especially for only 290hp
How good is the NSX? really.
- Thread starter TURBO2GO
- Start date
especially for only 290hp
Also, the NA1 NSX-R did a 8:03.86 and the OEM 1990 NSX with the skinny tires did a 8:16.15.
Even with 270hp, it is still very respectable.
Even with 270hp, it is still very respectable.
German Magazine: Sport Auto
8:09 Honda NSX-R - Sport Auto (08/2002), Sport tires, suspension modification
8:38 Honda NSX 3.2
-No mention of the driver but having an unbiased 3rd party (Sport Auto) takes many biases/variables out of the equation, especially those that are done from a factory effort. But there are still tons of variables from weather, traffic, tires, driver, etc... but these numbers seem a little more reasonable.
8:09 Honda NSX-R - Sport Auto (08/2002), Sport tires, suspension modification
8:38 Honda NSX 3.2
-No mention of the driver but having an unbiased 3rd party (Sport Auto) takes many biases/variables out of the equation, especially those that are done from a factory effort. But there are still tons of variables from weather, traffic, tires, driver, etc... but these numbers seem a little more reasonable.
From what I've seen the Viper is a car which you don't have to spend a lot of money to make it ridiculously fast. Probably the best example of a weekend warrior track car out there. I'd say from 1996-2010 there really hasn't been a true competitor to it. Few people seem to have the skill to exploit the potential of the vehicle though (which is where the NSX is probably superior).
Huh?
How about a Z06? In the same price league and just as fast on the track as a Viper.
The Viper from the period of 1996-2010 has consistently been trumped by the Vette. Not to mention the handling on the Viper's have been crap only until the last few years. If you bring up the ACR, it comes with engineers who will setup the suspension to the track the car is being tested at by whatever magazine, skewing the data (track times). Such a luxury isnt offered to actual owners of the ACR.
Last edited:
Without doing a specific comparison I don't know what to say. From what I've seen, Gen II Vipers are easily faster than C5 Z06s. I believe the current C6 Z06 is a very good competitor with similarly priced Vipers, but obviously the Gen III ACR is much faster than the C6 Z06 or ZR1.Huh?
How about a Z06? In the same price league and just as fast on the track as a Viper.
I already alluded to the "handling" argument for the Viper by saying that most drivers can't exploit the potential of the Viper (moreso than other vehicles).
The Viper from the period of 1996-2010 has consistently been trumped by the Vette. Not to mention the handling on the Viper's have been crap only until the last few years. If you bring up the ACR, it comes with engineers who will setup the suspension to the track the car is being tested at by whatever magazine, skewing the data (track times). Such a luxury isnt offered to actual owners of the ACR.
However, the simple result is that for the few people that can exploit that potential the Viper is faster.
+1 on Viper being faster than C6 ZO6.
The Vette is probably easier to drive under the limit but its fairly comparable if not slightly more twitchy riding the limit as the Viper.
The Viper won LeMans in both factory and privateer efforts (even when the factory no longer backed an effort) trumping the factory Corvette effort, which eventually won at LeMans years later.
I think its ignorant to say a Viper dosnt handle well. The limits of the car are in supercar territiry and are much higher than the NSX. Wide tires, big brakes, wide stance, a huge engine and big power and torque makes it a fast car. Sure its not as refined as other cars but it does handle well due to the very high limits due to said characteristics.
Any way you look at it, the ZO6 is a competitor to the Viper, but the Viper probably squeaks ahead of the Vette, but its close and might depend on the track. I liked tracking the Viper more than the ZO6.
The ACR has double adjustable KW suspension, R-compound tires, a big splitter, canards, and a wing. Of course a Viper with all of this is going to be ridiculously fast. I wouldn't take away anything from the ACRs abilities, since anyone can set the factory-equipped KW suspension any way they want at any track, and the ideal setting for the chassis is probably the same for most tracks anyway.
Heck, there are rumors of the GTR, 911 turbo, and yes even our beloved NSX running R-comp, cheater "street" tires (different compound) or slick tires in their "official testing" and lap times at Nurburgring or any other track. Putting non-factory tires or exhaust or a tune that is better than production for marketing/bragging rights is a common practice. Because of this, take these numbers with a grain of salt.
Billy
The Vette is probably easier to drive under the limit but its fairly comparable if not slightly more twitchy riding the limit as the Viper.
The Viper won LeMans in both factory and privateer efforts (even when the factory no longer backed an effort) trumping the factory Corvette effort, which eventually won at LeMans years later.
