991 Turbo, Nissan GTR and NSX

a good quote indeed...

tucsonsx said:

The first generation NSX wasn't a " numbers " car and neither is the second generation car. I really doubt that any of the buyers of the second generation car lose any sleep if brand X has a better number in any one category or categories. In my experience that sort of comparison really doesn't have much do with the buying decisions of the people who have the wherewithal to buy this type of car.

Click to expand...

MasterNSXTech said:

This is spot on.

So really. If your car buying habits is just one big upmanship dickmeasuring contest of who's got the car with the best magazine test numbers? Then just go out and get an ACR and be done with it.

Click to expand...

so in theory, losing comparison tests has no effect on the buying habits of a potential NSX buyer, and more people were going to buy 911's, R8's, and GTR's regardless of any perceived or actual performance advantage anyway?

Do we measure "on boost" or "off boost?"

may as well measure the "full boost"... :biggrin:

fastaussie said:

so in theory, losing comparison tests has no effect on the buying habits of a potential NSX buyer, and more people were going to buy 911's, R8's, and GTR's regardless of any perceived or actual performance advantage anyway?

Click to expand...

Of course it has an effect. Because there are far...far more magazine racer keyboard warriors out there than actual buyers of cars these. They see XX car lose a comparison test, and it becomes totally irrelevant trash to them. Then when their buddy who actually is a buyer for a car like this is in the market, they get council from this guy "who knows cars" and they tell their buddy to get the YY because XX sucks. That's just one of several scenarios that comes of losing a magazine test.

People want bragging rights. I get it. And I hear it all the time. My car can go 200mph. Mycar can go over 1g in the turns. My car lapped the 'ring in under 7:30. Blah blah blah. Hold up there Balboni, because well unless you can and actually have done that in your car, then all those stats mean absolutely jack shit to me. Some kid in a new 1LE Camaro who knows what they're doing could embarrass you and your supposed super car.

The ACR is right now one of the absolute fastest cars around a track south of FU money for the price of a car. Yet I'd be willing to bet that less than 1% of the car buyers out there could control that car to within even 80% of its limit before they turned it into a wild maniac just one more spin away from getting black flagged. Is the NSX as fast? Hell no. But to your typical car buyer, it is faster. Because it's so remarkably easier to drive it at its limit. And when you make the environment more where the typical buyer will be driving, you know, not a track, then the forgiveness of the NSX bridges the skill gap even more so.

[MENTION=33024]MasterNSXTech[/MENTION]: They stopped taking orders for the Viper (and ACR). It's done. Forever. The C7 Z06 is the fastest <$500K production car (in terms of lap times) that you can actually order a new one to your spec for MSRP (or less) and get it in your driveway in 6 weeks (or drive it home tonight if buy off the lot). Not saying it's "the best" car, but it should be worshipped by all here who pray to the "numbers" Gods. And yet people say it's not a "real supercar" and, therefore in a different category. Ok. Whatever. It's either all about the numbers / bragging rights, or it isn't. Pick one.

Also, to your point, any serious Spec Miata driver will spank 90% of people in their supercars on their first track day. No shame in that, but helps keep things in perspective.

I don't think these magazine numbers are completely irrelevant, but I agree with the gist of the sentiment.

When you spend this kind of money, you do want to see some sort of objective justification for picking X over Y.

That said, yes -- these cars are roughly equivalent in the real world. I mean, the Turbo is pretty optimized for 0-60. So much so that the Turbo S is not any faster than the Turbo to 60 MPH.

I don't think I've seen a comparison between the NSX and the Turbo or GTR in real world conditions - on a roll, for instance. I might be missing it, but it wouldn't surprise me if the NSX felt the same or faster, given the typical power delivery of an electric drivetrain. I have no idea if that's true -- just a thought.

All I can say is that I would probably lose my license in two months of nsx ownership.

chrisn said:

@MasterNSXTech: They stopped taking orders for the Viper (and ACR). It's done. Forever. The C7 Z06 is the fastest <$500K production car (in terms of lap times) that you can actually order a new one to your spec for MSRP (or less) and get it in your driveway in 6 weeks (or drive it home tonight if buy off the lot). Not saying it's "the best" car, but it should be worshipped by all here who pray to the "numbers" Gods. And yet people say it's not a "real supercar" and, therefore in a different category. Ok. Whatever. It's either all about the numbers / bragging rights, or it isn't. Pick one.

Click to expand...

Oh I know the Viper is all done. But there's still some sitting in showrooms unsold right now.

And yes the Z06 is an absolute monster. I think because it is so "attainable" by more people is what for some stupid reason keeps it's name off the table whenever the what is a supercar discussion comes up. And as fast as the Z06 is, the Corvette team ain't stopping there. Because there's an even more powerful engine in the pipeline for 2018.

fastaussie said:

then be less presumptuous, that's my advice. if you haven't made a staggeringly ignorant reply specifically to me, assume that it isn't you?

again, i answered your technical and personal questions, and yet you are still carrying this on...



you're right in some regards, but neither the NSX or GTR is faster with launch control turned off, versus turned on. so that point is moot because each is at its best in launch mode.

again, spinning the NSX higher than it's torque peak offers no benefit. torque accelerates a vehicle from a stop, not horsepower. a certain amount of wheelspin is desired to keep the engine on the boil, but too much smokes tires and burns time.

