since the old thread got deleted....

[4g62bt2c30a]

I will pick up where we left off.


First of all: Be careful what you say. Everything that I have said on this forum has been true or has come true. I said the injectors were too small: They went to 440cc injectors: I said that running 90+psi was too much: They went to a programmable ecu with near factory fuel pressure. I may have gone overboard on my delivery but either way my data is correct. NOW, as far as quatermile testing goes....If you think it does not matter than you are a fool. Quarter mile trap speeds are a direct correlation to power to weight. You may have varying et's based on 60ft times but if the 60's are close and the traps are 5-7 off you have a big difference in performance. Imagine two cars exiting a corner at the same speed but one will have 7mph faster speed down the straight....that gets you to the next turn first. Oh and by the way.... the dyno can be fooled the track cannot. The fact is this if you do not have quarter mile testing your data is not complete.

I think that everyone here has made a good point or two on either side of the conversation. I also think that those of us who are more involved read in to some comments a little more than the rest of you.
That’s the great thing about a public forum. IF you choose to use it to your advantage be prepared to have it turn on you.

I believe that this has been the best thread yet....why..... Because it will bring a conclusion. Every time these "Nasty" conversations happen something good comes out of it for the community...more of us get involved and everyone pushes harder to be better. I can imagine that mark is sitting in his office right now saying.."Ill show those MutherF**kers". And that is exactly what makes his product better.


[This message has been edited by 4g62bt2c30a (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[Sig]

I will say that I agree with the notion that 1/4 mile testing should be included. I say included and mean for all the SC kits, not just BBSC. With COmptech posting foggy 400hp #'s from a dyno, not usre how credible any new numbers from them would be. I do believe the BBSC dyno plots though. Point being, trap speeds from the 1/4 don't lie. All things being equal(Impossible I know), lap time ET's have many more variables than a 1/4 mle ET. I can get more consistent runs in the 1/4 mile than lap times on a road course. Although, the road course is more fun. I say this from the perspective of a decent driver that doesn't have the time or $ to get the kind of seat time necessary to turn consistent road course ET's day in day out like some on this board do. I feel that achieving consisten trap speeds in the 1/4 is much easier to accomplish.

Trap speeds are a very good indicator of a car's capability. IF the 60 ft time is poor, but the trap speed is still impressive, you know there will be better times to come as the driver improves launch. ON the other side, if the 60 ft. time is fast and the trap speed is the same as the previous run, you know that you are near the limit of the car.

In closing, whether you like or dislike 1/4 mile times, there are many on this forum that would like to see the results. That should be enough to legitimize our curiousity. To prove this, when the first person posts their "BBSC 1/4 mile ET thread", Lud should measure the page views. I Guarentee that it will be the most viewed thread for that day.

[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 11 April 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Sig (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[nsxxtreme]

I hesitate to post here to make this any worse than it already is.

We are compairing two different types of forced induction here. What might work well in one situation might not work well in the other.

I think what most people like about the BB is the cost. Even though performance is a deciding factor. I think for most it boils down to the cost. The two types of forced induction are not going to perform in the same way. I hope most realise this.

 

[4g62bt2c30a]

Originally posted by nsxxtreme:
I hesitate to post here to make this any worse than it already is.

We are compairing two different types of forced induction here. What might work well in one situation might not work well in the other.

I think what most people like about the BB is the cost. Even though performance is a deciding factor. I think for most it boils down to the cost. The two types of forced induction are not going to perform in the same way. I hope most realise this.

I agree but this is not the case here.....Based on the dyno numbers published it looks as though the BBSC would be the clear winner in performance and price.

 

[SNDSOUL]

Originally posted by nsxxtreme:

We are compairing two different types of forced induction here. What might work well in one situation might not work well in the other.

The two types of forced induction are not going to perform in the same way. I hope most realise this. [/B]

What to types of forced induction are you talking about?

There is only one reason I am posting here. I am currently running a 50 shot wet system from NOS. I feel this is a good size shot for the lauch without compromising too much traction, but I would like more power on the top end. I am debating on whether I should buy NOS's new bolt-on-injector direct port system for a second stage(about $1500-$2000) or should I go with the BBSC(a little more money, but in the end it works out about the same). In the end I would like to run mid to high 11's consistenly and reliably. I was even interested in the NSX Modified turbo, but it has seemed to dropped out of discussion lately. I have no alliance to anyone but my car and whoever can satisfy my needs effectively.

