Oh my god!

[Don Corenman]

Just had my 91 with 47k take on Comptech supercharger, exhaust and headers. I line in Vail, Colorado and have to drive 2 passes over 11,000 feet from Denver.

The difference was amazing. The torque above 4000 rpm and the acceleration was beyond expectation. It seems the supercharger significantly compensates for the thin air, probably more than a larger engine.
My hat is off to Pikes Peak Acura for the install and especially to Paul Zabritsky, their NSX master mechanic.

This is the way that the car should have come from the factory. It is complete now.

 

[Hugh]

I live in Vail, Colorado

You have no idea how jealous of you I am.
It's been too long since my last dose of Blue Ox. ::biggrin:

 

[Shumdit]

Just had my 91 with 47k take on Comptech supercharger, exhaust and headers. I line in Vail, Colorado and have to drive 2 passes over 11,000 feet from Denver.

The difference was amazing. The torque above 4000 rpm and the acceleration was beyond expectation. It seems the supercharger significantly compensates for the thin air, probably more than a larger engine.
My hat is off to Pikes Peak Acura for the install and especially to Paul Zabritsky, their NSX master mechanic.

This is the way that the car should have come from the factory. It is complete now.

FI really helps with the air you guys have up there (or lack of it!)

 

[WillErickson]

Hi Don, I was there a few weeks ago dropping off my '95 for the same dose of steroids. I saw your car there, looked very clean and the s/c installation was very neat and professional. Supposed to pick up mine on Friday, can hardly wait.

-Will

 

[BD]

I drag race NSXSUPRA's 92 with CTSC with my 03. At the end (about 100mph), he was only three car length ahead of me. That's probably why I cancelled my order with Nopi, couldn't justified the money. NSXSPURA on the other hand, was extrememly happy, because CTSC made a huge difference for his NA1. I'm sure if I decided to keep the order, my car will go much faster, but again...

Congrat

 

[Shumdit]

#1. You are comparing NA1 and NA2, so the difference would likely have been a good bit greater with an NA2 CTSC vs. yours.

#2. 3 car lengths by 100 MPH is a lot!

 

[Hugh]

3 car lengths by 100 MPH is a lot!

On the Hayabusa, I can make it from 0 to 100 then back to zero and place a stock order on my PDA before the NSX even makes it to 100. Now that's a lot! :biggrin:

 

[latzke]

On the Hayabusa, I can make it from 0 to 100 then back to zero and place a stock order on my PDA before the NSX even makes it to 100.

Assuming some lady doesn't make a left-hand turn in front of you. :wink:

 

[scorp965]

#1. You are comparing NA1 and NA2, so the difference would likely have been a good bit greater with an NA2 CTSC vs. yours.

#2. 3 car lengths by 100 MPH is a lot!

The conflict for me is one of how the nsx was designed; it wasn't built for F/I, and by taking that step what are you compromising? Certainly it is an interesting bit of 'go fast', but the car wasn't designed for drag racing and even after a CTSC or other F/I installation it will still fall short of many of the big hp offerings now available - it comes down to: is it worth compromising the NA heritage of the nsx just for an extra few CL's to 100mph in a drag race, is that extra ~75-100hp worth the added stress on your engine, the need to replace your clutch with a stronger grabbing one, the potential hit in resale value, etc. when we are all already driving a car that is capable of highly illegal road performance?

Certainly if you're going to spend the scratch on expensive NA modifications, if you feel the urge to keep throwing mods at your NSX, then F/I offers the best hp/$$$ ratio, but the question is do you need the power, or would you gain most of the same thing by simply reving your nsx a bit higher and not modifying it? Is it worth the hassle, the expense, the added stress on your car's drivetrain, etc. all for that extra ~75hp? Some may feel it is, some may have a legitimate need for that added power when tracking, and some may just feel like they have a punchcard of modifications they must install onto their nsx, but keep this in mind: even after your CTSC is bolted onto your nsx you are still not going to be as fast as the new high number offerings out there, and the cost of a supercharger, etc. does not end at the $10k or so to buy and install the kit - other concerns, such as larger brakes, an upgraded clutch, stand alone engine management, engine modifications, tuning, etc. can quickly add up, until you're left selling your car in 10 years or so having spent more than the car on modifications (such as where I was a bit ago selling a RMS Supercharged BMW Z3, with a private party value of low $10k's, with over $40k in reciepts, for $18k).

