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

300 whp without opening your engine?

BATMANs said:
Have you seen my engine build thread?
Click to expand...

looks like coating could give extra 1% of power:

Scoop + Stack Intake System: +10hp (dyno tested)
Phenolic gaskets to insulate the manifold (3% increase in power): +10hp (no dyno)
Exhaust + Headers: +26hp (dyno tested)
rdx injectors + tune: +16hp (dyno tested)
ATI Super Damper: +5hp (dyno tested)
Ran Up Oil Additive (2% increase in power): +7hp (dyno tested)
L/W Flywheel: +??hp (does any member have information about possible power gains?)
jet hot coat the entire exhaust system: +3hp (no dyno)

more upgrades? bolt-ons? anyone?:smile:
 
you NA purists need to combine this helpful thread with the weight reduction one for the ultimate in antiboost performance:wink:....btw I'm an na kinda guy too:redface:
 
BBVNSX said:
looks like coating could give extra 1% of power:

Scoop + Stack Intake System: +10hp (dyno tested)
Phenolic gaskets to insulate the manifold (3% increase in power): +10hp (no dyno)
Exhaust + Headers: +26hp (dyno tested)
rdx injectors + tune: +16hp (dyno tested)
ATI Super Damper: +5hp (dyno tested)
Ran Up Oil Additive (2% increase in power): +7hp (dyno tested)
L/W Flywheel: +??hp (does any member have information about possible power gains?)
jet hot coat the entire exhaust system: +3hp (no dyno)

more upgrades? bolt-ons? anyone?:smile:
Click to expand...

Damn why the f*ck did Comptech make a Supercharger when you could have just done the above and gained 77 horsepower.:rolleyes:

I had an engine that made 300rwhp na. It had 3.0 heads milled; 3.2 bottom end from a 2004. IHE, bbtb, modified intake, larger injectors, aem -tuned with more timing than stock, SOS cams, lightweight flywheel, and increased compression to 10.7. I made 300rwhp on multiple dynos (hell made 320 on one) and my highest trap speed was 113. That's what it takes to get to a real 300rwhp period.

A 3.2 in a coupe will trap around 107-108 and it makes ~250rwhp. A true 300rwhp in a coupe should get you 112-113.
 
Last edited:
docjohn said:
you NA purists need to combine this helpful thread with the weight reduction one for the ultimate in antiboost performance:wink:....btw I'm an na kinda guy too:redface:
Click to expand...

I'm an na guy too, and really believe that NA power + weight reduction is the way to go :wink:

cptnsx said:
Damn why the f*ck did Comptech make a Supercharger when you could have just done the above and gained 77 horsepower.:rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Not saying you can just add all and get 77 hp... but if you can get 50-60 hp and 100 lbs of weight reduction this would be a great improvement...

S/C is a great way to improve power, but as i stated before this will transform the NSX... and if it was only pros and no cons, being such a good hp/$ upgrade, all sportcars and super cars would be S/C...

cptnsx said:
I had an engine that made 300rwhp na. It had 3.0 heads milled; 3.2 bottom end from a 2004. IHE, bbtb, modified intake, larger injectors, aem -tuned with more timing than stock, SOS cams, lightweight flywheel, and increased compression to 10.7. I made 300rwhp on multiple dynos (hell made 320 on one) and my highest trap speed was 113. That's what it takes to get to a real 300rwhp period.

A 3.2 in a coupe will trap around 107-108 and it makes ~250rwhp. A true 300rwhp in a coupe should get you 112-113.
Click to expand...

"Damn why the f*ck" you done all this to an engine if you could have just gone S/C?.... :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Serious now: that's one way to get 300 whp... is there other...?
 
cptnsx said:
I had an engine that made 300rwhp na. It had 3.0 heads milled; 3.2 bottom end from a 2004. IHE, bbtb, modified intake, larger injectors, aem -tuned with more timing than stock, SOS cams, lightweight flywheel, and increased compression to 10.7. I made 300rwhp on multiple dynos (hell made 320 on one) and my highest trap speed was 113. That's what it takes to get to a real 300rwhp period.
Click to expand...

Wow, what happened to that car/where is it now?
 
bngl3rt said:
"Damn why the f*ck" you done all this to an engine if you could have just gone S/C?.... :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:
Click to expand...



Read the post above ...... I learned my lesson. But if I had a white NA2 built to Type R specs and 20 to 30K burn I would get SOS to build me a 3.8 with ITBs and custom header/exhaust so I could get as close as I could to 400rwhp or better.
 
