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

Turbo / SC Nightmares anyone?

I have had 3 separate turbo setups. Hated the first one although it very much retained the feeling of the stock NSX, kinda like the BBSC, not much torque low down but it really ramped quickly. It was a twin turbo setup and I had issues with oiling because of the scavenge pump - lesson Don't use a scavenge pump if at all possible.

Turbo 2 was adequate but difficulty with tuning since I had OBD2 and this was before the FIC. Used the MUCH touted, at least by the developer, modified AEM and it never worked right which is why other tuners abandoned it.

Turbo 3 (Lovefab) is very good. Very happy. VERY fast and thus far extremely reliable. I drove the car out to XPO in Vegas without issues and got 28 mpg with an average speed of 80 mph. Blows away our 550 hp 996 turbo S

Recommendations

If you are just going low boost like the Stage 2 Lovefab, would go with the stock clutch until it either burns out or you decide to build the motor. My stock clutch in my 98 held up 400 rwhp without any issues and no slip.

Suspension is nice, went with the KW3, NSX-R front brace and sway bar, the Comptech rear sway bar and the STMPO braces. The STMPO braces are probably the best addition especially in a targa to get rid of the cowl shake.

Brakes, well I have the Wilwood setup which is better than stock. Never drove the Brembo or Stoptech setups but the ceramic setup in our Porsche feels like you hit a wall it stops so fast so I suspect that the Brembo setup (Not the Grand Prix) which Comptech use to sell would be equally as good.

Lastly, wheels and tires despite what Ken would say. They definitely can transform the car. Give me a PM and we can trade phone numbers if you have any questions.

Would I go back, no because I don't think that I could get a daily driver sports car as reliable. On the other hand, if I hadn't done the NSX, I would have a Gallardo or an Audi R8 - V10 in the garage because of all of the misteps I took.
I am not posting this under Forced Induction because, well, I want to hear from people who gave up on it.

Did anyone get forced induction and hate it?
Anyone blow up their engine?
Anyone not pass emissions?

Would love to hear some BAD, on the FI posts its all positive!

I am not interested in lectures about improving my driving, I am going to do that anyway LOL

I am about to pull the trigger on a turbo and want to see if there have been any on here with catastrophic / annoying problems with a turbo.

Thanks
J
 
Im in the camp of folks for whom if the whipple CTSC + H/E werent "enough" I would just move on to a different car.

The CTSC is *extremely* bolt on. It was sold *at Acura dealers* and is very easy. SC doesnt change the fundamental character of the car at all really and, if an NSX is what you actually want, then this is pretty important.

A high boost turbo NSX would very much change the OEM character of the car and, IMO, would make an entirely new beast altogether.

For me personally, at that point, Id rather go to a car that was designed for a monster turbo like a 911T.

I think rather than fishing for horror stories (everything has horror stories at the fringe cases at the very least), it is probably better to do a deeper analysis of the actual goals and motivations of the project.
 
Last edited:
Like a few others have said, it depends on what you want out of your NSX and how you are going to use it.

Is it going to be a Dyno Queen ?
Is it going to be a Keyboard Racer ?
Is it going to be a Street Racer ?
Is it going to be a Everyday Driver ?
Is it going to be a Track Car ?
or a combination of the above....

I used to have the mind set that power was everything and went through my days of 600+ rwhp with a turbo. But like Vegas Speed, I too got very tired, very quickly of rebuilding motors on a constant basis.

Now I settled in with 525-550 rwhp with 14 lbs of boost running E-85, concentrating more on the handling of the car (set up) and improving my driving skills on the track.
With my current set up, I would have no problem getting 650 rwhp easily on E-85. Do I want any more of the headaches that come with that, hell no.

I've run DE 3, 4 and now moving to TTU with NASA-AZ, am I the fastest, nope, am I the slowest, nope, but I sure am having a great time running with the big boys and not rebuilding motors continually.
(if it continues going this way :)

It all comes down to what you want out of your car and what you can afford.

Speed cost money and lots of it.

Listen to what Vegas Speed has posted, lots of good advise and experience in those words.

Been there and done that as well.

My current motor build:
3.2-3 Sleeved and Bored. JE Pistons, 94mm.
3.2 Custom Heads
Custom Fuel Rails
Custom Intake Manifold
FXMD Turbo
EXEDY Custom Triple Plate Puck Clutch
and many other upgrades to motor, fuel system, suspension, brakes, cooling system, oil cooler, etc, etc, etc....
Mitch Peterson does my tuning.