I think its ignorant to say a Viper dosnt handle well. The limits of the car are in supercar territiry and are much higher than the NSX. Wide tires, big brakes, wide stance, a huge engine and big power and torque makes it a fast car. Sure its not as refined as other cars but it does handle well due to the very high limits due to said characteristics.
Any way you look at it, the ZO6 is a competitor to the Viper, but the Viper probably squeaks ahead of the Vette, but its close and might depend on the track. I liked tracking the Viper more than the ZO6.
The ACR has double adjustable KW suspension, R-compound tires, a big splitter, canards, and a wing. Of course a Viper with all of this is going to be ridiculously fast. I wouldn't take away anything from the ACRs abilities, since anyone can set the factory-equipped KW suspension any way they want at any track, and the ideal setting for the chassis is probably the same for most tracks anyway.
Heck, there are rumors of the GTR, 911 turbo, and yes even our beloved NSX running R-comp, cheater "street" tires (different compound) or slick tires in their "official testing" and lap times at Nurburgring or any other track. Putting non-factory tires or exhaust or a tune that is better than production for marketing/bragging rights is a common practice. Because of this, take these numbers with a grain of salt.
Billy
What's your specific thoughts on comparing the Viper directly to the NSX (performance purposes only)? I think we can all admit the NSX is far superior for daily driving.
First define "performance".
The the "daily driving" comment is somewhat contradictory.
Billy (FXMDBilly)
The the "daily driving" comment is somewhat contradictory.
Billy (FXMDBilly)
According to Top Gear, the Dacia Sandero trumps both. :biggrin:
I like the Nurburgring lap time as an indicator for a sport car, but sometimes people are bias and only read what they want to see. One should be very careful about the non-"Sports Auto" records. For example, the 8:03.86 from a NA1 NSX-R is not a good indicator, but people like to use that as a benchmark. This NSX-R is a "lighter-than-factory" version; it had no spare tire, no ESC, no airbag, non-factory chair, and a fine line of "Omit the safe equipment model" that you need to read. It's also no secret that the "BEST MOTORING" does "things" to make their test results look better to stimulate the sales.
The 8:16 record is also fishy. If you do a global search match up, you'll find this record with mixed messages. Some say this is from the 2005 issue of "Best Motoring" (http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073). Some say it's a NA2 (http://www.the370z.com/track-autocr...-official-nuerburgring-top-200-lap-times.html). Some say it's also a NA2 '97 (http://bbs.modi-auto.com.cn/read.php?tid=238909). And finally, the wiki doesn't even have this record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürburgring_lap_times#cite_note-43).
The most reliable and accepted records are the one stuntman mentioned. Like I said, records from Sports Auto is usually the more objective ones:
8:09 Honda NSX-R - Sport Auto (08/2002), Sport tires, suspension modification
8:38 Honda NSX 3.2
It tells a story of the stock NA2 is 1 second slower the 2000 Impreza GT Turbo, and 1 second faster than a S2000. It's also way slower than many cheaper, but more modern cars. Stock Boxter S, Cayman S, M3, and IS-F are all faster cars. Not to mention the tuned MazdaSpeed 3 recently pulled a 8:39.
The 8:16 record is also fishy. If you do a global search match up, you'll find this record with mixed messages. Some say this is from the 2005 issue of "Best Motoring" (http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?viewThread=y&gID=3&fID=0&tID=10073). Some say it's a NA2 (http://www.the370z.com/track-autocr...-official-nuerburgring-top-200-lap-times.html). Some say it's also a NA2 '97 (http://bbs.modi-auto.com.cn/read.php?tid=238909). And finally, the wiki doesn't even have this record (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nürburgring_lap_times#cite_note-43).
The most reliable and accepted records are the one stuntman mentioned. Like I said, records from Sports Auto is usually the more objective ones:
8:09 Honda NSX-R - Sport Auto (08/2002), Sport tires, suspension modification
8:38 Honda NSX 3.2
It tells a story of the stock NA2 is 1 second slower the 2000 Impreza GT Turbo, and 1 second faster than a S2000. It's also way slower than many cheaper, but more modern cars. Stock Boxter S, Cayman S, M3, and IS-F are all faster cars. Not to mention the tuned MazdaSpeed 3 recently pulled a 8:39.
My best friend has a Cayman S and he and I have run track days together numerous times as well as swapped cars numerous times - the Cayman S and the NSX are very, very similar performing cars.
I can tell you for a fact, that I have whooped up on MazdaSpeed3s on the track numerous times - it's a quick car, but it's not in the same league.
