I think that of the 2000$ a part (50%?) would come back at the moment of selling... it is a very very nice mod. It may sell the car for you alone if the buyer knows the difference it makes (i.e. drove another NSX)...
Drove a 98 saturday... WOW!
- Thread starter NetViper
- Start date
NetViper said:
Netviper,
How did ponyboy turn you off about the short gears? I was going to do this mod along with the 4.23 R&P but realized how much extra I would have to spend on other parts, so I put it off for later. It will cost me around $3600 for the mods. I'm sorry but, I don't see how my putting that money aside will help me get a '97 or later model. They have held the price pretty firm at over $45 right?
I don't know about the Targa's either. I know they only add a marginal amount of weight. Well, I have to say, I have never driven a '97+. I would love the oppurtunity. If I am AS sold over by it as NETviper. I might just look into it
Great thanx NETviper.......now a good deal of us will be looking hungrily at our piggybanks
Not curb weight. Remember to compare apples to apples; curb weight includes full fluids. You would have to adjust your figure to what it would weigh with a full tank of gas in order to calculate its curb weight. The gas in a full NSX tank weighs approximately 112 pounds (18.6 gallons times 6 pounds per gallon).Brian2by2 said:
As Bob Butler has calculated, putting short gears on a stock '91 NSX will reduce 1/4 mile times by 0.10 second. This is about the same reduction as adding 5 hp.gheba_nsx said:The 2000$ on the short gears are a very good investment! My car feels like 50ps more...
I know Ken...i was comparing the 97 to my car though...and my car is really light, so that might be why i didn't notice a huge difference.
That's way I wrote "feel"...
Ken, so based on those times do people do short gears simply for a marked acceleration increase? I always thought that the short gears would correlate with a lower 1/4 mile time as well =(
It is my understanding that some gear setups also change the top speed (does this hold true for the jdm setup?)
ravi
It is my understanding that some gear setups also change the top speed (does this hold true for the jdm setup?)
ravi
NetViper --
I have to agree with you. I've owned a '93 and now a '99. The first time I drove the current one I noticed a great difference in the two cars. Both were/are great.
Glad you had a good time.
Doug
I have to agree with you. I've owned a '93 and now a '99. The first time I drove the current one I noticed a great difference in the two cars. Both were/are great.
Glad you had a good time.
Doug
I think there are a couple of reasons why people get the short gears:STOCKTONSX said:
1. They improve acceleration in the 40-70 mph range, although they hamper it slightly above 70 mph (in general; the actual effect varies by road speed). This 40-70 mph range is very useful for the so-called "Traffic Light Grand Prix".
2. They reduce the gap between first and second gears, which is the widest of all the gear changes and thus reduces acceleration the most.
3. They improve the perception of acceleration in second gear by reaching redline sooner, albeit at a lower road speed.
I don't think the short gears are bad; I simply think that they are not the greatest thing since sliced bread that some folks claim them to be. They are also rather expensive if you're not having your tranny opened up anyway, because that operation typically takes 8-16 hours. But if you're already doing tranny work - snap ring fix, hub selector replacement to fix gear crunching, etc - then the additional labor required to swap gears is minimal.
When I was having my tranny opened up (reason 2) earlier this year, I was asked whether to replace the stock gears on my '91 with the short gears. I decided not to, because I like the stock gears on the track; they let me use second gear to accelerate out of some turns where the short gears would require third gear. But for those who don't track their cars much, the short gears may very well be preferable. Particularly if you don't have to pay extra for the labor.
They do.STOCKTONSX said:
These figures should help you see the effect of the short gears:
0-40 mph 2.84 seconds stock, 2.84 seconds short
0-70 6.59 stock, 6.27 short
70-120 11.57 stock, 11.81 short
120-150 19.58 stock, 22.98 short
As you can see, the short gears help 40-70 mph, but hurt above 70 mph. (I chose these speeds as break points because they are in the same gear with either gearset.)
This is not true of the short gears, which use the same top gear (fifth) as stock. This may be true of some shorter aftermarket ring and pinions, if the top speed at redline is less than the top speed with the stock R&P.STOCKTONSX said:
By the way, as for the difference between the stock '91 and the stock '97+, here are the above numbers with stock gears on a '91, with short gears on a '91, and with stock gears on a '97+ NSX-T:
0-40 mph 2.84 seconds stock, 2.84 seconds short, 2.75 '97+ NSX-T
0-70 6.59 stock, 6.27 short, 6.06 '97+ NSX-T
70-120 11.57 stock, 11.81 short, 10.87 '97+ NSX-T
120-150 19.58 stock, 22.98 short, 16.28 '97+ NSX-T
As you can see, the six-speed '97+ NSX-T is significantly quicker than either setup for the '91 at all of these speed ranges, thanks to its higher horsepower, and despite its weight disadvantage. So saving up for a six-speed 3.2-liter car is not a bad idea at all...