It is far easier to argue against F/I than for it, and it seems as though several nsx owners feel strapping a low-boost blower onto their car will turn it into the ultimate supercar - this is not the case, and I find it easier to rationalize the purchase of a better sounding exhaust, a rare JDM part, or a non-automotive item than the cost associated with a temporary band aid solution like a F/I nsx. This is not to say you couldn't get a fantastic car from a company like Factor X, or that, if the price were too good to pass up, I wouldn't do the same to my nsx, but at the current level (which is a reasonable number) I am not running out to get one... Then again I have not yet been taken for a 'test drive' in a F/I nsx, I have been warned by several people against doing so. :wink:

Sorry for the rambling post......

 

[Bob Kenney]

The conflict for me is one of how the nsx was designed; it wasn't built for F/I, and by taking that step what are you compromising? Certainly it is an interesting bit of 'go fast', but the car wasn't designed for drag racing and even after a CTSC or other F/I installation it will still fall short of many of the big hp offerings now available - it comes down to: is it worth compromising the NA heritage of the nsx just for an extra few CL's to 100mph in a drag race, is that extra ~75-100hp worth the added stress on your engine, the need to replace your clutch with a stronger grabbing one, the potential hit in resale value, etc. when we are all already driving a car that is capable of highly illegal road performance?

Certainly if you're going to spend the scratch on expensive NA modifications, if you feel the urge to keep throwing mods at your NSX, then F/I offers the best hp/$$$ ratio, but the question is do you need the power, or would you gain most of the same thing by simply reving your nsx a bit higher and not modifying it? Is it worth the hassle, the expense, the added stress on your car's drivetrain, etc. all for that extra ~75hp? Some may feel it is, some may have a legitimate need for that added power when tracking, and some may just feel like they have a punchcard of modifications they must install onto their nsx, but keep this in mind: even after your CTSC is bolted onto your nsx you are still not going to be as fast as the new high number offerings out there, and the cost of a supercharger, etc. does not end at the $10k or so to buy and install the kit - other concerns, such as larger brakes, an upgraded clutch, stand alone engine management, engine modifications, tuning, etc. can quickly add up, until you're left selling your car in 10 years or so having spent more than the car on modifications (such as where I was a bit ago selling a RMS Supercharged BMW Z3, with a private party value of low $10k's, with over $40k in reciepts, for $18k).

It is far easier to argue against F/I than for it, and it seems as though several nsx owners feel strapping a low-boost blower onto their car will turn it into the ultimate supercar - this is not the case, and I find it easier to rationalize the purchase of a better sounding exhaust, a rare JDM part, or a non-automotive item than the cost associated with a temporary band aid solution like a F/I nsx. This is not to say you couldn't get a fantastic car from a company like Factor X, or that, if the price were too good to pass up, I wouldn't do the same to my nsx, but at the current level (which is a reasonable number) I am not running out to get one... Then again I have not yet been taken for a 'test drive' in a F/I nsx, I have been warned by several people against doing so. :wink:

Sorry for the rambling post......

How are you making your comparisons?
The SC unit from CT was designed to compliment the car not compromise it.
You mention that even after adding the SC the car falls far short of todays Big HP cars. The NSX has always been an over achiever; it just seems to do more with less. The idea of the CTSC is to give it a little more to work with without compromising the cars balance. There are installs that have over 70, 000 miles on them without problems.