Not sure if your NSX is bone stock. I think Cayman S has a Nurburgring record of around 8:20 (against NSX's 8:38), so surely they're somewhat close even without any mods. Honestly, I won't drive a Mazda 3 even if it's another 20% faster. But it's competitive enough to a NSX while it's not in the same league, and 1/3 of the price. I am simply pointing out what NSX is and is not. It was once a top-end sports car, but as year gone by and technologies evolved, it's not long as uber as it once was. Please continue whooping their behinds, because we should.
Comparing lap times at the Nurbugring is moot. They were done on different days, different drivers, different conditions, different tires, different brake pads, etc, etc. Take these entries for example.... That's a 11 second difference!
<table id="sortable_table_id_0" class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 90%;"><tbody><tr><td>8:04.08</td> <td>Porsche Cayman S</td> <td>Walter Röhrl</td> <td>
</td> <td>Sport Auto, 19 inch wheels, ceramic brakes.</td></tr></tbody></table><table id="sortable_table_id_0" class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size: 90%;"><tbody><tr><td>8:16</td> <td>Porsche Cayman S</td> <td>Horst von Saurma</td> <td>
</td> <td>Sport Auto (12/2009?)</td></tr></tbody></table>
Last edited:
A 2008 Chevy Cobalt SS could stay with me on the track, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to own one. :tongue:
Nurburgring --> 8:20 Chevrolet Cobalt SS Turbocharged
<img src="http://z.about.com/d/cars/1/0/2/j/1/ag_09cobaltss_frtrt.jpg" width="600">
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/urwJVnWHjiI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/urwJVnWHjiI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
Last edited:
I agree. But it's still a good reference, and we need to be objective about the numbers. For the examples you gave, the 19 inch wheels may not do much, but the ceramic brakes will definitely cut a few seconds down. If you put the break in the consideration(weight, fading, etc) the numbers aren't far off. Like I mentioned about the NSX-R record, there are so many fine prints on the bottom that you need to read before judging/comparing the record.
I feel sorry for being a shallow man, but I'll take a pretty face and nice boobs over inner beauty any day. NSX > Cobalt SS, just like Megan Fox > Oprah.
A note on the NSX ring times. First, the 8:03.86 was run by a 1992 NA1 NSX-R in the Best Motoring Video Special Vol. 25. The driver was Motoharu Kurosawa and the track conditions were ideal, i.e., sunny and a completely dry track. The tire compund used is unknown, but the car appeared to be running on the OEM Type-R wheels and suspension.
Next, the 8:16.15 was run by a Formula Red European-spec LHD 1990 NSX coupe in the Best Motoring Video Special Vol. 15 (aka the "NSX Pass Around DVD" here on prime). Again, the driver was Kurosawa and the track conditions were ideal. It was running on OEM 15/16 wheels, but the tire compound is unknown.
Finally, I think Billy is on to something regarding the NA2 NSX-R time. That run comes from Video Special Vol. 55 and also features Kurosawa in ideal track conditions. However, if you watch the entire video, there is a quick cut to a shot of the garage before the run. On the floor are about a dozen sets of black springs and several wheels/tires. This suggests that the suspension was tuned specifically for the ring, with the stated goal of breaking the 8 minute mark. Also, at one time Vance had the Type-R suspension used in that run and he noted that it was not the same as the OEM Type R setup. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that the 7:56.73 time probably deserves an * for non-stock tires and non-stock suspension.
I think Jim's overall comment is very important. The Ring is a 20km circuit and can have extremely variable conditions. ALL of the above times were set in ideal track conditions. In addition, the driver can make a big difference on a course with more than 100 turns. Kurosawa is an experienced Ring driver and also is intimately familiar with the NSX. He knows how to squeeze every tenth out of that car and, if you watch the videos, he hangs it right out on the hairy edge to grab those times. The only other driver I have seen who drives that close to the edge of the NSX performance envelope is Senna. Magazine drivers like Motor Trend or Sport Auto might have guys that really know the Ring, but may not know the NSX as well. For example, these drivers may lift where a Kurosawa or Senna probably would keep the accelerator planted. Multiply that by 100 turns and you've got several seconds difference in times.
Another interesting consideration in the driver scenario is if you look at Kurosawa's times for other sports cars:
1989 R32 GT-R 8:22.38 (VIDEO SPECIAL VOL.6)
1991 911 turbo 8:08.73 (VIDEO SPECIAL VOL.21)
1995 R33 GT-R 8:01.72 (VIDEO SPECIAL VOL.32)
2004 WRX Sti SpecC 8:06.01 (2004 AUGUST ISSUE)
Given this range, the NSX times do not seem all that unreasonable to me. Maybe it is due to my being a lawyer, but I don't think you can make a case for the BM NSX times being doctored or fraudulent. Did they use some tweaks to get the new Type R under 8 minutes? Yeah, it seems like it. But, all that tinkering only seems to have bought them about 7 seconds faster than the NA1 R.
