Notices

NSX versus GT-R

 
Old 10-10-2016, 01:20 PM
  #1  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
getakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,835
Received 399 Likes on 299 Posts
NSX versus GT-R

I know the GT-R has launch control, but I'm still surprised it beats the NSX off the line

2017 Acura NSX vs. 2017 Nissan GT-R Head 2 Head Comparison - Motor Trend
getakey is offline  
Old 10-10-2016, 01:40 PM
  #2  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,495
Received 4,404 Likes on 3,313 Posts
Why are you surprised? That's exactly what launch control is for.

You buy the GTR if you want to bitch slap most other cars.

You buy the NSX if you want to look good.
TacoBello is offline  
The following users liked this post:
ignition_key (10-30-2017)
Old 10-10-2016, 01:52 PM
  #3  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
getakey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,835
Received 399 Likes on 299 Posts
the NSX has electric motors which help it off the line - guess they aren't big enough. However, they do make a difference since it is only a slight advantage for the GT-R from 0 to 30
getakey is offline  
Old 10-13-2016, 08:37 PM
  #4  
Registered Member
 
Tony Pac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Posts: 1,085
Received 249 Likes on 167 Posts
The video is on demand. By any chance someone can post one?

thanks
Tony Pac is offline  
Old 10-20-2016, 10:07 AM
  #5  
Senior Moderator
 
oo7spy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 24,998
Received 4,439 Likes on 3,178 Posts
Works for me on my phone. Try a mobile device?
oo7spy is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Tony Pac (10-23-2016)
Old 10-20-2016, 11:10 AM
  #6  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 9,016
Received 561 Likes on 380 Posts
You can read the comparo here to:
2017 Acura NSX vs. 2017 Nissan GT-R Head 2 Head Comparison - Motor Trend

If you look at the accleration stats, by 90mph, they are the same (i.e. both takes 5.9s to reach 90mph). Also look at the 1/4 mile trap speed, they are pretty much identical, with the NSX having a very small advantage.

My interpretation from the above is that Honda didn't set the launch control of the NSX to be very aggressive. From the videos I've seen, with launch control, the launch rpm is just a bit over 2000rpm. It doesn't launch extremely hard like some other cars with launch control system. Out on the road, these two cars would pretty much be the same acceleration wise.

Over the years, the GT-R's 0-60mph has varied from 2.7s to 3.5s. I wouldn't rule out the same thing happening to the NSX too as Honda makes updates to the NSX.
iforyou is offline  
Old 10-22-2016, 07:22 AM
  #7  
Senior Moderator
 
neuronbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cleveland area, OH
Posts: 19,244
Received 3,503 Likes on 1,766 Posts
I'm pretty sure Acura set the launch control for clutch preservation (relatively speaking).

Further, this is just the first year of the new NSX. I'm sure Hondacura will update when needed. Unlike with their everyday cars, which as we all know are only updated at model year 3 or 4, the higher-profile NSX ought to be tweaked more often to safely maximize performance....you would think. We'll see.
neuronbob is offline  
Old 10-24-2016, 02:15 PM
  #8  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 9,016
Received 561 Likes on 380 Posts
The NSX has a lot of headroom for gains.
- The turbo boost is so low especially for a purpose built engine at just 15 psi.
- No VTEC implementation, can it be added with relatively ease?
- The electric motor and battery technologies are advancing rapidly. Just look at how Tesla went from P85D to P90D, and how its 0-60mph time shortens from 3.3s to 2.8s. And now, there's the P100D that is even faster.
iforyou is offline  
Old 10-24-2016, 02:36 PM
  #9  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,495
Received 4,404 Likes on 3,313 Posts
I think there was reasoning behind the no VTEC route... It really isn't necessary for a boosted vehicle. I think in this case it would make the car difficult to control once it engages. Boost + VTEC likely means the power curve jumps at ~4800rpm.
TacoBello is offline  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:02 PM
  #10  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 9,016
Received 561 Likes on 380 Posts
I can certainly see what you mean - BMW also discarded the valvetronic system in the N54 since the torque curve can be made to be very flat with the turbochargers. For Honda, the 1.5T in the Civic also doesn't have VTEC.

On the other hand, Honda uses VTEC in the Civic Type R's 2.0T engine. It's used on the exhaust side to reduce turbo lag (high lift for increasing exhaust gas pressure to spin the turbine more quickly). I guess at such low boost along with the electric motors, the motors can easily hide the turbo lag.

But if Honda decides to turn up the boost for more power, perhaps adding back VTEC to reduce turbo lag may be necessary.
iforyou is offline  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:06 PM
  #11  
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
justnspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 80,410
Received 13,974 Likes on 10,380 Posts
Originally Posted by iforyou View Post
I can certainly see what you mean - BMW also discarded the valvetronic system in the N54 since the torque curve can be made to be very flat with the turbochargers. For Honda, the 1.5T in the Civic also doesn't have VTEC.

On the other hand, Honda uses VTEC in the Civic Type R's 2.0T engine. It's used on the exhaust side to reduce turbo lag (high lift for increasing exhaust gas pressure to spin the turbine more quickly). I guess at such low boost along with the electric motors, the motors can easily hide the turbo lag.

But if Honda decides to turn up the boost for more power, perhaps adding back VTEC to reduce turbo lag may be necessary.
vtec is mechanical.
if the engine isnt built with vtec in mind, it isnt happening.
justnspace is online now  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:29 PM
  #12  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,495
Received 4,404 Likes on 3,313 Posts
I don't think it's a huge change to make an engine have vtec. The system is rather simple and is all within the head itself.

Add a high lift lobe to the cams, different rocker arms that can act on the high lift lobe when vtec engages, the vtec solenoid, plus a few other minor things. I'd say at least 80% of the engine can remain unchanged.

I imagine it wouldn't be cheap, simply due to how little of them would be manufactured, but it is plausible. The bottom end is already capable of handling high rpm, as is the head (valve springs, etc).
TacoBello is offline  
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (10-25-2016)
Old 10-25-2016, 12:35 PM
  #13  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 9,016
Received 561 Likes on 380 Posts
Not sure if the engine was built with VTEC in mind....may be, may be not. Right now, it doesn't have VTEC, but it doesn't VTEC can't be implemented if the engine was designed to be compatible with VTEC.

For instance, some B series engines have VTEC, and some don't.

But ya, it might not come cheap. However, the NSX project wasn't cheap to begin with anyway. I think in the end of the day, it depends on whether the benefits are worth the extra cost involved. Perhaps the electric motors can be upgraded enough to mask higher boost pressure, and so VTEC wouldn't be needed.

Last edited by iforyou; 10-25-2016 at 12:37 PM.
iforyou is offline  
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (10-25-2016)
Old 10-25-2016, 12:52 PM
  #14  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,202
Received 561 Likes on 385 Posts
And I thought the VTEC (and all of its modern variants) were a compromise between lower RPM efficiency and higher RPM power. So with a purely high-performance platform like the NSX...it wouldn't really need VTEC per se? (Though the original NSX did have VTEC I think...)
nist7 is offline  
Old 10-25-2016, 12:58 PM
  #15  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,495
Received 4,404 Likes on 3,313 Posts
No. That's not correct.

Let's for argument's sake say VTEC kicks in at 5000rpm.

From 0rpm to 5000rpm, the engine behaves like any other engine would behave. The engine operates it's normal cam lobes (low lift) for normal driving. With only having one type of lobe, an engine can do one of two things: good power down low, but die higher in the rpm range, or, poor power down low and good power up high.

What VTEC does is when the power level is about to start petering out due to the low lift cam lobe being maxed out for how much air is being brought into the combustion chamber, the high lift (VTEC) lobe engages and continues to carry the power curve up until redline. I'm sure Honda dyno tunes their engines to see where the power starts to drop and that's where they implement the VTEC engage point at, say, 5000rpm. Honda essentially figured out how to make an engine produce good power in both low and high rpm, within a single engine.

While there might be some minor sacrifices down low (generally torque, I believe), they aren't huge.

Last edited by TacoBello; 10-25-2016 at 01:00 PM.
TacoBello is offline  
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (10-27-2016)
Old 10-25-2016, 01:49 PM
  #16  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,202
Received 561 Likes on 385 Posts
I see. So VTEC is essentially a power-maximizing feature and as you said...essentially you can two cams in one engine to maximize power in high and low rpm ranges. A side effect may also be fuel efficiency as well then in the lower ranges...if say a car maker can put a milder/MPG-maximizing cam and then compensate for the loss in power by adding a VTEC-style design to get more hp from higher rpms...
nist7 is offline  
Old 10-25-2016, 02:09 PM
  #17  
Registered Member
 
TacoBello's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: In an igloo
Posts: 30,495
Received 4,404 Likes on 3,313 Posts
Yeah, potentially. I believe I-VTEC tries to maximize the fuel economy, but don't quote me on that. I'm not 100% certain on how they balance out what they want, in terms of economy, power, whatever else.
TacoBello is offline  
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (10-27-2016)
Old 10-25-2016, 02:17 PM
  #18  
Moderator
iTrader: (1)
 
justnspace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 80,410
Received 13,974 Likes on 10,380 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post
Yeah, potentially. I believe I-VTEC tries to maximize the fuel economy, but don't quote me on that. I'm not 100% certain on how they balance out what they want, in terms of economy, power, whatever else.
easy, by not ever going over 300 crank hp.
stuck at 290 forever.
justnspace is online now  
Old 10-27-2016, 02:03 PM
  #19  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 9,016
Received 561 Likes on 380 Posts
i-VTEC is basically VTEC + Continuous cam-phasing variable valve timing. While VTEC is used to boost high end power mainly without comproising low end torque, the latter improves torque delivery across a wide rev range.

If we think of this on a torque curve, a normal engine torque curve would start falling off after 5000rpm or so. VTEC ensures the torque curve stays flat until redline. And the continuous cam-phasing variable valve timing pretty much shifts the whole curve up (more torque all over the rev range).
iforyou is offline  
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (10-27-2016)
Old 01-02-2017, 06:51 PM
  #20  
Registered Member
 
ECRD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: North East
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes on 16 Posts
Originally Posted by TacoBello View Post
Why are you surprised? That's exactly what launch control is for.

You buy the GTR if you want to bitch slap most other cars.

You buy the NSX if you want to look good.
Well said, Well said...
ECRD is offline  
Old 10-10-2017, 09:42 AM
  #21  
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Age: 38
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why is honda afraid to make real power? With the first gen they had the stupid gentlemen agreement that now one else really cared for, and now the 2nd gen, 573 may sou d like alot but your competitors are making 600+ . Gen 1 had the weight advantage but now it's a porker at near 4000 lbs. Ferraris and lambos weigh the same but make 700-800 no.
Win Tran is offline  
Old 10-11-2017, 12:21 PM
  #22  
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
 
iforyou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 32
Posts: 9,016
Received 561 Likes on 380 Posts
I don't know man but the closes Ferrari is the 488 GTB which makes 650hp but it starts at $250k.
iforyou is offline  
Old 10-15-2017, 09:38 AM
  #23  
Registered Member
 
Tech's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Right Here
Posts: 401
Received 67 Likes on 50 Posts
Originally Posted by getakey View Post
I know the GT-R has launch control...
But can it be used 50 times in a row back to back?

Tech is offline  
Old 10-15-2017, 12:37 PM
  #24  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,202
Received 561 Likes on 385 Posts
Originally Posted by Win Tran View Post
Why is honda afraid to make real power? With the first gen they had the stupid gentlemen agreement that now one else really cared for, and now the 2nd gen, 573 may sou d like alot but your competitors are making 600+ . Gen 1 had the weight advantage but now it's a porker at near 4000 lbs. Ferraris and lambos weigh the same but make 700-800 no.

The Lambos/Ferraris that make 700+ are NOT in a class to compete with the NSX at all dude.....lol. By your measurement, the 911 Turbo S, the standard Audi R8, and the 570S are also underpowered

And the Huracan now has a LP580-2 variant as well. NSX's closest segment (looking purely at price and car platform) is right there with its hp:
  • Acura NSX - 570hp
  • Audi R8 has 540hp, with the V10+ at 610.
  • McLaren 570S is at ~560hp.
  • Porsche 911 Turbo S is at 572hp.
All these start in MSRP between 150k-200k, and basically all can be had with options that get close to or top 200k. All are between 560-600hp. The NSX's 570 is right there in the middle.

Also the Lambos/Ferraris that make 700+ are NOT in a class to compete with the NSX at all dude.....lol

Last edited by nist7; 10-15-2017 at 12:40 PM.
nist7 is offline  
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
AZuser
Motorsports News
17
02-08-2019 03:56 PM
TSX69
Second Generation NSX (2017+)
74
08-09-2017 07:25 PM
EE4Life
Second Generation NSX (2017+)
0
07-14-2016 07:06 PM
trev0006
First Generation NSX (1990-2005)
0
07-04-2016 09:31 PM
neuronbob
Second Generation NSX (2017+)
2
03-27-2016 09:09 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: NSX versus GT-R


Contact Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.