Top speed
- Thread starter nsxracing
- Start date
Not that easy to answer. The speedometer km/h isn't exactly the real km/h and can vary with different tires. I have had long top speed experiences here on the german autobahn when the car ('98 cp., 6speed) was street legal - no engine mods, only K&N replacement filter and did reach everything between 275 and 290 km/h on the meter, depending on wind direction and street.
At about 245 km/h I shifted to 6th - from then on the acceleration is not quite extreme but I wouldn't call it slow.
For exact measures I would have had to measure the time between side markers on the autobahn (always the same distance) or use a GPS unit - didn't do it, sorry.
At about 245 km/h I shifted to 6th - from then on the acceleration is not quite extreme but I wouldn't call it slow.
For exact measures I would have had to measure the time between side markers on the autobahn (always the same distance) or use a GPS unit - didn't do it, sorry.
According to Honda as well as most of the magazine tests, the top speed on the '91-01 NSX is 168 mph, and it's 175 mph on the '02-04 NSX.nsxracing said:
nsxtasy said:
Those sound like Honda's numbers, not actual test numbers. Rarely does a magazine actually go out for a top speed test during a single car test. If those numbers were given in the context of stats at the end of an article, I wouldn't believe them. However, if you can quote a journalist that said, "We took the NSX to the Autobahn for independent top speed testing and found that the car was still accelerating at 165 mph, but then we had to slow down for a slow moving lorry..." I'd believe those numbers.
Tests are always affected by a few variables... surface conditions, winds (even when taken as a 2-way average), differences from car to car, etc.
For example, in Motor Trend Apr 1992 they recorded a 3.0L NSX at 171.7 mph. Five years later in May 1997 they clocked a 3.2L NSX-T at 162.2 mph.
For example, in Motor Trend Apr 1992 they recorded a 3.0L NSX at 171.7 mph. Five years later in May 1997 they clocked a 3.2L NSX-T at 162.2 mph.
I topped my CTSC 3.0 (6psi) 190mph (more than 310kph) at the German Autobahn and than it hit the revlimiter.
Mods: CTSC 6psi, CT headers, Remus exhaust, testpipes, 18inch around (225x18x35, 275x18x35), cold air intake etc.
Mods: CTSC 6psi, CT headers, Remus exhaust, testpipes, 18inch around (225x18x35, 275x18x35), cold air intake etc.
Last edited:
Very true.
There are lots of other examples as well. For example, in July 1999 Car and Driver clocked the Zanardi NSX at 167 mph. But just to meet the challenge that Matt has laid down for us:CokerRat said:
I think we can meet that test. In December 1990, Motor Trend published a comparison test in which the top of one page has the caption, "WHAT WE DID WAS ANSWER THE AGE-OLD QUESTION: WOT'LL SHE DO?"). They took the NSX and four other cars to the Arizona Test Center, where they used "ATC's huge, banked oval track, measuring 5.7 wide open miles to a lap, to measure top speed. Just stand on the gas and never lift; welcome to throttle jock heaven.
The cars were timed over a measured distance with a pair of photocells connected to a digital timer, and we started by dawn's early light to run in the coolest part of the day."
What they found for the NSX:
"The NSX made 167.6 mph - the factory claims 168, so Honda is also in line with our testing accuracy. At its top speed, wailing along at 7500 RPM in fifth gear, the NSX sounded like an F-15 making a low pass over the desert."
You can read the full article here.
I assume you're now a believer.
NSX/MR2
Suspended
I've got mine '92 , which was lighten and with three mods, up to 172mph. Tires condition and weight will affect your top speed tremendously, as I have found out on my last 91 NSX.
NSX/MR2
Suspended
Gerard van Santen said:
I belive the NSX can hit 200mph with better aerodynamic design. Hence, the improvement on the 2002-2004 NSX. Try that baby out with a Comptech on it.
NSX/MR2 said:
I Couldn't go faster, because of the revlimiter.
The speed at redline in top gear - if you could hit redline (which, in a stock NSX, you can't) is 186 mph for the 5-speed with stock R&P, and 202 mph for the 6-speed with stock R&P. Because the NSX can't reach that speed, they refer to the top speed as drag-limited, rather than rev-limited.
Using a shorter R&P will reduce the speed at redline by the ratio of the ratios. For example, substituting the 4.55 R&P for the stock 4.062 R&P in the five-speed will reduce the speed at redline in fifth to (4.062/4.55)*186=166 mph.
Using a shorter R&P will reduce the speed at redline by the ratio of the ratios. For example, substituting the 4.55 R&P for the stock 4.062 R&P in the five-speed will reduce the speed at redline in fifth to (4.062/4.55)*186=166 mph.
The 7 mph improvement in top speed on the '02-04 is indeed due to better aerodynamics. As for hitting 200 mph, well... try it and let us know the results!NSX/MR2 said:
Remember, your actual speed is 2.9 percent higher than indicated on the speedometer (aside from any speedometer error), because your rear tires are 2.9 percent larger in outer diameter than stock. So, while redline might be a calculated 186 mph and you might have hit the rev limiter at an indicated 190 mph, those speeds translate to 191 and 196 mph road speed, after adjusting for the size of your tires.Gerard van Santen said:
NSX/MR2 said:
No actually neither do (at least to a measurable amount). There are two main factors that cause drag on a car; they are the rolling resistance of the tires and aerodynamic drag. Rolling resistance might possibly be impacted by the weight of the vehicle but it is so minuscule gets neglected when it is calculated.