I strongly feel that low boost CTSC gives way more than it takes from the car. I agree with the Don Corenman that the NSX should have had this kind of power from their inception. In fact I agree with Don to the extent that both my NSXs have CTSCs on them and I consider the SC additions the single most satisfying modification to the cars to date. I have driven my car on long road trips, achieving 29.5 MPG, at track events and even been involved in a few straight line test of acceleration and in every case the SC made the experience better. For me it was a less expensive up grade than buying a new car; besides I just plain like the looks of the NSX more than other cars.:biggrin:

If you want to add big HP #s then go turbo; now you are in the area of todays High HP cars. Woody from Chicago just posted results of his turbo install. He is showing over 490 RWHP, that is probably 570 crank HP; I feel that will compare with most of what are considered todays HP cars. Given the power to weight ratio it will put his car up there with most of the new offerings. It is true you can find cars that produce more HP and even have better power to weight ratios but they are very costly exceptions, there are NSXs in that rarefied air with over 800 RWHP of Factor Xs.

You have mentioned you have never ridden in a SCed car; if ever in the Chicago area I will be glad to take you for a spin. The one problem I do see with the SC is: once you have seen the increased performance you start wondering how much more you can get. Very soon you become use to it and now want MORE; then you become a member of the dreaded "FI Brotherhood" where "more in never enough", ask me how I know. :wink:

Bob

 

[Shumdit]

The conflict for me is one of how the nsx was designed; it wasn't built for F/I, and by taking that step what are you compromising? Certainly it is an interesting bit of 'go fast', but the car wasn't designed for drag racing and even after a CTSC or other F/I installation it will still fall short of many of the big hp offerings now available - it comes down to: is it worth compromising the NA heritage of the nsx just for an extra few CL's to 100mph in a drag race, is that extra ~75-100hp worth the added stress on your engine, the need to replace your clutch with a stronger grabbing one, the potential hit in resale value, etc. when we are all already driving a car that is capable of highly illegal road performance?

Certainly if you're going to spend the scratch on expensive NA modifications, if you feel the urge to keep throwing mods at your NSX, then F/I offers the best hp/$$$ ratio, but the question is do you need the power, or would you gain most of the same thing by simply reving your nsx a bit higher and not modifying it? Is it worth the hassle, the expense, the added stress on your car's drivetrain, etc. all for that extra ~75hp? Some may feel it is, some may have a legitimate need for that added power when tracking, and some may just feel like they have a punchcard of modifications they must install onto their nsx, but keep this in mind: even after your CTSC is bolted onto your nsx you are still not going to be as fast as the new high number offerings out there, and the cost of a supercharger, etc. does not end at the $10k or so to buy and install the kit - other concerns, such as larger brakes, an upgraded clutch, stand alone engine management, engine modifications, tuning, etc. can quickly add up, until you're left selling your car in 10 years or so having spent more than the car on modifications (such as where I was a bit ago selling a RMS Supercharged BMW Z3, with a private party value of low $10k's, with over $40k in reciepts, for $18k).

It is far easier to argue against F/I than for it, and it seems as though several nsx owners feel strapping a low-boost blower onto their car will turn it into the ultimate supercar - this is not the case, and I find it easier to rationalize the purchase of a better sounding exhaust, a rare JDM part, or a non-automotive item than the cost associated with a temporary band aid solution like a F/I nsx. This is not to say you couldn't get a fantastic car from a company like Factor X, or that, if the price were too good to pass up, I wouldn't do the same to my nsx, but at the current level (which is a reasonable number) I am not running out to get one... Then again I have not yet been taken for a 'test drive' in a F/I nsx, I have been warned by several people against doing so. :wink:

Sorry for the rambling post......

Scorp, you make some good points. The last one though is the one I will comment on (" I have not yet been taken for a 'test drive' in a F/I nsx, I have been warned by several people against doing so. :wink: ").
A drive in one is all it takes for many people to call CT and place on order for the kit. This is much like trying to convince someone who looks at the NSX, the road test specs, HP, etc, and the MSRP and says " NSX owners are idiots for buying an outdated, overpriced, glorified Accord coupe". That same person who drives one may very well end up with one in the garage.

 

[TURBO2GO]

Ok Scorp, here is an ad... tell me if you were looking for an NSX, if the SC turns you off. I am really asking and want to know:

=======================
For Sale:

2005 NSX silverstone/silver. Showroom condition, no scratches, 12K miles. Car is stock except:

Exhaust system, short throw shifter, and Comptech Supercharger installed at 5K. Never tracked, always garaged. GT-one F1 exhaust with valve control. Selling for (insert reasonable price +6K for mods).

