How to make a 3.0 as quick as type R?

[Patricio]

How to catch a TYPE-R....

The real power difference in NA1 / NA2
NA2 +10hp not 20hp considering headers
+154 lbs for the NA2
NA1 3010
NA2 3164
NA1-R 2717
NA2-R 2800

Headers add 20rwhp on a NA1 but only 10rwhp on a NA2
A crappy OEM NA2 header on a NA1 will free up 10hp

Thus at this point both cars are equal in acceleration
Also already slightly faster than a stock E46 M3


Now to catch a Type-R
Lose some weight down to around 2800lbs

no spare -30 free
no engine cover -15 free
tool kit & jack -17 free
no spare bracket -3 free
foot sub -10 free
no cats -17 free
no floor mats + trunk -12 free
sound insulation -10 FREE
noise dampening material -15 FREE

Total
-129 lbs FREE

so...... now your 2881 lbs & faster than NA2's for FREE

now spend a couple $$$$$

battery odyssey 545 -20 / $100
STMPO light rear beam -15 / $400
Replica R CF seats -50 $1000
TAITEC Headers -12 / $1200
TAITEC Exhaust -27 / $1200
TYPE-R Suspension -00 / $1500
Prospeed chip -00 / $300

Total $5700
-124 lbs

Grand Total
-253 lbs

Now your at 2757 lbs / 43lbs lighter than a 02 type R
H/I/E + chip puts 270+ rwhp that is around 310+HP to the flywheel
You can smoke any E46 M3 by a couple cars (I do)

You will run mid 12's all day if you know how to drive.

So..... yes you CAN make a NA1 faster than a NA2 easily and even a Type-R

There is nothing magical about a Type-R its weight and better air flow, the Blueprinted engine might add 5-8hp at most, but still had to meet EPA standards

Thanks to the amazing NSX 13% drive train loss our 270rwhp/310HP at the flywheel is comparable to:
330Hp in a Front engine RWD car due to 17% loss
350Hp in a AWD car due to 22% loss

Now if you want to go faster than a 02 Type-R....
there is still another +/- 100lbs that can be removed without sacrificing interior but get ready to fork out $$$$$ for Carbon fiber stuff and lighter suspensions and brakes and so on...
And another 100lbs or so if you willing to lose luxuries ex: Interior parts and AC

sub 2500 lbs is possible

 

[NSXGMS]

So..... yes you CAN make a NA1 faster than a NA2 easily and even a Type-R

There is nothing magical about a Type-R its weight and better air flow, the Blueprinted engine might add 5-8hp at most, but still had to meet EPA standards

Making an NA1 faster than an NA2 is easy, particularly with the weight difference. To compete with an NA2 NSX-R would be quite a bit more difficult. One would have to drop the ~200+ lbs you describe, have better gearing and have more power than you can get with bolt-ons alone.

I give the Type-R engine a bit more credit. A B & B engine is easily capable of producing up to 10% more hp (25-30 more hp in The NSX.) I highly doubt you'll find the NA2 NSX-R engine putting down less than 280 whp while the NA1 will always struggle to break 270.

Vance's NSX puts down over 300 whp with bolt-ons and his motor isn't even confirmed to be a Type-R B & B. If it is in fact the rumored Type-R B & B this confirms the 10% bump. If it's just a standard NA2 motor it confirms that even the normal NSX motor is capable of up to 10% more hp--let alone a B & B motor. The Japanese have never denied the allegation that the NA2 NSX-R always had much more than 300 hp but never disclosed it, meaning the absolute minimum hp for the NA2 NSX-R would be somewhere around 270 which is the absolute maximum for an NA1 with bolt-ons.

And I don't see how making an engine more efficient through B & B would have any impact on EPA regulations or emissions.

And finally, with the 6-speed the NA2 NSX-R will just about always be superior to the NA1 on paper.

 

[Patricio]

And I don't see how making an engine more efficient through B & B would have any impact on EPA regulations or emissions.

And finally, with the 6-speed the NA2 NSX-R will just about always be superior to the NA1 on paper.

6 speed really dose not mean much, I'll take 50lb weight saving over 6 speed any day

Type-R EPA comment was referring to airflow (exhaust headers, cats, Air Intake baffle) that OEM type-R or not still had inferior headers, and exhaust compared to aftermarket TAITEC or Cantrell due to Emissions.

some 3.2L optimism on your part is that there are more dyno charts of a couple people here on NSXPRIME pushing 280rwhp on N/A 3.0L with no internal modifications than 3.2L pushing 300hp NA2's usually +/- 280rwhp
plenty of 273-276 dyno graphs around too.

