I Like Fast Cars

[WingZ]

That 4.5 sec figure should not be thrown around so easily with the NSX. Unless you're FI or your name is Vance you're not running in the mid 4s 0-60 in an NSX. I don't care what magazine produced that time--duplicating it is a tall order.

So, since an NA2 and EVO IX have similar 0-60 times it's accurate to say it's more than a match. It comes down to driver skill.

Also, M3 and STi owners should be worried about the EVO IX. In a good driver's hands its faster than both of them. :wink:

NA2 coupes are fast muthers and Vances car is not the only NSX to dyno high. What makes you think NA2 NSX's are so slow? You have greater say so than the magazines who actaully test all the cars? Uh okay

More than a match implies easy to overcome and it's not. It's a driver race. At least we agree on that.

Wouldn't the same go for Evo's being worried that a M3 or Sti might be in the hands of a good driver. Again stock they're all about the same speed so why the Evo nod???? I have two friends that have them ( Evo's ) and they're very good drivers and yet I've seen a stock NSX hold them at bay on the track.

 

[NSXGMS]

NA2 coupes are fast muthers and Vances car is not the only NSX to dyno high. What makes you think NA2 NSX's are so slow? You have greater say so than the magazines who actaully test all the cars? Uh okay

More than a match implies easy to overcome and it's not. It's a driver race. At least we agree on that.

Wouldn't the same go for Evo's being worried that a M3 or Sti might be in the hands of a good driver. Again stock they're all about the same speed so why the Evo nod???? I have two friends that have them ( Evo's ) and they're very good drivers and yet I've seen a stock NSX hold them at bay on the track.

I don't think you'll be able to find a bolt-on only NSX that dynos over 300 whp other than Vance's.

My "greater say" is that ONE test out of 20 showed the NA2 NSX at 4.5 sec. The other 19 showed 4.7-5.1. The EVO IX can consistently run 4.9 in real life. So can the NSX and so can the M3. 4.5 sec is an aberration. Any of those cars can beat each other on any given day so they're all more than a match for each other.

An NA1 NSX is going to be superior on an actual track to an EVO VIII. The higher speed the track, the more the NSX would be favored. The EVO IX should be very close to NA2 unless the track is very high speed.

I'm not, nor did I ever, give the EVO the "nod." I said it's more than a match, meaning it can be faster than an NA2 NSX, an M3 or an STi. The NSX should easily win quarter mile against the EVO and be faster on a track. The NSX will be slower at an AutoX event.

I suppose it is more like a 100% match

 

[NSXGMS]

I'm probably running a mid 4s 0-60 or lower on my NA1 coupe. No FI and no my name isn't Vance. There is a catch however. My car weights in at under2700lb's (conservative estimate) and is soon to crack 2600lb's. But your point is well taken as most NSX's have everything they came with from the factory. I would probably surprise some Evo's and STI's, and even more so after I go FI :biggrin:

I hope you understand that I have to question a stock NA1, even at 2700 lbs, running a mid 4-sec 0-60. It's just bizarrely low.

A half-second difference is not very perceptible on the butt-dyno and since you qualified your time with "probably" I'd have to ask how you determined your time. 5.0 sec I might sign off on but 4.5 is shockingly low.

NA1 gearing, stock motor and 300lbs lighter just don't equate to a 1.25 second reduction bone stock NA1 0-60 time.

I hope your NSX really is that fast but that figure just doesn't add up.

 

[WingZ]

I don't think you'll be able to find a bolt-on only NSX that dynos over 300 whp other than Vance's.

My "greater say" is that ONE test out of 20 showed the NA2 NSX at 4.5 sec. The other 19 showed 4.7-5.1. The EVO IX can consistently run 4.9 in real life. So can the NSX and so can the M3. 4.5 sec is an aberration. Any of those cars can beat each other on any given day so they're all more than a match for each other.

An NA1 NSX is going to be superior on an actual track to an EVO VIII. The higher speed the track, the more the NSX would be favored. The EVO IX should be very close to NA2 unless the track is very high speed.