========================

would you consider this car? Or does the Supercharger turn you off that much?

 

[scorp965]

For Sale:

2005 NSX silverstone/silver. Showroom condition, no scratches, 12K miles. Car is stock except:

Exhaust system, short throw shifter, and Comptech Supercharger installed at 5K. Never tracked, always garaged. GT-one F1 exhaust with valve control. Selling for (insert reasonable price +6K for mods).

You just bought your car, why are you selling it :tongue:

I have owned faster cars than the nsx, I have owned lighter cars than the nsx, but what turned me on to the car, aside from reliability, was the 'balance' of the car - many people throw that word around, by what I mean by it is the car is suited to its task, which is why I purchased it; if I make a radical change to the car I am specializing it towards that end, and it loses some of its overall balance - so, if I were to add a far stiffer suspension, an "upgrade", I would be limiting the car's drivability on a daily basis, in exchange for extreme performance - if I were to remove the tool kit, radio, or spare tire then the car would lose a measure of practicality, in exchange for a weight benefit that will not be realized in 90% of driving. If I were to install an aftermarket supercharger onto my nsx I put the drivetrain under additional stress, I wear out my clutch faster, I pour around $15k into a black hole, and at the end I take my 300hp car, with a wonderful high-compression motor we all love, and specialize it with the blower - will the car go faster? Yes, it will, but it will not be the fastest thing on the road, even after the supercharger has been installed. Will the car lose some measure of what draws people to the nsx? Potentially - the supercharger will potentially lug around at lower rpm levels, the car will potentially not rev as fast during aggressive driving in between gear changes, and the sound of the C30 behind my head will have been replaced in large part by the whine of a supercharger unit.

With regards to the heritage of the car... Honda made a design decision when they built the car to include with it a high-revving NA V6 - certainly they had a great deal of experience with turbocharger systems, but that wasn't what the car was about. We can all look at the years the car was produced, say the NA2 upgrade should have had more power, etc. but looking at the original concept of the car we have a light package with ~300 of great sounding (and reliable) power - I daily drive my nsx, and feel this level of performance is suited to my use of the car - if I want to go faster I will increase the position of the throttle, would I be able to drive faster with a CTSC? Certainly, but how often do you get to this position, how often are you redlining every gear of your car and finding yourself needing more, to the point that you absolutly need more power on top of this 300hp number? I would hazard to say not very often, even for those who 'track' their nsx, perhaps a dozen times per year - might it be 'more fun', or perhaps more of a challange, driving a NA car than a supercharged one?


We all went out and decided we wanted an nsx, not the lotus elise track rat, we didn't spend the money for the raw speed of a ZO6 corvette, we didn't spend money on a F/I SRT/4 or Evo monstrosity, instead we bought this car, and there is a reason for that - the 'balance' of the car. You can spend huge sums of cash changing the nsx, but at the end have you made an improved nsx, or simply produced a different car based on what was once an nsx? Certainly this is not to say I am completly against any kind of F/I on the nsx, if there is more power to be had people will try to get it, but understand the impact this will have on the overall flexibility of the car, the reliability of the car, and the feel of the car - at the end it might still be an appealing option, but it is not the bolt on solution to bring the car up to spec with the current lineup of supercars, designed 15 years later, that are out there. If anything the argument for a low-boosting turbocharger setup would be stronger than that for any of the superchargers available - were there a widely distributed and competant kit available for the nsx; it would follow with honda's nsx-era F1 exploits, produce more power 'under the curve' given similar boost levels, and have a minimal impact on the city-driving aspect of the car (eg instead of driving a belt-driven supercharger you would have a very small turbocharger for low boost with practically no lag to speak of) - the car's balance would still be affected, in that you would alter the engine somewhat in order to run this setup with a good level of safety, but I would imagine the impact wouldn't be as great as taking a stock car and installing a CTSC.