Next, the 8:16.15 was run by a Formula Red European-spec LHD 1990 NSX coupe in the Best Motoring Video Special Vol. 15 (aka the "NSX Pass Around DVD" here on prime). Again, the driver was Kurosawa and the track conditions were ideal. It was running on OEM 15/16 wheels, but the tire compound is unknown.
Finally, I think Billy is on to something regarding the NA2 NSX-R time. That run comes from Video Special Vol. 55 and also features Kurosawa in ideal track conditions. However, if you watch the entire video, there is a quick cut to a shot of the garage before the run. On the floor are about a dozen sets of black springs and several wheels/tires. This suggests that the suspension was tuned specifically for the ring, with the stated goal of breaking the 8 minute mark. Also, at one time Vance had the Type-R suspension used in that run and he noted that it was not the same as the OEM Type R setup. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that the 7:56.73 time probably deserves an * for non-stock tires and non-stock suspension.
I think Jim's overall comment is very important. The Ring is a 20km circuit and can have extremely variable conditions. ALL of the above times were set in ideal track conditions. In addition, the driver can make a big difference on a course with more than 100 turns. Kurosawa is an experienced Ring driver and also is intimately familiar with the NSX. He knows how to squeeze every tenth out of that car and, if you watch the videos, he hangs it right out on the hairy edge to grab those times. The only other driver I have seen who drives that close to the edge of the NSX performance envelope is Senna. Magazine drivers like Motor Trend or Sport Auto might have guys that really know the Ring, but may not know the NSX as well. For example, these drivers may lift where a Kurosawa or Senna probably would keep the accelerator planted. Multiply that by 100 turns and you've got several seconds difference in times.
Another interesting consideration in the driver scenario is if you look at Kurosawa's times for other sports cars:
1989 R32 GT-R 8:22.38 (VIDEO SPECIAL VOL.6)
1991 911 turbo 8:08.73 (VIDEO SPECIAL VOL.21)
1995 R33 GT-R 8:01.72 (VIDEO SPECIAL VOL.32)
2004 WRX Sti SpecC 8:06.01 (2004 AUGUST ISSUE)
Given this range, the NSX times do not seem all that unreasonable to me. Maybe it is due to my being a lawyer, but I don't think you can make a case for the BM NSX times being doctored or fraudulent. Did they use some tweaks to get the new Type R under 8 minutes? Yeah, it seems like it. But, all that tinkering only seems to have bought them about 7 seconds faster than the NA1 R.
That is correct, but on top of that the NSX-R also had no spare tire, no ESC, and no airbag(this information can be googled and already mentioned above). I had a Japanese article about it had sports tires and non-factory chair(Type-R's racing chair maybe?). It's not doctored or fraudulent, but they did do everything they could to attack the lap time. They did an awesome job. On the other hand, Sports Auto often run theirs completely stock. So when we're choosing a metric for the NSX, especially stock-to-stock, the 8:38 is a better one in my opinion. The Kurosawa's times for other sports cars was good information. Thanks for sharing.
In stock form, the Cayman has
30 more HP (320 vs. 290 for the NSX)
Wider tires (235/265 vs. 215/245)
Weighs roughly the same (3,000lbs vs. 3,000lbs)
I'd put my $ on the cayman.
As far as Nurburgring times go. Ive said this many times:
The difference between an amateur or journalist to a pro driver can easily be 2-5 seconds on a normal 2 minute track. Multiply that by 4 and you can have the difference be 8-10 seconds easily or more. Factor in the 'pucker factor' of the Nordschlieffe and that can even be more. But some magazines have ex-pro drivers or hire professional racing drivers to do some of their testing.
Furthermore, if a driver loses 0.1 seconds per corner or every few corners, that can easily equate to 5-10 seconds or more.
The track is so big, it can be sunny, rainy, and snowing all ON THE SAME LAP. Tracks can easily vary by seconds, and the Nurburgring would even be moreso, depending on time of day or year, the consistency of the track is a huge variable.
Now go to tires. Japan has special 'super soft' compounds that aren't available in the states that look like normal street or R-compound tires. These tires can easily be 3-5 seconds per lap faster than the "OEM" street tires that came on the car on a 2-minute track. I've tested a set of these super soft tires on our NSX and they are amazing. On a 8 minute track, this can be a 10-15 second difference over stock tires.
