No I would never consider purchasing a Supra over an NSX. I don't like the way supra looks and is laden with obesity. There is a fine line between quality and exaggeration. IMHO If a car has superior aerodynamics and has better center of gravity, it has more potential in a race track and on top speed. Even when you consider the price difference when introduced you get a better car stock for stock with the NSX i.e. less maintance, less rust, hand built, aluminum higher revs, exotic, interior, mid/engine exclusivity profile. The NSX is race car for the street and not a muscle car. Good Job Honda :smile:
Why take a NSX over a SupraTT?
- Thread starter BATMANs
- Start date
First off, this is a very good thread. I own a 400whp single-turbo 96 Supra and I'm seriously considering getting a NSX, soley because I am no longer crazy about being the fastest, and I want something that looks a little more exotic (albiet my black/black supra with SSR wheels and 295s in the back does turn a ton of heads).
(Picture of my supra for reference)
The information in this thread is quite accurate, but I figure I'd post a picture of a page from Motor Trend, July 1993 issue. This page depicts all of our favorite 90s japanese cars; the NSX, Supra, 300ZX, RX-7, and the 3000GT.
This is mostly to post some facts about the supra because I've seen a lot of people say it's a poor handling/braking car.
The supra came out on top in every test, except for top-speed, which was due to the factory limiter. Also, braking is the supra's strongest point. It logged a 70-0 braking distance of 149 feet (Source: Car and Driver 1997), which was undefeated until the $500,000 Porsche Carrera GT logged it at 145 feet. Keep in mind how much better tire technology has come since the supra's time. For comparison, the Enzo Ferrari does this in 151 feet, but for argument's sake, the Enzo is designed to brake better at MUCH higher speeds.
The supra deserves credit. It may not have steering feedback on-par with BMW, but it is an extremely good well-rounded platform for making power (2JZ), holding the power (1200+whp capable stock Getrag 6spd + stock diff and axles), and lookind damn sexy while doing so. :wink:
(Picture of my supra for reference)
The information in this thread is quite accurate, but I figure I'd post a picture of a page from Motor Trend, July 1993 issue. This page depicts all of our favorite 90s japanese cars; the NSX, Supra, 300ZX, RX-7, and the 3000GT.
This is mostly to post some facts about the supra because I've seen a lot of people say it's a poor handling/braking car.
The supra came out on top in every test, except for top-speed, which was due to the factory limiter. Also, braking is the supra's strongest point. It logged a 70-0 braking distance of 149 feet (Source: Car and Driver 1997), which was undefeated until the $500,000 Porsche Carrera GT logged it at 145 feet. Keep in mind how much better tire technology has come since the supra's time. For comparison, the Enzo Ferrari does this in 151 feet, but for argument's sake, the Enzo is designed to brake better at MUCH higher speeds.
The supra deserves credit. It may not have steering feedback on-par with BMW, but it is an extremely good well-rounded platform for making power (2JZ), holding the power (1200+whp capable stock Getrag 6spd + stock diff and axles), and lookind damn sexy while doing so. :wink:
At the time of that article:
Road and track March 1993:
Supra:
235/45-17 front
255/50-17 rear
3,450lbs
320hp
66.0mph - slolom
13.5 - 1/4 mile
155mph - top speed
NSX:
205/50-15 front
225/50-16 rear
3,050lbs
270hp
63.8mph slolom
14.0 - 1/4 mile
168mph - top speed
Road and track March 1993:
Supra:
235/45-17 front
255/50-17 rear
3,450lbs
320hp
66.0mph - slolom
13.5 - 1/4 mile
155mph - top speed
NSX:
205/50-15 front
225/50-16 rear
3,050lbs
270hp
63.8mph slolom
14.0 - 1/4 mile
168mph - top speed
In my opinion, tire size means little if a performance car is designed to use that particular size. I've heard many say that the NSX drives better on stock size tires than any other combination.
You are ready for a supercar an NSX would be an definitely upgrade.
Porsche turbo
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortro...o-tiptronic-transmission-and-specs-page2.html
Zero to 60 mph: 3.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 18.7 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.6 sec @ 122 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 193 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 148 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.97 g
EPA fuel economy, city/highway: 17/25 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 13 mpg
Last edited:
I was trying to say that it took many years for that braking record to be beat. Even the porsche you linked me to is a 2007, and it only brakes 1-foot shorter than a supra from 10 years prior. :smile:
You are ready for a supercar
Porsche turbo
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortro...o-tiptronic-transmission-and-specs-page2.html
Zero to 60 mph: 3.4 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 7.8 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 18.7 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.4 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 11.6 sec @ 122 mph
Top speed (drag limited, mfr's claim): 193 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 148 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.97 g
EPA fuel economy, city/highway: 17/25 mpg
C/D-observed fuel economy: 13 mpg
NSX would be an definitely upgrade.
- Joined
- 11 July 2004
- Messages
- 611
Out of all those figures, I saw everything else...
0-60 in 3.4
0-100 in 7.8
0-150 in 18.7
1/4 in 11.6 @ 122
Those figures are all 0.0-0.2 seconds off from my 500hp BMW Supercharged M3!!!
I'm still thinking about getting rid of my M3 and keeping the NSX. Its a feeling I can't explain except overall satisfaction compared to every other car we've owned. I think that includes the M3 & Supra TT both.
0-60 in 3.4
0-100 in 7.8
0-150 in 18.7
1/4 in 11.6 @ 122
Those figures are all 0.0-0.2 seconds off from my 500hp BMW Supercharged M3!!!
