93 or 94 which is quicker?

SugrueNSX · 2 March 2005

OK so if a 93 NSX 5 speed with 15 and 16 inch OEM rims and OEM tires went up against a 94 5 speed with 16 and 17 inch OEM rims and OEM tires. Which one would lap faster at the track. And how would they compare for lateral g on my g-tech and how would they compare in terms of handling?
Any opinions appreciated but hard data really appreciated!

Regards,

Patrick

Ps Just sold 88 Carrera 3.2 and will buy NSX very soon.

NsXMas · 2 March 2005

Depends. Some NSX engines are more powerful than others.

DocL · 2 March 2005

SugrueNSX said:
OK so if a 93 NSX 5 speed with 15 and 16 inch OEM rims and OEM tires went up against a 94 5 speed with 16 and 17 inch OEM rims and OEM tires. Which one would lap faster at the track. And how would they compare for lateral g on my g-tech and how would they compare in terms of handling?
Any opinions appreciated but hard data really appreciated!

Regards,

Patrick

Welcome Patrick. On paper there shouldn't be any difference, but depending on the driver there can be a big difference on the track. As for the g-tech, that thing is a piece of crap and I wouldn't waste my time using it in my car. It's good for posers who think that their car is the "best".

Btw, you can look up the numbers for acceleration, braking, and g-forces in the FAQ.

-Cheers

PoohBEAR · 2 March 2005

i say 94 is quicker. if you take 9+4, you will get 13 and if you take 9+3.....you only get 12. Therefore, a 94 would be quicker

SugrueNSX · 2 March 2005

Thanks for the posts guys!
I am trying to understand why Honda went from 15 and 16 to 16 and 17 rims. Was it just for looks?

spartan2-3 · 2 March 2005

PoohBEAR said:
i say 94 is quicker. if you take 9+4, you will get 13 and if you take 9+3.....you only get 12. Therefore, a 94 would be quicker

base on your equation the 93 would be quicker, at least in the quarter mile :biggrin:

Briank · 2 March 2005

SugrueNSX said:
Thanks for the posts guys!
I am trying to understand why Honda went from 15 and 16 to 16 and 17 rims. Was it just for looks?

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/changesbyyear.htm

I think the change was made in 94 for looks and getting ready for the 97 which has bigger brakes.

CokerRat · 2 March 2005

With the larger rims and assuming OEM size tires, the '94 has an extra 1cm width on the front tires and 2cm wider rears. On one hand, the contact patch has to be the same area for the same tire pressures and vehicle weight... but I also think there is some advantage in wider tires, otherwise why would high performance cars have such wide tires.

NSXBOX · 2 March 2005

They did this comparison many times in Japan when they made the upgrade if you buy the NSX Platinum Best Motoring Series DVD they do a back to back test and the 16/17 makes a big difference around a 1 sec on a 1.20 min lap .. they even did 1/4 mile can't remember the difference..

RP-Motorsports · 2 March 2005

doesn't matter, that is what the aftermarket is for. :biggrin:

nsxtasy · 2 March 2005

Differences in driver skill are usually far, far greater than a difference of 10-20 mm in tire tread width.

SugrueNSX · 2 March 2005

NSXBOX said:
They did this comparison many times in Japan when they made the upgrade if you buy the NSX Platinum Best Motoring Series DVD they do a back to back test and the 16/17 makes a big difference around a 1 sec on a 1.20 min lap .. they even did 1/4 mile can't remember the difference..

Excellent!
Thank you Sir.

Regards,

Patrick

brahtw8 · 3 March 2005

My 93 came with Racing Harts and the 15/16s, that have never seen use under my ownership. I currently have the 94-96 wheels on my 93 with T1S Toyos.

I believe most people are no longer running the stock 15/16 setup. As a result, when shopping for an NSX, there is often no significant difference between a 93 and a 94, other than color availability, with 93 the last year for sebring silver and 94 lacking any kind of silver but gaining green. (Sounds like gangrene

:biggrin: )

SugrueNSX · 3 March 2005

DocL said:
Welcome Patrick. On paper there shouldn't be any difference, but depending on the driver there can be a big difference on the track. As for the g-tech, that thing is a piece of crap and I wouldn't waste my time using it in my car. It's good for posers who think that their car is the "best".

Btw, you can look up the numbers for acceleration, braking, and g-forces in the FAQ.

