Acura: NSX News
11-24-2003, 08:47 AM
#121
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
I disagree. You forget the weight factor, plus it's not all about all out power here. The Modena makes 390 HP and it costs 3.5 times the Z06's price which has more total HP.
I disagree. You forget the weight factor, plus it's not all about all out power here. The Modena makes 390 HP and it costs 3.5 times the Z06's price which has more total HP.
11-24-2003, 08:53 AM
#123
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Maximized
The C6 is supposedly lighter than the C5, so I doubt that the NSX will be under 3000 lbs. The current C5 smokes the NSX in every performance catagory right now. To make the car an outstanding performance car, it needs to trump the competition.
The C6 is supposedly lighter than the C5, so I doubt that the NSX will be under 3000 lbs. The current C5 smokes the NSX in every performance catagory right now. To make the car an outstanding performance car, it needs to trump the competition.
1. The C6 has/had a weight target of 3100 pounds. Which is, yes lower, but not very much lower, than the current C5 car.
2. I am not sure the current NSX is "smoked" by the "C5" in all performance categories. Did you mean the Z06? The C5 base car, no way.
3. I have heard rumors of Honda dropping the alloy structure of the next NSX. Going back to steel to achieve a lower price. If true, the car will be at least as heavy as the base C6. If not true, then I would not be surprised the NSX to be pretty light once again.
Note: Current NSX MT weight is 3153 pounds. Current C5 weight is 3214 pounds.
11-24-2003, 09:01 AM
#125
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
I agree with your main argument but a few points that are not totally acurate in the above.
1. The C6 has/had a weight target of 3100 pounds. Which is, yes lower, but not very much lower, than the current C5 car.
2. I am not sure the current NSX is "smoked" by the "C5" in all performance categories. Did you mean the Z06? The C5 base car, no way.
3. I have heard rumors of Honda dropping the alloy structure of the next NSX. Going back to steel to achieve a lower price. If true, the car will be at least as heavy as the base C6. If not true, then I would not be surprised the NSX to be pretty light once again.
Note: Current NSX MT weight is 3153 pounds. Current C5 weight is 3214 pounds.
I agree with your main argument but a few points that are not totally acurate in the above.
1. The C6 has/had a weight target of 3100 pounds. Which is, yes lower, but not very much lower, than the current C5 car.
2. I am not sure the current NSX is "smoked" by the "C5" in all performance categories. Did you mean the Z06? The C5 base car, no way.
3. I have heard rumors of Honda dropping the alloy structure of the next NSX. Going back to steel to achieve a lower price. If true, the car will be at least as heavy as the base C6. If not true, then I would not be surprised the NSX to be pretty light once again.
Note: Current NSX MT weight is 3153 pounds. Current C5 weight is 3214 pounds.
1. Say the NSX is 100 lbs lighter than the C6.....100 lbs less weight doesn't make up for the 50 or so plus hp the Z06 will have.
2. The current NSX will get smoked in acceleration, handling a tossup, and I don't know the figures for braking. This is assuming a stock C5 with Z51 suspension vs. the current NSX. I have seen both of them at Gingerman raceway and it seems like the C5 was quicker. I am not sure of the skills of either driver.
11-24-2003, 09:07 AM
#126
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Maximized
Remember, we don't know if this is true, but if it is........
1. Say the NSX is 100 lbs lighter than the C6.....100 lbs less weight doesn't make up for the 50 or so plus hp the Z06 will have.
2. The current NSX will get smoked in acceleration, handling a tossup, and I don't know the figures for braking. This is assuming a stock C5 with Z51 suspension vs. the current NSX. I have seen both of them at Gingerman raceway and it seems like the C5 was quicker. I am not sure of the skills of either driver.
Remember, we don't know if this is true, but if it is........
1. Say the NSX is 100 lbs lighter than the C6.....100 lbs less weight doesn't make up for the 50 or so plus hp the Z06 will have.