$0.02

 

[Shumdit]

You do not pour 15$ into a black hole. That is an overblown statement. You can have the CTSC installed and running properly for less than $10K (less than $8K if you are doing the install yourself on a coupe) and you can easily get 5-6K of that back out of resale on the car or remove it and sell it used for the around the same 5-6K. So it's more like $2-3K in a hole, which is not much when you think about the gains, considering many people spend more than that for a friggin spoiler or hood! You do not need bigger brakes, chassis upgrades, etc in cominatrion with the CTSC unless you plan to track it. You are also correct that it will still not be the fastest car out there, but it's never been a drag car, and it does make it feel like it would run with most anything I would likely encounter short of a new Z06, if I were to be a streeet racer type of guy. Also, I understand your point about faster clutch wear, etc. if driven hard, but look at it this way: Drive your stock NSX like your grandma would and you would get tons more mileage out the the brakes, clutch, etc. But what fun would that be? You would also save the ever-more expensive gas by doing this, but what fun would that be?
I am not saying the CTSC is for everyone. Hell, the NSX is not for everyone! But I am saying it's not as black and white as you make it out to be, and the costs are not as bad as your "you might as well just light $15K on fire" line. Also, You really need to drive a CTSC, as you have some "logical" thoughts about how the car will drive different that do not match up with reality in my mind. Kind of like having sex with a supermodel: Seems like it would be great from where I am sitting, but if you ever actually got the chance, you might end up saying, what was so great about that? biggrin: :biggrin:

 

[latzke]

Scorp, I agree with a lot of what you're saying...that the NSX is a wonderful car stock, a lot of the changes people make acually worsen it, etc. However, I have to take issue with some of your comments (below).

The CTSC does not lug around at low speed, negatively effect throttle response, or present ANY lag. It delivers more power across the entire RPM range, delivers boost immediately upon throttle open (there is nothing to spool up, just a bypass valve to close), delivers linear power increases (stronger across entire rev rance, not some wild peak at high RPMs). So, the drivability and characteristics stay very, very close to a stock NSX (with one exception, that you did note "the sound of the C30 behind my head will have been replaced in large part by the whine of a supercharger unit").

It is for these reasons that many people have chosen a supercharger over a turbo, as a turbo which would change the characteristics of the power band in general AND introduce boost lag.

We understand that the NSX is already fast and that it isn't going to be as fast as other vehicles. We want the NSX (not one of these faster cars) for reasons you'd agree with (balance, etc) but we do see value/utility in making it faster than stock. Appreciating power and speed doesn't mean that has somehow become our singular end-goal.

As for cost and resale comments (not quoted)... All that other stuff you can spend $$ on (AEM, big brake kits, wheels to fit over BBK, suspension, etc) is not necessary. A lot of us want to increase power while keeping things simple and reliable and not tweaking till we're blue in the face to get every last hp. Resale is always less than you put into a car with respect to aftermarket upgrades, that's never going to change. You might not get $10k extra when you sell a CTSC NSX, but you very well might get an extra $4k and (at least in my opinion) it isn't going to negatively effect resale as much as some other components are likely to (interior/exterior changes, wheels, suspension). Despite all of the "you must have AEM" comments in this forum, there are A LOT of people who essentially took a stock NSX, added vanilla CTSC with headers/exhaust, and are very happy with the outcome because they really like the NSX with the one complaint that it's a little underpowered (especially in this thin air we have up here).

...the supercharger will potentially lug around at lower rpm levels...

...would I be able to drive faster with a CTSC? Certainly, but how often do you get to this position, how often are you redlining every gear of your car and finding yourself needing more, to the point that you absolutly need more power on top of this 300hp number? I would hazard to say not very often, even for those who 'track' their nsx, perhaps a dozen times per year - might it be 'more fun', or perhaps more of a challange, driving a NA car than a supercharged one?...

...

If anything the argument for a low-boosting turbocharger setup would be stronger than that for any of the superchargers available - were there a widely distributed and competant kit available for the nsx; it would follow with honda's nsx-era F1 exploits, produce more power 'under the curve' given similar boost levels, and have a minimal impact on the city-driving aspect of the car (eg instead of driving a belt-driven supercharger you would have a very small turbocharger for low boost with practically no lag to speak of) - the car's balance would still be affected, in that you would alter the engine somewhat in order to run this setup with a good level of safety, but I would imagine the impact wouldn't be as great as taking a stock car and installing a CTSC.