There are videos and time slips of 2700lb /270rwhp +/- NA-1's doing mid/high 12's
a 2600lb /275rwhp would do low 12's
a 2500lb /275rwhp would do around 12 flat

Now B & B 10%? that's a little optimistic but if you would like you can do the same to a 3.0L for under $10k if you want to compare apples to apples.

Cheaper alternative?... You can deshroud the valves and port and polish the head and manifold on the 3'0L to flow another 15hp/20hp if you want to spend 6-7k as well.......
Than a 3.0L would be faster than an unobtainable anyway Type R for sure.

Or jut Boost the damm thing for $10k-$15k and smoke a Type-R by 10 car lengths

I run 12.7's on my gtech quite often by the way.... for whatever that is worth and consistently keep up with 996TT's stock (behind by 1 car length or so from 0-100) that is also with heavy 19" volks

Either way I believe the objective of my input to this thread is to show that you can obtain and modify a 3.0L to Type-R levels for less than a just purchase cost of a NA2 where a NA2 would still need the same mods in addition to higher purchase cost to keep up with 6k in mods on a 3.0L

another observation that can be made is that the .2 bump in displacement does not necessarily overcome the 154lbs additional weight that comes with it. mod for mod fully built NA or Turbo .2 displacement and one more gear does not make a NA2 better than NA1 by any means.

Now nicer leather, and a more refined interior, that is where a NA2 has some value. or the Targa if looked at as a beneficial feature

 

[LJSB]

a simple CTSC install would probably make any OEM NSX as fast or faster than the NA2 NSX in a straight line.

 

[w17led]

Thanks Patricio.

 

[NSXGMS]

6 speed really dose not mean much, I'll take 50lb weight saving over 6 speed any day

The 6-speed will improve 0-100 times by around 0.75 seconds. A 200 lb weight reduction provides an almost identical result of 0.75 sec improvement off 0-100. 20 more hp results in over 1.0 seconds improvement over the NA1 5-speed 0-100 time.

So, I would take the extra hp, followed by the 6-speed, followed by any weight reduction of less than 200 lbs. A 50 lb weight reduction simply isn't going to impact acceleration that much and I would certainly take the 6-sp over any reduction less than 200 lbs.

some 3.2L optimism on your part is that there are more dyno charts of a couple people here on NSXPRIME pushing 280rwhp on N/A 3.0L with no internal modifications than 3.2L pushing 300hp NA2's usually +/- 280rwhp plenty of 273-276 dyno graphs around too.

The NA2 3.2L isn't going to be pushing 300 whp because most of it's baseline advantage over the 3.0L is in the headers. After headers are taken out of the equation the 3.2L only really has about 5 more hp then the 3.0L NA1. This is corroborated by most bolt-on modded NA1 dynos showing around 270 whp and most bolt-on modded NA2 dynos showing around 275 whp. It not really 20 hp more powerful than the NA1 so taking the NA1 whp and adding 20 is misleading.

Since I've been told by many qualified NSX techs that a 10% increase in power is well within the spectrum of improvement due to a B & B (and we know NSX-R motors are B & B) I have no hesitation in saying the NSX-R will virtually always have more hp than any stock internal NSX motor. I suspect that Vance's motor is probably in line with most NSX-R motors in that with the stock headers and exhaust he'd probably be at around 285-290 whp.

My point was whether or not Vance's motor is the Type-R B & B it proves that the NSX motor is certainly capable of 280+ whp with stock internals although that is unusual and on the highest end of the spectrum if it is in fact not B & B. Assuming 280-290 whp for a stock NSX-R with a confirmed B & B motor is certainly not a reach. But trying to get any NSX motor to that point with bolt-onls is damn near impossible which is why I believe there is a great chance Vance does have the Type-R B & B.

 

[NSXGMS]

Meant NSX-R...:redface:

 

[Patricio]

.......NA2 NSX-R always had much more than 300 hp but never disclosed it....

​

The 6-speed will improve 0-100 times by around 0.75 seconds. A 200 lb weight reduction provides an almost identical result of 0.75 sec improvement off 0-100. 20 more hp results in over 1.0 seconds improvement over the NA1 5-speed 0-100 time.

.....