The different clutch (twin disk to single disk) from the 3.0 5 speed to the 3.2 6 speed also seemed to affect the perception of speed as well IMO.
Does anyone have NA2 vs NA1 dyno graph?
i would be very interested to see how NA2 vs NA1 with the same 6 spds tranny.. or with the same gear..
if i remember correctly, NA2 and NA1 only product around 10-15 rwhp difference, and about the same for torqe. If that is the case, i dont understand how can it make such a big difference... maybe it is the 6spds tranny that play into the major factor??
Or has anyone driven NA1 with 6spds vs NA2 w/ 6spds?
I know the fact in a supra tt, a 6spds will kill an auto given the same rwhp WHEN ABOVE 100 mph.. gear in this case IS the difference.
Perhaps NA2 and NA1 are the same?
-jjc.
6spds nsx & supra
i would be very interested to see how NA2 vs NA1 with the same 6 spds tranny.. or with the same gear..
if i remember correctly, NA2 and NA1 only product around 10-15 rwhp difference, and about the same for torqe. If that is the case, i dont understand how can it make such a big difference... maybe it is the 6spds tranny that play into the major factor??
Or has anyone driven NA1 with 6spds vs NA2 w/ 6spds?
I know the fact in a supra tt, a 6spds will kill an auto given the same rwhp WHEN ABOVE 100 mph.. gear in this case IS the difference.
Perhaps NA2 and NA1 are the same?
-jjc.
6spds nsx & supra
JJCNSX said:
I'm not sure what you're asking:JJCNSX said:
Are they the same engine? No, they're not.
Does the gearing account for most of the difference in acceleration time, rather than the added power, as you claim is true of the Supra? No. As Bob Butler has calculated, a bone stock '91 will do the 1/4 mile in 13.67 seconds. Put the six-speed in it, and it will do the 1/4 mile in 13.56 seconds. He calculates the 1/4 mile times for a bone stock '97 six-speed NSX-T at 13.39 seconds, and a bone stock '97 six-speed NSX coupe at 13.24 seconds. So the gearing accounts for an improvement of 0.11 second, the added power accounts for an improvement of 0.32 second, and the added weight of the NSX-T accounts for a degradation of 0.15 second.
Hey Nsxtasy, thank you for speedy reply..
I guess i should make myself clear: i want to see the "real life dyno".. i dont really trust mgf data/dyno.. if you have seen supra tt mgf dyno graph, you will understand, no supra tt would produce the dyno graph anywhere near what Toyota claimed.
when i said "perhaps NA1 and NA2 are the same" i meant, with 6spds tranny, perhaps they are very similar in real life performance.. NA2 is heavier and NA1 is liter, and given the similar rwhp output, maybe they would perform the same
-jjc.
6spds NA1
6spds 2JZ-GTE
I guess i should make myself clear: i want to see the "real life dyno".. i dont really trust mgf data/dyno.. if you have seen supra tt mgf dyno graph, you will understand, no supra tt would produce the dyno graph anywhere near what Toyota claimed.
when i said "perhaps NA1 and NA2 are the same" i meant, with 6spds tranny, perhaps they are very similar in real life performance.. NA2 is heavier and NA1 is liter, and given the similar rwhp output, maybe they would perform the same
-jjc.
6spds NA1
6spds 2JZ-GTE
nsxtasy said:
Yes, I edited my post and added additional info (about Bob Butler's analysis) when I realized what you might be asking.JJCNSX said:
The numbers calculated by Bob are consistent with the real world results reported by the major magazines using their controlled, standard testing procedures.JJCNSX said:
The difference in acceleration due to the added horsepower and torque of the 3.2-liter engine is real and accounts for most of the improvement in the numbers, as indicated above by Bob's analysis. Believe it.
nsxtasy said:
Yeah, actually, come to think of it.. the number claimed sound very reasonable.
i remember someone claimed that NA2 would be around 3 second faster from 120 - 150 mph.. that is a lot... NOT sure if Bob was the one to make that claim or not.. but i believe that one might be due to gearings.. i dont think 15 - 20 rwhp would do that.
Bob's calculation is for 1/4 miles.. i would love to see the comparsion from 100 mph to 150 mph too..
The reason i picked 93 is because i do not want a Targar top.. it's heavy and guarrantee to have lots of flex and rattle down the road.. Now ppl claim that 3.2 is a lot more potent than 3.0... i would be very interested to see how my NA1 with 6spds measure up against 97+..
-jjc.