I'm not, nor did I ever, give the EVO the "nod." I said it's more than a match, meaning it can be faster than an NA2 NSX, an M3 or an STi. The NSX should easily win quarter mile against the EVO and be faster on a track. The NSX will be slower at an AutoX event.

I suppose it is more like a 100% match

Vance's car didn't dyno that high until after mods. In my local NSX group there's a guy with a 97 or 98 that dynoed at 287whp or so w/o mods so they're out there:wink:

I've seen that 4.5 on the coupes more than once C&D also pulled that time on a targa as well . Every test is done in "real life". Magazine tests are averaged it's not just one run that get's that time. Going by your 4.9 ( I've seen faster times ) the EVO is slower than the NSX 0-60 because that was it's avg. If NSX's get clocked at 4.7-5.1 ( never seen a 5.1 ,but hey it's possible ) apparantly certain cars are running faster than others.

The track would have to be huge for an NSX to show it's top speed potential over the EVO.

You give it the nod when you say "the NSX should take it by the quarter mile" saying that implies it can't take it from a dig. Also Topgear has vid where the NA2 NSX beat a C6 ( not ZO6 ) in a race and those usually clock higher times than the NSX. Of course it was a later model 05 so maybe Vances theory is more than that. Of course people raised holy hell saying the NSX shouldn't have been able to do that , but there it was and Topgear had no reason to be biased ( it also out accelerated the 996 ).

I honestly don't think the NSX can beat everything ,but it's not a slow car and still catches people who don't take it seriously off guard. My car is stock and I shocked people in my local group when I took out a modded VR4 in an impromptu street race ( yes I know street racing is bad I normally save it for the track :biggrin: ). What year NSX do you have?

 

[Diablo360]

I hope you understand that I have to question a stock NA1, even at 2700 lbs, running a mid 4-sec 0-60. It's just bizarrely low.

A half-second difference is not very perceptible on the butt-dyno and since you qualified your time with "probably" I'd have to ask how you determined your time. 5.0 sec I might sign off on but 4.5 is shockingly low.

NA1 gearing, stock motor and 300lbs lighter just don't equate to a 1.25 second reduction bone stock NA1 0-60 time.

I hope your NSX really is that fast but that figure just doesn't add up.

I just took out my passenger seat, so i'm closer to 2650lb's now. About 500lb's lighter than a targa NSX. I don't know what Vance's car weights but i'm guessing it's about 100lb's or more lighter due to all of his sweet mods. That still gives me a 400lb advantage.

Others have estimated that I "might" be as fast as Vance's car, so let me make that correction. I have I/H/E as well.... I'm going to go out to the drag strip in a week or so and see what I can pull off. The dyno run this weekend should be interesting as well. It should tell me how strong my motor is..... If his car or a similar car is putting out 305 at the wheels and I put out oh lets say 260-270, then considering the fact that my car is ~2650lb's I should perform around the same?

I don't disagree with you on your main point, you're statements are more likely than not to be correct. I guess this discussion is moot for me as i'll be going FI in the near future........

 

[NSXGMS]

I just took out my passenger seat, so i'm closer to 2650lb's now. About 500lb's lighter than a targa NSX. I don't know what Vance's car weights but i'm guessing it's about 100lb's or more lighter due to all of his sweet mods. That still gives me a 400lb advantage.

Others have estimated that I "might" be as fast as Vance's car, so let me make that correction. I have I/H/E as well.... I'm going to go out to the drag strip in a week or so and see what I can pull off. The dyno run this weekend should be interesting as well. It should tell me how strong my motor is..... If his car or a similar car is putting out 305 at the wheels and I put out oh lets say 260-270, then considering the fact that my car is ~2650lb's I should perform around the same?

I don't disagree with you on your main point, you're statements are more likely than not to be correct. I guess this discussion is moot for me as i'll be going FI in the near future........

I'd love to see your times. Sounds like you've got a real bare bones racer.

It's possible to achieve mid-4s in an NA1 with bolt ons at 2650 lbs but not easy. Gearing works against you and Vance's 40 whp makes up a lot of ground on 400 lbs.

Good luck--represent for the NA1s!

 

[WingZ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOaG0Xa43PM&mode=related&search=

 

[NSXGMS]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOaG0Xa43PM&mode=related&search=

All that clip reminds me of was how insane Honda was to not develop a 500hp V8 from 2 S2000 engines...