The NA2 3.2L isn't going to be pushing 300 whp because most of it's baseline advantage over the 3.0L is in the headers. After headers are taken out of the equation the 3.2L only really has about 5 more hp then the 3.0L NA1. This is corroborated by most bolt-on modded NA1 dynos showing around 270 whp and most bolt-on modded NA2 dynos showing around 275 whp. It not really 20 hp more powerful than the NA1 so taking the NA1 whp and adding 20 is misleading.

....

My point was whether or not Vance's motor is the Type-R B & B it proves that the NSX motor is certainly capable of 280+ whp with stock internals although that is unusual and on the highest end of the spectrum if it is in fact not B & B. Assuming 280-290 whp for a stock NSX-R with a confirmed B & B motor is certainly not a reach. But trying to get any NSX motor to that point with bolt-onls is damn near impossible which is why I believe there is a great chance Vance does have the Type-R B & B.

To clarify some technicalities...

First- All I was commenting is that 10% increase was optimistic, closer to 5%-8% going from you comment of "275 to much more than 300"

where 10% would be 305 but then in your second post "Assuming 280-290 whp for a stock NSX-R with a confirmed B & B motor is certainly not a reach"- Agreed that is very possible even 300hp is perfectly possible "much more than 300" 290 is one thing "much more than 300" imposes an estimated 305-310 maybe more which is ridiculous for B&B
from 280 to 300 is a 7.7%. confirming 10% simply optimistic at 308hp. 8hp is considerable amount.

Second - I also clarifying that the "absolute maximum" is not 270 for NA1 more like 280hp as confirmed by dyno's on here. Upper average is 270 and true average maybe 265.

Third - 6 speed making a .75 difference 0-100 is absolutely insane your talking almost a second on the 1/4 even though a stock 91's are tested @13.5-13.6 and stock NA2's at 13.3-13.4 that including the stock 20hp bump. that is .3 sec on 0-105 including 20hp and some how you managed .75 just from the 6 speed. wow your nuts.

So......... according to your estimation the NA2 would run 12.9 without the additional 20hp. Type-R territory already with a magical 6-speed.

No matter how much you reduce the weight in the NA2 it will always be 150lbs heavier than a NA1 as shown by
NA1-R 2717lbs
NA2-R 2800lbs
keep in mind that more weight reduction parts and CF was used in NA2 thus using same parts in NA1 would further reduce its weight to compare apples to apples

So having a six speed and 200lbs weight reduction you speak of still leaves you at zero gain

As I previously mentioned a 6speed is around 50lb difference at most more like .2 second acceleration 0-100.

 

[NSX 3.0]

I'm sitting at close to 280rwhp now and hoping to get to the 1/4 mile within the next month...very curious to see what the car will do. Pretty much scaled the car the car down as much as I could but still have those heavy stock seats and air conditioning unit installed.

 

[ozone]

Is there legitimacy to type R motors in mid-2002 (not sure what month) and onwards models? If so, would you seriously consider buying ~03 over 02's?

 

[NSXGMS]

Is there legitimacy to type R motors in mid-2002 (not sure what month) and onwards models? If so, would you seriously consider buying ~03 over 02's?

Anecdotal evidence only.

 

[NSXGMS]

​

To clarify some technicalities...

First- All I was commenting is that 10% increase was optimistic, closer to 5%-8% going from you comment of "275 to much more than 300"

where 10% would be 305 but then in your second post "Assuming 280-290 whp for a stock NSX-R with a confirmed B & B motor is certainly not a reach"- Agreed that is very possible even 300hp is perfectly possible "much more than 300" 290 is one thing "much more than 300" imposes an estimated 305-310 maybe more which is ridiculous for B&B
from 280 to 300 is a 7.7%. confirming 10% simply optimistic at 308hp. 8hp is considerable amount.

Second - I also clarifying that the "absolute maximum" is not 270 for NA1 more like 280hp as confirmed by dyno's on here. Upper average is 270 and true average maybe 265.

Third - 6 speed making a .75 difference 0-100 is absolutely insane your talking almost a second on the 1/4 even though a stock 91's are tested @13.5-13.6 and stock NA2's at 13.3-13.4 that including the stock 20hp bump. that is .3 sec on 0-105 including 20hp and some how you managed .75 just from the 6 speed. wow your nuts.

So......... according to your estimation the NA2 would run 12.9 without the additional 20hp. Type-R territory already with a magical 6-speed.

