Another LoveFab Dyno

Duffer · 9 July 2008

I just had the final tune and RPS Stage 1 clutch performed by Cody and he had my car dyno'd on a rather conservative dyno. I am very pleased with the results given the low amount of boost (8 lbs) and the engine is a stock build. It is hard to read, but I ended up with 407 RWHP and 289 ft. lbs. of torque.

I was just out this past weekend with my buddy who has a replica 66 Ford GT40 with a Roush 351 bored out to a 427 which puts out 550 HP and over 500 lbs of torque - and it weighs under 3000 lbs.

Well, we did multiple 20-80 rolls, and I was dead even with him. If you want serious power (with no lag), there is no substitute. Got to love a LoveFab!

nsxotic911 · 10 July 2008

Engine mods?

warren1205 · 10 July 2008

he said it's stock... Very nice, when you say conservative tune what are the numbers?

Duffer · 10 July 2008

8 lbs. of boost. Beyond that, not being a motorhead, I am not sure.

warren1205 said:
he said it's stock... Very nice, when you say conservative tune what are the numbers?

nsxtcy85 · 10 July 2008

Id say very conservative witht hat boost and those numbers. Fun either way im sure!

ohshytitschris · 10 July 2008

Man, this is so tempting!

I'm completely torn whether or not to continue digging into the motor for a ~13:1cr all motor build, or just taking the easier (and cheaper) route of just going boost and calling it a day!

nsxotic911 · 10 July 2008

Duffer said:
8 lbs. of boost. Beyond that, not being a motorhead, I am not sure.

Alright, come back in 5 years and 50K miles and let us know how it's going

Duffer · 10 July 2008

ohshytitschris said:
Man, this is so tempting!

I'm completely torn whether or not to continue digging into the motor for a ~13:1cr all motor build, or just taking the easier (and cheaper) route of just going boost and calling it a day!

Yea, I finally got tired of trying to eek out performance gains the NA route, including weight reduction. I was up to 317RWHP, which was great, but I needed more. The turbo was the fix. I am now a happy camper. I can truly say the go-fast addiction is fully satisfied. Anything more and it would border on dangerous.

Duffer · 10 July 2008

slownsxt said:
Alright, come back in 5 years and 50K miles and let us know how it's going

I think that Woody has a LoveFab turbo with more boost on a stock build and has something like 30K miles on it. Woody, can you chime in and confirm?

Vega$ NSX · 10 July 2008

Duffer said:
Yea, I finally got tired of trying to eek out performance gains the NA route, including weight reduction. I was up to 317RWHP, which was great, but I needed more. The turbo was the fix. I am now a happy camper. I can truly say the go-fast addiction is fully satisfied. Anything more and it would border on dangerous.

Alright, come back in 5 months and 5000 miles and let us know how you feel. :tongue::biggrin:

Never underestimate the power of the go-fast crack pipe! :smile: When I hit 400 rwhp I was like DONE, NO MORE, I'M SATISFIED! Then 6 months later, I was like can't you squeeze out just another 50 hp?

WOODY · 10 July 2008

Duffer said:
I think that Woody has a LoveFab turbo with more boost on a stock build and has something like 30K miles on it. Woody, can you chime in and confirm?

I am running 19 psi on a low comp build with sleeves, ARP bolts and MLS head gasket. Last 30,000 miles over 500 rwhp with recent leakdowns <10%

Shaun Ray · 10 July 2008

Vega$ NSX said:
Alright, come back in 5 months and 5000 miles and let us know how you feel. :tongue::biggrin:

Never underestimate the power of the go-fast crack pipe! :smile: When I hit 400 rwhp I was like DONE, NO MORE, I'M SATISFIED! Then 6 months later, I was like can't you squeeze out just another 50 hp?

You guys are nuts! I took a ride in Vega$' NSX and nearly lost bladder control.:biggrin:

Cody@LoveFab · 10 July 2008

Glad to hear that you are satisfied Al! You are correct, much more power with your car is borderline unsafe. :biggrin:

We have several factory motor NSX's that have been running around for over two years and tens of thoursands of miles with our turbo systems. As long as the tuning is solid and the power is kept down to around 400whp, the reliablility is great.

brandonsan · 10 July 2008

Tinker219 said:
Glad to hear that you are satisfied Al! You are correct, much more power with your car is borderline unsafe. :biggrin:

We have several factory motor NSX's that have been running around for over two years and tens of thoursands of miles with our turbo systems. As long as the tuning is solid and the power is kept down to around 400whp, the reliablility is great.