2. The current NSX will get smoked in acceleration, handling a tossup, and I don't know the figures for braking. This is assuming a stock C5 with Z51 suspension vs. the current NSX. I have seen both of them at Gingerman raceway and it seems like the C5 was quicker. I am not sure of the skills of either driver.
1. The next NSX wont be going after the C6 ZO6 like it's not going after it now. It's going after the Modena. The Modena will soon get a larger engine and more HP. Not much more though. So the NSX will probably be about as quick if not quicker than the mid-generation-life of the current Modena. The current Z06 is faster than the current NSX. Honda does not care.
2. The current NSX is about as fast as the current C5. They both will do about 13 flat for the 1/4 mile. You said "smoked". That's not smoked. I call that "it's up to the driver".
3. I am pretty sure that the current NSX handles better than the base C5. Even with the Z51 on. And I am pretty sure it out-brakes the base C5. Even if they are par, that's nowhere near the "being smoked" point you described.
11-24-2003, 09:10 AM
#127
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
It just hit me. If the next NSX is going after the Modena, then it's going after the Ford GT as well. What a comparo that one will be. 05 Ford GT vs. 05 Modena vs. 05 NSX Hehehe...
11-24-2003, 09:13 AM
#128
Shogun Assassin
Originally posted by gavriil
3. I am pretty sure that the current NSX handles better than the base C5. Even with the Z51 on. And I am pretty sure it out-brakes the base C5. Even if they are par, that's nowhere near the "being smoked" point you described.
3. I am pretty sure that the current NSX handles better than the base C5. Even with the Z51 on. And I am pretty sure it out-brakes the base C5. Even if they are par, that's nowhere near the "being smoked" point you described.
11-24-2003, 09:48 AM
#129
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 46
Posts: 12,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
woW, that is 125hp a liter. I think it will HAVE to involve hybrid tech with instantanous torque. But I don't think a 100k Honda/Acura is gonna have any more success than a 90k Honda/Acura. The public just doesn't feel it.
We'll see, this thing will be a reliable rocket I am sure!
We'll see, this thing will be a reliable rocket I am sure!
11-24-2003, 11:08 AM
#132
The hair says it all
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Age: 37
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Im with Black CL-S on this one, i cant see 450, but if they DO put a hybrid on there, 450 could def be achieved.
when your bumping high HP/Liter, dont you sacrifice reliability? (i dunno im curious)
when your bumping high HP/Liter, dont you sacrifice reliability? (i dunno im curious)
11-24-2003, 12:37 PM
#133
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i don't think 3.6 450 is realistic at all, an na engine of that type goes against their core value of being a green company and it goes against the hsc concept being as light as possible with a highly tuned, lower displacement engine.
i think this what to expect
i think this what to expect
It has the looks to match them, too; the headlamps resemble the existing NSX, but otherwise the styling is all-new. The sharp edges and flat sides aren't only for effect, though, as the HSC's aerodynamics have been tuned to give greater downforce at speed without the need for big external spoilers. At the rear, the LED tail-lights have a holographic 3D effect and a glass screen exposes the mid-mounted engine. Unlike the Enzo, the Honda makes do with a revamped 3.0-litre V6 rather than a V12, but it now produces 300bhp and is mated to a six-speed sequential gearbox. The interior, accessed via scissor-action doors, uses blue carbon fibre and a minimalist 'skeletal' dash structure, while the gearlever is replaced by a paddleshifter. Yet despite the technology, Honda insists that the new NSX will be no more expensive than the old car when it arrives in 2005.
Tom Barnard Source: Auto Express
Tom Barnard Source: Auto Express
11-24-2003, 12:59 PM
#134
6G TLX-S
The 2.0L from S2000 can output 240hp - that's 120hp per litre. Honda is world famous for its ingenuity in building engines. I don't see why it is impossible to generate 450hp from a 3.6L engine, with a little more tuning.
11-24-2003, 02:30 PM
#136
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
We all comment upon rumors. Agreed. No one ever said this is confirmed.