Last edited:
kookoo4nsx said:
I think that makes you the first and only person to INCREASE compression on a FI NSX.
Click to expand...

Decreasing compression in order to prepare "compensate" for FI is an older school of thought. Tuning capabilities (AEM EMS, wideband O2 sensors), combustion chamber and piston design have come a long ways, thereby allowing "high" compression to be run in an FI application.

Here's an article that is a good read:

http://theoldone.com/articles/itisdifficulttomakehardheads.html
 
That's true but it narrows the safety of margin of a bad batch of gasoline (which has certainly cost me my GTO and FD engines).

When I did my engine build I was thinking long and hard about dropping the compression ratios down to the levels that I felt will support a high boost SOS turbo if I wanted more power.

STMPO told me to keep the stock compression ratios.

I looked at the compression ratios of the following:

MKIV
Koeneggsegg
MPC12
ZR-1
Kompressor AMG
Turbo'd 911
etc.

And at the end of the day it just seemed that the cars that had compression ratios in the low 9 range seemed to have a good balance of taking more boost on pump gas and keeping the NOx down.
 
BATMANs said:
That's true but it narrows the safety of margin of a bad batch of gasoline (which has certainly cost me my GTO and FD engines).

When I did my engine build I was thinking long and hard about dropping the compression ratios down to the levels that I felt will support a high boost SOS turbo if I wanted more power.

STMPO told me to keep the stock compression ratios.

I looked at the compression ratios of the following:

MKIV
Koeneggsegg
MPC12
ZR-1
Kompressor AMG
Turbo'd 911
etc.

And at the end of the day it just seemed that the cars that had compression ratios in the low 9 range seemed to have a good balance of taking more boost on pump gas and keeping the NOx down.
Click to expand...

You can always spike your gas with 100+ octane gas. Since I was making your power levels but on an almost new 2005 engine, after you posted about your engine blowing I decided to spike with 100+ octane gas to give me 93 to 94 octane. We get the same shit 91 like you do in CA.

I use the BKRE7 and change them every three months (overkill) but I get to inspect them that way ---- plus I use Pennzoil Ultra.
 
My engine seemed to have blown from not being able to handle the dynamic pressures of 11psi as opposed to detonation based on the visual opinion of my engine builder that's been doing engines for 20+ years (trust me he's seen alot).

i remember that cold morning from a roll at 5mph~ my tires spun in 1st through the end of 2nd gear on 275 wide Dunlop Star Specs. I've never had any NSX been able to do that.
 
Can someone translate the Yamamoto webpage? They posted the vids as advertising so maybe they have a list of the mods too.
 
I'm really pleased NSX Prime created this "NSX Naturally Aspirated Performance" sub forum and the guys like BBVNSX and L_RAO help us bring together so many ideas towards a better NA experience

But it is so boring to have the usual FI propagandists come in with the same old boring arguments about why bother. We bother because we like NA... if you don't appreciate NA then go post in the FI sections. I did not come to this thread to read through the same old NA vs FI crap :mad:. I dont even read the FI sub forums and I certainly would not go over there and argue they are completely wrong to éven consider modding an NSX to FI. (But I can say it here... right !!!)

sorry for the vent guys, but please ...... sheess!
 
Last edited:
I 100% agree with greenberet about the problem of dyno inconsistency and never really knowing exactly the resulting whp. But we can guesstimate/predict then measure improvements per mod or combination of mods, provided we are reasonable scientific about it (and L_RAO is doing a fine job of this).

If I did a bunch of mods hoping for 300whp on the dyno, and it only read (say) 295... I for one would not fret too much as long as it is the expected gain over my pre-mod readings on same dyno, in similar weather (temp, humidity). I mean ... can any of us really "feel"a 5 hp difference @ peak revs? I doubt it

After all, once we see claims of 300 NA whp by seveal NA cars, surely there will be a "is 400 NA whp possible?" :smile:
 
Made some research on the internet and it looks like L/W flywheel power gains will depend on which gear you dyno test your car (whp gains will decrease when you go through gears - 1st gear = >hp gains, 5 or 6th gear = < hp gains) but as a conservative estimation i'll assume that L/W flywheel will give an increase in power similar to the ATI damper claimed gains...

so the list of upgrades would be for now:

Scoop + Stack Intake System: +10hp (dyno tested)
Phenolic gaskets to insulate the manifold (3% increase in power): +10hp (no dyno)
Exhaust + Headers: +26hp (dyno tested)
rdx injectors + tune: +16hp (dyno tested)
ATI Super Damper: +5hp (dyno tested)
Ran Up Oil Additive (2% increase in power): +7hp (dyno tested)
L/W Flywheel: +5hp (no dyno)
jet hot coat the entire exhaust system: +3hp (no dyno)

And yes we all know that we can't just add everything and get 82hp :biggrin:...