Here are those numbers (thanks again, Bob):JJCNSX said:
120-150 mph
'91 5-speed Coupe stock 19.58 seconds
'91 Coupe with 6-speed 18.67 seconds
'97 6-speed Coupe stock 15.80 seconds
'97 6-speed NSX-T stock 16.28 seconds
100-150 mph
'91 5-speed Coupe stock 25.48 seconds
'91 Coupe with 6-speed 24.56 seconds
'97 6-speed Coupe stock 21.20 seconds
'97 6-speed NSX-T stock 21.84 seconds
I don't know why you have trouble believing it, but it should be quite clear that adding 20 hp at the crank (which means around 17 to 18 hp at the rear wheels) has a much much greater impact on acceleration times than changing from the 5-speed to the 6-speed.
I would say that, with equal drivers on the same day, a '97+ Coupe should be oh, somewhere around 0.32 second faster than yours in the 1/4 mile, and a '97+ NSX-T should be maybe about 0.17 second faster than yours. Funny, Bob Butler says the same thing.JJCNSX said:
nsxtasy said:
well, 3 second is actually A LOT..
The reason i am having a hard time believing the number claimed was from my supra tt experience.
about one year ago, my supra buddies and i went on a little test run in seattle. We just had our car dynoed a few days ago, and my supra had 378 rwhp and 383 tq (i had my leaky stock blow off valve on).. and both my buddies had well over 400+ rwhp and 400+ tq.. you would think this 20+ rwhp and 20-30 tq difference would've killed me.. but, we were neck to neck all the way to 150 mph or so. NOT even a bumper difference. none of us had any weight reduction, all of us were on 18 " rims.
we determined that at that speed, the wind resistance was too much for that 20-30 rwhp/tq to over come
-jjc.
With header/exhaust, my car dynoed 2hp peak shy of 97+ with header/exhaust which had a big relatively heavy wheels compared to my lightweight wheels. However, the peak torque difference was in the magnitutde of 13-14 ft-lbs.
Now I have run with stock 97+ with exhaust and we were neck to neck in 2nd but then as soon as he shifted into 3rd, he pulled away about a car length right away then slowly pulled away further. I guess that midrange coupled with 6 speed is a killer.
As far as 1/4 mile, I have ran 13.3 @ 105. I don't think I can go much faster than this, where as this time is comparable to slower times of 97+.
Honda didn't make those changes for nothing...
Now I have run with stock 97+ with exhaust and we were neck to neck in 2nd but then as soon as he shifted into 3rd, he pulled away about a car length right away then slowly pulled away further. I guess that midrange coupled with 6 speed is a killer.
As far as 1/4 mile, I have ran 13.3 @ 105. I don't think I can go much faster than this, where as this time is comparable to slower times of 97+.
Honda didn't make those changes for nothing...
how much rwhp and tq would we expect to gain from header and exhaust..?
how do they affect your mpg?
thx
-jjc.
how do they affect your mpg?
thx
-jjc.
I would say 15-20hp gain with header/exhaust. Torque gain was mostly on top end where stock one used to fall off quicker. MPG seems the same.
-ak
-ak
whiteNSXs said:
It is all in the gearing. I drove the 97 with the 6 speed and feel noticeably faster. Than I drove a 96 with 6 speed and 4.55. That is even faster.
No, it isn't. Unless there are other mods that make it faster. The 4.55 R&P won't improve acceleration times as much as the extra 20 hp of the '97+. However, it may improve the perceived acceleration times due to reaching redline faster (albeit at a lower road speed).Andrie Hartanto said:
1/4 mile times, in seconds:
Stock '91 13.67
'91 with 6-speed: 13.56
'91 with 4.55 R&P: 13.43
'91 with 6-speed and 4.55 R&P: 13.36
Stock '96 13.81
'96 with 6-speed: 13.70
'96 with 4.55 R&P: 13.57
'96 with 6-speed and 4.55 R&P: 13.50
Stock '97 Coupe: 13.24
Stock '97 NSX-T: 13.39
'97 Coupe with 4.55 R&P: 13.06
'97 NSX-T with 4.55 R&P: 13.20
Last edited:
NSX/MR2
Suspended
The performance differences between the 3.0 and 3.2 (better number) are so close that it can be a matter of who is a better driver. I will stack my lighten 3.0 against any 3.2 anytime. Just like I have beaten a M3 and a C5 Corvette, but lost to the same cars when they were driven by somebody else and I spun my tires too much.
NSX/MR2 said:
They are close in 1/4 mile.. but you can see above 100MPH, you will lose big time to a 3.2 NSX. And someone can lighten a 3.2 just like you lightened a 3.0L.
Similar threads