-Cheers

Sir,

I have been using a Gtech Pro RR for about 6 months now and I must say I’m very happy with it. I have used it to measure increases in lateral grip when doing back to back testing of tires on at skid pans. I have also used it to measure grip when experimenting with different sway bar settings and interestingly enough I thought the car felt much faster on one particular set up but once I downloaded the data and looked at the graphs on my PC I realized the car was much slower.
I like to test things multiple times to make sure I’m getting the same results and I find the unit to give very consistent results. During the small amount of testing I have done using GPS and stopwatches the Gtech also seems to be very accurate. Accurate enough for my needs at least. I also find it handy for keeping track of lap times at DE events.
I think they did a good job with the PC software that comes with it.
The company seems to support its products with free software updates and it comes with all the cables so there are no hidden charges. I think it’s sold at a very fair price.
I don’t understand why you think it’s a piece of crap. Did you have problems with yours?

Regards,

Patrick

apapada · 3 March 2005

As part of my job let's just say that I have had the opportunity to test on a multitude of different vehicles during the same runs, a multitude of measuring devices. From the cheap G-Tech to the expensive Datron Systems, and a multitude of other accelerometer-based systems like the G-Tech Pro, the VC200, VC3000, and GPS-based systems like the V-BOX.
The G-Tech is only good for getting an idea when performing "before" mod and "after" mod times. When looking at the data in terms of absolute values it is the least repetitive and least accurate of them all. For an individual enthusiast who is interested in getting a better idea on performance gains/losses than the seat-of-pants-o-meter it's ok, but in no way is it scientific. I guess you get what you pay for...

NetViper · 3 March 2005

Guess you would have to take the two to a drag strip for a 1/4 mile duo.

I was talking to an acura services manager who said the Gtech is usually 5 MPH fast on the 1/4 mile. Personally, I have no idea.

DocL · 3 March 2005

SugrueNSX said:
Sir,

I have been using a Gtech Pro RR for about 6 months now and I must say I’m very happy with it....I don’t understand why you think it’s a piece of crap. Did you have problems with yours?

Regards,

Patrick

First, please don't call me sir, I'm not that old yet! :smile: As for my experience with the G-Tech, it was very brief and I pulled it off after five minutes of use because I knew that the numbers it was putting out were baloney. Now, comparred with the GPS based system that I played with, it recorded the inertia for each turn that I took and showed me that I was not as fast on some left hand turns comparred to right hand turns, and it even showed me when I was accelerating before, at, or after the apex. I only played with the GPS system for 10 minutes as it was in my friends race car that we were setting up.

If you are happy with the G-Tech, that's fine with me. I have too many electronic gadgets that I've never even used and I didn't feel that the G-Tech was worth the money. The digital tire pressure gauge that I have gets a lot of use on my dolly!

apapada · 3 March 2005

Many of these accelerometer-based devices are fooled by the pitching of the car under heavy braking and acceleration. Especially those which are windshield mounted. The same unit may show up to 15% difference in a minivan :biggrin: (tall windshield, lots of nose dive under braking)

SugrueNSX · 3 March 2005

apapada said:
As part of my job let's just say that I have had the opportunity to test on a multitude of different vehicles during the same runs, a multitude of measuring devices. From the cheap G-Tech to the expensive Datron Systems, and a multitude of other accelerometer-based systems like the G-Tech Pro, the VC200, VC3000, and GPS-based systems like the V-BOX.
The G-Tech is only good for getting an idea when performing "before" mod and "after" mod times. When looking at the data in terms of absolute values it is the least repetitive and least accurate of them all. For an individual enthusiast who is interested in getting a better idea on performance gains/losses than the seat-of-pants-o-meter it's ok, but in no way is it scientific. I guess you get what you pay for...

I defer to and respect your greater knowledge of the subject.
I am not surprised that there are better industrial units out there.
I am embarrassed to admit that since getting the g-tech I have succumbed to the temptation to check 0 to 60 times and also do the odd ¼ mile run. Providing I don’t blow the run by spinning the wheels or smoking the clutch my times have less than a tenth of a second spread. My terminal ¼ mile speeds are right where they should be and almost always within less than one mph of each other on any given session. My speeds when I hit the rev limiter (which is easy to see on the rpm graph) in third or fourth are bang on to within less than one mph. The unit measures in 1/100 of a g and when I hold it sideways and get it dead level it reads 1.00 and never any more.
Now I’m wondering if my standards and expectations are lower than yours which could be as I’m only a hobbyist and you are a professional or did I get lucky and get a good one?

93 or 94 which is quicker?

Similar threads