Red-CL

So no NOS, Turbo, or Supercharger = NA.

Got it.

Thanks

Chaptorial

Damn 450 out of a V6?

Should be interesting to see how its done.

gavriil

The 98 to 99 NSXs were lighter than todays models I believe. And the lower numbers are from those cars. Especially the 12 quarter mile numbers. ANd there are many 12.8 NSX examples actually (mag and non-mag related).

Also, have you ever noticed that the NSX always was very conservative with the wheel diameter? That is not coincidental. That makes a big difference in acceleration as you know. I mean before 2001, there were NSX examples with 15 inch front wheel. I am working from memory here, I may be off with the years.

Only lately the wheels have gotten larger.

I was reading an article of a comparo of the Crossfire and the SLK 320. They both wore the same engine and about the same weight (actually I think the SLK was heavier) and the SLK was significantly faster in acceleration. Most of the difference was attributed to the wheel diameter of the Crossfire wheels.

It makes a big difference for off the line acceleration where inertia matters most.

The fact that the NSX is mid engine and so there are smaller parts assiciated in transfering that power to the wheels (as opposed to a RWD car like the C5 which needs much larger moving parts to transfer power from one side of the car to the other), does make a difference. Less parasitic loses, in theory.

Another possibility is for that engine to be a little underrated. Maybe it makes 310 HP. Or even if it does not, engines that tend to make power at higher rpm, like the one in the NSX and the one in the S2000, usually do better in accelerating the car. It's the area under the HP curve that matter remember, not just ONE point on that curve (in this case the peak point).

Put all together, and you get enough of a difference to see 2, 3 or more tenths faster of a car in the end. Inertia is huge in acceleration. Most of that is hiden in the 0-20mph run. You make things lighter and lowre inertia, you have a big advantage at the end of the 1/4 mile.

gavriil

Gear ratios make a HUGE difference.

gavriil

Talking about gear ratios. What about the gears themselves? I mean the whole thing inside a manual tranny. If Honda engineers found a way to make those components lighter, then there you go. There are a few more ponies making it to the ground.

And I am sure in this case, there is a significant difference with ALL parts associated transfering power to the wheels when we compare the NSX with a C5. Why? Mainly due to the MUCH higher torque figures of the C5 engine. The LS1. High amounds of torque at low and mid rpm is what brakes components. So EVERY part that is associated with transfering that torque to the rear wheels in the case of the C5, must be beafier than the same part in an NSX. Now combine the above with the fact that the C5's middle name is VALUE and you get HEAVIER parts all around. They cant use carbon fiber, or something exotic like that in the case of the C5. That possibility is more probably in the case of the NSX though. This is all speculation of mine though dependand on logic from what we know about the 2 cars.

So the fact that the engine of the NSX is behind the driver, right on top of the rear wheels and the fact that the engine makes a lot less torque and the fact that most components that will transfer that power to the rear wheels are possibly heavier, all work for a quicker NSX and a slower C5.

gavriil

Any time.

gavriil

Simple (to explain in lamens terms at least):

Make that engine efficient at much higher rpm and make it reliable at that rpm for the street and there you go. You got 450 HP at 10,000 or so rpm.

The 2 key words in the above sentece is "efficient" and "reliable". Especially the latter.

A typical engine makes max torque at around 3.5K to 4.5K rpm. Why? Well, cos it's tuned that way. It's tuned to "run out of breath" after that. The peak torque tells you that that's the exact point where the MOST AMOUNT of air enters the cylinders (there are other factors here and some that I dont know, but I am keeping it simple).

If you find ways to make and tune an engine to make peak torque at 6K rpm, like the S2000 for example, then you get A LOT more specific power (HP per liter that is).

Now to achieve that and keep it reliable for the street with the ACura badge and expecatations of dependability that come with that badge, is the trick.

Again, for the ultimate in NA specific power turn to F1. THese engines are fixed at 3 liters in a V10 configuration. Although as secret as the Delta Force, the rumors call for Ferrari and Toyota making 800HP at 20,000 rpm, or somewhere around that figure. Think about that figure. 20,000 rpm. Which resutls in these engines having a life expactancy of 1 race usually. Low budget teams might use them twice.

Though I bet if you looked at the peak torque of these engine, it would not be much higher than 250 pounds of torque. I am not sure which rpm level. Probably 13,000 or so, but torque it not very high.

Maximized

You bring up some interesting points. The C5 has a real effecient drivetrain from what I have seen. The LS1 is a very stout motor and puts down roughly the same WHP and the NSX is rated at the crank. Both have really good Coeffecient of Drag stats and weight is similar. The rims on the C5 are quite heavy factoring in the runflats. From my experience, the C5 really moves off the line and IMO the best gears for the car are 3rd+. My friend ran his bone stock 01 C5 to a 13.3@110 in warm weather. Now it is ATI procharged making 440 rwhp, so it should be deep into the 11's.

Wheels make a big difference in handling also. IIRC for every lb reduced in a wheel is like taking 8 lbs off the body. The loss of unsprung weight makes a noticeable difference in the handling characteristics of a vehicle. The only real way to tell if the C5 is being hampered by heavy rims would be to buy some SSR Competitions and put stock size rubber all around. My guess would then be that traction would be a issue, but trap speeds should increase a bit.

Maximized

FYI....http://www.wheelweights.net/

The 15" NSX wheels weigh 15.2 lbs
The 17' NSX forged wheels are heavier than Z06 wheels.