...

...even after your CTSC is bolted onto your nsx you are still not going to be as fast as the new high number offerings out there...

 

[scorp965]

You do not pour 15$ into a black hole. That is an overblown statement. You can have the CTSC installed and running properly for less than $10K (less than $8K if you are doing the install yourself on a coupe) and you can easily get 5-6K of that back out of resale on the car or remove it and sell it used for the around the same 5-6K. So it's more like $2K in a hole, which is not much when you think about the gains, considering many people spend more than that for a friggin spoiler or hood! Also, I understand your point about faster clutch wear, etc. if driven hard, but look at it this way: Drive your stock NSX like your grandma would and you would get tons more mileage out the the brakes, clutch, etc. But what fun would that be? You would also save the ever-more expensive gas by doing this, but what fun would that be?
I am not saying the CTSC is for everyone. Hell, the NSX is not for everyone! But I am saying it's not as black and white as you make it out to be, and the costs are not as bad as your "you might as well just light $15K on fire" line.

As the nsx gets older, and newer cars are released, there will certainly be a draw towards giving the nsx more power - does this mean the CTSC is the solution? Some can argue it is, given the huge number of miles it has racked up, its widespread use, and the familiarity it has with several nsx tuners - others may opt not to take this route, for their own set of reasons. The supercharger, by its very design, will not be as efficient as a turbocharged setup. Its installation will, by its very nature, result in a reduction in performance when you are not producing signifcant boost; its installation will also result in greater wear on the drivetrain of your nsx. While it is marketed as a solution to preserve the feel of the nsx while giving you additional power I have a hard time believing this line, by throwing 6 pounds of boost at any high compression motor you are going to radically change the way the engine responds, especially if its being done with a supercharger. Adding a minimal level of boost to the nsx engine will result in increased drivetrain wear regardless of what system is producing that boost, if you accept this and take steps to prevent or combat this increased wear you are not spending $8k for your installation. Still, people may feel this slight jump in power is worth the increased expense, but now you're left with the car's heritage - do you supercharge this wonderful NA engine, or might it not be a better idea to instead turbocharge the setup, going with the idea of the car being built on F1 technology? If you go this route, with some kind of a turbocharger setup, you spend the proper levels of money to ensure the car is done right, and you take the extra step of getting everything tuned for your unique vehicle you would have a very nice package, but your out-of-pocket expense would be significant. It is my belief the CTSC is a compromise between the nsx's design, the need for more power, and the desire to limit your expense on adding F/I to the car - is this a bad thing? Certainly, no, it clearly has a place in the market and there are several satisfied owners, but can you see why people might not find the comptech supercharger package as an attractive option?

I could be made interested in the 'right' kit for my car, but that kit does not yet exist on the market, and I am happy with where my car is at - I do not see the CTSC as being a critical item that must be installed on my nsx, and on a road-driven nsx I see its benefits as being very limited. I can see how, living at high altitude, the use of a supercharger could be quite beneficial, but that is a unique situation. Now is a great time to own the nsx, as there are a number of alternatives in the area of F/I available for the car - as I have no pressing need to add another 75hp, working with the figure of $15k, I have not yet purchased any of them.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I think the stock suspension and brakes are fully capable of handling extra power. Scorp what you are saying is very true when you have a standard civic and you turbo the car... it like many other cars people modify just aren't designed to handle speed. But the NSX is fully capable of handling an extra 75-100 HP with everything else stock. The car's weight is not changing... the handling and braking remain as good as before.

 

[scorp965]

I think the stock suspension and brakes are fully capable of handling extra power. Scorp what you are saying is very true when you have a standard civic and you turbo the car... it like many other cars people modify just aren't designed to handle speed. But the NSX is fully capable of handling an extra 75-100 HP with everything else stock. The car's weight is not changing... the handling and braking remain as good as before.

The weight remains the same, but you just increased the car's power by up to 33%; if it is your intention to do this installation 'right', you must account for this jump by enhancing the complete package, rather than just increasing power and assuring yourself the car was 'built for the increased power'.

 

[Shumdit]

Still, people may feel this slight jump in power is worth the increased expense, .

