Revised 2nd Gear in 1995 cars

A friend of mine just got a 95 and told me there was a revised second gear in 1995. I had never heard of that. Checking the FAQ I saw that is correct.

Does anyone what how it was revised? Is it more like short gears? Does it keep the RPM's up in the 1-2 shift that 91-94 cars suffer from?

If I remember correctly, 95-96 second gear is a bit shorter than the 91-94 (about 0.10 difference?). However, it is as short as the Japanese short gears. I do not think that such difference keeps the RPM up in 1st-2nd shift. My car is 95, and it still drops the RPM quite a bit between the 1st and the 2nd shift.

Was wondering about this myself and did a search. Does anyone know why Honda revised second gear for the 1995 and 1996 NSX? Was it to address the added weight of the T-Top by giving you a little more zip in 2nd?

that was the only logical reason that i can think of, to close the gap that the 100+ lbs that the t top adds to the coupe.

I saw this a while back and did the math on it. IIRC it turns out to be 79mph in 2nd versus 81 which is a very small difference. I doubt it would be noticeable at all. One way to find out would be to do a pull in 2nd between the two different trannys and see how it goes. I would guess condition of the motor would matter more than the very small gearing difference.

For the European market Honda revised the gearing ratios from the long US ones to the JDM ones. This means for 2nd, 3rd and 4th. They took over the JDM gearing. This was in late 94 and surely for 95 upto the end of NA1 production. I always wondered myself if the US cars have this upgrade too.

Aaron94T said:

I saw this a while back and did the math on it. IIRC it turns out to be 79mph in 2nd versus 81 which is a very small difference. I doubt it would be noticeable at all. One way to find out would be to do a pull in 2nd between the two different trannys and see how it goes. I would guess condition of the motor would matter more than the very small gearing difference.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing, but why would Honda go to the trouble of manufacturing a new gear if it didn't help/wasn't noticeable?

A couple of charts show a .1 sec improvement between the 94 and 95/96.
Note the 2nd chart also includes some times for the T's as well. That .1 sec improvement could very well be due to the slightly shorter 2nd gear.

Acura NSX
<table border="1" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" width="90%"><tbody><tr> <td width="75%"> 1991 Acura NSX: 0-60 mph:</td> <td>5.8 seconds</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="75%"> 1992 Acura NSX: 0-60 mph:</td> <td>5.6 seconds</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="75%"> 1993 Acura NSX: 0-60 mph:</td> <td>5.6 seconds</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="75%"> 1994 Acura NSX: 0-60 mph:</td> <td>5.3 seconds</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="75%"> 1996 Acura NSX: 0-60 mph:</td> <td>5.2 seconds</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table class="excel16" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;">1991 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 14.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1992 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"> 1993 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1994 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"> 1995 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1996 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"> 1996 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 14.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1997 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.1
</td></tr></tbody></table>

It also just so happens that I recently had a 5 spd from a 95 put in my 92(snap ring range that was cracked but hadn't failed yet). It does feel a tiny bit shorter but it is hard to tell how much if any difference it made since I also had an RPS clutch/lightweight flywheel installed at the same time. Most of the new felt oomph probably comes from that.

Here is yet another chart showing a similar gain:

NSX
Vechicle

0-60(s)
MPG

1991 Acura NSX
5.8
18-22

1992 Acura NSX
5.6
17-22

1993 Acura NSX
5.6
17-22

1994 Acura NSX
5.3
17-22

1996 Acura NSX
5.2
16-22

1996 Acura NSX-T
5.8
16-22

1997 Acura NSX-T
4.8
16-22

EdinKali said:

A couple of charts show a .1 sec improvement between the 94 and 95/96.

Click to expand...

Reading from the table what is the explanation of the 0.2 difference between 91 and 92/93 (5.8 verus 5.6)?

Not sure about that one. Anyone know of any changes between the 91 and 92/93's? I am guessing the .3 sec improvement between the 92/93 and 94 is the larger/wider wheels and tires.

EdinKali said:

<table class="excel16" align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;">1991 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 14.2
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1992 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"> 1993 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1994 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.4
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"> 1995 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.5
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1996 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.1 Quarter mile 13.6
</td> </tr> <tr> <td style="background: rgb(216, 216, 216) none repeat scroll 0% 0%; height: 15pt; font-size: 9pt; color: black; font-weight: 400; text-decoration: none; font-family: Arial; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"> 1996 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 14.1
</td> </tr> <tr> <td> 1997 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.1
</td></tr></tbody></table>

Click to expand...

Boy I am glad I got the super fast 95 and not the dog slow 96. :tongue: I would say the difference between the 91/92 numbers and 95/96 numbers are different drivers on different days in different locations.

Aaron94T said:

Boy I am glad I got the super fast 95 and not the dog slow 96. :tongue: I would say the difference between the 91/92 numbers and 95/96 numbers are different drivers on different days in different locations.

Click to expand...

Make sure you are looking at the right times. The T times are mixed in with the coupe times. The coupes all seem to be a bit quicker than the T's.
And yes, there will always be some difference between drivers/conditions but the trend seems to be that even the 3.0 NSX's got faster over time.

EdinKali said:

Make sure you aren't looking at the right times. The T times are mixed in with the coupe times. The coupes all seem to be a bit quicker than the T's.
And yes, there will always be some difference between drivers/conditions but the trend seems to be that even the 3.0 NSX's got faster over time.

Click to expand...

There were no coupes for 95. And from 96+ were very rare coupe numbers. The faster times could be attributed to wider and actually smaller diameter tires. 24.72 in tall (245-40-17)vs. 24.86 in tall (225-50-16), generally speaking for most tires. The slighty smaller tire diameter, shorter gearing and wider tires allowed for a faster acceleration and gave more room for driver error is my guess.

N Spec said:

There were no coupes for 95. And from 96+ were very rare coupe numbers. The faster times could be attributed to wider and actually smaller diameter tires. 24.72 in tall (245-40-17)vs. 24.86 in tall (225-50-16), generally speaking for most tires. The slighty smaller tire diameter, shorter gearing and wider tires allowed for a faster acceleration and gave more room for driver error is my guess.

Click to expand...

Good point. Didn't even think about the slightly smaller tire diameter.

2nd Gear ratio for:
US '91-'94
1.727

US '95-'96
1.8

Japan '91-'94
1.952

I have the R spec Japanese 91-94 5-spd with 4.235 final drive; engine never fall out of the vtec power band.

The revised 95-96 second gear seems like a compromise between the US and JDM gears. However, it would widen third gear. I wonder which second gear (91-94 or 95-96) is more useful on the track?

It would probably depend on the track. Probably more useful on a tight track like Laguna, Buttonwillow and Sears Point(Infineon) but likely less so at Willow Springs(big willow).