1. The next NSX wont be going after the C6 ZO6 like it's not going after it now. It's going after the Modena. The Modena will soon get a larger engine and more HP. Not much more though. So the NSX will probably be about as quick if not quicker than the mid-generation-life of the current Modena. The current Z06 is faster than the current NSX. Honda does not care.
2. The current NSX is about as fast as the current C5. They both will do about 13 flat for the 1/4 mile. You said "smoked". That's not smoked. I call that "it's up to the driver".
3. I am pretty sure that the current NSX handles better than the base C5. Even with the Z51 on. And I am pretty sure it out-brakes the base C5. Even if they are par, that's nowhere near the "being smoked" point you described.
We all comment upon rumors. Agreed. No one ever said this is confirmed.
1. The next NSX wont be going after the C6 ZO6 like it's not going after it now. It's going after the Modena. The Modena will soon get a larger engine and more HP. Not much more though. So the NSX will probably be about as quick if not quicker than the mid-generation-life of the current Modena. The current Z06 is faster than the current NSX. Honda does not care.
2. The current NSX is about as fast as the current C5. They both will do about 13 flat for the 1/4 mile. You said "smoked". That's not smoked. I call that "it's up to the driver".
3. I am pretty sure that the current NSX handles better than the base C5. Even with the Z51 on. And I am pretty sure it out-brakes the base C5. Even if they are par, that's nowhere near the "being smoked" point you described.
11-24-2003, 02:55 PM
#138
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Age: 45
Posts: 7,083
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's unlikely to be 450hp NA, but you never know. Should be interesting. I think it needs about that hp to compete especially if it isn't aluminum anymore
11-24-2003, 04:10 PM
#139
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by heyitsme
i don't think 3.6 450 is realistic at all, an na engine of that type goes against their core value of being a green company and it goes against the hsc concept being as light as possible with a highly tuned, lower displacement engine.
i think this what to expect
i don't think 3.6 450 is realistic at all, an na engine of that type goes against their core value of being a green company and it goes against the hsc concept being as light as possible with a highly tuned, lower displacement engine.
i think this what to expect
It has the looks to match them, too; the headlamps resemble the existing NSX, but otherwise the styling is all-new. The sharp edges and flat sides aren't only for effect, though, as the HSC's aerodynamics have been tuned to give greater downforce at speed without the need for big external spoilers. At the rear, the LED tail-lights have a holographic 3D effect and a glass screen exposes the mid-mounted engine. Unlike the Enzo, the Honda makes do with a revamped 3.0-litre V6 rather than a V12, but it now produces 300bhp and is mated to a six-speed sequential gearbox. The interior, accessed via scissor-action doors, uses blue carbon fibre and a minimalist 'skeletal' dash structure, while the gearlever is replaced by a paddleshifter. Yet despite the technology, Honda insists that the new NSX will be no more expensive than the old car when it arrives in 2005.
Tom Barnard Source: Auto Express
Tom Barnard Source: Auto Express
11-24-2003, 04:12 PM
#140
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Edward
The 2.0L from S2000 can output 240hp - that's 120hp per litre. Honda is world famous for its ingenuity in building engines. I don't see why it is impossible to generate 450hp from a 3.6L engine, with a little more tuning.
The 2.0L from S2000 can output 240hp - that's 120hp per litre. Honda is world famous for its ingenuity in building engines. I don't see why it is impossible to generate 450hp from a 3.6L engine, with a little more tuning.
In lamens terms, the larger the engine, the larger the reciprocating mass, hence as you enlarge the engine, it's getting more and more difficult to increase the specific output of a given motor.
The ultimate NA application that I know of is F1. 800-900 HP from 3 liters (V10 config.)
11-24-2003, 04:14 PM
#141
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Maximized
I guess I learned something today. I was always under the impression that the NSX ran roughly mid 13s. I did a little research and found that they can be low 13s cars. The C5 tends to be a few tenths quicker though, so I retract my "smokes" statement.
