0 to 60: 4.5 the fastest for NSX??

[downwiz2]

i was looking at this site showing all the various 0 to 60 times for NSX

1991 Acura NSX 5.8 14.4
1992 Acura NSX 5.6 13.9
1993 Acura NSX 5.6 13.9
1994 Acura NSX 5.3 13.6
1996 Acura NSX 5.2 13.8
1996 Acura NSX-T 5.8 14.3
1997 Acura NSX-T 4.8 13.3
2001 Acura NSX V6 4.5 12.9 (C&D TV 2001)
2002 Acura NSX 4.8 13.4

is the 2001 the only one that goes this fast?

i searched, i hope this isn't a repost.....

 

[Twinsen]

Hmm...maybe I need to shoot for a '94 like I originally had intentions for...or maybe I could grab a '97 after I sell a couple of houses. I'd like my NSX to at least do 13s...

 

[robr]

any 5/6-speed NSX will do 13s. Those are just numbers that the magazines happened to run on whatever day they were doing testing. the 2001 is no faster than the 2005 or 1997. There are two engines, 3.0L from 91-96 and 3.2L from 97-05. There are some weight differences between the -T, hardtopp and Zanardi, but the numbers posted in the first post here are not the 'best' times for any particular year (or maybe some are) and probably not the worst either. The best performing NSX would be the lightest with the largest engine (Zanardi), the worst would be the heaviest with the smallest engine (NSX-T 95-96). There can also be variances from car to car of the same model in the same year. There have been some documented instances of some stock engines putting out as much as 20HP more than another engine of the same size/year.


I forgot to mention automatics, which is probably where any 14.x number comes from. That's an easy one, if you want maximum performance, don't get an automatic (which have less HP than 5 and 6 speed models). But thats a no-brainer.

 

[downwiz2]

any 5/6-speed NSX will do 13s. Those are just numbers that the magazines happened to run on whatever day they were doing testing. the 2001 is no faster than the 2005 or 1997. There are two engines, 3.0L from 91-96 and 3.2L from 97-05. There are some weight differences between the -T, hardtopp and Zanardi, but the numbers posted in the first post here are not the 'best' times for any particular year (or maybe some are) and probably not the worst either. The best performing NSX would be the lightest with the largest engine (Zanardi), the worst would be the heaviest with the smallest engine (NSX-T 95-96). There can also be variances from car to car of the same model in the same year. There have been some documented instances of some stock engines putting out as much as 20HP more than another engine of the same size/year.


I forgot to mention automatics, which is probably where any 14.x number comes from. That's an easy one, if you want maximum performance, don't get an automatic (which have less HP than 5 and 6 speed models). But thats a no-brainer.

hmm.....so anyone here owns a Zanardi? wow, i thought all engines for NSX was same.....i am proven wrong.

 

[1BADNSX]

Number 26.

hmm.....so anyone here owns a Zanardi? wow, i thought all engines for NSX was same.....i am proven wrong.

 

[SCS2k]

hmm.....so anyone here owns a Zanardi? wow, i thought all engines for NSX was same.....i am proven wrong.

I believe he was merely referring to the fact that the Zanardi is the lightest NSX available (in the US) with the largest engine, although the engine is of no greater displacement than any other manual NSX of that same year.

 

[BD]

The 02+ Spec NSX will reach 150mph faster than all other US model NSXs (except Zanardi) due to better Aerodynamic. But does have higher top speed than Zanardi edition. 168mph vs. 175mph. It's published by multiple magazines.

 

[NetViper]

The 02+ Spec NSX will reach 150mph faster than all other US model NSXs (except Zanardi) due to better Aerodynamic. It's published by multiple magazines.

While that is most likely true, the 02 NSX still takes nearly double the amount of time to get to 150MPH than a new Z06.

 

[Shumdit]

hmm.....so anyone here owns a Zanardi? wow, i thought all engines for NSX was same.....i am proven wrong.