No matter how much you reduce the weight in the NA2 it will always be 150lbs heavier than a NA1 as shown by
NA1-R 2717lbs
NA2-R 2800lbs
keep in mind that more weight reduction parts and CF was used in NA2 thus using same parts in NA1 would further reduce its weight to compare apples to apples

So having a six speed and 200lbs weight reduction you speak of still leaves you at zero gain

As I previously mentioned a 6speed is around 50lb difference at most more like .2 second acceleration 0-100.

First, I am using 100% accurate comparisons and am not comparing an NA1 5-sp to a 6-speed in an NA2 but a 6-speed in an NA1. I am using apples and apples, you are not. I never really brought up an NA2 but I think you thought I was referring to the NA2 because I'm directly comparing 5-sp to 6-sp but I am comparing NA1s both with a 5-sp and 6-sp.

My numbers come from the chart below compiled by Bob Butler which has been used for years to reliably calculate acceleration on Prime. As you can see a 6-sp decreases 0-100 times by about .75 sec and 200 lbs decreases 0-100 times by about .25 sec.

And yes, the absolute maximum for NA1 bolt-ons is of course not 270 whp but that is the average maximum. I'm sure there are 280+ dynos out there for an NA1 but I'm also sure there are NSX-R dynos at 300 whp stock.

 

[NSXkkk]

please dont throw the interior, AC, stereo system, and engine cover out. :biggrin:

 

[nsxotic911]

The NA2 motor is 150+ lbs heavier, or is the car?
If not the car - how much more does the NA2 + tranny weight vs the NA1?

 

[Patricio]

First, I am using 100% accurate comparisons and am not comparing an NA1 5-sp to a 6-speed in an NA2 but a 6-speed in an NA1. I am using apples and apples, you are not. I never really brought up an NA2 but I think you thought I was referring to the NA2 because I'm directly comparing 5-sp to 6-sp but I am comparing NA1s both with a 5-sp and 6-sp.

My numbers come from the chart below compiled by Bob Butler which has been used for years to reliably calculate acceleration on Prime. As you can see a 6-sp decreases 0-100 times by about .75 sec and 200 lbs decreases 0-100 times by about .25 sec.

And yes, the absolute maximum for NA1 bolt-ons is of course not 270 whp but that is the average maximum. I'm sure there are 280+ dynos out there for an NA1 but I'm also sure there are NSX-R dynos at 300 whp stock.

Common your making me laugh now.........

It seems your very eager to use the perfect 0-100 comparison to show your mighty 6speed .... shame on you using a 5 speed shift point for biased win. :tongue:

According to your chart how much faster is a 6speed than a 5speed?
0-60 shows -.09 seconds
0-70 shows -.22 seconds
0-80 shows -.04 seconds
0-90 shows -.36 seconds
0-100 shows -.77 seconds
0-110 shows -.21 seconds
0-120 shows -.42 seconds
0-130 shows -.03 seconds
0-140 shows -.20 seconds

Average was .26 seconds..... Oh my what MAGICAL 6-speed you have. unfortunately 0-100 is not a true performance measure. You have to look at it as a whole.

I have never seen that chart before thanks for showing me that the 6 speed is even less of an upgrade than I thought. 50lbs please

Now on to the weight

5-speed with -200lbs reduction
0-60 / -200lbs -.33 seconds / 6-speed -.09 seconds / .24 seconds -200 faster
0-70 / -200lbs -.41 seconds / 6-speed -.22 seconds / .19 seconds -200 faster
0-80 / -200lbs -.50 seconds / 6-speed -.04 seconds / .46 seconds -200 faster
0-90 / -200lbs -.63 seconds / 6-speed -.36 seconds / .25 seconds -200 faster
0-100 / -200lbs -.79 seconds / 6-speed -.77 seconds / .02 seconds -200 faster
0-110 / -200lbs -.94 seconds / 6-speed -.21 seconds / .73 seconds -200 faster
0-120 / -200lbs -1.14 seconds / 6-speed -.42 seconds / 1.13 seconds -200 faster
0-130 / -200lbs -1.41 seconds / 6-speed -.03 seconds /1.38 seconds -200 faster
0-140 / -200lbs -1.75 seconds / 6 speed -.20 seconds / 1.55 seconds -200 faster

The 6-speed got beat pretty hard overall there (by a couple car lengths by 120)

Again....

what can also be estimated is that a 1/4 of the -200lb would be 50lbs so..

