Why's the NSX faster?
03-31-2007, 08:19 AM
#41
Registered User
Originally Posted by C5's are better
The Nsx weighs 3150 pounds..Thats around 200 pounds less that the 350Z..
they dyno anywere from 245-265 rwhp bone stock on the 97-05 models..
bone stock NSX's have ran 12.9 at 108 mph on more than one ocassion..
My friends bone stock 05 NSX ran dead even from a 70-110 mph roll race against my 378 rwhp automatic C5 vette ( 2004)..
On a 30-110 roll race my friends stock NSX will loose by around 4 cars to my bone stock 410 rwhp and 465 rwt 99 viper...
that to me is very impressive since most cars ( including a stock C5) would be a tiny dot in my rear view from 70-110 mph..
How do they do it with only 250 rwhp?????
-.28-30 drag for starters is an amazing C5 or C6 vette like number
-3150 pounds is an amazing C5Z06 like weight
-But the thing that really dose it is the decent rwhp tied in with the great arodynamics and light weight is the INCREDIBLE 4.06 rear gears and LLLooong rpm's..
Imagine if C5 vettes had 4.06 gears instead of 3.42's and weighed 150 pounds less....You'd basicly have an NSX...
You will never know how fast the 97-05 NSX is with only 250 rwhp till you ride with some what and they punch it at 70 mph..My jaw dropped.
they dyno anywere from 245-265 rwhp bone stock on the 97-05 models..
bone stock NSX's have ran 12.9 at 108 mph on more than one ocassion..
My friends bone stock 05 NSX ran dead even from a 70-110 mph roll race against my 378 rwhp automatic C5 vette ( 2004)..
On a 30-110 roll race my friends stock NSX will loose by around 4 cars to my bone stock 410 rwhp and 465 rwt 99 viper...
that to me is very impressive since most cars ( including a stock C5) would be a tiny dot in my rear view from 70-110 mph..
How do they do it with only 250 rwhp?????
-.28-30 drag for starters is an amazing C5 or C6 vette like number
-3150 pounds is an amazing C5Z06 like weight
-But the thing that really dose it is the decent rwhp tied in with the great arodynamics and light weight is the INCREDIBLE 4.06 rear gears and LLLooong rpm's..
Imagine if C5 vettes had 4.06 gears instead of 3.42's and weighed 150 pounds less....You'd basicly have an NSX...
You will never know how fast the 97-05 NSX is with only 250 rwhp till you ride with some what and they punch it at 70 mph..My jaw dropped.
The NSX has to have aggresive gearing because they don't have the lowend like the v8s or v10s. Look at your viper yours is only 3.0xx. Get a more aggresive gearing and you will have traction issues unless you have sticky tires.
04-03-2007, 07:26 AM
#42
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea the nsx is the perfect balance between balance and power. They didnt need the big engines they just tuned for accelaration. The Nsx out accelrates most high end exotics.
04-03-2007, 07:32 AM
#43
New Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: small home.
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jonb7007
actually michaeljr started the rsx is faster..... and everyone just started going with it.. 
i gots followers
+repanyways, if i had a choice between a Z or NSX...i'd have to go with the NSX for it's well balanced track design. usually ppl who own NSX don't drag race but use it for the SCAA or autoX.
replace the N with an R
04-03-2007, 07:40 AM
#44
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
u cant compare a 350z with a nsx yes the Z is a amazing sports car but the nsx is in a different league every comparison of the nsx is held against top tier cars not the 40k sports car class lol. The tech nology int eh nsx and nsx r are that of jgtc magic. Though the Zs engine is actually a more powerfull powerplant. It will not stand a chance with a nsx on a road race track. Its just that much of a difference with gearing weight and balance.
04-03-2007, 07:42 AM
#45
New Member
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: small home.
Posts: 10,459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RBlover69
u cant compare a 350z with a nsx yes the Z is a amazing sports car but the nsx is in a different league every comparison of the nsx is held against top tier cars not the 40k sports car class lol. The tech nology int eh nsx and nsx r are that of jgtc magic. Though the Zs engine is actually a more powerfull powerplant. It will not stand a chance with a nsx on a road race track. Its just that much of a difference with gearing weight and balance.
NSX > Z
/close thread
04-03-2007, 07:58 AM
#47
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Whorelando
Posts: 2,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^ agreed Its just to much of a gap. U will need TTs or a well tuned bulit cammed engine im guessing. , R compounds a perfect braced and cambered suspension. The Z weighted to about the amuze Z specs. Brakes would have to be a really nice setup aswell since the brakes on the nsx are from god. And almost never fade unless your doing some serious laps. Gearing would have to be adjusted. I would say it would take alot of money to do thigns right to make a stock nsx look bad on a road race course. lol with a Z. lol And this isnt even considering what would be needed for the nsx R lol
04-03-2007, 04:05 PM
#49
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RBlover69
^ agreed Its just to much of a gap. U will need TTs or a well tuned bulit cammed engine im guessing. , R compounds a perfect braced and cambered suspension. The Z weighted to about the amuze Z specs. Brakes would have to be a really nice setup aswell since the brakes on the nsx are from god. And almost never fade unless your doing some serious laps. Gearing would have to be adjusted. I would say it would take alot of money to do thigns right to make a stock nsx look bad on a road race course. lol with a Z. lol And this isnt even considering what would be needed for the nsx R lol
you guys are starting to overrate the NSX.
