RS*R Ran Up tested on my CTSC NSX (pics, dyno graphs, and overall disbelief inside)

[RYU]

I figure my 4000th post should be special. So my Christmas present for you all is below.

This is a follow-up to our friend L_Rao's thread. I'll be updating this more later with details.

Here's one of the 17+ dyno runs yesterday. We were at the RSR R&D facility pretty much all day long being as meticulous as possible. I have several minutes worth of data logs from my Zeitronix data logger if anyone is interested.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/jJdPBmwfXEg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>


I'll let the dyno speak for themselves. Please ask questions!

We picked the 2nd most conservative result from multiple runs from each test group.
RY-2 = Baseline (Test Group 1)
RY-7 = Ran Up in the CTSC only (Test Group 2)
RY-13 = Ran Up in CTSC and Engine (Test Group 3)

My bragging rights: With a correction factor applied peak hp will be approx at 365whp on Bisimoto's dyno on the low boost CTSC with my own RRFPR and Boost-a-pump tune.

As heatsoak set in the dyno curves started getting funky as the car was pulling more and more timing while the IATs were getting hot. After the Ran Up and the increased boost and temps my car was starting to run lean and basically freaking the F out. With a tune we should be seeing way more than 10hp up top i'm quite sure. IATs were already in the 180F+ after the 3rd consecutive run. I need to install my meth and FIC asap.

The increased slippery'ness of the motor causes boost to build up faster. We frankly did not expect this. Also, my data logger uses a digital map sensor directly at the intake manifold. My baseline boost read 7lbs flat rising to 8.9lbs (this is from the "Low Boost" pulley). RS*R boost sensor was connected to one of my vacuum lines which read a different boost pressure below. The important part is the incremental gain you see below. We can probably attribute the actual boost pressure to sensor calibration issues.

BTW.. I'm in the process of putting together a group buy for this product on an introductory basis. It's good stuff. Admins: I won't be doing the GB. More on this later..

 

[Blacknot]

Did you put this in your supercharger or your engine?

 

[RYU]

Did you put this in your supercharger or your engine?

Hey Amigo!

So we went thru 3 rounds of testing.

ROUND 1
RY-2 = Baseline (Test Group 1) - In order to get a good baseline numbers all I did was change the oil in the car to Mobil 1 Synth 5w-30 the night before. I also changed the oil in the CTSC to the same 20w-50 Mobil 1. I drove to the RS*R R&D facility with Loc the next day. They cleaned up the car and began to strap it down and plug in all the sensors and other setup items. We did 3 baseline runs. The 1st run was at 130F IAT and produced the highest HP of this set. I lost about 15hp by the 3rd run due to heatsoak.

ROUND 2
RY-7 = Ran Up in the CTSC only (Test Group 2) - We then drained about a cap full of 20w-50 oil from the CTSC and replaced it with the same amount of Ran Up (see blue graph). Already you see an improvement. After having a chance to cool down (we at lunch) we saw improvements right away.

ROUND 3
RY-13 = Ran Up in CTSC and Engine (Test Group 3) - We then poured the rest of the bottle of Ran Up (300mL less the cap full in my CTSC) into the engine. We ran the car on the dyno for another 30mins at varying engine speeds to simulate proper break-in procedures. Here's where we ran out of time. We only let the car cool down for maybe 30mins. After the first run we saw dramatic increases in boost. Then we proceeded to do another maybe 5-7 runs because the output was starting to get sporadic. My IATs were getting into the 180s (I've only seen these sustained temps at the track) and the TQ curves were starting to show random dips. We knew the OEM ECU was starting to freak out. We called it a day. I'm quite sure if I had an EMS + Meth installed we could have made adjustments on-the-fly and the 10hp increase may have been significantly higher. I can pretty much guarantee after the Ran Up you will need a retune. It's that effective and I believe.

 

[NA1/2-R GT]

I don't mind adding a few extra HP if by just adding this stuff! very interested.

 

[davidf]

Im not necassrally looking for more HP but more of freeing up rotating assm. friction = longer engine life.
I'm in. :wink:

 

[Blacknot]

I'm confused on how your boost pressure went up

 

[RYU]

Im not necassrally looking for more HP but more of freeing up rotating assm. friction = longer engine life.
I'm in. :wink:

That's the first thing you notice; a smoother engine. It almost feels like someone swapped my motor mounts for fluid-filled ones. I don't want to over hype this product since you all should see for yourself but I for one am a believer. It's like snake oil that works. I feel stupid saying so...