Are there any other upgrades/bolt-ons? any other sugestions?
 
Last edited:
BBVNSX said:
Made some research on the internet and it looks like L/W flywheel power gains will depend on which gear you dyno test your car (whp gains will decrease when you go through gears - 1st gear = >hp gains, 5 or 6th gear = < hp gains) but as a conservative estimation i'll assume that L/W flywheel will give an increase in power similar to the ATI damper claimed gains...

so the list of upgrades would be for now:

Scoop + Stack Intake System: +10hp (dyno tested)
Phenolic gaskets to insulate the manifold (3% increase in power): +10hp (no dyno)
Exhaust + Headers: +26hp (dyno tested)
rdx injectors + tune: +16hp (dyno tested)
ATI Super Damper: +5hp (dyno tested)
Ran Up Oil Additive (2% increase in power): +7hp (dyno tested)
L/W Flywheel: +5hp (no dyno)
jet hot coat the entire exhaust system: +3hp (no dyno)

And yes we all know that we can't just add everything and get 82hp :biggrin:...

Are there any other upgrades/bolt-ons? any other sugestions?
Click to expand...

I may be wrong here but I don't believe the weight of a flywheel increases or decreases the amount of power produced by an engine.
The weight of a flywheel does affect the rate that power increases with rpm.
At a fixed horsepower a heavy flywheel will take more time to reach a certain rpm as more work must be done to accelerate the heavier mass.
The heavier flywheel also stores more power in its rotating mass.
A light flywheel will require less time to reach a certain rpm as less work is required but stores less power due to its lower rotating mass.
So an engine with a light flywheel wil rev up quicker but that doesn't mean more power is being made by the engine.
When shifting to a higher gear the power in the heavy flywheel will supply more stored energy to assist in keeping the car accelerating than the light flywheel.

Jim
 
Last edited:
JD Cross said:
I may be wrong here but I don't believe the weight of a flywheel increases or decreases the amount of power produced by an engine.
The weight of a flywheel does affect the rate that power increases with rpm.
At a fixed horsepower a heavy flywheel will take more time to reach a certain rpm as more work must be done to accelerate the heavier mass.
The heavier flywheel also stores more power in its rotating mass.
A light flywheel will require less time to reach a certain rpm as less work is required but stores less power due to its lower rotating mass.
So an engine with a light flywheel wil rev up quicker but that doesn't mean more power is being made by the engine.
When shifting to a higher gear the power in the heavy flywheel will supply more stored energy to assist in keeping the car accelerating than the light flywheel.
Click to expand...

You've summarized the pros/cons of L/W flywheel nicely, although the last point could be argued since it would depend on perfect clutch release to grab any stored energy and a minor advantage. Once the clutch grabs the heavier flywheel is becomes a power drain again, and a drag on acceleration.

Whilst LWFW may not add to power directly, it does add to the car's performance in same way weight reduction of the road wheels does, i.e. double benefit because they are rotating masses. So the car responds as if there's more power. Same would apply for ATI damper, but I've read they also reduce crankshaft harmonics, thus releasing a bit more power to the drive train.

In summary I'd say the gains are in efficiency of power delivery, rather than actual power gains. So the crank power doesn't increase but a dyno would report more power @ wheels due to less losses. Although, on second thoughts this whole discussion sort of depends on where you measure "crank" horsepower ... I've assumed that excludes the flywheel, maybe it's t'other way round ?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Veke Nak
C30A engine build routes
Replies
9
Views
471
stuntman
stuntman
whs520
Garmin DriveSmart 86 fits in Nav Pod without modification
Replies
2
Views
346
whs520
whs520
Old Guy
Accessing engine block coolant drains and thermostat removal
Replies
19
Views
695
Old Guy
Old Guy
SOURCE 1
FS: 1992 Acura NSX Mechanically Restored VIN - JH4NA1152NT001190
Replies
12
Views
1K
jwally18
J
B
Powertrain FOR SALE: C30A engine + 5sp transmission w/ JDM short gears
Replies
9
Views
1K
Butters
B
Back
Top