I have been running the Lovefab kit (1st production kit) on a stock engine for over 2 years now and I couldn't be happier !!! Car is a beast with 400 RELIABLE RWHP but now I'm back on the go fast crack pipe. So I guess I will be installing the built engine by the end of summer. Thanks again Cody !!

winreboot · 11 July 2008

Have a question. 289 tq. is low becouse the turbocharger turbine is big?

Great dyno!

NSXkkk · 11 July 2008

i wish someone would give me a ride in a turbo nsx one day.
i feel stock performance is fast enough. hmm. turbo nsx will be amazing.

camber_combover · 11 July 2008

407HP seems low for a turbo system. I would think that witht the loss of low end response and a less linear powerband it wouldnt be the best option in a ~ 400HP class. Maybe at 600-900HP one can overcome the negatives with the huge power once put down the ground as compared to a 400HP vehicle. Also, what are the spool RPMs of the various Lovefab turbo/s?

Do they have have journal bearings and if so....why? Don't they[JBs] equate to slower response time of the overall system variables? thanks for the info

Duffer · 11 July 2008

The only reason I am "only" at 407 RWHP is that I made a conscious decision to not build the motor. If I had done that, then the sky is the limit. Driveability becomes a problem when you approach monster HP levels of 600+ and just didn't want to deal with that. I am not sure what the negatives are that you speak of. I have very smooth power from very low RPM's all the way to redline. I am very happy!

camber_combover said:
407HP seems low for a turbo system. I would think that witht the loss of low end response and a less linear powerband it wouldnt be the best option in a ~ 400HP class. Maybe at 600-900HP one can overcome the negatives with the huge power once put down the ground as compared to a 400HP vehicle. Also, what are the spool RPMs of the various Lovefab turbo/s?

Do they have have journal bearings and if so....why? Don't they[JBs] equate to slower response time of the overall system variables? thanks for the info

Devin@AEM · 11 July 2008

Those are awesome numbers Al! Head-to-head with a 550 HP V8 powered 3000lb GT40 replica is one heck of a cool comparison!

How is the AEM FI/C doing? Still starting/driving/idling the same as stock?

Duffer · 11 July 2008

Devin@AEM said:
Those are awesome numbers Al! Head-to-head with a 550 HP V8 powered 3000lb GT40 replica is one heck of a cool comparison!

How is the AEM FI/C doing? Still starting/driving/idling the same as stock?

Devin-

The FI/C is awesome. It is exactly like stock - just with hundreds of HP more!:tongue: You really nailed this perfectly. I appreciate all of your hard work to make this happen. I also put in some 110 race gas last weekend and maybe I am delusional, but I think I felt a performance increase. You can't beat the smell of high octane exhaust.

Vega$ NSX · 11 July 2008

Duffer said:
The only reason I am "only" at 407 RWHP is that I made a conscious decision to not build the motor. If I had done that, then the sky is the limit. Driveability becomes a problem when you approach monster HP levels of 600+ and just didn't want to deal with that. I am not sure what the negatives are that you speak of. I have very smooth power from very low RPM's all the way to redline. I am very happy!

Exactly. It's just a matter of turning up the boost, retune and done! I did the same thing, except even at 400 rwhp, I did lift a head gasket and crushed a cylinder head. Just goes to show that all engines are different and can handle different levels. But I was already sold in rebuilding the engine and cranking up on the boost anyway so maybe it was wishful thinking. :tongue:

01blacks4 · 12 July 2008

slownsxt said:
Alright, come back in 5 years and 50K miles and let us know how it's going

haters everywhere....

build a stroker motor and YOU let us know where you are in 50K and 5 years....

01blacks4 · 12 July 2008

camber_combover said:
407HP seems low for a turbo system. I would think that witht the loss of low end response and a less linear powerband it wouldnt be the best option in a ~ 400HP class. Maybe at 600-900HP one can overcome the negatives with the huge power once put down the ground as compared to a 400HP vehicle. Also, what are the spool RPMs of the various Lovefab turbo/s?

Do they have have journal bearings and if so....why? Don't they[JBs] equate to slower response time of the overall system variables? thanks for the info

do you even understand what you are trying to ask? or just trying to sound like a smart guy?

and there is little to no proof that a BB spools faster than a JB......just internet opinion. FWIW i am 99.999% sure the LV are all BB.

seems like all the turbo cars are spooling about 3500-4500rpm.

the HP number is not low, its only 8 psi. do some displacement VS compression calculations and you will find its right on target. Dont just guess its low, cause some other car make more with its turbo, yada yada yada.

the TQ does seem low, but i dont think thats a result of the turbo size, the dyno seems to show that it made power relitively quickly (3500-4500). a too large of turbo would not do that, and would make more TQ higher in the RPM band, not stay flat as this plot shows...
I would chaulk that up to different dyno's

Another LoveFab Dyno

Similar threads