I'm confused on how your boost pressure went up

Engine with lower friction makes for an engine that wants to rev faster and free'er. The faster an engine can rev the sooner you can build boost and more of it. Keep in mind our CTSC is primarily gear driven. It takes several horsepower just to turn the blower itself because of all sorts of friction. Loosen that up and...well.. you see the dyno graphs.

I'm asking a buddy with a similar setup to try to duplicate the results. I'm well aware of the possibility that my results could have been an anomaly. We did many many runs though with repeatable results and no setup changes. If only my CTSC didn't heatsoak it would have been more consistent. In any event, the results are definitely interesting to say the least.

I also have nothing to gain but ridicule by pushing this product if you think about it . We may perform the same regimented testing on my TRD Supercharged Tacoma as well.

 

[Blacknot]

That's the first thing you notice; a smoother engine. It almost feels like someone swapped my motor mounts for fluid-filled ones. I don't want to over hype this product since you all should see for yourself but I for one am a believer. It's like snake oil that works. I feel stupid saying so...

Engine with lower friction makes for an engine that wants to rev faster and free'er. The faster an engine can rev the sooner you can build boost and more of it. Keep in mind our CTSC is primarily gear driven. It takes several horsepower just to turn the blower itself because of all sorts of friction. Loosen that up and...well.. you see the dyno graphs.

I'm asking a buddy with a similar setup to try to duplicate the results. I'm well aware of the possibility that my results could have been an anomaly. We did many many runs though with repeatable results and no setup changes. If only my CTSC didn't heatsoak it would have been more consistent. In any event, the results are definitely interesting to say the least.

I also have nothing to gain but ridicule by pushing this product if you think about it . We may perform the same regimented testing on my TRD Supercharged Tacoma as well.

Reason why I ask is my car hits 8lbs very quickly. I removed my cats and put test pipes on and the car is very free flowing now. Since doing so my boost drops down to around 7.5lbs in high rpms. My cousin has a TRD SC on his Tacoma and he put cut outs on it. He also lost close to a lb of boost once he didnt have back pressure. If in fact your engine revved faster and your boost peaked you would think it would come back down quickly. I will say i totally trust your results and i will try this stuff in my SC and engine. I wont be able to get an accurate before and after dyno but would love to see if it effects my boost of makes the boost come on sooner

 

[RYU]

Reason why I ask is my car hits 8lbs very quickly. I removed my cats and put test pipes on and the car is very free flowing now. Since doing so my boost drops down to around 7.5lbs in high rpms. My cousin has a TRD SC on his Tacoma and he put cut outs on it. He also lost close to a lb of boost once he didnt have back pressure. If in fact your engine revved faster and your boost peaked you would think it would come back down quickly. I will say i totally trust your results and i will try this stuff in my SC and engine. I wont be able to get an accurate before and after dyno but would love to see if it effects my boost of makes the boost come on sooner

I completely hear you on this one. I'm still very skeptical myself and i'm still clinging on the fact that something must have gone wrong? Then I think about how many times we duplicated it and how meticulous we were about our setup and consistency then i'm just in disbelief.

How fast the boost comes up in general (my car vs. your car) probably isn't too telling but it's how fast it comes on compared to the baseline in my car that holds more importance for this test. I have a unique exhaust system where when not in boost and when under 5k rpm (i.e. before VTEC) the flow runs thru HF Cats and is quiet and gf friendly. This added back pressure in the low RPMs (before 5k) may explain why the boost rises at a slower rate. Then when the secondaries open (at 5k+ rpm) it's straight out to cut-outs like your cousin has and it's immediately at sustained full boost.

What's very curious below is that starting at 3,000 rpm the boost has already improved/increased 1.9lbs from my baseline. Trust me.. everything about me says this crap is fishy. I'll try to get a dyno graph of all 17+ runs on the same plot. When I looked at it on the monitor the story was the same.

 

[NetViper]

But it sounds like you wouldn't recommend this for a standard Ctsc set up since its not tune able. Right?

 

[RYU]

But it sounds like you wouldn't recommend this for a standard Ctsc set up since its not tune able. Right?

bingo! it's really more an argument for an FIC or an EMS.

