NSX v. C32 AMG

[mlambert890]

I raced my friend's brother's C32 in my 1992 NSX with Basch Boost supercharger (Novi 1000). My NSX was faster, but not by a huge amount. He said that the C32 was not running right (he also has a C32) and he though the boost was being limited (stock boost is something crazy like 14 psi). It turned out that the C32 had a faulty intake air temp sensor and was limiting boost. If this is true, then a stock C32 should easily beat a stock NSX.

A C32 AMG isn't beating a stock 3.2L NSX even in a staight line. On a track, the C32 would be at a bigger disadvantage.

Given that the Benz is an automatic, it's a LOT easier to hit it's theoretical maximum performance for the average driver. On a manual transmission car, driver skill comes into play in a BIG way even in an acceleration contest.

No offense, but we have no idea what you were doing when you "raced your brothers C32". Take both cars to a real dragstrip and post some time slips. The only way to gauge something like this is to look at your RT, your 60', your 1/8, etc.

 

[NSXNEV]

Folks-

I don't do this often, but the one time I redlined in second gear, I was very close to or at 80 mph,

Nev ('95)

 

[BadCarma]

Folks-

I don't do this often, but the one time I redlined in second gear, I was very close to or at 80 mph,

Nev ('95)

NSXNEV , you have only taken your car to redline once in second! you are missing out on alot of fun. just make sure the car is warmed up and have at it. have a little fun and redline all the gears or just through 4th if your speed is an issue

 

[randall]

i'm not sure on the 0-60 times but my CL55AMG feels alot faster than my '02 or '92 nsx.the other night it was late so i pulled into an empty parking lot to see what the benz would do from a dead stop with the traction control off and it smoked them as bad as my viper did.

 

[nsxtasy]

i'm not sure on the 0-60 times but my CL55AMG feels alot faster than my '02 or '92 nsx.

We're talking about three different AMG cars here. Specs per Edmunds:

2002 SLK32 AMG 3220 pounds, 349 horsepower
2002 C32 AMG 3540 pounds, 349 horsepower
2002 CL55 AMG 4080 pounds, 355 horsepower

I simply cannot believe that a CL55 AMG can accelerate as fast as a '92 NSX, let alone an '02. Published test results (e.g. Road and Track 9/01 and 12/01) only put the SLK32 AMG and C32 AMG (at 5.0-5.1 0-60, 13.5-13.6 1/4) slightly faster than the '92, slightly slower than the '02, and that extra 540-860 pounds makes it significantly slower.

 

[randall]

We're talking about three different AMG cars here. Specs per Edmunds:

2002 SLK32 AMG 3220 pounds, 349 horsepower
2002 C32 AMG 3540 pounds, 349 horsepower
2002 CL55 AMG 4080 pounds, 355 horsepower

I simply cannot believe that a CL55 AMG can accelerate as fast as a '92 NSX, let alone an '02. Published test results (e.g. Road and Track 9/01 and 12/01) only put the SLK32 AMG and C32 AMG (at 5.0-5.1 0-60, 13.5-13.6 1/4) slightly faster than the '92, slightly slower than the '02, and that extra 540-860 pounds makes it significantly slower.

what are the torque #'s?thats what gives you the getty-up.

 

[jbum]

while i like comparisons, we should really take note of the fact that the NSX is a much older car than the ones we're comparing against.

the fact that it can still hang in there with most of them is a big statement for the engineering that went into the NSX.

but when current models have rockets put in as engine... what's to compare? you can make any car go faster from 0-60 with a turbo or supercharger. i'm not talking specifically about the mercedes line of cars... just in general.

it's not better or worse. just not a fair comparison and difference design philosophies.

 

[Black Knight]

not getting myself into the previous views about AMG and NSX but i did check out the E55 recently and it's super super sweet....

certainly the best 4-door sports sedan for the buck IMO.....

 

[nsxtasy]

what are the torque #'s?thats what gives you the getty-up.

Actually, the horsepower number can be a better indication, if the engine (like on the NSX) can maintain its torque way up in the revband and take advantage of gearing.

For a longer explanation of this, click here.

Originally posted by Blue Knight
not getting myself into the previous views about AMG and NSX but i did check out the E55 recently and it's super super sweet....

That car is one of several Benz models currently on the market which get 469 hp. Obviously that is another power level from the three previously discussed here. (And yes, they are very sweet.)

Originally posted by Blue Knight
certainly the best 4-door sports sedan for the buck IMO.....

Best overall? Maybe. But best for the buck? At eighty large, I would have to disagree.

 

[Jimbox]

Here is the Benz you need:

To smoke this NSX:

Nice car Black&Tan97Tnewportbeach !!
Hope you can make it to speed trial usa. I really want to see this beast in person on the track
Goodluck!
jimbox

 

[Jonathan]

Sort of off on a tangent from where this thread started, but I can say after driving my E55 for the first week or so, as wildly impressive as it is, there is still something very special about driving my good old 3.0L NSX

The neck snapping launch from any speed in the E55 is very exciting to say the least, but still the overal balance, driving position, and general thrill of the NSX is still quite a treat.

When I first drove my NSX a week after getting the E55, I will admit that at first I felt a bit down, until about 5 minutes later when I realized how truly unique the NSX experience really is.

Just $0.02 from another AMG owner.