Nissan did a better job with the programming and balance of available grip, weight transfer, gearing, maximum thrust, etc. that's all...

Click to expand...

If you look at the latest EVO test of the 918 spyder vs NSX, you will notice that the test driver managed to shorten the acceleration time for the NSX by not using the launch control system. He commented that the launch control system would shifts too early for 1st to 2nd gear.

As to why Honda would leave room with the launch control system, it's probably because they are being conservative. Honda tends to do that a lot, which IMO isn't the best idea. For the NSX case, I guess the didn't want the tranny to blow up like the early GT-R models. The replacement cost for the GTR tranny was $20k at that time.

Regarding the launch rpm of 2200rpm, even though the NSX engine makes its combined peak torque at 2000rpm, it doesn't mean that's the most optimal launch rpm. Sure, there are electric motors, but, those aren't really powerful motors either. The key is the multiplication of torque. This is why people that drag race would install high stall torque converter and set their stall rpm quite high - much higher than the peak torque rpm. It's about horsepower and torque AT THE WHEELS, not at the engine. By having the launch rpm higher, one can take good advantage of that and launch much faster, assuming there's enough grip. This is also why for the Porsche 911 Turbo S, its launch control rpm is at 5500rpm, even though it makes its peak torque at 2250pm.

Going back to the EVO test, that NSX launching at 2200pm doesn't have any traction issue despite wearing the low grip conti's on a not-so-nice concrete pavement. There's definitely room for improvement with a better launch rpm on better pavement with the Trofeo R's. At its current state, the NSX actually bogs down quite a bit when doing a standing start with or without launch control.

iforyou1109 said:

Going back to the EVO test, that NSX launching at 2200pm doesn't have any traction issue despite wearing the low grip conti's on a not-so-nice concrete pavement. There's definitely room for improvement with a better launch rpm on better pavement with the Trofeo R's. At its current state, the NSX actually bogs down quite a bit when doing a standing start with or without launch control.

Click to expand...

each car has its own set of variables for an optimum launch. weight transfer, gearing, tires width, and contact patch size, engine placement, electronics, and so on and so on. and each manufacturer spends 1000's of hours figuring it out. my opinion on why the NSX launches where it does, is because Honda deemed it the best preset RPM for launching it. as you stated, there are many other factors involved in launch control. dragracers don't expect to get 100,000+ miles out of their drive trains or clutches, and their vehicles are not factory warrantied.

everything can easily be made to do one particular thing faster, every car out there. you might launch at a higher RPM, and the NSX may spin more, negating any perceived advantage?

but you also have to take into consideration that maybe Honda could have changed the gearing or tire size, or boost curve, or 100 other things to make it launch quicker. and then it wouldn't handle as well, or stop as well? or have a lower top speed, or get worse fuel mileage?

there's a fine balance to everything, "balance" being the key word to almost everything in life, and especially in high performance automobiles. and Honda (whether conservatively or not?) have the NSX currently launching as hard as possible for all intents and purposes. if they could have made it quicker without upsetting the balance of everything else, they would have...

With the Evo test, I think it's pretty clear that there's quite a bit of grip left for a harder launch. The tester already mentioned the test car only had the Conti's, and the surface does not have optimal traction like a proper test track.


Yes, balance is key. The point here is that, Honda seems to have chosen a more conservative balance - this is seen as holding back by some on this forum. Why is that? May be because Honda saw how the GT-R got into trouble back in 2007/2008 with its aggressive launch control system? Or perhaps because Honda hasn't designed a new supercar from the ground up since like 30 years ago, it's safer to be conservative? Honda simply does not have the experience compared to some other manufacturers. For instance, Audi, Porsche, and Nissan have been using launch control on 500hp+ cars for 10 years or more. They can be less conservative with their launch control system. Engineers can spend hours of figuring things out, but still no match for real world experience.


When a regular journalist is able to get a better result than the launch control system, I think it's obvious that the NSX "balance" is more on the conservative side.

the GTR's earlier tranny woes didn't seem to hurt its sales however did it?

whatever Honda's reasons, unless you work for them, it's all speculation. it's their car, they made it, and it's as fast as it is, for now...

p.s. what is the journo's quicker time?

Second hand info, but the claim was 0-60mph in 3.0 on the Continentals, and a cold surface.

The interesting factor (if I remember correctly) is an insurance adjuster told me that something like 40% of Viper owners end up totaling their cars in the first few years of ownership because of the immense (hard to tame) torque that the V10 produces. The Corvette is in a similar category with the large displacement V8. The 90+% of owners who will never be able to extract the performance resonates the true reality and most owners would never even take these cars to the track so the magazine bragging rights is not realistic at all.