Building as a spare:
3.2 Sleeved and Bored. JE Pistons, 93mm.
3.2 Custom Heads
Custom Fuel Rails
Custom Intake Manifold
 
Last edited:
Not everyone is as open as vegasnsx about the problems he has had going fi with a lot of power. On prime you are mainly going to here all the positives about going fi and not many negatives. I know of several fi horror stories that have never been on prime. I am not saying this to scare anyone out of going fi but just realize it is not always so simple as it sounds. I have heard bad stories about pretty much every fi system out there. Does that mean they are all bad? Not at all. Every car is different. Every tune is different.

I recommend doing the most research you can and making sure whoever tunes your car really knows what they are doing and has nsx experience
 
I have a CTSC whipple kit in my car for 10 years, for 1 year the car was a daily and a weekend cruiser, no issues, no problem at all, so i prefer the safety mode SC for me....:biggrin:
 
It appears to me that the horror stories we have heard here are from guys who went beyond the 400hp level. If you are not looking to build one of the 500-600hp monsters and would be satisfied with "only" 400hp I think you would meet all your goals especially reliability which is important to you and me which is why that is where I stopped. My car drives like it is stock until I get into boost and then it transforms itself. Will it be the fastest out there? No, but it WILL put a smile on your face every time you drive it. You really should try to get a ride in a 400hp car and you will realize this is a great hp level that won't break the bank and should last a long time as long as you have a good TUNE.
 
I have to agree...before I decided I wanted to go really fast...

The best NSX I ever owned for drive-ability and dependability was my 94 with a stock motor and a 1.7 Comptech SC.

I ran a high boost pulley, 9 lbs, made 400 rwhp on 91 and drove the car 42,000 miles without a hiccup.

This was truly a perfect street car for everyday driving.

I have a CTSC whipple kit in my car for 10 years, for 1 year the car was a daily and a weekend cruiser, no issues, no problem at all, so i prefer the safety mode SC for me....:biggrin:
 
Why doesn't anyone run the Dali Racing BOOSTZILLA kit? You may have to ask but the layout of this supercharger looks like you could still put your targa in the bay. The BabyZilla kit ($6k) hits 380whp and uses no standalone engine management, just dyno tuning for A/F and the stock ECU takes care of the rest.
?

I'd be hesitant to send a mfg $6k (at least) with a spotty track record of delivering goods. Aside from that, it would give you the same power characteristics of the bbsc, which can be had pretty inexpensively on the used market. $6k would get you one HELL of a bbsc setup. It would probably include aftercooler, injectors, gauges, computer control, etc..

i'm guessing ANY aftercooler for ANY system is going to run you a minimum for $2500 for a quality aluminum core and heat exchanger.

and as far as nightmares...

yes every system has had failures. GJ turbo system (one of the first to make a 500rwhp "kit"), Factor X, bbsc, etc.. i've even been present to watch a motor being rebuilt from catastrophic failure of a CTSC.. in fact, Andy Vecsey (dropped off of prime a few years ago) had TWO motors blow up from two SEPARATE ctsc systems.

I've had head gasket failure (not unexpected...) at 40,000 boosted miles, and finally a ringland went buh buy at 70,000 boosted miles. would i call that a nightmare? Not really. i mean... sheeeee-it... i got 70,000 miles with a HUGE ASS grin on my face... and pushed 440 rwhp (which.. when you add the 50 HP to run the SC... is something like 570 crank HP) for a LONG LONG LONG time on a stock motor.

Of course... now im saying "fuggit" and going twin turbo..

and my STOCK clutch went out at 68000 boosted miles.
 
Last edited:
And a lot of that was track time I'm sure...
Are you coming out to the 4/2 event ?
We miss you out there !

>>Of course... now im saying "fuggit" and going twin turbo..
I would too if I had your money...in fact, if I had your money, I would throw mine away, LOL...:)

 
Last edited:
I seen both systems turbo/sc run reliably, and some run poorly. The only nightmare i see is the resale of the turbo systems. Superchargers, autorotor or whipple, seem to resell much faster than turbo'd kits or cars. A low boost s/c seems to satisfy the needs of 70% us. The boostzilla seems to give the same results and any other sc plus it comes with a management system.

IMHO, The bbsc and the boostzilla are extremely capable systems cheap, hard to overlook them. Boost is boost. I guess the main thing to look at is what are you doing with the car. Just good to see some options in power adders for the nsx.
 