 

[TURBO2GO]

You're trying to tell me that a company that makes exhaust parts and such suddenly has discovered some magical product that makes horsepower that a company like Mobil could not?

I would never add any product to my oil whose long term effects are unknown. This sounds like slick50.

I'm not doubting your character Ryu, but something isn't adding up for me with the results. Especially with that boost change. I like to believe but it's like trying to believe in mermaids.

This is an oil additive guys, you should be much more careful about what you put into the motor. How do we know this isn't just thinning the oil? How do we know this wont build up over time and block passages? How do we know there won't be long term wear or damage? I can't believe you guys are so eager to drop whatever into the motor. I've heard these "molecular level" stories so many times. Now it's nano.... Does RSR have an oil research division?

Please don't take offense Ryu, I am not doubting what you saw, just think there is something else at work.

 

[RYU]

Lol you sound just like me a month ago. It's hysterical actually.

This product is based on a dry lube lubricant used on the space shuttle arm or something.

RSR is actually a suspension company primarily in Japan. It just so happened their exhaust business took off here in the states.

I have nothing to gain from this so you all make your own conclusions

 

[cptnsx]

My car is perfect for this then. I will not be using a dyno because I have an AEM EMS with my intercooled SoS supercharger and I data log all my results. I have logs going back to Sept 09. I will just do a couple of 3rd gear pulls on different days. Actually I do 3rd gear pulls on my favorite isolated road every time I drive my NSX before returning home so I will have a lot of data points to make a comparison.

Since I only put my hi-flow cats on for testing, I too have noticed a decrease of .5-.75 psi between them and my test pipes I run normally. As for why the boost increases, my take is test pipes make the engine breathe better (so less boost) but the Ran Up reduces friction. Maybe the friction from the crank pulley (and a little from the supercharger pulley) consumes some boost. Not my field so that is my best guess.

Thanks for doing this test. I wanted to try this stuff out (and we all of the junk additives that are out there) and I was wondering if anyone had considered adding a little to the supercharger oil. I guess 430rwhp+ here I come.

- - - Updated - - -

You're trying to tell me that a company that makes exhaust parts and such suddenly has discovered some magical product that makes horsepower that a company like Mobil could not?

I would never add any product to my oil whose long term effects are unknown. This sounds like slick50.

I'm not doubting your character Ryu, but something isn't adding up for me with the results. Especially with that boost change. I like to believe but it's like trying to believe in mermaids.

This is an oil additive guys, you should be much more careful about what you put into the motor. How do we know this isn't just thinning the oil? How do we know this wont build up over time and block passages? How do we know there won't be long term wear or damage? I can't believe you guys are so eager to drop whatever into the motor. I've heard these "molecular level" stories so many times. Now it's nano.... Does RSR have an oil research division?

Please don't take offense Ryu, I am not doubting what you saw, just think there is something else at work.

I wanted to try this stuff out with I first heard about it but I was just like you too Turbo. However there are stories of this stuff everywhere on the internet about people going to the RSR dyno and putting this stuff in and making power. They are even talking about this stuff on bobistheoilguy.com and they are not negative about it. That place typically tears about BS additives. MotoIQ even tested it and is running it in their race engines. I may wait a little longer and see how it holds up in RYU engine esp after hopefully he sends some oil in for an analysis, but I think this is the real thing. RSR doesn't make this stuff they just developed a way to put it in suspension. The dry lube lubricant it is based on is used on the space shuttle and other equipment in space that needs to reduce friction.

One more thing that boost reading is not accurate. It may have increased it a little but not by ~ 2 psi. 2 psi would give around 20-30 more rear horsepower so that is definitely off.

Sorry one more edit. I just watched the dyno again ........ the data logger of the boost parameter showed 6.5-6.7 max.

 

[CL65 Captain]

Not making a comment on the snake oil, but this appears to not be a proprietary technology.... but they seem to be the most expensive. :tongue:


http://lowerfriction.com/product-page.php?categoryID=21

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/xXvZByUPpEo?rel=0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/uQO4jMVrt1A?rel=0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

 

[RYU]

RSR doesn't make this stuff they just developed a way to put it in suspension. The dry lube lubricant it is based on is used on the space shuttle and other equipment in space that needs to reduce friction.

One more thing that boost reading is not accurate. It may have increased it a little but not by ~ 2 psi. 2 psi would give around 20-30 more rear horsepower so that is definitely off.

