'97 NSX-T v. '97 Supra Turbo

Bill Zachar, bzachar@ix.netcom.com
Sun, 31 Aug 1997 18:40:53

Two weeks ago I traded in my '97 Supra Turbo 6-speed for a '97 NSX-T 6-speed. About a month before that I raced a pre-94 NSX (he had the old style wheels). From a couple of standing starts at stop lights he easily out accelerated me until the Supra hit 4000 RPM. By that time he was approx. 100-150 feet ahead of me. At that point the Supra generated enough boost/power to keep the gap from getting any bigger. These were only acceleration duels to 90-100 on a straight road, no curves nor corners. The Supra has 2 turbos, one small, one large. The small one runs across the entire rev band. The big one starts spooling-up at 3000 RPM and comes on-line at 4000. The lack of low-end torque in the Supra was it's Achilles heel.

After driving my NSX for 2 weeks the differences:

'97 NSXT

'97 Supra Turbo

I like my NSX better.

Supra Turbo

Bryan Chow, bryan@translogic.com

I've driven both the NSX-T and the Supra Turbo. The Supra was fast, but didn't FEEL that fast. You sit upright like you would in a normal car. The shifter does not feel as precise and short as the NSX, but it has 6 gears (okay, so does the '97 NSX). Aside from financial considerations, there are only two advantages to the Supra: practicality (real trunk and midget-sized rear seats) and the upgradeability. You can get 400 hp with about $1000! And there are companies in Japan that offer 6-800 hp bolt-on kits. Also, there is hardly any turbo lag with the stock sequential turbos.

The NSX offers better handling, more exclusivity and a much more striking mid-engined appearance, better engine sound, much nicer interior. Basically, it is much more fun to drive.

Performance-wise, stock-vs-stock they are very close. Don't let the incredible numbers it received when it first came out (13.2@109 mph) fool you - Toyota has admitted that the early test cars ran on increased boost (ie. they cheated.) I've also heard that, along with the $10,000 price cut for '97, performance is slightly reduced (read it on the Supra list).

Artdes3192@aol.com

Seems like a bunch of people who can afford NSXs are upset about Supras doing a better showing on magazine acceleration specs. Big Deal! Drive a Supra, then drive the NSX. In terms of the quality of the driving experience, the
Supra is a Buck Knife and the NSX is a surgeon's scalpel. On a road course with a driver experienced in low polar moment (mid engined) car, the NSX will have a clear advantage. Magazine editors who don't commute with mid-engine cars are confused by the "on the edge" characteristics of mid-engined cars; they feel "alien" trying to balance braking and power application for a true CG "parabolic" line through a constant radius turn. Also, Honda has specified 33 - F / 39 - R psi for the NSX's tires. Reverse that and the car is both a tad bit edgier, but much quicker by the watch (really helps
alleviate low speed understeer).

Besides my "new" '94 NSX, I own a 1970 Trans Am w/auto trans, and no external engine mods (The inside is almost all Pontiac, but balanced, blueprinted, and heavily massaged for airflow). Despite a 3.31 rear end and old Goodyear radials (G60 x 15s) it easily clocked 13.08 at 108 mph (this despite having to nurse the throttle all the way through first gear) clearly stonger timewise than any factory NSX. Adding headers, intake, Holley 1050 carb, Hoosier tires, free flow exhaust, and a 3.90 rear put my friends similarly built 406ci T/A through the quarter around 11.8 at 125 mph shifting at 6700 rpm. Both of our T/As are lowered and have mild suspension mods for maximizing lat Gs and turn-in.

Simply put, my T/A would easily run with the NSX or Supra at Willow Springs where brakes aren't a big factor. My friends T/A with its prodigious power, four wheel discs, and aforementioned accessorization would simply lap the NSX or Supra about every twelfth time around. He has many hours of his own labor plus a total of about $20,000 tied up in his T/A (over the initial cost of the car). If he put another $20,000 in it (for a total invetment equal to the cost of a max. discounted base Toyota Supra, he could derive another 125 reliable hp., go full roll cage w/ coil over rear suspension, Alcon or other aftermarket brake setup, and a good 5 speed in place of the Turbo 400 /B&M automatic (Cars like this pull about 1.4 Gs w/ DOT approved tires). I feel this would achieve at least parity with the Viper, because the handling is exceptional, the power output is already 520+ net on the dyno with a factory bottom end.