Rolling resistance is actually a function of velocity squared with different constants for different types of tires. However, in comparison to aerodynamic drag at high speeds rolling resistance is inconsequential. Aerodynamic drag on the other hand is the reason the NSX cannot exceed ~170 MPH
Drag force = .5 * air density * Velocity^2 * Frontal area / Coefficient of drag
So the only factor limiting how fast you can go is the size of your vehicle and how slippery it is. Also note that velocity is squared so the faster you go the more power you need to overcome the drag resistance.
Acceleration is greatly effected by weight, but since top speed is not, even it your NSX weighs 4000 extra pounds it will still have the same top speed, it will just take you a lot longer to reach that top speed.
Cheers
Aaron
NSXPERT
nsxtasy said:They are Honda's numbers - and they are presumably based on actual tests of the car (since Honda owns some of the world's top facilities for high-speed testing, in Japan as well as the Transportation Research Center in Ohio). But the actual test numbers published by the magazines have all been consistent with Honda's.
Not true. Check out magazine articles, and you will see that they quote not only top speed, but also stats like 0-150 acceleration, etc. Do you think that they make them up? Well, based on your post, maybe you do. I don't. After all, it's a lot more fun to do the testing to find out the actual numbers, than it is to make them up. If I were a magazine writer, I would insist on it.
I dont think slashmatt meant magazines dont usually test top speed (and I almost never see 0-150mph times), they just use the numbers given from the manufacturer--especially for single car tests. What they do test is the more common criteria: acceleration up to 100mph, 1/4, breaking, skidpad, slalom. If you look at Road and Track road test summary page, you'll see a superscript 4 above Top Speed. 4=estimated--they dont actually test it.
There are a few occasions the mags test top speed, and those times are just reserved for special articles when they do their 'high speed gambit' comparisons.
More information on whether magazines actually test for top speed, or just estimate it:
Car and Driver tests a lot of cars. Most months, they compile their "Road Test Digest" of the test figures for most of the cars that they have tested. You can find this on pages 166-167 of the November 2003 issue.
It describes how each of the specifications is tested. Here's what it says about Top Speed:
"Maximum speed achieved using as much distance as necessary and without exceeding the engine's redline. The published figure is an average of two top-speed runs in opposite directions to cancel any grade or wind that may exist at the test facility. Speed is measured using the Racelogic VBOX, the Datron Correvit, or a calibrated speedometer, or by timing the vehicle through speed traps of known length."
They have 149 different cars and tests listed this month, and they indicate the top speed for all of them. They use an asterisk to indicate which ones are "estimated", and there are 4 such models. There is also one model for which the top speed is not given. One can only conclude that they use the indicated test procedure for the top speed of the other 144 models, or that they're lying. I don't believe they're lying. I believe that they actually tested all 144 cars, from the Ford F-150 and Toyota Sequoia (tied with 97 mph) to the Ferrari 575M Maranello (200 mph, and sure enough, they tested 0-150 at 22.1 seconds in the article). (No, the NSX is not listed in this issue.)
I'm sure there are occasional articles in which the car's top speed is not tested. But an actual test of top speed is obviously part of Car and Driver's standard procedure. Even when an article is only about a single car.
Car and Driver tests a lot of cars. Most months, they compile their "Road Test Digest" of the test figures for most of the cars that they have tested. You can find this on pages 166-167 of the November 2003 issue.
It describes how each of the specifications is tested. Here's what it says about Top Speed:
"Maximum speed achieved using as much distance as necessary and without exceeding the engine's redline. The published figure is an average of two top-speed runs in opposite directions to cancel any grade or wind that may exist at the test facility. Speed is measured using the Racelogic VBOX, the Datron Correvit, or a calibrated speedometer, or by timing the vehicle through speed traps of known length."
They have 149 different cars and tests listed this month, and they indicate the top speed for all of them. They use an asterisk to indicate which ones are "estimated", and there are 4 such models. There is also one model for which the top speed is not given. One can only conclude that they use the indicated test procedure for the top speed of the other 144 models, or that they're lying. I don't believe they're lying. I believe that they actually tested all 144 cars, from the Ford F-150 and Toyota Sequoia (tied with 97 mph) to the Ferrari 575M Maranello (200 mph, and sure enough, they tested 0-150 at 22.1 seconds in the article). (No, the NSX is not listed in this issue.)
I'm sure there are occasional articles in which the car's top speed is not tested. But an actual test of top speed is obviously part of Car and Driver's standard procedure. Even when an article is only about a single car.
NSX/MR2
Suspended
NSXPERT said:
NSX/MR2 said:
I was stating the aerodynamic drag forces are what limits an NSX’s top speed (as opposed to redline or an electronic governor) Which for a typical NSX turns out to be approximately 170 MPH
NSXPERT
NSX/MR2
Suspended
I apologize, you are right.
On my full stock red 1991 I reached 275 kmh on the odometer and then I had to slow down. I believe there was still some margin... the fastest I have taken the silver was only 250 kmh and the fastest for the balck (until now) is 230 kmh... I am getting old! 
gheba: Even that lame 230 would be enough to lose a fortune in switzerland when getting caught (or maybe jail??), wouldn't it?
Ehmm... I need to speak with my lawyer now!
But it could have been Germany no?
But it could have been Germany no?