Since when did adding 75-90 HP at the rear wheels to a car that makes 245-270 at the rear wheels become termed a "slight increase in power? )

I do not see the CTSC as being a critical item that must be installed on my nsx, and on a road-driven nsx I see its benefits as being very limited.

Also, and I am restating myself: I do not think the CTSC, or any mod is needed for many owners. I do however, think it compliments the driving experience that the stock NSX has very well compared to some other alternatives when you feel the need for more "oomph" . I do not think you are correct that the benefits are "very limited" for a street driven car. It makes a big difference in the driving experience to me. If you are of that thinking I would think you would say the NSX has far fewer benefits than liabilites compared with a Camry for road-driven cars, so we should all go trade ours in. :wink:

I have a hard time believing this line, by throwing 6 pounds of boost at any high compression motor you are going to radically change the way the engine responds,

Again, you are making assumptions with no actual experience with the CTSC/NSX combo.

. Adding a minimal level of boost to the nsx engine will result in increased drivetrain wear regardless of what system is producing that boost, .

I also am restating when I say this: You are correct that adding more HP by any method, even properly tuned, will stress the driveline and other components more than it would with a stock HP engine, but babying the stock engine will stress the driveline far less than driving the car spiritedly on a stock NSX also if getting the most miles out of a clutch, brakes, etc. is you only concern or goal. If it is, maybe you would be better served by adapting the motor out of the new Honda Fit into the NSX. That would surely minimze driveline stress:wink:

. The supercharger, by its very design, will not be as efficient as a turbocharged setup. Its installation will, by its very nature, result in a reduction in performance when you are not producing signifcant boost; .

I do not see a reduction in performance when not under boost being a valid point, as the parasitic losses on the new autorotor are minimal. Remember the bypass valve also.

- as I have no pressing need to add another 75hp, working with the figure of $15k, I have not yet purchased any of them.

Just because you feel the need to drop $15K into your car to install any sort of F/I does not mean everyone else does. I would say the majority of us install the CTSC only (although many of us do go with BBK, wheels, tires, springs, etc. for other reasons not realy related to the CTSC install)

it clearly has a place in the market and there are several satisfied owners,.

"Several" satisfied owners? Is that like saying we have had "Several" casualities in the War in Iraq?

I think you are playing devils advocate, just to play that side, or maybe because you secretly long to join the F/I club, much like a closet homo will sometimes act like the biggest homophobe:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :wink:

 

[Shumdit]

Still, people may feel this slight jump in power is worth the increased expense, .

The weight remains the same, but you just increased the car's power by up to 33%; if it is your intention to do this installation 'right', you must account for this jump by enhancing the complete package, rather than just increasing power and assuring yourself the car was 'built for the increased power'.

Seems like a contradiction to me.

 

[TURBO2GO]

The weight remains the same, but you just increased the car's power by up to 33%; if it is your intention to do this installation 'right', you must account for this jump by enhancing the complete package, rather than just increasing power and assuring yourself the car was 'built for the increased power'.

Perhaps you need to define balance.

If you are a track rat and now with your newfound power can arrive at that next turn 20MPH faster, yes, the next weak link may become the brakes or suspension... I mean this is a never ending game....

But to say that the car's "balance" is lost meaning somehow you have screwed up the car, is just not true Scorp. I mean you can take away 50 HP and some handling, and some braking, tone it all down 30% exactly... is that car now "better balanced"? Its just slower!

Something is always going to be the weak link... the guys that track the NSX, will regularly tell you, its the motor. "I lost him on the straight".... "I had him in the turn"....

If anything, I would be so bold as to the say the car has BETTER balance with the CTSC.... not without.

 

[waymilky]

It is for these reasons that many people have chosen a supercharger over a turbo, as a turbo which would change the characteristics of the power band in general AND introduce boost lag.

Historically this may be accurate. However, this is not necessarily true with today's technology. By sizing the turbo you can eliminate turbo lag and the boost at only high rpms. Due to the mechanical uncoupling of the turbine and the crankshaft, a turbo can produce more torque at low rpms than the supercharger. The supercharger boost is mechanically tied to crankshaft speed and therefore can not make maximum boost at slow engine speeds.