Sorry one more edit. I just watched the dyno again ........ the data logger of the boost parameter showed 6.5-6.7 max.

cptnsx, i'm very eager to see your results. Hopefully you get around to performing your own tests.

You're correct. RS*R only provides the delivery medium for the dry lubricant. They suspend it on 0w-20 oil but the Ran-Up active ingredient is a dry lube itself. The bottle needs to be shaken prior to pouring. My initial concern was if this product would settle into the bottom of the oil pan after sitting inactive. According to RS*R once the break-in procedure is performed (in my case being on the dyno for more than 30mins at varying wheel speeds and varying rpm) this is not a problem - perhaps they added polymers to permanently suspend the dry lube into the engine oil ---- This is above my pay grade.

In terms of the video and the dyno graphs. Again, we performed several pulls. I'm sure the video I posted does not match the dyno graph. The video shows a 351 max hp. We chose a more conservative "curve" to show on the dyno. Not only that but my curves started to show dips in the mid rpms which I attributed to my OEM ECU "freaking out" once heatsoaked. Therefore, even given the increase in boost and the resulting 10~hp increase, the tune itself was holding back the hp. I'm quite sure at this point the engine was pulling back timing once it saw the 180+ IAT temps. A more telling final pull result would have been after letting the car cool off for another 2-3hrs... instead of only 30mins. Unfortunately we were running out of time for the day.

I'm still skeptical in general about the 1.9~lb boost increase. Everything I know about cars (which isn't much!) tells me this is just impossible w/o changing pulleys. The car did start to run much more lean (approx 13.4~ AFR from 12.2~ during baseline pulls) at this higher boost while heatsoaked. So given this higher boost pressure and the oem ECU pulling back timing due to the intake heat perhaps the 10hp incremental does make sense (with proper tuning +20-30hp is probably attainable, furthermore with cooler, denser air possibly perhaps even higher). One thing is for sure... I need to upgrade my engine management system and find a cooling solution asap. I can't drive my NSX like this...

 

[kaede]

I'll be interested in picking up a bottle or two to try out on my daily driver IF THERE will be a group buy thingie and if it doesnt cost the rediculous $50 a pop =D

but again, even though I do truly believe that this thing works, i am still skeptical about the long term effects and share the same concerns with Turbo2go... Also, even though they say its safe to run in turbo and rotary vehicles, that in itself again scares me a bit. Small particles cloggin up my snails in my 335i? Yikes!! Powerdery substance being injected into my rotary engine and potential ruining my apex seals? No thanks. Again, the numbers shows, but it just scary to imagine such a thing in the engines of some of my cars lol

 

[nsxnut]

Something is not right.

If you add this stuff to the blower oil how does it increase boost. The oil is only for the gears and does not affect the clearances inside the blower where boost is produced. the only effect it can have is to possibly reduce the load on the motor/belt. If the belt was slipping and with this stuff less load where the belt doesn’t slip.. This will happen at higher boost. It won’t be a uniform increase across the rpm range.

One could argue that when you add this to the crank case the piston rings make a better seal and the boost is increase. But think about it... You show a 2.5 LB difference at all rpm.
you test results at least for boost are bogus.

 

[L_RAO]

What is the purpose of the oil in the supercharger unit? To reduce friction between the internal SC gears.

What would happen if one was able to further reduce the frictionr? The SC would spool up faster, and make more boost. And that's exactly what happened.

Or, let's go in the other direction - what if you were to increase the drag between the gears?

We went into this dyno session with hypotheses, and these were the results.

To call the results for boost bogus when we had TWO separate instruments measuring boost is rather bold on your part.

 

[RYU]

Don, I echo your concern. Though, The data is the data. Hoping someone like cptnsx can confirm or rebut our findings.

im taking the car out tonight. I'll try to find a deserted stretch of road to do another wot run. I'm a bit worried about the current tune so...

 

[greenberet]

What is the purpose of the oil in the supercharger unit? To reduce friction between the internal SC gears.

What would happen if one was able to further reduce the frictionr? The SC would spool up faster, and make more boost.

A turbo could spool up quicker but since a supercharger is physically connected to the crankshaft, the boost it produces is simply a function of engine rpm, isn’t it?

