The Type S gets bump of 27 hp and 16 lb-ft torque over the regular car with a bunch of upgrades which seems crazy small to me. We're talking new turbos, intercoolers, and injectors from the GT3 race car and it only puts out 27 more hp? I almost feel like you'd have to detune it with new turbos and injectors to ONLY get 27 hp. I'm just having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. I'm constantly talking performance upgrades with my buddies and anything involving new injectors and forced induction is going to net a massive increase in horsepower. I think it's awesome the car gets intercoolers from the race car as my friends are constantly dealing with heat soak. It doesn't sound like the regular NSX has that problem but it's nice insurance. Why upgrade the turbos and injectors though for such a small increase? I mean really, 27 hp is such a small number that it could occur on a dyno session between runs without changing much at all. I'm really hoping 600 was a magical number and that they're doing what Mercedes and BMW do by underrating the car by a large margin. My feeling is that's not how Honda works. Others have mentioned that the hp and torque curves might be way different throughout the range. If that's true, then I guess great but it seemed that the electric motors were torque filling just fine. They did reduce the gear to the front motors so maybe they flattened and increased the range of the torque/hp curve. That might actually make a substantial difference but still nothing like you'd expect by adding upgraded turbos and injectors. I'm curious what other peoples thoughts are on this. Does anyone have any inside information as to what these upgrades really add up to, other than 2 seconds faster around Suzuka.
Type S (Upgrades only add up to 600 HP?)
- Thread starter chillznax
- Start date
The issue, in my estimation, has more to do with the complexities of developing a production car that must meet all regulatory and customer requirements. Aftermarket tuners don't have to worry about things like warranty services, emissions, fuel economy or driveability. For them, if the customer car blows up after 2,000 miles, it's like *shrug* sorry dude but at least we got 1,300 whp yo! AHM is in a different boat. The NSX has to pass all global emissions standards and several different countries' MPG requirements. It has to start and run flawlessly in Death Valley, Fairbanks, Alaska, at the top of Pike's Peak or the middle of the Amazon Rain forest. Is has to be able to run on nearly any available petrol that might have been sitting in a underground tank in Guam for 3 years, or at the local 7-11 in Beverly Hills. It also has to last for about 100,000 miles before any serious maintenance or wear becomes an issue. Bake all of this together and they have to be very conservative with tuning. Think about it- they set the rear toe too aggressively on the NA1 in the chase for max performance and ended up with a class action that cost Honda millions because customers were mad that their rear tires went bald after about 2,000 miles.
So, just because they use the GT3 turbos doesn't mean they can safely squeeze too much more out of them. Instead, moving to those turbos gave them enough additional safety margin so that they could do these power bumps without compromising the reliability or compatibility of the car. But, I'm sure a tuner will tell you that you could go to 700 or 800, which is easy to do when they don't have to stand behind a warranty or face a jury.
In truth, it probably could go that high and still be "reliable" (Honda is fairly conservative after all), but for how long? For me, the lightweight package is more interesting. The car is already ridiculously fast thanks to the E-motor torque, but what would losing 100 lbs do?
yep and the downstream wear items like the diff/tranny....launch mode baby...it is what it is..the fact that the supply side of the equation became fixed caused the order frenzy....personally the nosejob /GT3 diffusssssssaaaaa and the SSSSSSSS did it for me. Plus the bee is a classic car now...
Please tell me you got the LW package. And put the Ti muffler on it that [MENTION=6718]drmanny3[/MENTION] is looking into.
DIFFUSSSSSSAAAAA!
The issue, in my estimation, has more to do with the complexities of developing a production car that must meet all regulatory and customer requirements. Aftermarket tuners don't have to worry about things like warranty services, emissions, fuel economy or driveability. For them, if the customer car blows up after 2,000 miles, it's like *shrug* sorry dude but at least we got 1,300 whp yo! AHM is in a different boat. The NSX has to pass all global emissions standards and several different countries' MPG requirements. It has to start and run flawlessly in Death Valley, Fairbanks, Alaska, at the top of Pike's Peak or the middle of the Amazon Rain forest. Is has to be able to run on nearly any available petrol that might have been sitting in a underground tank in Guam for 3 years, or at the local 7-11 in Beverly Hills. It also has to last for about 100,000 miles before any serious maintenance or wear becomes an issue. Bake all of this together and they have to be very conservative with tuning. Think about it- they set the rear toe too aggressively on the NA1 in the chase for max performance and ended up with a class action that cost Honda millions because customers were mad that their rear tires went bald after about 2,000 miles.