Boost is boost. I guess the main thing to look at is what are you doing with the car. Just good to see some options in power adders for the nsx.

Boost is not boost, people say this all the time and I don't get it. The area under the curve is important, not just the PSI you are boosting, look at the torque curve between a twin screw type blower vs centrifugal blower, both can make the same HP,but the torque curve is typically more flat on a twin screw and comes on earlier.

If I were going FI, I would either be considering twin screw blower or turbo, I don't see the advantages in a centrifugal blower over either one of those, but can the other way around. I would be willing to hear why one would pick a centrifugal blower over a turbo or a twin screw type blower. I think the BBSC did well because of it's price point...but that lead to some engine probelmes due to poor fuel management of the piggy pack split second box. Can be solved with AEM but still begs the question, why would you want a centrifugal over twin screw or turbo?
 
Boost is not boost, people say this all the time and I don't get it. The area under the curve is important, not just the PSI you are boosting, look at the torque curve between a twin screw type blower vs centrifugal blower, both can make the same HP,but the torque curve is typically more flat on a twin screw and comes on earlier.

If I were going FI, I would either be considering twin screw blower or turbo, I don't see the advantages in a centrifugal blower over either one of those, but can the other way around. I would be willing to hear why one would pick a centrifugal blower over a turbo or a twin screw type blower. I think the BBSC did well because of it's price point...but that lead to some engine probelmes due to poor fuel management of the piggy pack split second box. Can be solved with AEM but still begs the question, why would you want a centrifugal over twin screw or turbo?

Well said Carl.
 
Boost is not boost, people say this all the time and I don't get it. The area under the curve is important, not just the PSI you are boosting, look at the torque curve between a twin screw type blower vs centrifugal blower, both can make the same HP,but the torque curve is typically more flat on a twin screw and comes on earlier.

If I were going FI, I would either be considering twin screw blower or turbo, I don't see the advantages in a centrifugal blower over either one of those, but can the other way around. I would be willing to hear why one would pick a centrifugal blower over a turbo or a twin screw type blower. I think the BBSC did well because of it's price point...but that lead to some engine probelmes due to poor fuel management of the piggy pack split second box. Can be solved with AEM but still begs the question, why would you want a centrifugal over twin screw or turbo?

I agree. Centrifugal systems offer the worst of both a supercharger and a turbocharger, inefficiency and lag. I also like how boostzilla totes the combination of the FMU with absolutely no engine management as the end all tuning solution for a FI setup when it couldn't be farther from the truth.

Honestly with any of these kits i wouldn't expect the actual kit to fail or blow up the motor as long as the car is tuned properly on a proper engine management system. IMO i wouldn't use a piggyback on any system. With the stock ECU constantly adapting to the changes the FI and piggyback system have introduced, you end up with a lot of unknown variables that you can't control. It would be MOTEC for me for drive by wire if i had it.
 
But like Vegas Speed, I too got very tired, very quickly of rebuilding motors on a constant basis.

Listen to what Vegas Speed has posted, lots of good advise and experience in those words.

I think you have me mixed up with VegasSpeed. He's the one with the Brooklands Green CTSC NSX. I'm the guy with the Turbo Widebody you rode in before you did up your NSX. Remember, you stopped by my house.
 
I forgot you probably talked to ross at StmpoRaceProducts

Were not interested in selling any more turbo kits... just advice and fixing other kits problems after the customers have purchased one.

I disagree with the lovefab doenst work comment.. its just expensive IMO

The STMPO braces are probably the best addition especially in a targa to get rid of the cowl shake.

Thanks for the kind words Tim.... Our braces do work and the dollar for dollar benifit is unmatched

Regards
 
I would be willing to hear why one would pick a centrifugal blower over a turbo or a twin screw type blower. I think the BBSC did well because of it's price point...but that lead to some engine probelmes due to poor fuel management of the piggy pack split second box. Can be solved with AEM but still begs the question, why would you want a centrifugal over twin screw or turbo?

Why would someone offer a centrifugal blower as a FI option? Basch and Dali must believe otherwise or could better answer your question. Looking at some of the old threads some people thought or suggested centrifugals s/c's offered less lag than turbo's, or in some instances. I think the twin screw roots is more efficient than the centrifugal, but they are upwards of 10k new. A boostzilla/bbsc would probably still feel faster than my stock ride for about 3k less?
 