 

[Shumdit]

It is for these reasons that many people have chosen a supercharger over a turbo, as a turbo which would change the characteristics of the power band in general AND introduce boost lag.

Historically this may be accurate. However, this is not necessarily true with today's technology. By sizing the turbo you can eliminate turbo lag and the boost at only high rpms. Due to the mechanical uncoupling of the turbine and the crankshaft, a turbo can produce more torque at low rpms than the supercharger. The supercharger boost is mechanically tied to crankshaft speed and therefore can not make maximum boost at slow engine speeds.

I like the idea of a turbo myself, it's the damn complexity and tuning that turns me off. For those with more time and patience (and $$$:biggrin: ) it looks like the way to go.

 

[latzke]

...do you supercharge this wonderful NA engine, or might it not be a better idea to instead turbocharge the setup, going with the idea of the car being built on F1 technology?

I don't understand your love affair with turbos over superchargers. Please explain.

The supercharger, by its very design, will not be as efficient as a turbocharged setup. Its installation will, by its very nature, result in a reduction in performance when you are not producing signifcant boost...

What you're saying largely doesn't apply to the CTSC packages. They don't use a centrifugal supercharger or even a roots supercharger. Lysholm superchargers (i.e. what Whipple and Autorotor are) are very efficient blowers (the Autorotor ones take the cake with the highest thermal efficiency of any fixed-displacement production supercharger). In many cases they are as efficient as or more efficient than a turbo.

If you're talking about a different kind of efficiency (fuel), they're pretty good there. Similar kinds of driving you'll use about the same amount of gas (the rest of the car being the same). When you really get on it you can more gas, but that's obvious because you're getting more power at those times. With CTSC (high-boost version of Whipple), short gears, and 4.55 R&P I consistently/predictably get 27mpg on the highway and around 20mpg around town (and I'm no grandma driver).

I'm not sure why there would be a "reduction in performance when not producing significant boost." When not producing boost the SC doesn't pull much power from the drivetrain (not that hard to turn when not producing boost, which it doesn't when the bypass valve is open) and the engine doesn't have to work any harder to pull air through it than if the SC wasn't there. Once under boost (be it small or large amounts of boost, low or high RPMs) you have more power than stock, instantly when you want it.

I'm a little confused as some of the traits you've mentioned (poor low-engine-speed performance - possibly worse than engine without, lag) are charactoristic of turbos, not twin-screw superchargers.

I get the impression you've never driven a CTSC NSX?

While it is marketed as a solution to preserve the feel of the nsx while giving you additional power I have a hard time believing this line, by throwing 6 pounds of boost at any high compression motor you are going to radically change the way the engine responds, especially if its being done with a supercharger.

In conversations like this I've seen "6psi" and "9psi" quoted for the whipple regular and whipple high-boost kits. My understanding is that the max boost of these is more in the neighborhood of 4.5psi (regular) and 6-7psi (high-boost), respectively. Regardless (I don't care much about boost pressure numbers), have you seen before/after dyno charts from a CTSC NSX? It looks like someone took the hp and torque curves and raised them without changing their shape. As someone who's driven both supercharged and NA NSXs (and both recently) I can say that the throttle response and "feel" are very similar as well.

 

[TURBO2GO]

It is for these reasons that many people have chosen a supercharger over a turbo, as a turbo which would change the characteristics of the power band in general AND introduce boost lag.

Historically this may be accurate. However, this is not necessarily true with today's technology. By sizing the turbo you can eliminate turbo lag and the boost at only high rpms. Due to the mechanical uncoupling of the turbine and the crankshaft, a turbo can produce more torque at low rpms than the supercharger. The supercharger boost is mechanically tied to crankshaft speed and therefore can not make maximum boost at slow engine speeds.

SC versus turbo has been discussed in many other threads. I am not sure its worth dicussing anything that cannot pass emmisions tests and/or is not 50 state legal and CARB certified.

The question is, can a legal 10K FI kit (which now means the CTSC only) enhance an NSX without taking away its virtues. I feel the CTSC does that.