Selling my NSX for a C6 Vette

[LJSB]

However, the NSX is a very rewarding car to drive in the twisties, but terribly underpowered.

I don't agree. Terribly underpowered?
More like terribly maligned.
Mine has never felt "terribly underpowered" or underpowered at all.
Some time when I read comments like this I wonder if we are driving the same car at all.

From James Acura NSX Page (see link below):

0-150-0

To all those who say the NSX is underpowered!


Car and Driver in their August 98 issue did a timed comparison of 0 to 150 mph to 0.
In the stock class, the Acura NSX came in second to the Dodge Viper GTS!

The 97 NSX managed a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of 12.9 seconds.

Acura NSX -35.9

Dodge Viper -31.6

Chevy Corvette -43.7

1999 Porsche 911 Carrera -45.2

The high-zoot-sedan-banner:

BMW 540i Sport -42.6

Jaguar XJR -43.4

Value Velocity:

Chevy Camaro Z28 SS -43.7


Read more at
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/main3.html

Yes it was 1998 but those numbers are hardly slow or the earmark of a "terribly underpowered" car even in 2005's car market.
150 is the same 150 in 2005, 1998 or 1966 for that matter.

Honda hardly needs redemption. What a bunch of baloney.

 

[CerberusM5]

Okay, maybe I should have left off "terribly" in my description of the NSX's accelerative ability. However, it is underpowered in my opinion. Following are 0 to 150 MPH times tested by Car and Driver for various performance cars in the $50-100k (approx) price range:

NSX-T 3.0 (tested 7/95): 45.5 seconds
NSX-T 3.2 (7/97): 36.6

M3 Coupe SMG (7/02): 27.8
M5 Sedan (9/01): 27.7
C5 ZO6 (12/01): 24.1
C6 Coupe (12/04): 25.0
Viper SRT-10 (11/02): 22.4
E55 Sedan (3/03): 23.1
911 Turbo (9/00): 21.6
911 GT3 (1/04): 23.9
997 Carrera (12/04): 28.5
997 Carrera S (11/04): 26.4

I have performed roll ons from 60 to ?? and know first hand that most of the above cars will bury a stock 3.2 NSX fairly easily at higher speeds (given equal drivers). Also, I know there was no lost time in my upshifts, which are generally excellent.

The NSX is weak in comparison to the competition and I have come to grips with that fact. I have learned to appreciate the other attributes of my NSX. I know that I am in minority, but I feel Honda should discontinue the current NSX. There is no reason for keeping it in production, if they don't even attempt to make it competitive (economically and/or performance wise) in my opinion.

 

[NetViper]

NSX-T 3.0 (tested 7/95): 45.5 seconds
NSX-T 3.2 (7/97): 36.6

I can't see how that time of 45 is accurate. A 3.0 should do 100 MPH in about 12.5 second. How can it take another 33 seconds to go just 50 MPH faster?

I wonder why there is such a huge difference between the two cars. Must be the gearing because surely only a 20HP increase doesn't equal 9 seconds!

Also, that time for the M3 SMG seems way too fast to me. It is heavier than the NSX and only has 333HP. I dont see how it could be nearly 10 seconds faster to 150 MPH.

Someone needs to just come up with the 0-150 issue and run them all! Same day, same conditions.

 

[CerberusM5]

I can't see how that time of 45 is accurate. A 3.0 should do 100 MPH in about 12.5 second. How can it take another 33 seconds to go just 50 MPH faster?

I wonder why there is such a huge difference between the two cars. Must be the gearing because surely only a 20HP increase doesn't equal 9 seconds!

Also, that time for the M3 SMG seems way too fast to me. It is heavier than the NSX and only has 333HP. I dont see how it could be nearly 10 seconds faster to 150 MPH.

Someone needs to just come up with the 0-150 issue and run them all! Same day, same conditions.

I am curious why the 3.0 numbers are so much slower at the top end as well. It does not make much sense. I agree, it's hard to believe that 20 additional horses would shave 9 seconds. It's gotta be the 6 speed's gearing.

