NSX vs. Evora in Evo magazine

[Hapa88]

Found this article referencing the EVO article:
http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2010/06/honda-acura-nsx-lotus-evora-v6-mid.html

Summary and spoiler:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Evora wins in a track event at Bedford Autodrome's West Circuit with a lap time of 1:27.1 vs the '92 NSX's time of 1:30.1. :tongue:

 

[s14_tat]

thanks for the link, now put some larger and more modern tires on the nsx and that 3 second gap would be gone.

 

[drtruong]

It takes them 20 yrs to achieve 3 sec. less than NSX.

 

[Ibn Rushd]

How would the 02 - 05 NSX fair against the Evora though? 20 years is a 3 second gap, what about 5 years?

 

[s14_tat]

unfortunately the performance should be identical between the evora and the 02+ nsx. Honda barely did any improvements on this chassis in its 15 year cycle. The NA1 5 speeds needs larger and better tires to match a stock 02+ in the track because the even a stock 02+ is under tired I believe.

 

[tbromley]

unfortunately the performance should be identical between the evora and the 02+ nsx. Honda barely did any improvements on this chassis in its 15 year cycle. The NA1 5 speeds needs larger and better tires to match a stock 02+ in the track because the even a stock 02+ is under tired I believe.

Tat- what tires are you running?

 

[WingZ]

unfortunately the performance should be identical between the evora and the 02+ nsx. Honda barely did any improvements on this chassis in its 15 year cycle. The NA1 5 speeds needs larger and better tires to match a stock 02+ in the track because the even a stock 02+ is under tired I believe.

LOL Why would that be unfortunate?? Since Evo is in GB they could have access to a 02+ coupe. Something we never had access to for comparison. That would've have fared much better. Would it have tied?? Not sure three seconds on track is a big difference to make up.

Damn I know we can't import an NSX-R but what about a 02+ coupe??:frown:

 

[s14_tat]

Tat- what tires are you running?

I'm running Falken Azenis RT615's, they were the tire to have a few years back. Now the current cream of the crop tires would be the Dunlop Direzza Z1 Star Specs 1, the Kumho Escta XS's, and the Nitto NT05's.

and WingZ, I saw unfortunate because it is less impressive when you compare a 5 year older car and have a small to no gap difference vs a 20 year older car that did better than expected and I think it was mostly due to tire and wheel size.

 

[WingZ]

I'm running Falken Azenis RT615's, they were the tire to have a few years back. Now the current cream of the crop tires would be the Dunlop Direzza Z1 Star Specs 1, the Kumho Escta XS's, and the Nitto NT05's.

and WingZ, I saw unfortunate because it is less impressive when you compare a 5 year older car and have a small to no gap difference vs a 20 year older car that did better than expected and I think it was mostly due to tire and wheel size.

Gearing has no part?

 

[s14_tat]

Gearing definitely has a part to play but I think the tires plays the biggest part. Most performance cars today can pull over .9 g's. What did the nsx do back in 1990? Maybe a .9 at best but the evora can pull close to 1.0 g stock. I know the power of the 3.2 is mostly offseted by weight of the coupes and its the gearing that makes it acelerate alittle better.

 

[tbromley]

So Tat, I'd say that with better tires and the 3.2/6 speed there would have been a different story - don't ya'll think! Bet that gap would have been really close.

Now as to those tires you have - aren't those the ones that wear out in about 3k miles on the rear? Whoaaaaa - that's a bit tough for me. Any of the others you mention get better than that? Of course the Kuhmos are way cheaper I think.

 

[s14_tat]

Well with the 93+ rear toe specs you shouldn't be burning thru the tires that often. I know those tires should last 10K or so miles with moderate street use. I know track junkies can't approach that mileage though. I know I have 4K miles on mine so far and they still look pretty okay.

 

[RJPKRP]

Gearing definitely has a part to play but I think the tires plays the biggest part. Most performance cars today can pull over .9 g's. What did the nsx do back in 1990? Maybe a .9 at best but the evora can pull close to 1.0 g stock. I know the power of the 3.2 is mostly offseted by weight of the coupes and its the gearing that makes it acelerate alittle better.

I thought the NSX pulled .93?? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought that was somewhere around that number. Granted, many cars pull over 1.0 these days, but 20 years ago, being over .9 was a feat.

Remember though, the larger, wider, heavier tires while having a positive effect on handling will have a negative effect on acceleration. It's a give and take, and perhaps the rather narrow tires of the NSX were the engineering sweetspot of that give and take.

 

[MvM]

Actually, tires of the size which are mostly used with aftermarket wheels (215/17 and 265/18) do not have that much of an effect on acceleration as many people think.

As for the max. G-forces, I know the NSX-R tested on the Nurnburgring in Germany reach a peak of 1.3G during the test. However, this was probably not a constant state affair, but just a peak moment. If I remember my NSX-articles, the G-forces on a pad varied at the time (with stock wheels & tires) from 0.89G to 0.93G).

Personally, I think that if you would take a 1992 NSX which just a bit stiffer suspension and the usual 215/17 and 265/18 tires that many NSX owners use, that 3 second difference could already be cut in half without too much difficulty.

 

[Hapa88]

What about the Evora vs the NSX-R? Either NA1 or NA2. . .