So, just because they use the GT3 turbos doesn't mean they can safely squeeze too much more out of them. Instead, moving to those turbos gave them enough additional safety margin so that they could do these power bumps without compromising the reliability or compatibility of the car. But, I'm sure a tuner will tell you that you could go to 700 or 800, which is easy to do when they don't have to stand behind a warranty or face a jury.
In truth, it probably could go that high and still be "reliable" (Honda is fairly conservative after all), but for how long? For me, the lightweight package is more interesting. The car is already ridiculously fast thanks to the E-motor torque, but what would losing 100 lbs do?
True and well written. I guess the only thing I'm left scratching my head with is RedEye. Dodge could meet all those requirements while pumping out 797 hp. You can fire it up in death valley without being stranded. It'll run flawlessly in Fairbanks Alaska and it'll run perfectly fine at the top of Pike's Peak. We're not talking Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, or other supercar manufactures, we're talking Dodge and it comes with a warranty. I hate to say it but it makes me think either the NSX is way too delicate and already pushed to the limits where it would risk warranty reliability and emission standards or that Honda just really wasn't concerned with competing at this point.
My dd is 710 hp.......very different animal..very different ethos....Stellantis (FCA) has built a niche market of selling a 35k widgets with a blown 6.2 motor for 75-85k...the technology density of the Hellcats is very different from NC1...fun as heck though..
Each manufacturer has internal decision-making about the risks they are willing to tolerate. It has long been a big part of Honda's brand identity that they make cars that are rock-solid reliable. I'm not sure I would hold a Fiat-Chrysler product to the same standard, or if it would be running strong at 100,000 miles.
But yes, they do offer a warranty. My neighbor has a Redeye (traded in his Demon for it) and it's always breaking down- he's been through 2 rear axles in 2 years. My sense is Honda is not willing to accept the risk of pushing the NC1 powertrain into this threshold. Also remember that the SH-AWD hybrid drive system is vastly more complex than strapping a huge blower to a big block V8. There are likely design limitations present that the Dodge doesn't have to account for.A Red Eye! I guess your entitled to your opinion at least for a while in this country. I've watch 750 HP Vetts melt after three laps at Willow Springs in the heat.
Nobody looking at a NSX is going to cross shop a Fiat errr Dodge. Those are nice motors for a quarter mile but the rest of the car is a fail, handling, braking, looks.
Just remember the NSX won IMSA GT3 for two years in a row maybe 3. Your comparison is so silly i'm stopping now.
Jimmy aka THE sled driver
Nobody looking at a NSX is going to cross shop a Fiat errr Dodge. Those are nice motors for a quarter mile but the rest of the car is a fail, handling, braking, looks.
Just remember the NSX won IMSA GT3 for two years in a row maybe 3. Your comparison is so silly i'm stopping now.
Jimmy aka THE sled driver
Not sure you followed the logic. If we want we can compare the NSX to cars at its price level which would be far more fair. The reference with the RedEye is how it's a product that has power, a warranty, and meets emissions and will also drive in death valley to the top of pikes peak, something a tuner wouldn't be concerned with and that Honda would. Those were the 3 things Honcho mentioned as to why the Type S doesn't offer more than 27 hp with such significant upgrades. I understand the technology density is far higher in the NSX than a RedEye but at this price level it should be. The Cosworth block is a closed deck and looks stout, it can likely handle way more power. I understand the rest of the drivetrain is a concern and that also heat management is a concern. Again, we can compare the drivetrain and heat management of the NSX to cars at its price level. I'm not comparing the whole product of the RedEye to the NSX. I understand the RedEye doesn't offer the complete package, but it's also not $160k. I understand that bees don't waste their time explaining to flies that honey is better than shit but I'm talking to other bees and it looks like there's shit in the honey.
Last edited:
I would argue against this. I do not regularly track cars so take this with a grain of salt like any free info on the internet.