In regards to the M3, I don't know why it is that much quicker. These are just figures I found in the magazine. I have raced a friend's 6-speed M3 and it started pulling away from me after about 80.

Hmmm, I wonder what a 12 lb supercharged NSX would accomplish the same feat in? I would guess faster than all of them including possibly the 911 turbo. :biggrin:

Any ideas what the top end is? I am assuming it is gearing limited.

After reading the thread on the FX400, I think it is the only cure for my stock NSX horsepower blues.

 

[LJSB]

car, they unbeatable for the money.

I would not go as far as categorizing the C6 with the likes of mustangs and camaros. Then again, I have friends that tell me my NSX is just a large overpriced Toyota MR2.

I have owned Vettes and Camaros and they are in the same category, were in the same show room and compared to each other by the same manufacturer sometimes in the same picture or ad.
The Camaro and Vette in the comparison I show looked about even to me.
How's that MR2 doing?

Something is wrong with that test. How is it likely for a NSX to take more time going 0-150 than it does 0-150-0?

The one test you make mention of makes no sense.

I don't suppose your driving skills may not be all you think they are could they on your 60+ rolls? Maybe your 2-3 shift needs work?
I have a customer with a N/A stock engine 1998 that does 12.53 at 111 mph at Englishtown, NJ (not on street tires)
You really think it takes another 20+ seconds to get to 150?

Every time Chevy rolls out a new Vette it's the same old thing.
It was the same for the C4, the ZR1 and the C5. Years later we know them for what they are and were.
Chevy keeps making new Vettes and they have to because they fade so fast.
I know I have owned plenty of them and still restore and fix them for others. No, I haven't driven a C6 yet. Yep, this time it will be all different. It's a new GM.

Modern conveniences like OnStar belong in some cars.They break down and need to be found. Outside temp. gauges and heated seats are especially handy when this happens.
Heads up displays are a necessity when instrument clusters go black.
I'll stop here for a while. :tongue:

Hey, this is NSX land, I'm going to rant.

 

[old_S13]

Re: What quality control?

I saw a C6 in person last night for the first time and was not impressed with the design. Even less impressive (while disappointing, I was not surprised) both headlight lenses (new sealed type) had significant condensation on the inside.

All of the enclosed headlamp assemblies being used nowadays have these issues, its just a matter of humidity in the air. Just how extreme the condensation depends on the location. If it makes you feel any better, the Enzo on display at Tokyo Auto Salon last year had condensation in both headlights.

- Mike / ClearCorners.Com

 

[Zennsx]

So, the quality control of Ferrari is also bad....

 

[CerberusM5]

I don't suppose your driving skills may not be all you think they are could they on your 60+ rolls?
I have a customer with a N/A stock engine 1998 that does 12.53 at 111 mph at Englishtown, NJ (not on street tires)
You really think it takes another 20+ seconds to get to 150?
It doesn't in my car.

In regards to my shifting prowess, it is always possible they could be the weak link, but unlikely. The NSX's gearbox is the easiest I have ever driven to click off fast heel and toe downshifts and upshifts at redline and slightly beyond. Performing roll-ons in a stock NSX is easy, especially since there are no traction issues. I had a supercharged ZO6 with 600 rwhp and 500 rwtq which spun the tires all the way through third gear; now that was much more of a challenge to launch and than the NSX.

I am not a professional drag racer, but I have probably made 70+ runs down the dragstrip in various cars over the years.

12.53 @111 is impressive for a stock 1998. Kudos to your friend.

I guess I am just letting out a little frustration wishing my $80k+ car was endowed with more power from the factory. There is no doubt I greatly appreciate the car's many other strong points. It's becoming more clear that forced induction is the way to NSX happiness for me.

By the way, my MR2 is great. Thanks for asking. :smile:

 

[old_S13]

So, the quality control of Ferrari is also bad....

Didnt you ever take science class? Air carries moisture. Headlamps are not sealed, they have ventillation holes which help assist in venting the condensation -- this is the design of almost every light on every vehicle, they are designed to breath.