I'm still thinking about getting rid of my M3 and keeping the NSX. Its a feeling I can't explain except overall satisfaction compared to every other car we've owned. I think that includes the M3 & Supra TT both.
It's hard to compare cars fairly since most of them don't use the same tires.
For example, I believe the Supra was the first jap car to debut with Max-performance rated tires, which is between competition tires like hoosiers, A032R, etc.. and Ultra-high performance tires that the rest of the cars came with.
Also the Supra had wider tires.
Toss the same tire type and size on a NSX and/or RX7 and it's game over for the Supra on anything related to handling and braking.
As a matter of fact, it might narrow the gap for acceleration numbers too.
Supra is a shoe with good shoes from the the get go.
There has been reports that Toyota cheated by giving the magazine editors a Supra with no cats.....
Good point. Lets go back 10 more years 1983 to a somewhat unfair comparison Porsche 959 70-0 146 feet. I am unable to find an online reference.
Off topic yet interesting the E36 M3 posted same track times according to Car magazine 97 model versus 97 although the supra had the power advantage.
Turbo lag can hurt track times.
When I looked at a supra, I felt the interior was cheezy. Not even close to the quality of materials in the NSX.
The NSX has the best fit and finish of all the jap cars......... it better have since it's more $$$.
It's the only one that had stitched interior dash and panels.
It's the only one that had stitched interior dash and panels.
People do drive Supras.... just look at the kills that they conduct on delicate NSX preys
But what about stock Supra vs. stock NSX? Any car can be ridiculosly powered up... I betcha there are 10sec daily driver Civics that will wipe the pavement with Supras, Vettes, Z's and whatever.
NSX is an NSX while Supra or say RX-7, even they both are rare and good cars, that's all they are, just cars...
Supra is a turbo, NSX is NA -- Supra heavy, NSX light -- Supra a sports car, NSX rare exotic -- Supra handles good, NSX handles better -- Different engine layouts make for different character. This seems like another pointless comparison.
I wouldn’t mind owning a Supra though and since I'm 6'7" tall, if I don't fit in an NSX then I might actually go for a Supra again...
I wonder how different were the NSX numbers once it got the additional ponies in 1997?
the stock 205/225s are very small tires. Yes the car handles very well and was designed to fit those tires and it is impressive the NSX can generate the numbers it does with those dinky tires. NSXs will benefit from wider tires because it will generate more grip = faster.
Tires are EVERYTHING. It is the only performance part of your car that touches the ground. Put 195's on a LeMans Prototype and it will not do shit. Tire width, and more importantly the compound greatly affect a car's handling, braking, acceleration, but most importantly handling and cornering (did I already say that?)
Keep in mind, at the time (late 80s-early90s) 16" wheels were considered big. (NSX has 15" front 16" rear) The supra wearing 17" wheels was a big deal, jump in size compared to the rest of the wheels at the time -very cool.
+1, just like almost every car comparison out there.
Pretty much. Both RX7 and NSX had really small tires relative to the supra. Since the RX7 and NSX were so close to the supra handling wise, i agree, with the same sized tires, the supra wouldnt be looking so impressive.
Not fair to say for the supra fans. It could have been possible, but that's most likely false.
70-0 tests are useless. They are a 1-time brake application which everyone uses to quantify a car's braking performance. Most cars fall off after 1 70-0 test. Besides those tests are affected greatly by tire size, brake pad compound, weight of the car, driver, let alone the archaic abs systems of the early 90's... It is not a good measure for a car's braking performance.
Some pads need to heat up before their initial bite can slow the car down. besides, you can alwasy put in a more aggressive pad to improve the braking performance of the car.
Like tires, their are a lot of variables in the braking systems. But these early tests by R&T and C&D were everything stock for stock. But even with everything being stock for thest tests, a 70-0 test dosnt tell you much.
Ding Ding Ding, correct. Mclaren F1 had only 17inch wheels, so smaller the diameter the faster the roll.
alot of the time the diameter of the tires is the same.
It's the aspect ratio that changes when u go up or down in tire sizes and want to maintain the same diameter....
It's the aspect ratio that changes when u go up or down in tire sizes and want to maintain the same diameter....
We're concerned with WIDTH not OD
- Joined
- 20 May 2006
- Messages
- 327
NSX is just way sexier!
I say NSX. Supras are cool and all, but for me at least, it's too common in the tuner/performance scene. And lately, there have been an increase in reliable turbo-based power options for the NSX. This might be a good thing for those looking for something other than a high-powered speed boat for the road, or a bad thing if ricers get word of this. I'm trying to save up for one after owning a Pontiac GTO (r.i.p) and start an interesting project with it. I hope by the time I save up enough cash, the vendors of nsx related products won't discontinue them.
That's what my wife says too... :frown:
I have NSX,Supra TT,RX7 Fd3s all three now. they are all fun cars to drive.
NSX feels like a Kart. Supra handles like a pig but fast. RX7 is a tail happy drifter.
i can't decide which one is better,so i end up with keeping all 3 cars.
NSX feels like a Kart. Supra handles like a pig but fast. RX7 is a tail happy drifter.
i can't decide which one is better,so i end up with keeping all 3 cars.
^ I hate you :wink:
Good taste in cars!
Good taste in cars!
"Why take a NSX over a SupraTT?"
"Supra handles like a pig"
"Supra handles like a pig"
