Your compression, PSI, Turbo and Power.

[DDozier]

Stock Un-opened 3.2l bottom end
Twin AeroChargers & In-the-Intake WTA Intercooler
6.4lbs = 399.97whp & 303.63tq (track Tune with two full seasons 30+ track days)
8.4lbs = 442.25whp & 331.23tq (street Tune)
10.2lbs = 479.45whp & 367.25tq (no way I would run this on a stock botom end but I was playing with the vane control springs during testing)
93 octane, F/IC, 550cc injectors

Dave

 

[BATMANs]

Also keep in mind that different numbers from the same boost also depends on the CFMs of the turbo/blower.

 

[adrenaline_nsx]

Stock 3.0
E85 Tune, 1000cc injectors, EMS
T76 turbo custom setup

505hp@8 psi
[email protected] psi

 

[mrbozo1]

I don't agree especially since a ZR1 will trap at 130-131 with only 530rwhp. A 400rwhp NSX will trap at 120. It does not take 230 more rwhp to get 11 miles in the quarter (unless those are at the crank numbers in your post). Dynos lie all the time. I agree that E-85 allows more timing but who is running greater than stock timing at those psi levels.

There was an NSX in a past posting here at 630-640rwhp and that thing was at or close to 140 traps. Which is where it should be for the power and weight.

It is easy to trap 120 mph in 12 seconds.... try to trap 120 in 11 seconds or even better try to trap 120 in 10 seconds...I have said it before and I will say it again....The quicker the time you post the less time you have to go fast. rwhp is just one of the variables to trap high mph. I have trapped 134 mph but that was a bad pass when I ran 11.8. Way to many variables. I still have not made a clean pass at the drag strip with my new tune and if I do I am sure that I do I will trap in the high 130's, which equates to over 600 hp. But until I do I guess you are right all of the zr-1's that I have raced and beat have more hp than I do. But I will keep on trying. My apologies

 

[MetalSpikeRacing]

I see,
my car was tune on 91oct at 10psi it made 452rwhp, it has aftermarket headers and AMS EMS.
with the new compression (9.5:1) it'll be shooting for 14psi on 91.

 

[mrbozo1]

I see,
my car was tune on 91oct at 10psi it made 452rwhp, it has aftermarket headers and AMS EMS.
with the new compression (9.5:1) it'll be shooting for 14psi on 91.

My car with the old tune made 500 hp at 10 psi and the use of 50/50 meth/water as a fuel as well. I know this is dangerous but I got away with it for a couple of years. When I made 600hp on that tune it was with Q-16 racing fuel at 15 psi ,even the tuner made comment on how much hp my car made on 10 psi(remember he tunes most of the NSX's in the Phoenix area including SOS). Now I have it tuned on e-85 and added 2000cc injectors and new fuel pump,fuel lines, fuel filter and still running all stock internals. If you have e-85 in your area I would get your tuner to give you two tunes , one on regular and one on e-85 that you switch to for the track.

 

[BATMANs]

SOS is working on a mod for the AEM EMS series 2 with some sorta flex fuel module.

There's a thread in here some where.

 

[E-Nough Logic]

Aem series 2 fully supports flex fuel now with the newest firmware. All you need to do is install and wire up a flex fuel sensor. They also have improved engine protections for low oil press and fuel pressure if wired up.

 

[MetalSpikeRacing]

It really sucks, we don't have E85 here in Toronto..

 

[Coolberg]

Ask around. I think you can get it but it isn't convenient. I met a guy from GTA last year at an S2000 event who was running E85 in his turbo S2000.

 

[curtsr]

9:1
17 lbs
627whp/ 429lbs on premium pump gas
forged internals unsleeved

 

[Flexer]

It is easy to trap 120 mph in 12 seconds.... try to trap 120 in 11 seconds or even better try to trap 120 in 10 seconds...I have said it before and I will say it again....The quicker the time you post the less time you have to go fast. rwhp is just one of the variables to trap high mph. I have trapped 134 mph but that was a bad pass when I ran 11.8. Way to many variables. I still have not made a clean pass at the drag strip with my new tune and if I do I am sure that I do I will trap in the high 130's, which equates to over 600 hp. But until I do I guess you are right all of the zr-1's that I have raced and beat have more hp than I do. But I will keep on trying. My apologies

Mrboz,

That statement of yours is internet crap and we should stop the rumor. If you run a faster ET it doesn't mean your trap goes down. The length of the qt. mile does not change. If you run a faster ET it means you accelerated faster and this has no affect on the top speed you can run. In fact, it usually gives you the ability to have a higher trap speed hence most low ET cars have a high trap speed. The reason you notice lower traps is that as the acceleration of a car increases track distance can be lost to slipping tires from the hard launch, or longer delays from shifting as the driver wasn't ready for how fast the shifts come in the lower gears with a higher acceleration than. But we can't change physics. Speed=distance over time. distance is a constant so as your time decreases your speed increases. The faster you run that distance the lower your time to cover. I had a buddy who said the same thing as you for years since his highest traps were his slowest times. After years of racing the car and getting his set-up to be perfect, and being on slicks, his best ET is now also his highest trap.