I've never been asked what my car laps at Road Atlanta, but I've been asked what it runs in the quarter a million times. 13's weren't impressive and 12's just barely qualify, but 11's, that's movin'.

 

[ilya]

The NSX Modified turbo is still around and well. I don't think they are ready to divulge any details because they are still working on some changes and fine tuning. I'm not at liberty to discuss any of it. I can say I know of 4 customer cars that already have it installed including a 3.2L NSX-T.

I would think the big announcement will come when everything is worked out. He likes to keep things quiet until it is completely ready to go. Not a promise, but I would expect the full announcement to be made with full details, pics, dynos, etc on the new website. Expect the site to be sweet. I know because I built it for him.

 

[nsxxtreme]

What to types of forced induction are you talking about?

There is actually three different types of forced induction that we are talking about here.
1.centrifugal BB
2.Roots Gruppe M
3.Twin-Screw CT

I have owned two of the types listed above. Not for the NSX though, and I do not consider myself an expert.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of all three. Just from my experience with SC's. The BB should do real well in the 1/4 mile. Most of the power is delivered higher up in the RPM's.

The other two SC my guess would be they would do better on a road coarse, where there is a lot of turns. This is because they build there power early on.

If they were all the same price it would be a more difficult decision. I might go with one of the other two. But I think cost is the final decision maker. The BB should turn out to be a very good deal.

On a last note I think CT defeated the purpose of the twin-crew by putting to small of a blower on.

[This message has been edited by nsxxtreme (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by 4g62bt2c30a:
Oh and by the way.... the dyno can be fooled the track cannot.

How can the dyno be fooled?

I realize there are some variables in the dyno process, such as environmental factors; but if different cars are being tested at the same place and time, those variables would be removed.

I also realize that different mods may give different results, e.g. one mod may help at lower RPM's and another may help at higher RPM's. But this should be pretty obvious from the dyno chart.

So how else can the dyno be fooled?

Regarding the track being "fooled", there are variables of driver skill involved, having to do with launch time and shifting time. The reason Dave Swartz does as well as he does is not just that his car is quick; he's also good at it. I strongly suspect that driver skill can account for differences of half a second or more (1/4 mile gurus, please confirm). Furthermore, even for experienced drivers, differences between runs of several tenths of a second are common.

 

[4g62bt2c30a]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
How can the dyno be fooled?

I realize there are some variables in the dyno process, such as environmental factors; but if different cars are being tested at the same place and time, those variables would be removed.

I also realize that different mods may give different results, e.g. one mod may help at lower RPM's and another may help at higher RPM's. But this should be pretty obvious from the dyno chart.

So how else can the dyno be fooled?

Regarding the track being "fooled", there are variables of driver skill involved, having to do with launch time and shifting time. The reason Dave Swartz does as well as he does is not just that his car is quick; he's also good at it. I strongly suspect that driver skill can account for differences of half a second or more (1/4 mile gurus, please confirm). Furthermore, even for experienced drivers, differences between runs of several tenths of a second are common.

Dyno to dyno runs are very different, Dynojet,mustang,clayton dyno's will all give different readings. Just last night I watched a b16 civic put 177whp on one dyno 186 on an other and 198 on a third. Two of those runs were on the same type of dyno. They happened within 3 hours of each other. After contacting the manufatures we found the 177hp run was the only valid run due to the two other dyno meters we miscalibrated. Now as far as the track. Two months ago I took my car to the quarter mile track. I ran three runs. First: 12.92 @ 117 mph with a 2.32 60 ft. Second 12.86 @117mph with a 2.28 60 ft. Third 12.56 @ 117mph with a 2.20 60ft. Three very different times. One mile per hour. This tells us that as I leave the line better my car goes from point A to B quicker but the Mph never varys greatly due to the hp/weight. If you take dave for example he runs 12.56 @ 111mph his car is at the same pace A to be as mine but my car is producing LOTS more power....Why.... because A: 111mph and 117mph is a BIG difference and B: he had to run the 60ft. in 1.86 sec to my 2.20 to acquire the same E.T..Now, here is the best part Put dave in my car and get that 1.86 60ft and I will bet you you will see a 11.86-11.92 run, Now that is a big difference! So to answer your question. By taking all three cars to the track, Even with different drivers we can look at the data and see not only who produces more power but how and when.Like I said "You can't fool the track".