I guess I learned something today. I was always under the impression that the NSX ran roughly mid 13s. I did a little research and found that they can be low 13s cars. The C5 tends to be a few tenths quicker though, so I retract my "smokes" statement.
11-24-2003, 04:15 PM
#142
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Maximized
I guess I learned something today. I was always under the impression that the NSX ran roughly mid 13s. I did a little research and found that they can be low 13s cars. The C5 tends to be a few tenths quicker though, so I retract my "smokes" statement.
I guess I learned something today. I was always under the impression that the NSX ran roughly mid 13s. I did a little research and found that they can be low 13s cars. The C5 tends to be a few tenths quicker though, so I retract my "smokes" statement.
11-24-2003, 04:27 PM
#143
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
From C&D's article:
Acura NSX
More refined than ever, but will refinement alone be enough to keep it afloat?
BY TONY SWAN
February 2002
"Aside from the headlights, all these updates take a practiced eye to spot. There are, however, some functional benefits to the subtle resculpting. The coefficient of drag drops a couple of points, to 0.30, which improves the NSX's 0-to-125-mph time by 0.2 second, according to Acura, and its top speed from 168 to 175 mph."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the top speed is up there with the C5's (if not higher - I remember the first year C5s doing 172 mph for top speed, not sure about the 2004 models).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the same article:
"The last NSX we tested (July 1999) was an Alex Zanardi limited-edition model, which scaled in much lighter (2970 pounds versus 3153) than the curb weight Acura lists for the 2002 model. It sprinted to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, covered the quarter-mile in 13.2 at 106 mph, stopped from 70 mph in 164 feet, and pulled 0.93 g on the skidpad.
Respectable numbers, but not extraordinary. Our long-term 1999 Carrera (May 2001) was about the same in its wrap-up runs (0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds; 13.4 seconds at 105 mph in the quarter-mile), with 19 fewer ponies than the '02 version.
Our most recent Viper test numbers are a year old (February '01). That Viper, a 460-hp GTS ACR model, hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and ran the quarter in a robust 12.6 seconds at 114 mph. The Z06 from that same test recorded 4.0 seconds and 12.4 at 116."
---
The numbers: a 2001 NSX, with the removable roof (standard for '02), carried a base price of $90,879. A 2001 Carrera C4 (all-wheel drive) was $74,156, a 2002 Viper GTS is $74,071, and a 2002 Corvette Z06 is $50,721.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 2002 Acura NSX
Obtained from R&T March, 2002
0-60: 5 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.4
1/4 Speed: 106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 1998 Acura NSX
Obtained from C&D August, 1998
0-60: 4.5
1/4 Mile: 12.9
1/4 Speed: 110
---------------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 2001 Chevrolet Corvette
Obtained from MT March, 2001
0-60: 4.8 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.1
1/4 Speed: 109
----------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 1998 Chevrolet Corvette
Obtained from C&D May, 1998
0-60: 5.1
1/4 Mile: 13.6
1/4 Speed: 106
Acura NSX
More refined than ever, but will refinement alone be enough to keep it afloat?
BY TONY SWAN
February 2002
"Aside from the headlights, all these updates take a practiced eye to spot. There are, however, some functional benefits to the subtle resculpting. The coefficient of drag drops a couple of points, to 0.30, which improves the NSX's 0-to-125-mph time by 0.2 second, according to Acura, and its top speed from 168 to 175 mph."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the top speed is up there with the C5's (if not higher - I remember the first year C5s doing 172 mph for top speed, not sure about the 2004 models).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the same article:
"The last NSX we tested (July 1999) was an Alex Zanardi limited-edition model, which scaled in much lighter (2970 pounds versus 3153) than the curb weight Acura lists for the 2002 model. It sprinted to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, covered the quarter-mile in 13.2 at 106 mph, stopped from 70 mph in 164 feet, and pulled 0.93 g on the skidpad.