Woopie. Who would have guessed.

J. R.

 

[mrbozo1]

Mrboz,

That statement of yours is internet crap and we should stop the rumor. If you run a faster ET it doesn't mean your trap goes down. The length of the qt. mile does not change. If you run a faster ET it means you accelerated faster and this has no affect on the top speed you can run. In fact, it usually gives you the ability to have a higher trap speed hence most low ET cars have a high trap speed. The reason you notice lower traps is that as the acceleration of a car increases track distance can be lost to slipping tires from the hard launch, or longer delays from shifting as the driver wasn't ready for how fast the shifts come in the lower gears with a higher acceleration than. But we can't change physics. Speed=distance over time. distance is a constant so as your time decreases your speed increases. The faster you run that distance the lower your time to cover. I had a buddy who said the same thing as you for years since his highest traps were his slowest times. After years of racing the car and getting his set-up to be perfect, and being on slicks, his best ET is now also his highest trap.

Woopie. Who would have guessed.

J. R.

I wasnt trying to dispute speed vs time I was just answering the post that was asking how much PSI would you need to produce 500 hp and I answered that. I gave my example and included proof that I was at the numbers that I suggested. Perhaps you should start a thread where guys can post their times and hp because as you should know the NSX was never meant to drag race so it doesnt really fit into the mold of hp vs weight = et. Not only because of its rear gear ratio and inability to launch but also its low torque and IRS setup. Make it a great day.

 

[Flexer]

I wasnt trying to dispute speed vs time I was just answering the post that was asking how much PSI would you need to produce 500 hp and I answered that. I gave my example and included proof that I was at the numbers that I suggested. Perhaps you should start a thread where guys can post their times and hp because as you should know the NSX was never meant to drag race so it doesnt really fit into the mold of hp vs weight = et. Not only because of its rear gear ratio and inability to launch but also its low torque and IRS setup. Make it a great day.

Apologize for mis-reading your statement. Though I would like to say that if you want to know the ACTUAL power of your car and not play the dyno war game with everyone just go to the track with some sticky tires and bog it out of the hole. Make sure you never hit the rev limiter, and shift fast without missing a gear taking the car to redline. When I took my turbo S2000 to the track I didn't want to break anything so I ran a:
17.6@109
15.4@108
13.1@109

on the 17.1 pass the light went green and I let the clutch out taking off from 1,000 rpm and let the car spool up and go. On the 13.1 pass I kinda launched the car at 3,000 rpm.

WIth My Lotus Super 7. I have run
14.5@125
13.3@124
11.8@126
11.5@125
[email protected]

As you can see the ET is based on how fast I accelerate while the MPH is basically my cars Power to Weight ratio minus air resistance. Even if I run faster in the 1/8th mile I can't do much more on the back half of the track based on my power.

Example. on the 11.8@126 my 1/8th mile trap was 101.8 mph, and yet on my 11.4@126 my 1/8th mile trap was 105.4. I still only trap at the qt mile though .5 MPH higher. Reason being that at those speeds I am now fighting the aerodynamics of the car which are exponential so have 4 mph faster at the 8th only lead to .5 mph increase by the end of the quarter mile.

In summary. Bog the car or launch the car. MPH should be the same with no driver error, but I must stress that you CANNOT hit the rev limiter for even a second, and shifts need to be fast and crisp.
A buddy in his evo, who I should add is not a great driver, traps anywhere from 117-123 depending on the run. He usually either misses a shift or hits the rev limiter. I asked him to relax, and just shift slower and make sure he gets every gear so we can see a consistent trap and he traps 121 mph EVERY TIME. He has 6-7 timeslips where he hits redline perfect, but slow shifts each gear and 121 mph is what he gets.

Want to shut the people up. The big black dyno never lies. Take the car and don't beat on it. Just bog it out of the whole and post up your trap speed.

J. R.