[This message has been edited by 4g62bt2c30a (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[FuryNSX]

4g62bt2c30a,

That has got to be one of the more convincing things I've read from you here. While I may not necessarily have agreed with HOW you delivered some of your questions/arguments, I did try to understand your point that you were getting across. Though I sometimes don't agree with your style presenting ideas, I must say that your questioning has given me the opportunity to look at things from different perspectives. (I hope you don't interpret this as me being a smart ass.)

Anyways, I'd probably agree with you on your position about quarter mile testing. It's always nice to have more power, but the bottom line is we all want to be faster. To me, getting from point A to point B (be it in a straight line or through a twisty track) quicker is more important than displaying more power strapped to a machine. (Remember, I'm not talking about quicker as in velocity, I'm talking about me using less time than the other guy.)

------------------
1995 NSX-T
1999 3.2TL
2001 Odyssey
1992 SC400

[This message has been edited by FuryNSX (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[David]

I strongly suspect that driver skill can account for differences of half a second or more (1/4 mile gurus, please confirm).

Half right. You are making an assumption/mistake that is common for people who don't understand drag racing.

ET varies considerably by driver skill (interesting hearing you say that after your numerous statements that drag racing does not involve any significant level of skill). Trap speed is almost totally a factor of power. You would have to be an increadibly bad driver to have a lower trap with the same car. Take your car to the strip, run it ten times and you will be within one mph +/- for all of your traps. In real racing, an improvement a few mph in trap speed is very impressive.

Furthermore, even for experienced drivers, differences between runs of several tenths of a second are common.

No. Skilled drivers run within a few hundreths on each run, not a few tenths. If you are off by a full tenth, you really screwed up somewhere and your pit crew is going to be pissed. In a good back-half shoot out, there will be maybe a tenth seperating the entire qualified field.

If you understand how to use the data, the drag strip will tell you both your average power from the run (trap) and your peak hp (ET).

[This message has been edited by David (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[NSXTC]

Originally posted by 4g62bt2c30a:
I said the injectors were too small: They went to 440cc injectors: I said that running 90+psi was too much: They went to a programmable ecu with near factory fuel pressure.

Um, the standard Comptech supercharger that runs just about the same boost levels uses stock injectors at around 100 PSI fuel rail pressure. Maybe they will also see the light and change their kit based on your engineering expertise.



[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 11 April 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by David:
I strongly suspect that driver skill can account for differences of half a second or more (1/4 mile gurus, please confirm).

Half right. You are making an assumption/mistake that is common for people who don't understand drag racing.

ET varies considerably by driver skill (interesting hearing you say that after your numerous statements that drag racing does not involve any significant level of skill).

It's rather odd that you say that I would have said that, since I don't believe it. (To clarify, I believe drag racing DOES involve a significant level of skill. The skills are different from road racing, and both are different from autocross, but there are definite skills involved, which is why the more experienced drivers get better results.)

Naturally, since I don't believe that no skill is involved, I also don't believe I ever would have said such a thing. So, as the Forums Nazi has taught me, I did a search through all the drag racing threads that have appeared here on NSXprime:

http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000392.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000599.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000730.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001078.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001378.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001500.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/002827.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000020.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000077.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000080.html
http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum12/HTML/000081.html

As I looked through them, it turns out that I never made such a statement, just as I had suspected. I've often been blamed for many things here; some of them are true, and some of them are not. This happens to be one of the latter. Perhaps you were confusing me with someone else who might have made such a statement?

Furthermore, looking through those threads, there's almost a total absence of my posts (something I'm never accused of

). Fact is, I don't know all that much about drag racing. Which is why I've asked the questions I've asked here. And I sure appreciate the response and the careful explanation that you've given, all of which makes a lot of sense.

Furthermore, even for experienced drivers, differences between runs of several tenths of a second are common.

No. Skilled drivers run within a few hundreths on each run, not a few tenths.

My comment about ET's varying by a couple of tenths of a second were based upon a previous post by SNDSOUL that his times varied within that tolerance (I think he said they are consistently 12.4 to 12.6 seconds). I'm not sure whether I misinterpreted his remark, or there are some other factors (temperature and humidity?) that cause variations in his 1/4 mile elapsed times, or if perhaps SNDSOUL isn't as experienced as the consistent drivers you're referring to. Regardless, that's why I mentioned variations of a couple of tenths of a second, and I can appreciate what you're saying to the contrary.