Respectable numbers, but not extraordinary. Our long-term 1999 Carrera (May 2001) was about the same in its wrap-up runs (0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds; 13.4 seconds at 105 mph in the quarter-mile), with 19 fewer ponies than the '02 version.
Our most recent Viper test numbers are a year old (February '01). That Viper, a 460-hp GTS ACR model, hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and ran the quarter in a robust 12.6 seconds at 114 mph. The Z06 from that same test recorded 4.0 seconds and 12.4 at 116."
---
The numbers: a 2001 NSX, with the removable roof (standard for '02), carried a base price of $90,879. A 2001 Carrera C4 (all-wheel drive) was $74,156, a 2002 Viper GTS is $74,071, and a 2002 Corvette Z06 is $50,721.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 2002 Acura NSX
Obtained from R&T March, 2002
0-60: 5 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.4
1/4 Speed: 106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 1998 Acura NSX
Obtained from C&D August, 1998
0-60: 4.5
1/4 Mile: 12.9
1/4 Speed: 110
---------------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 2001 Chevrolet Corvette
Obtained from MT March, 2001
0-60: 4.8 Transmission: Manual
1/4 Mile: 13.1
1/4 Speed: 109
----------------------------------------------------------
Car-Stats.com Report for 1998 Chevrolet Corvette
Obtained from C&D May, 1998
0-60: 5.1
1/4 Mile: 13.6
1/4 Speed: 106
11-24-2003, 04:51 PM
#145
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
From
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The 0-150-0 was 35.9 seconds in 5191 feet
Here are a few quotes from the article
"Second Place was a surprise"
"We expected the Corvette, with the second best power-to-weight ratio and the best aerodynamics to snatch the silver..."
"The NSX diced with the corvette to 130 before pulling decisively ahead to reach 150 mph two seconds in front of the Vette."
"Our low mileage Porsche was neither the fastest nor the slowest 911 we've tested. but it was no match for the rocket NSX!"
The 911's 10 second time from 140 to 150 mph; was five seconds longer than the NSX's.
The entrants in the high performance theme were
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
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The 0-150-0 was 35.9 seconds in 5191 feet
Here are a few quotes from the article
"Second Place was a surprise"
"We expected the Corvette, with the second best power-to-weight ratio and the best aerodynamics to snatch the silver..."
"The NSX diced with the corvette to 130 before pulling decisively ahead to reach 150 mph two seconds in front of the Vette."
"Our low mileage Porsche was neither the fastest nor the slowest 911 we've tested. but it was no match for the rocket NSX!"
The 911's 10 second time from 140 to 150 mph; was five seconds longer than the NSX's.
The entrants in the high performance theme were
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
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
11-24-2003, 05:48 PM
#147
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
Did you find anything about braking and handling? I will look too.
Did you find anything about braking and handling? I will look too.
11-24-2003, 06:04 PM
#148
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Zapata
11-24-2003, 06:06 PM
#149
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Maximized
Haven't really looked. Do you think Acura gave them a ringer? I mean 12.9@110 is faster than I would have expected. As for handling, my friend said that he has been on the track with S/Ced NSX's at Gingerman in his Z06 and they are not a challenge.
Haven't really looked. Do you think Acura gave them a ringer? I mean 12.9@110 is faster than I would have expected. As for handling, my friend said that he has been on the track with S/Ced NSX's at Gingerman in his Z06 and they are not a challenge.
11-24-2003, 06:09 PM
#150
Parting out 02 Type S :(
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: LA,CA
Age: 74
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Maximized
Haven't really looked. Do you think Acura gave them a ringer? I mean 12.9@110 is faster than I would have expected. As for handling, my friend said that he has been on the track with S/Ced NSX's at Gingerman in his Z06 and they are not a challenge.
Haven't really looked. Do you think Acura gave them a ringer? I mean 12.9@110 is faster than I would have expected. As for handling, my friend said that he has been on the track with S/Ced NSX's at Gingerman in his Z06 and they are not a challenge.