5 speed with -50lbs weight reduction VS 6 speed conversion / & by how much?
0-60 / -50lbs .09 seconds / 6-speed -.09 seconds / even
0-70 / -50lbs -.10 seconds / 6-speed -.22 seconds / .12 faster 6sp
0-80 / -50lbs -.12 seconds / 6-speed -.04 seconds / .08 faster 5 - speed
0-90 / -50lbs -.16 seconds / 6-speed -.36 seconds / .20 faster 6sp
0-100 / -50lbs -.20 seconds / 6-speed -.77 seconds / .57 faster 6sp
0-110 / -50lbs -.24 seconds / 6-speed -.21 seconds / .03 faster 5- speed
0-120 / -50lbs -.28 seconds / 6-speed -.42 seconds / .14 faster 6sp
0-130 / -50lbs -.35 seconds / 6-speed -.03 seconds / .32 faster 5 - speed
0-140 / -50lbs -.43 seconds / 6 speed -.20 seconds / .23 faster 5 - speed

very very very close

Now..

lets try -100lbs weight reduction VS 6 speed conversion / & by how much?
0-60 / -100lbs .18 seconds / 6-speed -.09 seconds / .09 faster 5-speed
0-70 / -100lbs -.20 seconds / 6-speed -.22 seconds / .02 faster 6sp
0-80 / -100lbs -.24 seconds / 6-speed -.04 seconds / .20 faster 5 - speed
0-90 / -100lbs -.32 seconds / 6-speed -.36 seconds / .04 faster 6sp
0-100 / -100lbs -.40 seconds / 6-speed -.77 seconds / .37 faster 6sp
0-110 / -100lbs -.48 seconds / 6-speed -.21 seconds / .27 faster 5- speed
0-120 / -100lbs -.56 seconds / 6-speed -.42 seconds / .14 faster 5- speed
0-130 / -100lbs -.70 seconds / 6-speed -.03 seconds / .67 faster 5 - speed
0-140 / -100lbs -.86 seconds / 6 speed -.20 seconds / .66 faster 5 - speed

:biggrin: Faster 5 speed -100lbs for shure

Your chart confirms that your 6speed conversion theory is equal to around 75lb weight reduction


Thanks for the chart it is nothing but numbers fun.
These numbers are all close.

You can live by your chart, I will by my experience.

 

[NSXkkk]

LOL> these numbers are being very serious.:biggrin:

 

[N Spec]

Just goes to show how complicated the small details can be. Those numbers are far too close be arguable, we are talking a few tenths difference. What's a hundred pounds, an extra gear, or 10-20 hp. A botch in driver error, consistency or inadequate skill would null and void these trivial differences. We should look at the bigger picture. The NSX-R is optimized in each small detail to be more efficient, but in the hands of an unskilled driver, he may not even break into the 13s or 14s.

 

[satx]

I suspect that Vance's motor is probably in line with most NSX-R motors in that with the stock headers and exhaust he'd probably be at around 285-290 whp.

My point was whether or not Vance's motor is the Type-R B & B it proves that the NSX motor is certainly capable of 280+ whp with stock internals although that is unusual and on the highest end of the spectrum if it is in fact not B & B. Assuming 280-290 whp for a stock NSX-R with a confirmed B & B motor is certainly not a reach. But trying to get any NSX motor to that point with bolt-onls is damn near impossible which is why I believe there is a great chance Vance does have the Type-R B & B.

I would like to see that car dyno'd on another dynojet.....it seems that all of the super strong NSX dyno numbers come off that dyno. Has there ever been a bolt on NSX dyno'd over 290 rwhp other than on that particular dyno?

 

[BD]

I would like to see that car dyno'd on another dynojet.....it seems that all of the super strong NSX dyno numbers come off that dyno. Has there ever been a bolt on NSX dyno'd over 290 rwhp other than on that particular dyno?

My car was dyno'd 295 on Dynojet, and 302 on Dynodynamics. Never once it was dyno'd below 295hp.

NA2 Type R was introduced in 5/2002. So if you have a mid season 2002 with production date after May, I'm willing to put money on it that it will out dyno any pre 2001.

Since late 1994 Honda DOHC VTEC is capable of at least 100/Liter with little factory upgrade. I truly believe the 270-290 HP was either tuned or stated according to JDM domestic MAX HP law.

