when I talk 911s, I am referring to the 296 hp model and nOT the latest 315hp models

NSX-weighs 3131lbs, 290 HP and 224lbs-ft torque, I know the answe MUST have something to do with rear wt biased and putting HP to the ground, or gearing?? 0-60 in 4.5-4.9 range. power:wt ratio=10.8

M3-3415lbs, 333hp, 269 lbs-ft of torque, again same question (53/47 wt distribution, VERY similar to Zs) 0-60 in 4.6-4.8 range, power:wt=10.26

911-3080lbs, 296hp, 258ft-lbs of torque. This car is a bit lighter, so maybe that is the answer there. 0-60 in 4.7-5.0+ range.power:wt=10.41

all these cars to low to mid 13s in the 1/4

Z-3186-3300+lbs, 287hp, 274 ft-lbs, 0-60 in 5.4-5.8, 1/4 in high 13s/low 14s. power to wt=11.1-11.5

the thing that sticks out right away is the added wt.

BUT many (I have NEVER totally agreed) people say that TORQUE is WAY more important than HP to actually WIN races, if so, why doesn't the Z beat these 3 cars that have LESS torque???

don't get me wrong I am NOT complaining, what do you expect out of a $30k car??

just curious, thoughts???

btw, I LOVE the other 3 cars I mentioned, these are amoung my favorites (along with a 360 modena) so this isn't a SLAM on any of them.

 

I've often wondered the same thing, especially about the NSX. I mean that car gives away alot of tq and it's not that light. I've always thought of torque as more necessary as weight increases. I mean theoretically you could have a motor with 1000 tq and 1 hp...it would be extremely slow but it could tow my house.
Anyway, I've thought the the Z might be a little overrated in hp from the factory because of some the low dyno #'s posted. But then maybe it's rated correctly but the others have less drivetrain loss due to better effeciency and effectively put more power to the ground.

 

I think the horsepower is over rated. The carbon fiber drive shaft should be more efficient in transferring power to the wheels than a normal drive shaft. My 1993 RX-7 has 255 HP. and 217 lbs of torque yet accelerates quicker than my Performance Z. I have driven many cars with 300 HP and to me this car does not feel like a car with 287 HP.

 

Guys... there are many things that make a car fast. One thing many of you are right on is the Torque factor. HP is actually a function of Torque. HP = Torque*RPM/5250. So yes... what we want is a car with torque that lasts all the way through our useful rpm range. When you look at the NSX their engine revs 2000 more rpm than ours and they are probably geared much better. I dont know about all of you, but I am pissed my Z needs to shift at EXACTLY 60mph before the rev limiter cuts in. I think it should run to at least 65. Pisses me off, but I still love my baby Z. Also you guys broughup the point of weight distribution. Yes, the NSX and Porsches have similar weight distributions however, wheel diameter, width and weight are huge factors in acceleration. I would have to say though. the Z probably keeps up pretty well with these other cars. In order to run these 4.5 sec 0-60 times, those drivers are doing 6000rpm clutch drops. OUCH!

 

I don't think it is overated, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the NSX and the 911 have engines in the rear, what that mean is much less drivetrain loss (even compared to a CB one) and more power to the ground. The M3 is the one that would be comparable in design to the Z with a Front engine layout, YET it has just way MORE power than the Z.

 

I don't understand how the NSX is so fast. Looking at the #'s I'm wondering how the it's faster than the 911. 911 has 6 more hp, 34 more tq, weighs 51 pounds less, and they both have rear engine, so drivetrain less should be close. Yet the NSX is faster in the 0-60.

 

REDLINE??

 

look at my STOCK dyno numbers in my sig. 244rwhp (I got 243) would be exactly 287 at the crank with a 15% drivetrain loss. Which isn't bad at all for a front-engine, rear-wheel drive car. I don't think the Z is overrated at all.

 

Just a little FYI, I beat a 296hp 911 Carerra a few weeks ago.

 

Don't know what the redline is for either of them.

 

the NSX is either 8000 or 8500, the 911 (the 996 BEFORE they went to 315hp) was either 6600 or 7000ish, I can't remember)

as far as nissan "OVERRATING" the power, NO WAY

Look at how the nissans compare (speed wise) to other similar HP cars,

240hp Altima KILLS a 240 hp Accord
260hp G35 is even or slightly quicker than a 260hp Acura TL-s/CL-s
280hp G35c beats (which is should) a Acura CL-S

the Z has a VERY similar power to WT ratio as the S2000, and that is pretty much a drivers race.

I don't think NISSAN overrates their power

also, look how the FX45 is faster than a 342 HP MB ML55 and a BMW X5 4.6

 

For 0-60 times, gearing can be a big factor. I don't know if any of those other cars need to shift to third to hit 60, but I'd guess they don't. And it appears that the z hits the rev limiter in 2nd gear just before you reach 60. If 2nd went just a little farther, you could avoid the shift and save some time.

Also, even though the other cars have less peak torque, I wonder how the area under the curve compares to the z. The z torque curve is fairly flat, so the area under the curve is pretty good. I woundn't expect the others to be any better, especially the NSX.

 

The Altima kills the Accord because it is smaller and lighter...
A 14.5 @ 98-99 mph for the Accord is nothing to sneeze at.

 

Redline in second gear in the Z is 62mph...rev limiter is near 65...

 

I would have to say gearing and weight transfer. I have driven a 97 NSX (a friend of mine) and if you don't take off agressively it almost seems like a regular car until the cams change lobes...not sure what rpm they kick in, going back a couple of years now...but if you take off at a high rpm not much wheel spin and it just goes! The gear changes come real quick with that car. I can't coment of the other 2 cars.

 

My speedo must be off then...along with the gtech I tried. Are you sure it'll go to 62 mph? If I tried to ride second gear out, it would result in a slower time because it bounced off the rev limiter before hitting 60 according to the gtech. Of course, the gtech isn't the most accurate piece of equipment.

 

Ya I am not sure about his speedo, my car hits the limiter at 61-62mph hard and instantly.

 

Ok, I just realized that there is a difference between the digital and analog readings in my car. I usually look at the digital readout in the gauge pod, which I now see is 2 to 3 mph lower than what the analog speedometer says. Since I was looking at the digital reading and saw ~58mph when I hit the rev limiter, that would mean the analog was reading 60 or 61 mph.

I'm going to see if I can find the tranny gear ratios and the rear gear ratio. I'd like to calculate this just to see for sure...these little things bug the crap out of me

 

Don't forget about GEARING!
If a car has the same power or slightly more or less but has "gearing" to optimize that power to the ground...it'll be quicker. Just like gearing will effect "top-end" on the same powered cars.