403.1rwhp !

[NsX_R]

I have stock motor. I think cooling is a very big factor, so upgrade yours asap

Hmm 403 whp at 5psi seems a bit unbelivable. I am not saying its not true but when I was running 8psi I topped out at 360. Granted I dont have an aftercooler but it wouldnt account for that much of a horsepower difference.

Do you have a stock or built motor? I have a built motor myself so perhaps that in combination with the aftercooler would account for the difference. However when I was researching other prime bbsc setups I didnt seen anyone else that hit 400whp with less than 8psi.

 

[ncdogdoc]

Its NOVI 2000, and again I got a 4Inch pulley on mine. Sorry no pics yet, car needs big time detailing.


BTW, NCDOGDOC. Could you explains why I cant track my NSX ???

I just want you to be able to enjoy it for the long term!!

 

[Factor X Motorsports]

Nice numbers Kenny See you guys in Oct.

 

[2NRWerks]

Looks like you used a ruler to drawl the AF. Congrats - Nice tune!

 

[ZRO260B4U]

Hmm 403 whp at 5psi seems a bit unbelivable. I am not saying its not true but when I was running 8psi I topped out at 360. Granted I dont have an aftercooler but it wouldnt account for that much of a horsepower difference.

Do you have a stock or built motor? I have a built motor myself so perhaps that in combination with the aftercooler would account for the difference. However when I was researching other prime bbsc setups I didnt seen anyone else that hit 400whp with less than 8psi.

Coldhammer,

No pun intended... I just wanted to help you out on your search. It is possible to make 403rwhp/270.9ft/lbs @ 6psi., on a stock motor.

Here is a copy of my Dyno results when I had the BBSC installed in Florida, and tuned in Raleigh, NC. back in the summer of 2002 by MB.

This kit was running the NOVI 1000, SS black box, no internal motor work, no intercooler, just the basic BBSC kit.

 

[sjs]

No offense, but that isn't exactly convincing evidence. For one thing, those early BBSC cars made big power at great peril due to timing control issues. Secondly, the AFR on your chart is positively hair-raising for a non-cooled engine making that kind of power. Thirdly, his original post (since corrected) was 5psi, not 6. I challenge anyone to get 400+ at 5psi from a C30 with stock internals, throttle-body and intake manifold, and not have it grenade under proper use for such a car.

 

[peiserg]

No offense, but that isn't exactly convincing evidence. For one thing, those early BBSC cars made big power at great peril due to timing control issues. Secondly, the AFR on your chart is positively hair-raising for a non-cooled engine making that kind of power. Thirdly, his original post (since corrected) was 5psi, not 6. I challenge anyone to get 400+ at 5psi from a C30 with stock internals, throttle-body and intake manifold, and not have it grenade under proper use for such a car.

I'm sure zro260 can adequately speak for himself, but IIRC he did have 480 rwhp on his bbsc and afaik there were no problems when it was checked for ring problems or otherwise. I might be mistaken, of course..

 

[titaniumdave]

Sorry guys for not changing the notes on the dyno graph. It was dyno at 7.5 peak psi. It started out making 5.5 psi down low then creep up to 7.5 psi on the top end.

The A/F at the end was a little lean on that last run, but it was corrected before he left. The whole map was richen an additional 2%. Typically, we run an 11.8 a/f on that set-up and is proven reliability.

Have fun with the car Mike !

Jotech
972-278-9744
www.jotechracing.com

What were the intake air temps? I am getting pretty high numbers once my set up is heat soaked and have a noticeable drop off in power (+20 HP) with my CTSC.

 

[MiamieNeSeX]

I am getting pretty high numbers once my set up is heat soaked and have a noticeable drop off in power (+20 HP) with my CTSC.

Define "HIGH"


Armando

 

[titaniumdave]

180 degrees F.

Define "HIGH"


Armando

 

[NsX_R]

No offense, but that isn't exactly convincing evidence. For one thing, those early BBSC cars made big power at great peril due to timing control issues. Secondly, the AFR on your chart is positively hair-raising for a non-cooled engine making that kind of power. Thirdly, his original post (since corrected) was 5psi, not 6. I challenge anyone to get 400+ at 5psi from a C30 with stock internals, throttle-body and intake manifold, and not have it grenade under proper use for such a car.

What I have in my NSX is the base kit plus aftercooler, I am using the lowest boosts pulley (4Inch) so: Is there such as 5psi pulley or just 5.5psi ???

 

[MiamieNeSeX]

180 degrees F.

I feel for you, I was having IAT over 200. Not a happy time for the engine.


Armando

 

[sjs]

I'm sure zro260 can adequately speak for himself, but IIRC he did have 480 rwhp on his bbsc and afaik there were no problems when it was checked for ring problems or otherwise. I might be mistaken, of course..

But surely not at 5psi sans inter/after cooler. (did you really mean 480?) My point is that even the most optimistic assumptions and math do not support 400 HP @ 5psi MAP.

 

[sjs]

What I have in my NSX is the base kit plus aftercooler, I am using the lowest boosts pulley (4Inch) so: Is there such as 5psi pulley or just 5.5psi ???

Sorry, I don't know, but boost measured at the manifold is nominal anyway and can vary by that much anyway.

 

[peiserg]

But surely not at 5psi sans inter/after cooler. (did you really mean 480?) My point is that even the most optimistic assumptions and math do not support 400 HP @ 5psi MAP.

no not at 5 psi. it was 12 psi. the dyno is here on prime. Highest 12 psi output iirc. So why not 400+ at 6 psi? I got 365 at 6 psi with no headers, intake exhaust or anything... straight stock except SC..

 

[sjs]

no not at 5 psi. it was 12 psi. the dyno is here on prime. Highest 12 psi output iirc. So why not 400+ at 6 psi? I got 365 at 6 psi with no headers, intake exhaust or anything... straight stock except SC..

I said 5 psi, not 6 psi. His post now says 5.5 but I think it was originally 5.

Anyway, its just the math involved. Let’s stick with 5 since that’s what my assumptions and challenge were based on, and remember that I said no extraordinary mods other than the SC and headers/exhaust.

What RWHP will a strong 3.0 put down with headers & exhaust? Can we optimistically call it 260? (that’s ~+25 over typical stock numbers). To get 403 from that would mean an increase of 143 or 55%. If efficiency and everything else remains constant then you need to process about the same increase in air/fuel volume. Since one atmosphere is 14.7 psi then it seems logical that you would need boost of about .55 bar, or roughly 8.1 psi to stuff that much intake charge into the cylinders. So even best case you would need the engine to make 300+ RWHP before adding 5 psi boost to yield 403.

But MAP is generally higher than the actual increase in charge, and efficiency generally falls off for various reasons. Intake temps rise and timing needs more retard, plus you should run a bit richer than the max power ratio of 12.5:1. All of which conspire to drop you below the best-case of multiplying Stock HP * MAP in bar (where MAP starts at 1 bar for stock/zero boost). Given all that, I think it would take magic, or the bets of all stock engines, to produce 403 @ 5psi indicated MAP.

Interestingly, the 8psi number calculated above is very close to where the best turbo systems achieve 400 RWHP, but they are cooled and tend to do a few extra things such as removing VVIS etc. that were not mentioned for this engine.

 

[Gerard van Santen]

Torque