How come the 3.2 have 60 HP on the 3.0
- Thread starter cyrusk
- Start date
How did you figure that?
You seem to think only horsepower matters for calculating acceleration times. The 3.2 litre engines came with 6-speed gearboxes. Those (shorter) gears give quicker acceleration in some ranges.
First, your numbers are all wrong. The typical time on a 3.0-liter is about 13.7. The typical time on a 3.2-liter is more like about 13.2 for the NSX Coupe, 13.4 for the NSX-T.cyrusk said:
Gearing alone - if you took a '91 3.0-liter 5-speed NSX and replaced the tranny with a stock 6-speed - would reduce 1/4 mile times from 13.67 seconds to 13.56 seconds. So .11 second comes from the gearing difference.
Adding 15 hp would reduce 1/4 mile times from 13.67 seconds to 13.35 seconds. So the 20 hp, all by itself, accounts for roughly .43 second.
Add it all together, and here is where the differences come from:
13.7 seconds stock '91
-0.1 second from gearing
-0.4 second from +20 hp
=13.2 seconds stock '97+ coupe
+0.2 second from added weight of NSX-T
=13.4 seconds stock '97+ NSX-T
cyrusk, dont forget the driver comes into play running the 1/4, technique plays a big part
I had a magazine where they ran it against a C5, viper, 911 turbo, and a Ferrai 355 it was a few years ago but it ran a 12.9 I thought.
I know the gearing on the early model is bad. I would like to have all the ratios bunched up at the bottom and then have 5 be a double spaced shift. I wonder why they choose those ratios?
PS what are the MPH in quater the mph is way more accurate gauge of power.
I know the gearing on the early model is bad. I would like to have all the ratios bunched up at the bottom and then have 5 be a double spaced shift. I wonder why they choose those ratios?
PS what are the MPH in quater the mph is way more accurate gauge of power.
cyrusk said:
I don't think any of these is an accurate measurement of power. The only accurate measurement of power is the dyno, and with that there are still slight discrepancies because of dyno conditions.
Gobs of power does not necessarily mean quick acceleration.
See attached Road and Track's response to a reader who is baffled by the performance of the NSX vs the Z06:
Yes, there was a 3.2-liter car that ran a 12.9 in a couple of tests. There are other tests where the times are higher than the numbers I quoted (from Bob Butler's analysis). You don't think it's fair to take the very best test of one engine and the very worst test of the other engine and complain that there is such a big difference, do you?cyrusk said:
You asked about the relationship between power differences and performance differences. The differences quoted above are calculated, and by doing so, they are based solely on the actual performance differences, and extract from run-to-run variances that typically occur in testing procedures, such as driver ability, launch, environment, etc.
I know that the gearing on the early model is excellent for the racetrack.cyrusk said:
If you did that - moved all the shift points down considerably, so that you would run out of fourth gear at, say, 100 mph - acceleration above that speed would be absolutely terrible.cyrusk said:
Maybe it's because they know that some drivers care about acceleration at all of the speeds the NSX is capable of.cyrusk said:
Cyrus, you might want to do some reading through the various sections of the FAQ and do a search on these forums on the topics you are interested in. You can learn a lot that way.
based on hp, torque, weight of car and engine displacement, we can get a good guess of what times the car will achieve.
if we could figure out times based on hp, then we'll have tons of problems in japan, won't we......
NSX, skyline GT-R, EVO, STi, 3000GT, Supra, 300ZX all have 280bhp (limit)....it's the tuning that counts.
of course, some are unde - such as the rally cars (shh...don't tell....
)
if we could figure out times based on hp, then we'll have tons of problems in japan, won't we......
NSX, skyline GT-R, EVO, STi, 3000GT, Supra, 300ZX all have 280bhp (limit)....it's the tuning that counts.
of course, some are unde - such as the rally cars (shh...don't tell....
)
Side stepping the original question slightly, it's always a bit misleading reading the performance figures that the majority of automotive magazines publish. When vehicles are put through acceleration tests by these people, they are not treated kindly. I would hate to own any vehicle that has been in the hands of the media at any point in it's life. When they get 5.4 sec. 0-60 times from the S2000, they are lurching the clutch at at least 6000 RPM !!!. Would you do that ? Not me. Imagine letting go of the clutch in a WRX Sti at 5000 RPM. You can just here the drivetrain shake and shudder. I guess it's all fun when it's not your vehicle.
RyRy210 said:
For grins- the original street engine out of our 11 year old 40,000+ mi NSX made 285 HP (270 Advertised) without atempting to improve anything... not even new plugs.
Similar threads
- Sticky