You make a very good case for using 1/4 mile times - and, in particular, the trap speed - as a consistent, objective, verifyable measure of the effectiveness of different mods. It will be interesting to see if we can get 1/4 mile times for the various superchargers in different cars driven at the same place and time.

 

[primetime_vtec]

Originally posted by NSXTC:
Um, the standard Comptech supercharger that runs just about the same boost levels uses stock injectors at around 100 PSI fuel rail pressure. Maybe they will also see the light and change their kit based on your engineering expertise.

[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 11 April 2002).]

I have been watching these threads for the past couple months and have been silent for many reasons, but this post is too good to pass up.

Maybe they will, but at the same time I don't believe that they were claiming to produce 400 wheel horsepower with their current setup. It is obvious now, that even the impossible is truly not possible (or safe). I'm sure someday when comptech produces their kit to create the amount of wheel horsepower that the BBSC system produces *sarcasm* they will also change the fuel system and injector size just like Larry had to do to produce 396 wheel horsepower on Doug's car.

 

[SNDSOUL]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
My comment about ET's varying by a couple of tenths of a second were based upon a previous post by SNDSOUL that his times varied within that tolerance (I think he said they are consistently 12.4 to 12.6 seconds). I'm not sure whether I misinterpreted his remark, or there are some other factors (temperature and humidity?) that cause variations in his 1/4 mile elapsed times, or if perhaps SNDSOUL isn't as experienced as the consistent drivers you're referring to. [/B]

hey, give me proper credit for being nowhere near pro level consistency, I said 12.20 to 12.60. I'm a good amatuer street racer, but that's it. John Force I'm not.

 

[David]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
It's rather odd that you say that I would have said that, since I don't believe it.

As I looked through them, it turns out that I never made such a statement, just as I had suspected.

If I am in error, I appologize; I have no problem admiting when I am wrong. There is just such an anti-drag racing attitude on this board and it is frustrating, since it comes from people who have no idea what they are tlaking about. And, naturally, when I am irritated I think of you.

; )

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by David:
There is just such an anti-drag racing attitude on this board and it is frustrating, since it comes from people who have no idea what they are tlaking about.

Hmmm... I'm not sure why you say that, either. I don't recall anyone knocking drag racing here. As a matter of fact, when I was looking through all those previous threads about it (see links above), all I see is quite a lot of respect for it. Granted, a lot of us don't know much about it - I know I sure don't - but I see a lot of healthy curiosity mixed in with that respect.

Originally posted by David:
And, naturally, when I am irritated I think of you.

Gosh, David, that's sweet of you to think of me.

And here we are having a very civilized and engaging conversation; along with your recent low-key return to the board, in a generally good humor, I was hoping perhaps things weren't irritating you as much as in former times. Perhaps it might help to realize that some of the things that have been irritating you never happened...

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 12 April 2002).]

 

[Jimbo]

Hey....Wait a minute.

Does this mean that the track event for the next NSXPO will NOT be held at a DRAGSTRIP somewhere in Texas?

Damn...I guess this means I'll have to send back my Dali NSX Wheelie Bars.

-Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords

[This message has been edited by Jimbo (edited 12 April 2002).]

 

[erobbins]

Originally posted by Jimbo:
Does this mean that the track event for the next NSXPO will NOT be held at a DRAGSTRIP somewhere in Texas?

Friday, November 8th... the Texas Motorplex is open to the public. $15 to race all night. You're more than welcome to add this as a third "track event" if you like, but no... it's not in the NSXPO schedule.

EDR

 

[sjs]

Originally posted by David:
...There is just such an anti-drag racing attitude on this board and it is frustrating, since it comes from people who have no idea what they are tlaking about...

Some of my past comments may have been misinterpreted in that way. I won’t bother trying to dig them out, but I do recall their intended meaning. It was, as I still contend, that although drag racing requires skill and considerable practice to even approach the level of the pros, the difference between a pro and someone like David, or between David and someone like me, is far less dramatic than with road racing. However, those former comments also excluded the most extreme cars running thousands of HP and running 200 – 300+ MPH trap speeds.

Give me a few dozen runs in a 500 HP NSX and I’ll still loose to a pro in the same car, but I will probably learn enough to keep from looking pathetic. Move us down to a stock NSX and it will get even closer. The vast majority of people in this type of forum fall somewhere in between those points, far below a serious dedicated drag car and therefore reasonably simple to master.