Pardon my long windedness, but if numbers are what you are looking for, why piss money away on an NSX or Supra to acheive it? Enjoy them for what they are; go ahead and play with boost, exhausts, K&N filters, chips, etc. Just get back to fiscal reality if screaming, bitchin speed is what you want. For real speed, combine an old Tennessee boy (or John Ligenfelter - if you please) who can build a reliable 600 - 625 net horsepower small block with anyone who has been race or autocross tuning GM F-Body chassis' & powertrains for years, and throw in modern technology (brakes).

Aerodynamically, old Camaros and Firebirds ( circa 1970 - 1981) are scary past about 150 (stock suspension height), 165 (lowered to racing height), and about 180 (with aero mods such as active fender extractors, reshaped air dam, and larger rear spoiler). Considering that my 1970 T/A has a drag coefficient of .42, it is understandable that it can't go more than about 155. The fact is that AC Cobras were the same way, and a 600 hp side oiler (not an S/C) would eat anything short of a McLaren F1 or an F50 at a place like Willow Springs. So if the venue doesn't have room for more than 170 or 180, higher top speed is a moot point. A hard accelerating street car that will hit 160 - 165 is plenty fast.

The NSX is an exotic with incredible reliability, reasonable price, and a level of handling finesse unmatched by any other car available outside of a F355 or F50. I mean - HELL - IT IS A HONDA! However, on any given day it could lose a drag race to the likes of a stock Firebird Formula / T/A, Camaro Z28, Mustang Cobra, Mazda RX1, etc. I did not buy mine to street race. It is fast, but that is not the total focus of its being.

The Supra, on the other hand, is the ultimate expression of the Celica engineering portfolio, employing 5 or 6 generations of refinement with an turbocharged engine that is second only to a Chevy smallblock (among all high performance cars) in age of original design. The fact that a factory can set the boost pressure based on Toyota's marketing strategy does not make the Supra the equivalent of (and certainly not superior to) the NSX. It simply means that power was the cheapset commodity (via turbocharging) to get the Supra into the class of "supercar". Come on guys - this car's target was to beat the Corvette (with Toyota reliability); the NSX's was to beat the Ferrari 512 (with Accord reliability).

One can neither quantify nor qualify the total driving experience of a street car by knowledge of or worry about its ability to outaccelerate another vehicle on the street. This concern only matters at intersection bottlenecks and onramps, and only then if your car can't do 0 - 60 in less than 11 seconds (which my former 3 VWs would do).

If you want a raw power thrill with formidable handling, and you don't mind noise, harsh ride, poor mileage, constantly damaged undercarriage and airdams, etc., etc., etc., buy an old GM F-Body, add 40 grand, and go chase F50s and McLaren F1s; nothing else will have a chance. For crying out loud - there are guys out there running $50,000 streetable F-Bodies that run sub 9 second quarter miles at over 160 mph!

But if you are willing to pay the price of a new Supra for a 4 year old car in excellent condition, and you want a machine that is quiet, smooth, fast, comfortable, convenient to service, a dropjaw stare magnet, great for commuting, autocross, cross country forays, and able to manuver like a Cheetah on amphetamines, NSX is for you.

In a world where marketing hype is seemingly more important than the time it takes to build an informed, experienced opinion, there is always going to be someone who believes "9 out of 10 choose New Improved Tootsie Rolls over Godiva Chocolates" and "9 out of 10 people chose the Dodge Aries K over the Mercedes 450 SEL".

If a person of means chooses a Supra over an NSX because of its 50% greater torque giving it a slight edge in acceleration performance specs reported in magazine articles, the crumpled candy wrappers on his floorboard most likely
won't be the shiny gold ones; and he probably has a Dodge Aries K with a Pogue Fish Carburetor and Cow Magnet on the fuel line in his past. His neck chain is hollow, his Rolex was made in Korea, and most of the paintings in his house are from Motel 6's last auction.

On the other hand, if he bought his Supra because it has great performance, looks, comfort, whatever, and is a more practical car than an NSX in terms of interior capacity, or because it was the best new car for him in his price range, he's livin' in the real world, and I hope he'll enjoy what I feel is a truly fine Sports/GT.

At this time, I'd likto say goodbuy to the dumbass who once told me that his dad's 1970 Dual Gate Hurst Olds had a clutch peddle that dropped down from under the dash when he slid the shift gate on the console into the manual position. I'd also like to say goodbye to my pimply spring visitor whose '52 Chevy Pickup (complete with twisted coat hanger antenna) can run 210 mph on a used mix of bald and ailing bias ply and radial filling station specials. Mom: I love you; don't sell the Caddy. Dad: You're 77 - BUY THE VETTE!!!