G

 

[BD]

I don't think you'll be able to find a bolt-on only NSX that dynos over 300 whp other than Vance's.

I'm flattered with your comments. However, I'm sure if some one with late 02 and up built the car the same way I did, they can achieve similar numbers. Steve's car was dyno'd at 295 before CTSC, and he had header and exhaust, and I have a better header system and aruguablly more free flow exhaust, so the extra 7 HP was not that much greater than Steve's number, and I had test pipes.

 

[Paul91]

Bingo on the 0-60 reply. Let's all remember that C&D, R&T, and any other publication is usually testing all cars under absolute optimum conditions. Meaning: on a track, dry, ambient temp, etc. Also, 0-60 tests are subjective. The cars are loaned to the magazines, meaning that they are absolutely flogged all to hell during these 0-60/1/4 mile tests.
Someone mentioned clutch longevity earlier. Let's remember that the NSX was intended to be an exotic AND streetable/daily vehicle. Americans are so concerned with 0-60 and top speed figures.
Sorry for the rant, but we all bought these cars for a reason, each specific to his/her own means.
Cracker Jack Evos and STi's don't compare in many regards. I would buy one of those if I were to make it a track whore or a 1.5 yr lease. Otherwise, no thanks.
Again, sorry for the rant.....

 

[SiNzz]

Bingo on the 0-60 reply. Let's all remember that C&D, R&T, and any other publication is usually testing all cars under absolute optimum conditions. Meaning: on a track, dry, ambient temp, etc. Also, 0-60 tests are subjective. The cars are loaned to the magazines, meaning that they are absolutely flogged all to hell during these 0-60/1/4 mile tests.
Someone mentioned clutch longevity earlier. Let's remember that the NSX was intended to be an exotic AND streetable/daily vehicle. Americans are so concerned with 0-60 and top speed figures.
Sorry for the rant, but we all bought these cars for a reason, each specific to his/her own means.
Cracker Jack Evos and STi's don't compare in many regards. I would buy one of those if I were to make it a track whore or a 1.5 yr lease. Otherwise, no thanks.
Again, sorry for the rant.....

Exactly, I completely agree. I'm just a kid (therefore what do I know?), but IMO it's super easy to go buy something liek a 1G DSM and make it into a drag beast. What's tougher is finding a car with class, performance, potential and exclusivity in one package (not to mentioned reliability and relative cheapness compared to P and F cars). Like someone said, it all boils down to who you are as an owner, what kind of financial resources you have, and what your priorities are.

 

[NSXGMS]

I'm flattered with your comments. However, I'm sure if some one with late 02 and up built the car the same way I did, they can achieve similar numbers. Steve's car was dyno'd at 295 before CTSC, and he had header and exhaust, and I have a better header system and aruguablly more free flow exhaust, so the extra 7 HP was not that much greater than Steve's number, and I had test pipes.

I'm sure it can be duplicated but your dyno sheets are the only ones I've seen so far. :smile: :wink:

 

[ozone]

I'm flattered with your comments. However, I'm sure if some one with late 02 and up built the car the same way I did, they can achieve similar numbers. Steve's car was dyno'd at 295 before CTSC, and he had header and exhaust, and I have a better header system and aruguablly more free flow exhaust, so the extra 7 HP was not that much greater than Steve's number, and I had test pipes.

The late 02+ power boost theory is quite interesting. It's odd that Acura wouldn't advertise the HP boost even if it alienates some clientele in Japan. I think you can sell alot more cars in the US if you say you have 330-340HP instead of 290, especially in the setting of rapidly increasing engine sizes. Nevertheless, it's pretty cool if it is true.

The only way to find out is to get a larger data set of 02+ cars with Dyno #s, 0-60's, 1/4 miles and compare with previous year models. If this is true, the discrepancy should be noted.

 

[NSXGMS]

The late 02+ power boost theory is quite interesting. It's odd that Acura wouldn't advertise the HP boost even if it alienates some clientele in Japan. I think you can sell alot more cars in the US if you say you have 330-340HP instead of 290, especially in the setting of rapidly increasing engine sizes. Nevertheless, it's pretty cool if it is true.