11-24-2003, 06:45 PM
#151
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by power3dfx
Really, i know of one guy with a comptech sced nsx that would have no hard time beating the z06. ive been in it too, so i know it can haul ass. however, at the track, alot has to do with the driver.
Really, i know of one guy with a comptech sced nsx that would have no hard time beating the z06. ive been in it too, so i know it can haul ass. however, at the track, alot has to do with the driver.
11-25-2003, 05:13 AM
#154
Floyd Mayweather Jr.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The City of Syrup Screwston, Texas
Posts: 14,078
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
3 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
From
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few quotes from the article
"Second Place was a surprise"
"We expected the Corvette, with the second best power-to-weight ratio and the best aerodynamics to snatch the silver..."
"The NSX diced with the corvette to 130 before pulling decisively ahead to reach 150 mph two seconds in front of the Vette."
"Our low mileage Porsche was neither the fastest nor the slowest 911 we've tested. but it was no match for the rocket NSX!"
The 911's 10 second time from 140 to 150 mph; was five seconds longer than the NSX's.
The entrants in the high performance theme were
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
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
From
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are a few quotes from the article
"Second Place was a surprise"
"We expected the Corvette, with the second best power-to-weight ratio and the best aerodynamics to snatch the silver..."
"The NSX diced with the corvette to 130 before pulling decisively ahead to reach 150 mph two seconds in front of the Vette."
"Our low mileage Porsche was neither the fastest nor the slowest 911 we've tested. but it was no match for the rocket NSX!"
The 911's 10 second time from 140 to 150 mph; was five seconds longer than the NSX's.
The entrants in the high performance theme were
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
http://members.aol.com/jimmylucky/150.html
11-25-2003, 06:39 AM
#155
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Red-CL
ok.......
What is NA???
What does naturally aspirated mean????
ok.......
What is NA???
What does naturally aspirated mean????
So, you press on the gas pedal, the throttle opens and air on a 14.7 (theoritical due to ambient variations due to altitude and other factors) psi of pressure enters. If you add a supercharger or a turbo, that 14.7 psi increases. Hence, it's not "naturally aspirated" any more.
Did that help?
11-25-2003, 06:42 AM
#156
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Washington DC (NOVA)
Age: 52
Posts: 16,399
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
Originally posted by Black CL-S 4-Life
Holy shit! The 540 Sport is faster than the Corvette, Carrera and Z28SS in this race.
Holy shit! The 540 Sport is faster than the Corvette, Carrera and Z28SS in this race.
Though remember, the first C5s were wearing those nasty non-flat tires. I think that's not the case any more. Hasn't been for a few years now. Average or bad tires will kill you in a 0-150-0 type of race.
11-26-2003, 10:02 AM
#158
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by gavriil
No kidding!
Though remember, the first C5s were wearing those nasty non-flat tires. I think that's not the case any more. Hasn't been for a few years now. Average or bad tires will kill you in a 0-150-0 type of race.
No kidding!
Though remember, the first C5s were wearing those nasty non-flat tires. I think that's not the case any more. Hasn't been for a few years now. Average or bad tires will kill you in a 0-150-0 type of race.
11-26-2003, 10:17 AM
#159
Shogun Assassin
Originally posted by Maximized
290 hp and 224 ft/lbs of tq in a 3153 lbs car does't equal low 13's IMHO. The 350Z has nearly the same hp and weighs the same, but only runs 13.8-14.0. What gives? Has anyone seen any actually timeslips or racing vids of an NSX???
290 hp and 224 ft/lbs of tq in a 3153 lbs car does't equal low 13's IMHO. The 350Z has nearly the same hp and weighs the same, but only runs 13.8-14.0. What gives? Has anyone seen any actually timeslips or racing vids of an NSX???
11-26-2003, 10:26 AM
#160
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Age: 43
Posts: 5,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by fahoumh
wouldn't gear ratios have some effect?
wouldn't gear ratios have some effect?