1SICKLEX

Okay this months' CAR I think says around 350-375hp. It will come out in 2004 as a 2005 model with the new Legend (RL). The Legend will be a 4WD hybrid according to them.

fahoumh

very good information in this thread

gavriil

I remember one of the first Dyno runs done on the brand new, back then, C5 (it was 1996) and the output was 282 HP from a car that had 250 miles on it. A current, well broken in, C5 probably makes 295 at the wheels.

Just to make the wheel discussion a little more acurate:

The total weight of a wheel is very important to know and it does make a big difference either way. But to be really acurate, it is as important to know WHERE on that wheel the weight is. Why? Well, we all know from school that the more weight on the outside perimeter of a circle/wheel, the more cetrifugal force is generated. Thus, more HP "stolen" by moving parts.

That is exactly the reason why the weight of the tires is so important. Cos they are positioned at the most outside side of the wheel/tire's perimeter (for simplicity we should assume the wheel and the tire as one unit in this case).

gavriil

Remember the $3000 magnesium wheel option for the C5, during the first couple of years (or so)? As I remember, they later canceled the option cos no one was opting for it. I wonder how much faster would a C5 with that option have been, compared to a C5 without it.

KavexTrax

Not to mention the Carrera GT . But 660hp is a bit too high for a comparo.

--------------------------

ho·mol·o·gate P Pronunciation Key (h-ml-gt, h-)
tr.v. ho·mol·o·gat·ed, ho·mol·o·gat·ing, ho·mol·o·gates

To approve, especially to confirm officially.

gavriil

The Carerra GT is more going against the Enzo, not really the other 3 cars mentioned.

nandowong

that because honda will put VTECH on it J/K

heyitsme

Car and Driver December

""Honda would only say the HSC gets a V-6 that is “bigger” than the NSX's current 3.2-liter. We hear the engine will be in the 3.5-to-3.8-liter range. Honda says only that the car generates “more than 300 horsepower.” Considering the current engine makes 290 horses, 300 would not be a large bump. But when you check out the huge tires (245/35ZR-19 up front, 295/30ZR-19 at the rear) and the six-piston Brembo brake calipers on the front and rear, you get the idea that this will be no incremental increase in horsepower. Credible sources put the real power output of the naturally aspirated V-6 at more than 350; others think it could be as high as 380! If Honda wants to be compared with Ferrari and Porsche, as one engineer openly admits, the NSX will need to make at least 350 horsepower.""

nandowong

maybe they will give us a 12k redline

KavexTrax

But engine reliability will exponentially diminish because of that...?

Give us displacement!

nandowong

stop ruining my wet dreams

vinarnold

amazing going to destroy the competion....

bigman

the new NSX will destroy certain competition for a short while. The next vette will have 400 horses base, out of a 6.0 litre, and the z06 will have even more power. Also for the price of the vette, you cant beat the dollar value of the car. And last, the vetter has way, wayn, way more tuning potential on the stock internals than an nsx coule ever dream of, and the vette will handle like a bitch.

gavriil

http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...hreadid=116586

SpeedyV6

does 450 hp from a 3.6L engine seem like such a stretch? Last year's S2000 had a 2.0L engine that put out 240 hp. Assuming the same specific output from a 3.6L engine we gt the following:
240hp X 3.6liter/2.0liter = 432 hp

To me 450 hp seems entirely possible from Honda.

nandowong

I wish things worked that easily

Chemmech

Gavriil, any word on where the redline is? To make 450hp maybe the redline has been raised, alot? 12,000rpm?

gavriil

No. No word on where the redline is though I doubt that 12K rpm is necessary from 3.6 liters. F1 engines make about 800HP at 20,000 rpm so...

goat

they will need, and will have an electric motor, for those HP numbers.

allmotor_2000

The REAR NSX wheels (pre-97) is 16". The stock 15" wheels (front only) are very small/narrow.

gavriil

The latest issue of "AUTOBILD" says that the next NSX(HSC) will have a 3.5L V6 with 400 turbo hp! In the article, Chief designer Mr. Ui Yoshio said it will be a driver's car with focus on man and engine and a minimum of electronic helpers (actually he said stop with electronic excess).

The source for the above is AutoBuild from a forum within carspyshots.tk

mantis23

I'll take 2 please... where can I sign up?

gavriil

I totally doubt a turbo application in the next NSX.

mantis23

i doubt i too, but a guy can dream, can't he?

nandowong

dream? im :wackit:

:crossfinger: for turbo.

Chaptorial

Will it be a DOHC or SOHC 3.5L V6?

Cuz the 3.5L in the MDX is SOHC, yet the 3.2L in the current NSX is DOHC while the 3.2L in our cars are SOHC.

Anyone follow?

EricL

Someone would need to check the actual piston speed. The F1 engines (20,000 rpm) are very short stroke engines, and one magazine review commented that the previous S2000 had mean piston speeds at redline that were close -- or possibly higher than "some" -- F1 engine piston velocities.

A little math would be handy. Time for someone to drag out there copies of Racecare Engineering and compare to S2000 and NSX specs...

EricL

NSX would stay DOHC. You really need that breathing and if you want really advanced cam timing, you need to go DOHC. The DOHC also allows MUCH better breathing coupled with the 90-degree configuration (this presumes that they are not going to switch back to a hybrid configuration and toss overall volumetric efficiency at high RPMS.

Zapata

i read that and you are correct, i believe all_motor posted something about this as well.

1SICKLEX

I doubt this. I heard 350-360hp tops, naturally aspirated.

I hope this car is 50k, no one buys a 90k Acura or Honda.

gavriil

If it'll be a turbo, I bet it will be SOHC. But I doubt it will be turbo.