The only way to find out is to get a larger data set of 02+ cars with Dyno #s, 0-60's, 1/4 miles and compare with previous year models. If this is true, the discrepancy should be noted.

Well, the reason they didn't advertise it is the same reason no Japanese manufacturer built a 300hp+ engine. It's not about alienating the Japanese--it's because they are Japanese and those are the (ridiculous) rules they play by. It's a gentleman's rule that no one broke. Honda sort of secretly did it by not changing displacement on a 290hp engine but they still couldn't admit it.

Believe me, that's probably the most minor of many marketing and development errors Honda has made in the last 13 years when it comes to the NSX. Where on the list is not even offering the Type-R for sale here?

Also, is it not true that there is a procedure/mandate for testing engines that come to the US market for hp advertising purposes? It's possible Honda didn't want to go through the trouble just because they (possibly) simply began balancing & blueprinting them. If they raised the advertised hp they might have had to spend a lot of dough to get them re-certified for more hp in the US. Just conjecture...

 

[WingZ]

All that clip reminds me of was how insane Honda was to not develop a 500hp V8 from 2 S2000 engines...

G

LOL I give up :biggrin: Your crazy man..LOL

 

[slashmatt]

EVO's and STi's are stock for stock faster than NA1's ,but not NA2's:biggrin:

You're kidding right? I had two kids pull up next to me on the highway, one STI, one EVO.

80mph roll, goodbye boy racers. I walked away from them.

 

[Nukem]

That should undeniably be the Quote of the Year.

As for AWDs not being made for launching aren't STi's and Evo's made for that kind of abuse?

No They can't be Launched by just dumping the Clutch on dry pavement. They tend to break if launched to hard on dry pavement.

 

[WingZ]

You're kidding right? I had two kids pull up next to me on the highway, one STI, one EVO.

80mph roll, goodbye boy racers. I walked away from them.

My bad! Way to represent:biggrin:

 

[NSXGMS]

You're kidding right? I had two kids pull up next to me on the highway, one STI, one EVO.

80mph roll, goodbye boy racers. I walked away from them.

From any kind of roll the NA1 NSX will be faster. We're only talking 0-60 here.

If you put it in 3rd gear at 80 and go there's no way an EVO is going to hang. Those cars are designed to be fast under 80.

 

[S-TO-8K]

Re: I Like Fast Cars' 1/4 MILE TIME SLIPS

I would like to see all of these fast NA2 1/4 mile TIME SLIPS :wink:

 

[myhui]

However, I'm sure if some one with late 02 and up built the car the same way I did, they can achieve similar numbers.

You were not using Mobil 1 either, and that helps at least 2% if you consider the area under the curve, not just peak whp.

 

[95rtturbo]

Yes, a later model NSX is much quicker than a STI / EVO from a high speed roll, not even close. We are talking about 101-104 MPH traps for the STI / EVO vs. 108-110 MPH traps for the later model NSX. Not sure why these cars are even compared to an NSX anyway, totally different type of car.

 

[argon_nsx]

My brother and I (in our ventures as licensed FL auto dealers) have had the new 06 M5... maybe 3 or 4 of the the -06 "old" M5s.... and about 13 of the 02-04 M3s... two z06s... a mustang cobra... but none of them are nearly as much fun to drive as the NSX... hence one sitting in my garage instead of any of those other cars.. they just don't put quite as much of a smile on my face. Forget the numbers and just drive what you enjoy driving...

 

[Nukem]

My brother and I (in our ventures as licensed FL auto dealers) have had the new 06 M5... maybe 3 or 4 of the the -06 "old" M5s.... and about 13 of the 02-04 M3s... two z06s... a mustang cobra... but none of them are nearly as much fun to drive as the NSX... hence one sitting in my garage instead of any of those other cars.. they just don't put quite as much of a smile on my face. Forget the numbers and just drive what you enjoy driving...

^^^^ +1 (I agree)

 

[Floyd]

Too True. Its the joy of driving, not maximum speed or stats racing.

The NSX is a blast to drive and looks good doing it.