Why would someone offer a centrifugal blower as a FI option? Basch and Dali must believe otherwise or could better answer your question. Looking at some of the old threads some people thought or suggested centrifugals s/c's offered less lag than turbo's, or in some instances. I think the twin screw roots is more efficient than the centrifugal, but they are upwards of 10k new. A boostzilla/bbsc would probably still feel faster than my stock ride for about 3k less?

The cool thing about the BBSC is it just keeps pulling harder and harder to redline unlike the CTSC or most turbo kits where the TQ falls off at higher RPM. They do not have the low end TQ or the power under the curve like the other set-ups, but they are still plenty fast.
 
The cool thing about the BBSC is it just keeps pulling harder and harder to redline unlike the CTSC or most turbo kits where the TQ falls off at higher RPM. They do not have the low end TQ or the power under the curve like the other set-ups, but they are still plenty fast.

Right. I always thought since our cars needed to be in the higher rpm to make power and torque, the bbsc/boostzilla type was a reasonable FI option. I do like the fact that the BBSC can be drivin if the belt breaks. I think the boostzilla has a slight advantage because of the charger placement. Im not a cheerleader for any FI system in particular(well i'd like a 3.5L with FI) but seeing how inexpensive they are now (the bbsc/boostzilla)they are still an option for extra uummphhh.
 
Why would someone offer a centrifugal blower as a FI option? Basch and Dali must believe otherwise or could better answer your question. Looking at some of the old threads some people thought or suggested centrifugals s/c's offered less lag than turbo's, or in some instances. I think the twin screw roots is more efficient than the centrifugal, but they are upwards of 10k new. A boostzilla/bbsc would probably still feel faster than my stock ride for about 3k less?

Basch was $5500 for the kit compared to the comptech at almost 10K when it was offered. The twin turbo kit offered at the time was about 10K+ too...it was a cheaper FI option in a place that did not have near the same amount of offerings FI we have now. So they had their own niche market..cheap FI.

It's not that the centrifugal won't make HP, it just won't build it down low. One idea I had back then was to change the pulley size then have a blow of valve so you could spool the centrifugal faster. That said, why wouldnt you just go the turbo route if you were going to use a centrifugal type system. size it as needed per you individual application, no parasitic lossed on the engine...thermally it makes more sense...drving wise maybe not so much.

My opinion is that if I go FI I want something that compliments the current NSX, i.e. linear power band, not something that is slow to build boost then pulls hard at the last few K RPM. I don't want a HP monster but something with streetable, useable HP when I want.
it.

Money no object on the NSX, for it to drive the way I would like, I'd build a 3.8L NA NSX with ITBs. Just too damn expensive. Maybe this will make more sense as to why I would go with a twin screw S/C over a centrifugal...or for that matter a small turbo over a centrifugal. However if your goal is monster HP why not get a giant turbo, it will make more power than the centrifugal S/C and be more efficient. Just my $.02
 
Last edited:
My opinion is that if I go FI I want something that compliments the current NSX, i.e. linear power band, not something that is slow to build boost then pulls hard at the last few K RPM. I don't want a HP monster but something with streetable, useable HP when I want.


Money no object on the NSX, for it to drive the way I would like, I'd build a 3.8L NA NSX with ITBs.


Has anyone actually done this or close to it? ITB's combined with larger displacement? Any thoughts on rwhp guesses for this setup as a 3.5 or 3.8NA?
 
Basch was $5500 for the kit compared to the comptech at almost 10K when it was offered. The twin turbo kit offered at the time was about 10K+ too...it was a cheaper FI option in a place that did not have near the same amount of offerings FI we have now. So they had their own niche market..cheap FI.

It's not that the centrifugal won't make HP, it just won't build it down low. One idea I had back then was to change the pulley size then have a blow of valve so you could spool the centrifugal faster. That said, why wouldnt you just go the turbo route if you were going to use a centrifugal type system. size it as needed per you individual application, no parasitic lossed on the engine...thermally it makes more sense...drving wise maybe not so much.

My opinion is that if I go FI I want something that compliments the current NSX, i.e. linear power band, not something that is slow to build boost then pulls hard at the last few K RPM. I don't want a HP monster but something with streetable, useable HP when I want.
it.

Money no object on the NSX, for it to drive the way I would like, I'd build a 3.8L NA NSX with ITBs. Just too damn expensive. Maybe this will make more sense as to why I would go with a twin screw S/C over a centrifugal...or for that matter a small turbo over a centrifugal. However if your goal is monster HP why not get a giant turbo, it will make more power than the centrifugal S/C and be more efficient. Just my $.02

You're neglecting that a turbo IS a centrifugal pump.