There is just that almost intangible factor of actually driving and owning a preferred "supercar" or sports cars that most will never truly understand.

Speaking of intangibles, here's a quote from a 1995 C&D comparison where the NSX came in 2nd to the Porsche 911 Turbo (and beat the Ferrari, Lotus, and Corvette):

"...don't be shocked that this, the least powerful car in our super five (and also the slowest to 60, mph and through the quarter-mile), fin*ished only three points behind the fastest, most powerful car in the group.

How can this happen? Here's how: track numbers tell you zip about a car's usable performance in Ann Arbor traffic, and they tell you little about making nine‑tenths passes on the blind, downhill, off-camber turn just outside Burr Oak Lodge."

Of course, it would be unfair not to point out that the NSX was hardly a sales success by this point.

N Spec said:

The interesting factor (if I remember correctly) is an insurance adjuster told me that something like 40% of Viper owners end up totaling their cars in the first few years of ownership because of the immense (hard to tame) torque that the V10 produces. The Corvette is in a similar category with the large displacement V8. The 90+% of owners who will never be able to extract the performance resonates the true reality and most owners would never even take these cars to the track so the magazine bragging rights is not realistic at all.

There is just that almost intangible factor of actually driving and owning a preferred "supercar" or sports cars that most will never truly understand.

Click to expand...

early model Vipers handled like absolute rubbish, and didn't have traction control (if i recall?). base Corvette's weren't heaps better in the handling department either.

you're right that 95% of Supercar owners will never see the other side of the fence at a race track. but bench racing and bragging rights are still important when people chuck down a quarter mill...

fastaussie said:

the GTR's earlier tranny woes didn't seem to hurt its sales however did it?

whatever Honda's reasons, unless you work for them, it's all speculation. it's their car, they made it, and it's as fast as it is, for now...

p.s. what is the journo's quicker time?

Click to expand...

That's right, the GTR's trainny woes didn't hurt sales much. But I'd imagine the company didn't want such bad reception either..and all the PR and warranty claims, lawsuits, etc. Of course, it's all speculation, but it's not some wild guesses either. Yes, right now, it's as fast as it is. The point here is that, it seems like Honda has left some room on the table for a more conservative "balance" approach. The journalist on his 2nd attempt of not using the launch control managed 3.0s for 0-60mph, 0.1s faster than what the launch control system can do.

fastaussie said:

the GTR's earlier tranny woes didn't seem to hurt its sales however did it?

Click to expand...

Well, I blew a GT-R transmission on track on my early 2009 and made Nissan buy it back from me, so that was a "Negative 1" impact on sales.....

fastaussie said:

....but bench racing and bragging rights are still important when people chuck down a quarter mill...

Click to expand...

Compensating for penis size....

Can anyone explain to me why I see some reviews of the gen 2 pulling a 2.9 second 0-60 while others see 3.1 seconds?
Is the 2.9 credible or is the 3.1? Either way I do not care, I know the car is blisteringly quick but I am just wondering as I have seen different times.

Jinks said:

Can anyone explain to me why I see some reviews of the gen 2 pulling a 2.9 second 0-60 while others see 3.1 seconds?
Is the 2.9 credible or is the 3.1? Either way I do not care, I know the car is blisteringly quick but I am just wondering as I have seen different times.

Click to expand...

Track surface, temperature, tires, and the degree to which the engine has been broken in all contribute. There used to be variations from journalist to journalist, but I assume that launch control takes out that variable.

At least Acura doesn't pull a Ferrari and insist on only allowing testing on certain cars in certain conditions with their engineers on hand to constantly optimize the systems.

Speaking of vipers, I was planning on trading my 92 for a generation five. I found one on the lot, took it for a spin… My ears were buzzing and ringing, I felt like I was in a chopped car with poor visibility and ride was not well dampened. His car had quite a few particular rattles and creeks.transmission felt solid and clutch take off was I'd say light to moderate.Engine felt lumpy is the best way I could describe it, tons of power tons of torque.... I couldn't wait to finish the test drive. My GT2 is so much better of a car, better to drive at the limit, better to control and you can't beat that 911 visibility.

Although I like natural aspiration, I think I would prefer A V10 that revs to 8000 RPM I don't really care if the Viper or the ACR version is the best track weapon out there. My track days are so limited now that I would rather have a car that I could enjoy on some weekends sprints, back roads or even a mundane drive going to grab a pizza.

I think what is lost in all of these magazine racers is the reality....That the great majority of us want a good balance.

I think I'm gonna go back and look at the generation 2 NSX and see if I can make a deal to trade in my 92. The only other car I'm gonna look at closely will be the Audi R8. They still produced a few V 10 manuals In the pre-facelifted version. I honestly can't believe how disappointed I was in the viper, I really wanted to add an American car to the collection.

osus2k said:

I really wanted to add an American car to the collection.

Click to expand...

How about the Z06? It's not natural aspirated, but it drives like one.

Maybe gt350

osus2k said:

Maybe gt350

Click to expand...

the R is a beast and sounds amazing