Not to mention, most vehicle manufacturers DO NOT make their own lights, they are out-sourced to lighting companies. ie: Hella provides all lights for BMW vehicles.

Anyway, back to the C6.. I think its a nice looking car. While I am not a fan of most domestic vehicles, I will say that the Corvette has always carried a good name in its value and tradition. There IS a reason why these cars are so common out here, and while price may have something to do with it.. the car itself meets the needs of many Americans.

I respect Japanese car companies for selling good cars, IMO.. most Japanese cars are very reliable, cost effective, and great for twisties. Most American cars are designed for wide open roads.. welcome to America, its mostly flat out here and drag racing is part of the American culture.

For me, I'll take a Japanese car.. but I must say, the Vette seems to have a lot of admirable qualities, and I wouldnt really care to knock on the car. And, I will be one to say that when put against the competition, the NSX is fairly expensive for the amount of ponies it is given.. but.. its still a wonderful car.

Point being? Enjoy what YOU drive. I do.

 

[Zennsx]

Thats funny, I dont recall EVER seeing moisture in My S-2000 lights..Mr science expert..

 

[LJSB]

I am not a professional drag racer, but I have probably made 70+ runs down the drag strip in various cars over the years.

That's more 70 more than myself. :redface:
At 60 mph you are very close to your next shift maybe 1-2 seconds tops and thats a great place to get left behind if your rev's aren't up. "Power shift here we go" (Shut Down- Beach Boys)

I have a customer with a older MR2 with a add on turbo. Fast mean little car.

Going from S/C 600 RWHP C5 (I'm supposing that's what you mean) is going to make a most cars feel under powered including a stock C5 for that matter. Coming from that you're going to have a HP jones. I drove a heavily modded 1971 Corvette LT1 a few days ago on race gas and it stirred up the muscle car lover in me too.
Cars with that kind of brutal raw power are a different ball of wax, or should I say patch of tire. :smile:

If you don't road course your car (I don't) catch a ride with one of our more skilled NSXCA members on a track. That will stir you also and you'll see a side of our car that you may not know. Maybe you do.

I don't think a S/C NSX is going to do it for you. It's faster but the character is still smooth power not the punch you back in the seat of a muscle car.
You need a FORD GT40. :biggrin:

 

[old_S13]

Thats funny, I dont recall EVER seeing moisture in My S-2000 lights..Mr science expert..

Thats because you are an idiot.

 

[nsxtasy]

2000 NSX-T
Length: 174.2 in.
Width: 71.3 in.
Wheel Base: 99.6 in.
Curb Weight: 3160 lbs.



C6
Length: 174.6 in.
Width: 72.6 in.
Wheel Base: 105.7 in.
Curb Weight: 3179 lbs.

The C6 is not any bigger than the NSX.

Yes, it is. It's 0.4 inch longer, 1.3 inches wider, and weighs 19 more pounds.

You wouldn't happen to have the height numbers would you?

According to Edmunds, the NSX is 46.1 inches tall, and the Corvette is 49.0 inches tall.

Following are 0 to 150 MPH times

Most people (including the press) quote quarter mile times or 0-60 times. Few of us spend a lot of time on the ground at speeds close to 150 mph...

 

[CerberusM5]

Going from S/C 600 RWHP C5 (I'm supposing that's what you mean) is going to make a most cars feel under powered including a stock C5 for that matter. Coming from that you're going to have a HP jones. I drove a heavily modded 1971 Corvette LT1 a few days ago on race gas and it stirred up the muscle car lover in me too.
Cars with that kind of brutal raw power are a different ball of wax, or should I say patch of tire. :smile:

If you don't road course your car (I don't) catch a ride with one of our more skilled NSXCA members on a track. That will stir you also and you'll see a side of our car that you may not know. Maybe you do.

