1997
- Thread starter mono01
- Start date
would be the same as the 1991+ all the autos have the 3.0l and i believe all the same performance numbers
From another post from 2008 "Once had a '92 auto completely stock G-tech'd 5.4 14.2"
From another post from 2008 "Once had a '92 auto completely stock G-tech'd 5.4 14.2"
Last edited:
From wiki: http://www.nsxprime.com/wiki/1997_Specifications
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Acura-0-60-mph-Times.html
Automatic will be slower at 0-60. Good enough ballpark though.
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Acura-0-60-mph-Times.html
Automatic will be slower at 0-60. Good enough ballpark though.
On a tangential note, the battery loads are not the same for the automatic vs. the manual. The automatic has a higher CCA if I am not mistaken. We came across this when doing some sleuth work as to whys ...........
Also, the cams and some other components inside the engine are different also.
252 HP
Who cares about 0-60 times on an Auto?
Who cares about 0-60 times on an Auto?
252 HP
Who cares about 0-60 times on an Auto?
Who buys a 6.0l 2500hd silverado crewcab and doesn't get 4wheel drive?
LOL! I have a 2500hd Silverado (extended cab) and I have 2WD. 2WD is rated to tow a bit more and I never need 4WD.
I believe the Auto has a bit more robust electrical system because in the early years, it had electric power steering while the manual had manual steering. I read this in that book on the NSX's development process that is scanned in the wiki, I believe.
Last edited:
Someone that doesn't need a 4x4, needs a higher tow rating and doesn't want to pay more insurance.
I understand your point.
No disrespect to Auto owners. It just seems logical to me that someone who was concerned with 0-60 times would own a manual.
I ran across this website and they have some times but they don't list an Auto
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Acura-0-60-mph-Times.html
Last edited:
Similar threads