The engines are the same for all 91-96 manuals, and again for all 97-05 manuals (not including OBD II and other year to year minor changes in specs, which did not affect HP ratings) It's just the lighter weight of the Zanardi combined with the more potent engine/tranny of the 97+ models gives it an advantage. Remember the adage less weight is equal to free horsepower.

BTW, all automatics are the 252 HP 3.0 variety, and that is the reason for the comment about the 5.8/14 1/4 time remark.

 

[surferX]

While that is most likely true, the 02 NSX still takes nearly double the amount of time to get to 150MPH than a new Z06.

And a Z06 takes twice as long as a new GSX-R1000! What is your point other than to say that a car developed in 2005 is "faster" than a car developed in the late 1980's?

 

[BD]

While that is most likely true, the 02 NSX still takes nearly double the amount of time to get to 150MPH than a new Z06.

So what's your point? Are we even on the same page here?

Another Corvette talk on Prime?

 

[BD]

But any, back on topic.

 

[downwiz2]

well a corvette would easily kill a nsx on the straightway...

 

[NetViper]

Hmm.. I guess I had no point.

 

[NetViper]

Why can't the C6 Z06 our lap the 02 NSX R in the "Ring." Oops, we are not on the same page either

The NSX-R did 7:56, but I have heard that is contested - something about it not being an official track length or finish position or something. I have no idea if that is true. I had seen the video and it rocks.

The C6 Z06 was clocked at 7:43 I think... FYI The C5 Z06 also did a 7:56. So, I think you need to rethink that statement.

Obviously I am a huge NSX fan, but I think you need to give the C6 some credit.

Anyway, back on topic.

The fastest time in a magazine I have seen for the NSX was in Car and Driver. It was a 97 or 98 coupe and it was silver. 0-60 4.5 and 1/4 in 12.9 @ 110mph. I have the magazine downstairs.

 

[BD]

You know the "Ring" received mod/refurbed since NSX R Run in 2002.

 

[goldNSX]

1994 Acura NSX 5.3 13.6
...
2001 Acura NSX V6 4.5 12.9 (C&D TV 2001)

I don't believe the 2001-numbers here. The 2001 has the same gear ratio (1st, 2nd, 3rd) weights more with a sligthly increased torque, but bigger wheels with more grip. But this would never be an advantage of 0.8 seconds or 4.5 in absolute numbers.

 

[MvM]

I am not very familiar with the different Corvette-types and there are probably many versions which are not sold in Europe at all.
However, the site www.track-challenge.com lists the results of many cars tested by the German Sport-Auto Magazine. The drivers who tests these cars are the same everytime. I am not saying they are the best drivers but I suspect they might at least be consistent.
Their best results for the NSX-R on the Ring was 8.09 and for the Corvette C6 it was 8.15. They don't have results for the Z06 though.

 

[Da Hapa]

well a corvette would easily kill a nsx on the straightway...

god i hate these kinds of threads...

 

[brahtw8]

I don't believe the 2001-numbers here. The 2001 has the same gear ratio (1st, 2nd, 3rd) weights more with a sligthly increased torque, but bigger wheels with more grip. But this would never be an advantage of 0.8 seconds or 4.5 in absolute numbers.

I believe the 2001 tested by C&D was a coupe.

The 6 speed gearing is not the same as the 5 speed. The R&P is the same at 4.062, but the gearing is not.

The 6 speed is 3.066, 1.956, 1.428

The 5 speed is 3.071, 1.721, 1.230

This makes a singificant difference in acceleration from 0-60.

 

[downwiz2]

god i hate these kinds of threads...

but its the truth....and the truth hurts

 

[robr]

whether or not its the truth, its irrelevant to the topic. someone always has to go throwing in unrelated crap just to start a flame war. if we want a vette, we'll buy a vette.

 

[brahtw8]

but its the truth....and the truth hurts

Hertz? Not Exactly. :biggrin:

 

[NSX-Tuner]

Not all test drivers or tracks are created equally... ya think... Hence, variations in 0-60 and 1/4 results for 3.0L vs. 3.0L and 3.2L vs. 3.2L.