JS

 

[sabashioyaki]

We're talking about three different AMG cars here. Specs per Edmunds:

2002 SLK32 AMG 3220 pounds, 349 horsepower
2002 C32 AMG 3540 pounds, 349 horsepower
2002 CL55 AMG 4080 pounds, 355 horsepower

I simply cannot believe that a CL55 AMG can accelerate as fast as a '92 NSX, let alone an '02. Published test results (e.g. Road and Track 9/01 and 12/01) only put the SLK32 AMG and C32 AMG (at 5.0-5.1 0-60, 13.5-13.6 1/4) slightly faster than the '92, slightly slower than the '02, and that extra 540-860 pounds makes it significantly slower.

Better check again Nsxtasy, Randall has a CL55 not a CLK55 which you are refering to. A CL55 will indeed smoke any NSX ever made.

 

[Jonathan]

All things being consistent with 2002 models, those numbers are spot on.

4080 pounds, V8, 355 HP / 391 Torque on the CL55

 

[nsxtasy]

Better check again Nsxtasy, Randall has a CL55 not a CLK55 which you are refering to. A CL55 will indeed smoke any NSX ever made.

No, I am not referring to the CLK55 AMG.

Edmunds shows specs for the 2002 CL55 AMG here, and it says that it has 355 hp.

However, the Edmunds specs for the 2004 CL55 AMG show that it has 469 hp.

I can only conclude that either (a) Mercedes increased the power from the 2002 to the 2004, in which case I am quite sure that the 2002 is slower; or (b) Edmunds made an error in their specs, and the 2002 has the same 469 hp as the 2004 - in which case the 2002 CL55 AMG may very well be as fast as a 3.2-liter NSX-T.

 

[randall]

in '03 AMG added a SC increasing not only the HP,but $ as well.

 

[Black Knight]

Best overall? Maybe. But best for the buck? At eighty large, I would have to disagree.

may i ask what other 4-door sports sedan can get that performance for less than 80 large ones? and please don't say M5.....

 

[gheba_nsx]

Audi RS6.

 

[Autophile]

Audi RS6.

Isn't the MSRP $82k for the RS6?

 

[Black Knight]

and it's available in the US?

 

[Jonathan]

My understanding was that there was a small number (less than 1,000?) allocated for the US at $82-85K MSRP, guarantee there is a mark up on that bad boy though

General engine and performance specs are just a notch behind the E55, still very impressive of course.

 

[Black Knight]

yes, that's what i thought as well....

any other contestants??? US models please or soon to be in the US. if there is one is more impressive than the E55 numbers, i like to know about it.

possibility MB will come out with a E65??? that will indeed be almost impossible to match.......

 

[Jonathan]

possibility MB will come out with a E65??? that will indeed be almost impossible to match.......

Getting off topic for sure now...but...

If the new CL65 is any indication, that car (E65) would be absolutely ridiculous, a blurb on the new CL65 for those who haven't read about it yet:

Take the CL65, M-B's stylish luxury coupe. If "Torque talks," as an old racer's adage states, then this car's AMG-built powerplant is sure to monopolize the conversation. Not only does its twin-turbocharged, 6.0-liter V-12 crank out an awe-inspiring 612 bhp DIN — more than any production-car powerplant except the Ferrari Enzo's — but it also hammers out 738 lb.-ft. of torque, more than the Lamborghini Murciélago, Dodge Viper, Porsche Carrera GT and any other production automotive engine.

Although horsepower is nice, it's torque that gets you off the line and catapults you past those pesky econoboxes.
So just how quick is the CL65? How about 0 to 60 mph in a tick over 4 seconds — with an electronically-limited top speed of 155. Unfettered, the CL65 is capable of speeds in excess of 180 mph, not too shabby for a car weighing more than two tons.

Read more at: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=908&page_number=1

 

[Autophile]

738 lb.-ft. of torque


Hoo hoo hoo hoo!! Yeah man! Ok, I now know what my next target car will be.

 

[BadCarma]

Getting off topic for sure now...but...

If the new CL65 is any indication, that car (E65) would be absolutely ridiculous, a blurb on the new CL65 for those who haven't read about it yet:

Take the CL65, M-B's stylish luxury coupe. If "Torque talks," as an old racer's adage states, then this car's AMG-built powerplant is sure to monopolize the conversation. Not only does its twin-turbocharged, 6.0-liter V-12 crank out an awe-inspiring 612 bhp DIN — more than any production-car powerplant except the Ferrari Enzo's — but it also hammers out 738 lb.-ft. of torque, more than the Lamborghini Murciélago, Dodge Viper, Porsche Carrera GT and any other production automotive engine.

Although horsepower is nice, it's torque that gets you off the line and catapults you past those pesky econoboxes.
So just how quick is the CL65? How about 0 to 60 mph in a tick over 4 seconds — with an electronically-limited top speed of 155. Unfettered, the CL65 is capable of speeds in excess of 180 mph, not too shabby for a car weighing more than two tons.

Read more at: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=14&article_id=908&page_number=1

A direct port 100 shot of N20 on this beast and it will be ready for take off I want it ,what a monster!

 

[nsxtasy]

may i ask what other 4-door sports sedan can get that performance for less than 80 large ones? and please don't say M5.....

You miss my point. I really do not think that an $80K car represents the best value on the sports sedan market. I think the E46 M3, at $49-55K, is a much better value than an E55 AMG. Heck, I think you can even make a case that the new TL is a better value still, at $33K fully loaded, many thousands less than the competition in its class (3-series, G35, ES300, etc) on an apples-to-apples basis. That doesn't mean it's the best sports sedan around. But it can easily be a better sports sedan for the buck than a car that costs over twice as much.