 

[PATCHEZ]

OK new to prime so dont tear my head off.But I like to put in my two cents.For one I think it would be hard for any of us to know what the nsx-r really has since no car in japan can be more than clamed 276hp and that honda didnt sell very may of these cars since they were way over priced for the mods done.As for upgrades there really wasnt much done on power just a little suspension,brake,150lbs wight loss and areo dynamics to make a good track not 1/4 car.and Im sorry but it sounds like some are just going by what they read.You need to ask who really drives there cars not the ones who sit at home,work in an office and look at there cars.I work on cars and went to school for honda so Im not just some guy who has money and bought the car cuz its pretty.<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1061527", true); </SCRIPT>

 

[stuntman]

OK new to prime so dont tear my head off.But I like to put in my two cents.For one I think it would be hard for any of us to know what the nsx-r really has since no car in japan can be more than clamed 276hp and that honda didnt sell very may of these cars since they were way over priced for the mods done.As for upgrades there really wasnt much done on power just a little suspension,brake,150lbs wight loss and areo dynamics to make a good track not 1/4 car.and Im sorry but it sounds like some are just going by what they read.You need to ask who really drives there cars not the ones who sit at home,work in an office and look at there cars.I work on cars and went to school for honda so Im not just some guy who has money and bought the car cuz its pretty.<SCRIPT type=text/javascript> vbmenu_register("postmenu_1061527", true); </SCRIPT>

Yes the "gentlemen's agreement" required all cars to be no more than 276hp. The R34 Skyline GTR was also 'listed' at 276hp when they were closer to 330bhp in stock configuration.

That is the problem, everyone believes what they read on the internet and really freak out when things don't add up. When pictures of car's don't equal what another source says. Heck, the Factor X NSX as well as the Spoon NSXR were both stated in many publications (and Spoon's US distributor) as Twin Turbo NSXs. I still can't find the other turbo on either car...

Their are also many skeptics saying car ____ isn't a real NSX-R GT, or even an NSX-R, heck, some will even debate it's not a real NSX!

Point being, most of the information out there is inaccurate.



Here's something to chew on: Check out the crank failure I just had on my NSX motor with a stock bottom-end, balanced by Honda.

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1068004#post1068004

Try to answer that...

 

[nsxsupra]

Put a good driver in 3.0 and a bad driver in NSX-R, done deal:biggrin:

Assuming 280-290 whp for a stock NSX-R with a confirmed B & B motor is certainly not a reach. But trying to get any NSX motor to that point with bolt-onls is damn near impossible which is why I believe there is a great chance Vance does have the Type-R B & B.

:smile:Lets look at all perspectives. Pre-02 3.2L dyno from Jose/Hondarrr

This is with stock headers and GTLW exhaust. What gives? IMHO 5~10rwhp makes little to no difference.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=761912&postcount=53

 

[pvmike]

Put a good driver in 3.0 and a bad driver in NSX-R, done deal:biggrin:


:smile:Lets look at all perspectives. Pre-02 3.2L dyno from Jose/Hondarrr

This is with stock headers and GTLW exhaust. What gives? IMHO 5~10rwhp makes little to no difference.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=761912&postcount=53

Easy explanation. Autowave dyno. :tongue:

I'm just kidding. No need to get into that again.

 

[NSXGMS]

Put a good driver in 3.0 and a bad driver in NSX-R, done deal:biggrin:


:smile:Lets look at all perspectives. Pre-02 3.2L dyno from Jose/Hondarrr

This is with stock headers and GTLW exhaust. What gives? IMHO 5~10rwhp makes little to no difference.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showpost.php?p=761912&postcount=53

Individual dynos on individual cars are worthless and irrelevant. You know that.

I acknowledged that some NSX motors are ostensibly closer in tolerance and put out above average power. 35 hp above average is not easy with just exhaust and clutch but assuming a total gain of 10hp for both it's only about 10% more than stock (~25 hp), which I think an NSX motor with unusually close tolerances and optimized tuning could achieve--e.g. a B & B motor.

And of course, a better driver is going to be faster in either car. 20 hp ain't gonna make or break you at Laguna Seca.

 

[nsxsupra]

Individual dynos on individual cars are worthless and irrelevant. You know that.

Yes:smile:

I mentioned it just for fun and questioning the premise that certain year of NA2 might have more hp over the other model year of NA2. Lets not worry about the final numbers, it is just a number, but instead compare it to other years of NA2 dynoed at the same shop. Then look back at the premise again and scratch the head. It is what it is right?

As for NSX-R motor having more HP over standard 3.2L, it is most likely true, but the best known quickest 1/4mile test was done on a NSX-S Zero. If the premise is true, then why can't NSX-R break the 12.5 barrier out of countless attempts. Again, I am scratching my head.