By contrast, give me a dozen laps at a familiar track in my own NSX then hand it over to a pro, and he will destroy my times. (Note the difference between drivers in the recent review) Move us down to a stock Escort and he will still make me look real bad, and I’m not a complete novice. The depth of skills is just entirely different. I would compare it to bowling Vs. tennis. Or if you think tennis is to physical to be a fair comparison, then perhaps golf. Bowling at the level of the pros certainly requires skill, yet lot’s of league players come reasonably close. (Yes, I know that many lanes are designed and maintained to boost scores today, but it was also true 30 years ago.) Should an avid bowler be insulted if someone suggests his sport is easier than golf or tennis?

I hope none of this irritates or offends anyone. I’m just comparing the relative difficulty of two sports, and I think I know enough about both to do that. But my lack of interest in the sport is not about difficulty, it’s about the relatively large effort and expense for a few seconds of what I see as a one dimensional thrill, not to mention lacking new thrills from track to track to make it interesting. Of course the challenge is still there, but that alone just doesn’t do much for me. So when I tell someone who is thrilled about drag racing that they should give road racing a try, I’m just evangelizing my passion and explaining why it is so. But if you ask me if it is a simple sport to get good at, then the only honest answer is yes, of course, especially with anything less than a very serious car.

 

[NSXTC]

I don’t want to come off sounding like an F-car club member – I’m just a guy who has done both and personally prefers road racing to drag racing by a large margin. I feel that I ought to point out that there is also a bit of a different...…shall we say “demographic” when it comes to drag racing. That, not to mention that the NSX was never designed as a drag racing car in the first place might help explain the apparent apathy for the sport around here, which I think is understandable.

[This message has been edited by NSXTC (edited 12 April 2002).]

 

[David]

Originally posted by sjs:
the difference between a pro and someone like David, or between David and someone like me, is far less dramatic than with road racing.

Well, a thread a few months ago had a post from someone who took his NSX to the track to see how much of a difference his mods had made. I don't remember the exact times, but I believe he said he ran a 13.8, got really frustrated that he couldn't do better, then his friend (who dragged as a hobby) ran a 12.7. Thats an 8.6% improvement with the same car on the same track on the same day. To do the same on a two minute road course, you wold have to beat the other guy by over ten seconds a lap. And his friend is far from a pro.

My freind SW regularly drives fast cars that other people can't get past the mid-tens and puts them into the nines. I'd say the is a huge difference in the level of performance.

I enjoy road racing more than drag racing. But, drag racing is much much harder than most of you guys are willing to admit. Have you ever dynoed your car? Do the math on how fast you should be able to run the 1/4 mile then go do it and see how close you get.

While road racing puts a wide variety of demands on a car, tehre is no single harder task to demand from a chasssis than to transfer a huge amount of power to the ground in a way that will efficiently launch a car from a dead stop.

And, its pretty fun.

 

[David]

Originally posted by NSXTC:
not to mention that the NSX was never designed as a drag racing car in the first place might help explain the apparent apathy for the sport around here

What production cars are designed for drag racing? Supras? They have an IRS. RX-7? They are more suited to road racing than an NSX, but run 9s in street legal trim. Corvettes? Again, a car with an IRS. Civics? FWD is hardly the formula for a drag car.

What, specifically, makes one car a 'drag car' vs another? Are you just saying that because the NSX torque is so lame?

 

[mlambert890]

Originally posted by David:
What, specifically, makes one car a 'drag car' vs another? Are you just saying that because the NSX torque is so lame?

I don't think any car is designed to be a drag car, but I think certain platforms can be considered more "drag ready" than others. Take the F-Body vs the Vette as an example. The drivetrain and rear suspension setup of the F-bodies is a better drag strip configuration.

The Supra vs the RX7 is another example. The fact that the Supra motor can easily make 800-1000hp with a stock bottom end makes for a better strip platform.

The NSX is certainly much closer to being a perfect track car than a perfect drag strip car.

With my slushbox C5 I had dumped about $5k in mods (high stall TC, 3.42 rear, cold air, exhaust) and had gotten the car to the mid 12's. I don't think it's even possible to get a slushbox NSX to the mid 12's without a tranny swap...

 

[David]

So, if a car is slow its not a drag car and if it is fast, it is a drag car?