engine to produce equal hp and torque? Turbo I would assume your dyno plot would look similar since you are running his kit.


I have never seen a Honda engine, NA or FI, do this without the use of Nitrous. Do you know something that nobody else has been able to figure out?

Congratulations nonetheless.
 
Sig said:
But don't expect them to release a car with that kind potentcy(640rwhp) to the general public. Even the best NSX pilots will be challenged to handle 550 at the wheels.
Then I know at least two owners who will be challenged, severely. :D

Sig said:
KGP should be excited. I think I may know one other guy that has that same level of excitement;) / On a different note, what is the elevation of Vegas.... 3000ft or soomething like that?
I don't know the elevation. Your were just there, you tell me. :D
 
KGP said:
Then I know at least two owners who will be challenged, severely. :D

I don't know the elevation. Your were just there, you tell me. :D

My "Hang-over Quotient Meter" gave a reading of 3000ft. Upon further research, the Geographical dictionary states that the elevation is 2030ft. So it looks like I drank 970 ft more than I realized.
 
Sig said:
Gerry or TurboNSX-

Without revealing any of hard-earned tricks of the trade, how did you get a Honda engine to produce equal hp and torque? Turbo I would assume your dyno plot would look similar since you are running his kit.


I have never seen a Honda engine, NA or FI, do this without the use of Nitrous. Do you know something that nobody else has been able to figure out?

Congratulations nonetheless.

Sig, wouldn't the HP be a result of the turbo that was used?
Couldn't Gerry have produced higher HP #'s by just using a larger turbo? Do you have a Dyno sheet for your car?
 
len3.8 said:
Sig, wouldn't the HP be a function of the turbo that was used?
Couldn't Gerry have produced higher HP #'s by just using a larger turbo? Do you have a Dyno sheet for your car?

Peak hp cerainly has a lot to do with what turbo is being run and at what boost level it is running. However, my question was more directed at the fact that in the plot Gerry posted, Peak Torque and Peak HP, appear to roughly the same number.... both around 505 give or take. I have not heard of Honda engines being capable of this without Nitrous. Most engines from the same manufacturer follow trends. Honda's, NSX motor included, will generally have less peak torque as compared to peak hp even in a FI setup(turbo or SC). Nitrous not included, because when nitrous is combined with a turbo..... you get a torque monster! And torque numbers will then have a different correlation to peak hp numbers. I am probably the wrong person to explain this, but I am sure Gerry or other tuners have vast knowledge in this area.

Take a diesel truck engine for example, many of them typically have higher peak torque numbers vs. hp numbers (not all but most). So if an engine that usually follows this trend was some how able to be tweaked to produce equal torque and hp numbers..... then whatever was done to achieve this would certainly be of interest.

As for a dyno plot, the last one taken from my car is somewhere in a long lost thread from 1.5years ago. It was done shortly after the BBSC install. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be much help in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Sig said:
Peak hp cerainly has a lot to do with what turbo is being run and at what boost level it is running. However, my question was more directed at the fact that in the plot Gerry posted, Peak Torque and Peak HP, appear to roughly the same number.... both around 505 give or take. I have not heard of Honda engines being capable of this without Nitrous.

Take a diesel truck engine for example, many of them typically have higher peak torque numbers vs. hp numbers (not all but most). So if an engine that usually follows that trend was some how able to produce similar torque and hp numbers..... then this would certainly be of interest.

As for a dyno plot, the last one taken from my car is somewhere in a long lost thread from 1.5years ago. It was done shortly after the BBSC install. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be much help in this thread.

I'm sorry, my mistake I thought you had FactorX's system.
think he (Gerry) said his car was slipping or had problems with the straps, so we had somewhat of an incomplete reading.
 
Back
Top