The only difference between it and a crankshaft driven centrifugal pump is that a turbo is theoretically slightly more efficient as it captures some of the waste heat from the engine. However, on some vehicles that have limited turbo placement options, a supercharger may be a better choice because of charge piping volume between the pump and the engine intake.

i.e. a turbo may require a lot of charge piping volume being mounted down low as opposed to a supercharger that may be mounted right next to the intake (or equivalent intercooler). In this extreme case, the supercharger may be just as good of a choice as the turbo since higher air intake inertial losses (i.e. turbo lag) from all this turbo piping may cancel out it's thermal benefits. I've seen a lot of turbo kits for the NSX that have horrendous charge piping volume and bends (losses). NOT IDEAL, but the owners don't know that because they still have a lot more power from OEM.

The NSX was not designed as an off-the-line torque monster. Some people may like that (I mean, who doesn't really), but some may prefer to keep the design balance that the original engineers intended. In that case, a centrifugal supercharger makes a lot of sense.

To each their own - there is no perfect design - everything has some compromise to it.

And, cost does play a big part of it.

Dave
 
Last edited:
^^ are you trying to talk yourself into a S/C Dave? lol

I think this thread has sort of morphed into a SC vs. Turbo thread so my two cents will revolve around deciding what you want your car to feel like. It's pretty clear if you read into the folks comments on here. Some like the top end power and some like the torque down low which drives their recommendation.

I'm currently aiming for a twin screw setup of some type. I like the extra torque coming out of a turn and the USDM gears could certainly use the extra 'boost'.

EDIT: But really... if I had the extra $ i'd have Jon Martin build me a 3.8L :) :) :)
 
Last edited:
Has anyone actually done this or close to it? ITB's combined with larger displacement? Any thoughts on rwhp guesses for this setup as a 3.5 or 3.8NA?

Not that I am aware of...if I had the money burning a hole in my pocket I'd do it.

If I were to guess. I would think you would be around 400rwhp with a proper tune which would be my goal with FI.

SerialNSXer achieved 435HP, think that was engin dyno though with No ITB, 435 HP 3.8L Jon Martin stroked, high compression motor.

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=920259&postcount=208


So I am thinking you would be somewhere just north of 400rwhp. Just my guess and goal:wink:
 
You're neglecting that a turbo IS a centrifugal pump.

Umm no I didn't, I just called it centrifugal to differentiate the type fo S/C's. I think everyone knows a turbo is a centrifugal pump. So I realize that completely but if I was going that way, i.e. centrifugal pump, with the NSX I would go Turbo and have way more tuning options without the parasitic loss of the belt.

The only difference between it and a crankshaft driven centrifugal pump is that a turbo is theoretically slightly more efficient as it captures some of the waste heat from the engine. However, on some vehicles that have limited turbo placement options, a supercharger may be a better choice because of charge piping volume between the pump and the engine intake.

The centrifugal S/C ala the baschboost needs a long drive rod to connect from the crank pulley to the S/C itself, I would say this is a less than optimum mechanical design, then you have to pipe the intake charge all the way across the engine bay. IMHO

i.e. a turbo may require a lot of charge piping volume being mounted down low as opposed to a supercharger that may be mounted right next to the intake (or equivalent intercooler).

The Baschboost/Boostzilla uses long charge piping. as the S/C is on the otherside of the engine bay as I stated before. My point here is the twin screw is more efficient and builts boost sooner so if you are going the S/C route why wouldn't you do that. If you wanted a centrifugal pump go the turbo route.

In this extreme case, the supercharger may be just as good of a choice as the turbo since higher air intake inertial losses (i.e. turbo lag) from all this turbo piping may cancel out it's thermal benefits. I've seen a lot of turbo kits for the NSX that have horrendous charge piping volume and bends (losses). NOT IDEAL, but the owners don't know that because they still have a lot more power from OEM.

Sounds like a poor execution of the turbo, the theory is still valid.

The NSX was not designed as an off-the-line torque monster. Some people may like that (I mean, who doesn't really), but some may prefer to keep the design balance that the original engineers intended. In that case, a centrifugal supercharger makes a lot of sense.

I don't want a torque monster if that were the case I would go turbo. I want linear power delivery which is why I am contemplating twin screw if I go FI.

I am not anti S/C or Turbo...just don't understand why if you were going the S/C route you would pick a centrifugal S/C over a twin screw...and if you did go centrifugal S/C why wouldn't you go Turbo....just my mental down selection.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top