A Z does not need TT to keep up. Any Z with FI would pretty much kill an nsx, and that includes the supercharged ones. A single turbo Z would destroy an nsx no doubt.
The nsx is amazing, but it is not untouchable. Let's not get all crazy.
04-03-2007, 06:06 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cubu
FI is not the cure all for road course or track, you need more than a turbo on a Z to match the performance of an NSX... the newer ones
I don't like to compare cars on a roadcourse because I know it is too driver dependent. I know the NSX handles really well and all, but the Z is not a slouch, if you add more power to it God knows how fast it can be around a course.
I was surprised it beat an Evo 9 in a not too long ago comparo around a course.
04-03-2007, 06:13 PM
#52
New Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like i posted early, power won't help with handling, adding a turbo will only make the Z handle worse, all the power in the world won't overcome the handling of an MR layout and an NSX at that
04-03-2007, 06:33 PM
#54
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cubu
like i posted early, power won't help with handling, adding a turbo will only make the Z handle worse, all the power in the world won't overcome the handling of an MR layout and an NSX at that
Power will help around a course. As long as the brakes are beefier and the suspension is tightened up it will help. The chassis can definitely handle it. It's a capable chassis, extremely rigid. There's nothing really special about an MR layout anyway. It makes the car easier to rotate yes, but at the hands of an average driver it can be a detriment because it will spin out of control more easily. I've heard that complaint about the NSX more than once.
What matters most in handling is 50/50 weight distribution and the Z has that already.
You guys don't know your own car's capabilities. It's kind of sad. I really don't think NSXs are THAT special anymore. They USED to be, not anymore. There are tons and tons of cars out there that will outclass it in every performance category. This is not the late nineties anymore. There are cars like the C6 z06 out there now, the Ferrarri F430, Porsche 997 tt, 997 gt3, to name a few. Those cars will lay the smack down on an NSX hardcore.
I don't know, it's going to be hard to convince me that a 350z with a turbo and some minor handling and braking mods is not going to be a match. Sorry.
04-04-2007, 04:53 AM
#56
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Quad Cities
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kleefton
Power will help around a course. As long as the brakes are beefier and the suspension is tightened up it will help. The chassis can definitely handle it. It's a capable chassis, extremely rigid. There's nothing really special about an MR layout anyway. It makes the car easier to rotate yes, but at the hands of an average driver it can be a detriment because it will spin out of control more easily. I've heard that complaint about the NSX more than once.
What matters most in handling is 50/50 weight distribution and the Z has that already.
You guys don't know your own car's capabilities. It's kind of sad. I really don't think NSXs are THAT special anymore. They USED to be, not anymore. There are tons and tons of cars out there that will outclass it in every performance category. This is not the late nineties anymore. There are cars like the C6 z06 out there now, the Ferrarri F430, Porsche 997 tt, 997 gt3, to name a few. Those cars will lay the smack down on an NSX hardcore.
I don't know, it's going to be hard to convince me that a 350z with a turbo and some minor handling and braking mods is not going to be a match. Sorry.
What matters most in handling is 50/50 weight distribution and the Z has that already.
You guys don't know your own car's capabilities. It's kind of sad. I really don't think NSXs are THAT special anymore. They USED to be, not anymore. There are tons and tons of cars out there that will outclass it in every performance category. This is not the late nineties anymore. There are cars like the C6 z06 out there now, the Ferrarri F430, Porsche 997 tt, 997 gt3, to name a few. Those cars will lay the smack down on an NSX hardcore.
I don't know, it's going to be hard to convince me that a 350z with a turbo and some minor handling and braking mods is not going to be a match. Sorry.
04-04-2007, 08:17 AM
#58
Registered User
VTAK + factory titanium connecting rods + factory forged steel crankshaft + all good things mentioned above = one of the sickest cars ever made.
i think the price is well worth it, cuz its a sports car with honda reliability.
lil side note. nsx was the first production car with titanium con. rods...
expensive stuff. id trade my Z for one of em in a second.
i think the price is well worth it, cuz its a sports car with honda reliability.
lil side note. nsx was the first production car with titanium con. rods...
expensive stuff. id trade my Z for one of em in a second.
04-04-2007, 08:40 AM
#59
New Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and how can you guys compare the NSX technology to a Vette? everyone knows that the NSX technology was way ahead of its time. if you weren't aware by now, the Japanese don't just throw in a bigger engine when they want more power, they are about efficiency. how are you comparing a 6 and 7 liter v8 to a 3.2l v6?
i love my Z and all, but i don't get it twisted. the Z will NEVER be the car the NSX is in their street form.
i love my Z and all, but i don't get it twisted. the Z will NEVER be the car the NSX is in their street form.