I don't think a S/C NSX is going to do it for you. It's faster but the character is still smooth power not the punch you back in the seat of a muscle car.
You need a FORD GT40. :biggrin:

Yes, it was a supercharged C5 ZO6 (2003) and your right, it did make a stock ZO6 feel underpowered. I never liked muscle cars in the past, since I grew up with Hondas and other imports. However, the sound and brutal acceleration of a powerful V8 is kind of addicting.

With that said, my experiences with my ZO6's were polarized. One side was the powerful acceleration that provoked me to look for stoplight/interstate victories (however, I have been humbled by the occassional single turbo Supra, built Vipers and others). The car was also setup nicely for road courses (DE events). However, the quality and workmanship irritated me constantly. I hated everything about the interior except for maybe the guages. The quality of the exterior was not much better. Refinement is not in the C5's repertoire, not even as a footnote. It was this reason that I sold it and bought a Porsche turbo and started slightly modifying it for more performance. I loved that car, but felt the performance and quality was not commensurate to its high cost. So I sold it.

So now I have the NSX, which is a car I always wanted since 1990, but was not previously able to afford. I know the CTSC will probably not be sufficient, but the FX400 sounds impressive and the ability to upgrade to a 500 is a plus. I want to customize my NSX into a nice daily sports car, but have the extra power to surprise the unsuspecting. I think it would be priceless to shock the average Vette and 911 owner as they see my "290 hp" NSX strongly pull away from them. :biggrin:

I definitely prefer road racing versus drag racing. However, I hang out with a lot of friends that focus strictly on freeway roll ons in their mega horsepower cars.

Ford GT: That would be sweet if you could find one at MSRP. That car is hot!!

Cheers!

 

[CerberusM5]

Most people (including the press) quote quarter mile times or 0-60 times. Few of us spend a lot of time on the ground at speeds close to 150 mph...

Ken,

I agree that quarter miles times are generally a more realistic application in the real world.

However, I always wanted to be a pilot while growing up. :wink:

 

[NetViper]

I know the CTSC will probably not be sufficient, but the FX400 sounds impressive and the ability to upgrade to a 500 is a plus. I want to customize my NSX into a nice daily sports car, but have the extra power to surprise the unsuspecting. I think it would be priceless to shock the average Vette and 911 owner as they see my "290 hp" NSX strongly pull away from them. :biggrin:

I honestly think the FX400 is the key to your problem and I think you are probably right about the comptech unit.

Not many cars can pull nearly 120MPH in the 1/4 mile. You will probably never need to upgrade to the FX500, unless you run into a lot of C6 Z06's in Vegas.

 

[CerberusM5]

I honestly think the FX400 is the key to your problem and I think you are probably right about the comptech unit.

Not many cars can pull nearly 120MPH in the 1/4 mile. You will probably never need to upgrade to the FX500, unless you run into a lot of C6 Z06's in Vegas.

Dave,

I already placed a call to Mike yesterday. He is checking on the compatiability of the control unit for my 04' versus the earlier OBD II car they built.

Hopefully I don't run into the one in my garage. :biggrin:

Take care.

 

[Zennsx]

Since you cannot refute the previous post ,You must resort to insults. :biggrin:

 

[CerberusM5]

Since you cannot refute the previous post ,You must resort to insults. :biggrin:

I am a little confused?

 

[old_S13]

I am a little confused?

Dont worry, you're not the only one. Listening to him is like listening to Beetlejuice from the Howard Stern show.. I just dunno what to make of him.

 

[dynatac]

best of both worlds!

 

[slashmatt]

Guys, he's buying an automatic. Give him a break, he doesn't even know how to drive.

 

[slashmatt]

Some how I don't agree with that.....

The Viper I can believe. I drive my Dad's pretty often when I go visit. That silver 99 RT-10 draws more attention than just about anything. It helps that we've got a little tuning done, and you can hear it coming from a mile away.

 

[old_S13]

Guys, he's buying an automatic. Give him a break, he doesn't even know how to drive.

Since when does having a manual automatically make you a better driver?

 

[NSXBill2]

Since when does having a manual automatically make you a better driver?

I thought having an automatic transmission manually made you a better driver.