Reducing the friction inside the supercharger would let more of the engine’s torque make it to the rear wheels instead of being swallowed by the supercharger. That, in turn, would take a load off the belt, as nsxnut stated. If the belt starts slipping once it has to transmit a certain amount of torque to the supercharger, lowering the friction inside the supercharger would allow it to build more boost before the belt starts slipping. But looking at the boost pressure chart, it looks like the boost increased evenly at all rpm, not just past a certain point.

 

[cptnsx]

Don't do it until you know your air fuel ratio is safe. My tune's fuel map is setup all the way to 14psi even though the highest I've ever seen is 9psi in very cold Vegas weather (which is not often). Plus I'm intercooled and add 5-6 gallons of 100 octane to get a 93 to 94 mix.

 

[RYU]

A turbo could spool up quicker but since a supercharger is physically connected to the crankshaft, the boost it produces is simply a function of engine rpm, isn’t it?

Reducing the friction inside the supercharger would let more of the engine’s torque make it to the rear wheels instead of being swallowed by the supercharger. That, in turn, would take a load off the belt, as nsxnut stated. If the belt starts slipping once it has to transmit a certain amount of torque to the supercharger, lowering the friction inside the supercharger would allow it to build more boost before the belt starts slipping. But looking at the boost pressure chart, it looks like the boost increased evenly at all rpm, not just past a certain point.

This is a good discussion and something i've been thinking about frequently. The rate of spool/boost on a turbo is not fixed to the rpm since there is no mechanical gear connection to the crank. As we know, superchargers have parasitic drag from this fixed ratio of impeller speed to crank speed and effectively it robs horsepower to produce horsepower in a SC application. My hypothesis is if you decrease the friction within all the moving parts such as the SC gears themselves and then the entire engine then the rate of which boost achieved should come on much faster since the motor *wants* to accelerate at a faster rate of speed. You have effectively reduced the friction that was holding it back. This is my uneducated and unprofessional analysis of the situation.

This finding is supported by the 3 stage testing process we went thru. When Ran Up was introduced into the SC only then there was a small incremental gain since the SC is only a small part of the total friction drag coefficient of the engine. After it was introduced into the rest of the engine there was even more gain.

Loc has already proven in his other thread that this product does produce more power in NA form. So have many many others who have dyno tested their Ran Up experiences. I'm simply hoping someone else can verify my results. More data is best!

Actually once the domestic guys get word of this we should get the data we need. The boost increase due to Ran Up has already been proven true in many turbo applications. Though since most turbo applications are lubricated by engine oil there's no way to bifurcate the testing like how we did in a SC application.

---------
One more thing to add. You're right.. a turbo *can* spool up quicker but the rate of boost to crank will not always be the same (actually, it will always probably different). In the twin screw CTSC type of blower, I will argue that boost can come on sooner and can increase but the rate of increase will remain a constant ratio to crank speed.

Don't do it until you know your air fuel ratio is safe. My tune's fuel map is setup all the way to 14psi even though the highest I've ever seen is 9psi in very cold Vegas weather (which is not often). Plus I'm intercooled and add 5-6 gallons of 100 octane to get a 93 to 94 mix.

I'm going to plug in my data logger and creep into it slowly. If it stays below 13.2 AFR and stays relatively smooth I'll give it a shot. Probably best to keep it safe until I'm able to check the condition of my spark plugs though...

 

[CL65 Captain]

http://lowerfriction.com/product-page.php?categoryID=21

We can offer following Nanolubricant additives: (available in powder form)

MKN-LA-E1: Nanolubricant additive formulation for engine oil
Mix 5 gram to 1 liter (approx 1 quart) of Engine Oil
Price: US$81/50 grams

so.... 50 grams will make 50 liters of this stuff "(Mix 5 gram to 1 liter (approx 1 quart) of Engine Oil)".
Looks like Ran Up is 1/2 Lt bottle.

So for $81 you can make 100 bottles of this stuff? :redface: Looks like Ran Up is making HUGE margins!

It looks like this "magic powder" stuff is WS2 Tungsten Disulfide in a 0W20 oil.

http://www.dynacron.com/


Also made by an Israel Company http://www.apnano.com/ and marketed as NanoLub.


<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cEvwV269JsE?rel=0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AlSSNuUiIBM?rel=0" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

 

[dablackgoku1234]

http://lowerfriction.com/product-page.php?categoryID=21

These guys are local...interesting...