Alot of folks that track cars swap out CC rotors for steel to save money. The performance difference is marginal (im told in the case of Porsche at least). Even though you have to service the steel rotors more, this is still relatively better than wearing out CC rotors less frequently and having to pay the very high cost of that service. When I see super cars where this transition has happened, it's actually my first question "has this been tracked?" Furthermore, I know the CC rotors on my 458 spider are supposed to "last the lifetime of the car", whatever that is on a car that gets driven <2000 miles a year by most drivers not like me. This is supposed to be the case when limited to public roads. I dont believe that and expect new rotors around 50k miles based on what Im hearing from other owners ($24000 for the discs im told
) but so far people seem to get very good life out of these. I like the brakes on the ferrari as they are responsive, effective, and I never seem to get any warping in them. They do need to warm up a little to work right and can squeak, but given the choice for street driving, I would actually prefer carbon ceramics over steel in this case.I don't think I was clear..I agree on a street car the CC brakes are optimal as long as you get some heat into them..from guys who track a lot you can wear through the CC pads and disks more than you think.The rotors have to be weighed to know when they are end of life...pita....so yes the Porsche/Ferrari guys who do a lot of hpde get steel rotors and appropriate pads for that..
I went with standard brakes with the same thought of them making more financial sense. For street driving the CC are supposed to last around 100k miles but I think the risk is pretty high that they won't. Then again, even if they failed at half that (50,000 miles) it's a long ways away but maybe I drive this car way more than I think. If that's the case then steel rotors are probably a better financial option, since costs are a concern to me. I wish I were baller and didn't mind the costs because I'd go CC all day if I could afford them but they just seem too risky for me. I'd hate to dump the car just because I couldn't stomach replacing CC brakes.
As I understand ceramic brakes are the best you can get from a performance standpoint whether you are tracking your car or not. Yes the steel brakes are good but probably not as good as the ceramic. This is a supercar after all, not a Toyota Corolla. We are talking about spending $175,000 plus on a car that is really special and you are questioning whether in 50,000 miles you might have to spend money to keep the car at its best. Well then take the tires off and put on a nice set of Pep Boys Copper retreads so you can save more money. I just don’t get it.
Every Porsche Turbo S comes standard with ceramic brakes. Every Ferrari 488 comes standard with Ceramic brakes. Every supercar I have seen lately comes with the best brakes available. If you want to track your car don’t do it half ass. Spend the money on the best tires you can get and go for it. Or are you contemplating putting in regular gas to drive to the track to save money. Maybe you should not buy this car. Give the spot to someone who understands what they are getting and appreciates it.
And comparing the NSX to a FU..ING DODGE. Really? Why not just buy the Dodge and be done with it. Obviously you feel the Dodge is giving you your money’s worth while the NSX is cheating you.
I am getting too old for some of the stuff that is posted here.
Every Porsche Turbo S comes standard with ceramic brakes. Every Ferrari 488 comes standard with Ceramic brakes. Every supercar I have seen lately comes with the best brakes available. If you want to track your car don’t do it half ass. Spend the money on the best tires you can get and go for it. Or are you contemplating putting in regular gas to drive to the track to save money. Maybe you should not buy this car. Give the spot to someone who understands what they are getting and appreciates it.
And comparing the NSX to a FU..ING DODGE. Really? Why not just buy the Dodge and be done with it. Obviously you feel the Dodge is giving you your money’s worth while the NSX is cheating you.
I am getting too old for some of the stuff that is posted here.
Last edited:
lol tell us how you really feel. Stop sugar coating it
Sorry about that, you are the true mediator here on Prime. I’m Just getting older.
- Joined
- 23 February 2016
- Messages
- 2,591
I don't track mine because I wouldn't enjoy the consumables costs (I have the carboceramics).
My understanding is that if you just use the car on the street the rotors more of a lifetime item.
My understanding is that if you just use the car on the street the rotors more of a lifetime item.
I’ve noticed there are two types of people in this forum, people who are way cool and those who like you who are pretentious AF! Makes me want to take delivery of my car and release a bunch of YouTube videos showing how pathetic the FU..ING Dodge is compared to my Non-blind spot having NSX. I can show how the NSX has cheap interior parts from a car that costs just as much as the cheap effing Dodge. I’m going to take this car and roll race it against my buddies in their Z06s, McLaren’s and R8s and watch it get donkie gapped! You obviously can’t follow the logic in the argument I was making, so I’ll go ahead and show people how those like you really feel. You know that scene in the first Fast And Furious when the Supra pulls up to the Ferrari and he asks how much it retails? “Too much for you pal, Ferrari!”. Yeah, we’ll see how awesome this NSX really is. It’s at the top of my price range and I really wanted to enjoy it with my apparently Pep Boys brakes. I’m soured now and thank god I can afford it so I can let people know what they’re missing.
Last edited:
lighten up Francis...this forum is not the last word pong game that so many have become. Every discussion can be civil and is why prime is way more readable than all those other FU type forums.....don't engage when another member is having a "moment"
Why not tell him to lighten up?
Similar threads
- Locked