But my point for using Sport Auto as a 'benchmark' was because they weren't biased and would take a car from the showroom to the track and test it, rather than being a factory-effort trying to make a time for marketing purposes.
With all of this, I take times with a grain of salt. Even tests by the same driver on the same day could vary by 0.5-2 seconds depending on track conditions and driver talent (which becomes even a bigger variable between different cars when they aren't a pro).
This is all bench racing anyway, its neat to see what cars are ballpark near other cars, but once you start changing suspension and tires and brake pads, it all dosn't matter anymore. But then again, does it matter or do car times have to be showroom stock to compare them? Is it not cool when a 235/275, coilover equipped NSX runs even faster times than a bone-stock NSX or even modern cars that beat the laptimes of an NSX on 205/225 tires?
Again, it's all bench racing. Take it with a grain of salt.
30 more HP (320 vs. 290 for the NSX)
Wider tires (235/265 vs. 215/245)
Weighs roughly the same (3,000lbs vs. 3,000lbs)
I'd put my $ on the cayman.
As far as Nurburgring times go. Ive said this many times:
The difference between an amateur or journalist to a pro driver can easily be 2-5 seconds on a normal 2 minute track. Multiply that by 4 and you can have the difference be 8-10 seconds easily or more. Factor in the 'pucker factor' of the Nordschlieffe and that can even be more. But some magazines have ex-pro drivers or hire professional racing drivers to do some of their testing.
Furthermore, if a driver loses 0.1 seconds per corner or every few corners, that can easily equate to 5-10 seconds or more.
The track is so big, it can be sunny, rainy, and snowing all ON THE SAME LAP. Tracks can easily vary by seconds, and the Nurburgring would even be moreso, depending on time of day or year, the consistency of the track is a huge variable.
Now go to tires. Japan has special 'super soft' compounds that aren't available in the states that look like normal street or R-compound tires. These tires can easily be 3-5 seconds per lap faster than the "OEM" street tires that came on the car on a 2-minute track. I've tested a set of these super soft tires on our NSX and they are amazing. On a 8 minute track, this can be a 10-15 second difference over stock tires.
But my point for using Sport Auto as a 'benchmark' was because they weren't biased and would take a car from the showroom to the track and test it, rather than being a factory-effort trying to make a time for marketing purposes.
With all of this, I take times with a grain of salt. Even tests by the same driver on the same day could vary by 0.5-2 seconds depending on track conditions and driver talent (which becomes even a bigger variable between different cars when they aren't a pro).
This is all bench racing anyway, its neat to see what cars are ballpark near other cars, but once you start changing suspension and tires and brake pads, it all dosn't matter anymore. But then again, does it matter or do car times have to be showroom stock to compare them? Is it not cool when a 235/275, coilover equipped NSX runs even faster times than a bone-stock NSX or even modern cars that beat the laptimes of an NSX on 205/225 tires?
Again, it's all bench racing. Take it with a grain of salt.
Yes.... bench racing, speculation, personal feelings, magazine reports, other car comparisons, and even lap times are what I was trying to stay away from on this thread. All the keyboard jockeying that's done on all the car forums about what car is faster and what has more horsepower and who would win in a race gives me a headache. I just wanted to know from the guys that actually DO IT, what racing the NSX is like, and the pluses and minuses of this car. Lack of seat support or a tendency for a bushing to fail matters more than some nurburgring time. I really don't care about that at all. Will this car make a good track car if made to do so? will it keep me safe? will the money spent on this chassis make sense? will it be reliable? will it starve for oil or overheat the cylinder heads? These are what is important to me.
Anyway most of those questions were already answered so.... if this thread is going to go in another direction; which it already has, I don't care. Billy why do you have two usernames? stuntman and fxmdbilly?
Anyway most of those questions were already answered so.... if this thread is going to go in another direction; which it already has, I don't care. Billy why do you have two usernames? stuntman and fxmdbilly?
Last edited:
FXMDBilly was the vendor username that i'm not really using anymore. Stuntman was my original username that i'm using again now. The last post on here from FXMDBilly was on my cell phone that had it as the default username.
The NSX is a good car. Get a baffled oil pan, accusump, oil pressure and temp gauge, maybe an oil cooler, suspension and tires and have at it. Its quite a reliable and fun car. Then upgrade to the Japanese gear ratio, add a OS Giken LSD (maybe 4.40 for non FI cars) and the car will wake up A LOT.
Billy
Last edited:
