NSX versus GT-R
10-10-2016, 01:20 PM
#1
Safety Car
Thread Starter
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
2017 Acura NSX vs. 2017 Nissan GT-R Head 2 Head Comparison - Motor Trend
10-10-2016, 01:40 PM
#2
Team Owner
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.
You buy the GTR if you want to bitch slap most other cars.
You buy the NSX if you want to look good.
The following users liked this post:
ignition_key (10-30-2017)
10-10-2016, 01:52 PM
#3
Safety Car
Thread Starter
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
10-20-2016, 10:07 AM
#5
Senior Moderator
Works for me on my phone. Try a mobile device? 
The following users liked this post:
Tony Pac (10-23-2016)
10-20-2016, 11:10 AM
#6
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 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.
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.
10-22-2016, 07:22 AM
#7
Senior Moderator
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.
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.
Trending Topics
10-24-2016, 02:15 PM
#8
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 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.
- 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.
10-24-2016, 02:36 PM
#9
Team Owner
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.
10-25-2016, 12:02 PM
#10
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 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.
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.
10-25-2016, 12:06 PM
#11
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.
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.
if the engine isnt built with vtec in mind, it isnt happening.
10-25-2016, 12:29 PM
#12
Team Owner
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).
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).
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (10-25-2016)
10-25-2016, 12:35 PM
#13
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
justnspace (10-25-2016)
10-25-2016, 12:52 PM
#14
Safety Car
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...)
10-25-2016, 12:58 PM
#15
Team Owner
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (10-27-2016)
10-25-2016, 01:49 PM
#16
Safety Car
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...
10-25-2016, 02:09 PM
#17
Team Owner
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.
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (10-27-2016)
10-27-2016, 02:03 PM
#19
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,492
Received 834 Likes
on
518 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).
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).
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (10-27-2016)
01-02-2017, 06:51 PM
#20
Instructor
10-10-2017, 09:42 AM
#21
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2017
Age: 43
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.
10-15-2017, 09:38 AM
#23
Burning Brakes
10-15-2017, 12:37 PM
#24
Safety Car
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.
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.
06-05-2019, 08:06 AM
#26
Instructor
Having driven both the NSX and GT-R on the same track (different days though), I'll take the NSX any day. It is the quickest, smoothest way to get around AMP I've ever driven (and that includes a Lambo Huracan and R8 V10). That torque-vectoring front axel is magical on turn 6.
Also, the NSX is very comfortable, easy to see out of and would make a great daily driver if needed, yet still rips up the track.
Also, the NSX is very comfortable, easy to see out of and would make a great daily driver if needed, yet still rips up the track.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
trev0006
1G NSX (1990-2005)
0
07-04-2016 09:31 PM
