Its downhill 
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Broke 300 km/h!
- Thread starter greenberet
- Start date
I can't say exactly how long it took to hit the last 20 mph, but the last miles per hour did come slowly.
As areout mentioned, it would have taken even longer if it hadn't been downhill. :smile: Where I was at the river was about 327 meters above sea level. If I followed the river for 2300 km, I would have gotten down to sea level, so it was downhill by about 14 cm per kilometer (9 inches per mile). Damn, I could have probably gotten up to a good speed just coasting!
Edit: if I did the math correctly, driving downhill 9 inches per mile should have increased the top speed by about 0.05 mph.
As areout mentioned, it would have taken even longer if it hadn't been downhill. :smile: Where I was at the river was about 327 meters above sea level. If I followed the river for 2300 km, I would have gotten down to sea level, so it was downhill by about 14 cm per kilometer (9 inches per mile). Damn, I could have probably gotten up to a good speed just coasting!
Edit: if I did the math correctly, driving downhill 9 inches per mile should have increased the top speed by about 0.05 mph.
Last edited:
Great success!
..If I had the road.. with 375RWHP and current aero mods (NSXR hood, wing, duct and undertray) I'd try to hit 200 MPH. I've done about 170 before.
One of the performance goals of the car.
..If I had the road.. with 375RWHP and current aero mods (NSXR hood, wing, duct and undertray) I'd try to hit 200 MPH. I've done about 170 before.
One of the performance goals of the car.
At one time I did hit 140mph and my lower lip spoiler came un done which resulted my front end to bounce. Thank god for my BBK!!!
186mph is quite an accomplishment for 265whp in any car. If you were to presume perfect gearing and the max n/a power at about 340whp, you could definitely get in the low/maybe mid 190's n/a which is extraordinary I'd say. That's the top speed of the new GTR with about 450whp and state of the art aerodynamics including a full chassis undertray. At those speeds its mass is irrelavent which makes it even more impressive.
Stock car is approximately 219bhp at 15-20 loss at the wheel 180 tq.
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Performance/measure.htm
Very impressive 265 rwhp thats 50 extra horses at the wheel 20mph over factory top speed with high duration cams, aftermarket headers/exhaust/filter,cylinder head work, camshafts, high flow oil pump, clutch, flywheel, aero kit. It's good to know 91's with a 5 speed is capible to reach 189mph
You do know that all the R mods slow you down, right? They add downforce but will cost some top speed as they do add more drag. Maybe not the undercover but the hood and wing definitely add both drag and downforce.
Your right but losing over 100lbs will help your power to weight ratio. I personaly think type R parts will help acceleration on the low end and avoiding the rear spoiler might help top end.
It would NOT require an additional 75rwhp to go "low to mid 190's". Someone should be able to do the calculations here.......if this car does 189mph with 265rwhp it should do a solid 200 mph with ~320rwhp (with the appropriate gearing of course).
the GTR is a HUGE car with alot more frontal area than the NSX and will require much more HP to achieve high speeds regardless of whatever Cd nissan's marketing deptartment is quoting.
300kph with 300HP is flat out amazing. Nice run.
I call bullshit on this one. There is no way on God's green Earth and using the laws of physics that a normally aspirated NSX will acheive 189 MPH on the open road. Thrown out of the cargo bay of a C-130A at 25,000 feet perhaps but definitely not under its own power.
I can do a quick run with a GPS on a Hayabusa then take the thing and stick it on the dash of my NSX too but I won't because making such a claim is ridiculous.
To overcome the aerodynamic drag in order to reach 189 MPH you would need between 350 and 400 horsepower.
Go do some "plug and play" here.
I want to see a pic of the GPS, the speedo and the road all together. And don't try any cute photoshop crap because I have forensic software that will find even one misplaced pixel.
Something along these lines.....(Relax, it was a digicam suction cupped to the gas tank and set to take interval pics. Both hands were on the bars.)
I can do a quick run with a GPS on a Hayabusa then take the thing and stick it on the dash of my NSX too but I won't because making such a claim is ridiculous.
To overcome the aerodynamic drag in order to reach 189 MPH you would need between 350 and 400 horsepower.
Go do some "plug and play" here.
I want to see a pic of the GPS, the speedo and the road all together. And don't try any cute photoshop crap because I have forensic software that will find even one misplaced pixel.
Something along these lines.....(Relax, it was a digicam suction cupped to the gas tank and set to take interval pics. Both hands were on the bars.)
Osiris_x11
Gold Member, Moderator: Marketplace
broke wind, not 300...
Thank you, Hugh. Finally someone w/ some sense and balls to call it as it is!
Trust me, I would have done it much sooner but I only stumbled upon this thread tonight.
Hugh, using the link you posted, if you enter the figures for a stock NSX:
If you type in 189 mph as the vehicle speed and 44 psi as the tire pressure, it spits out that you need 288 horsepower to overcome aerodynamic drag and 72 hp for rolling resistance and drivetrain losses.
My car has a slightly lower drag coefficient than stock since it's lowered, has a front undertray, I closed off the a/c openings in the nose with pieces of styrofoam for the high speed run, and my European license plate is bigger than US plates thereby blocking off more of the radiator opening. The frontal area is also a tiny bit reduced since the car is lowered, exposing less of the wheels to the air flow. Therefore, my NSX should need somewhat less than 288 rwhp to overcome the aerodynamic drag at 189 mph. How many less horsepower, I don't know because I don't know my car's exact drag coefficient.
I know one dyno here in Austria measured my car as having 265 rwhp. Another dyno in the US (where I had the chip custom programmed) said it had 408 hp. That's such a wide difference that I don't trust either number, but I especially don't trust the higher number from Autothority. If you remember the 1993 Car and Driver article about Comptech's NSX, the car was listed as having 358 crank horsepower. That article was one of the things that got me to buy an NSX and my car has all the engine mods that car had except my intake manifold wasn't polished by hand, it was extrude-honed. If my car has a similar crank horsepower figure, it should go about 189 mph according to your web site.
If you have "forensic software", I could gladly send you all the original photos for you to investigate and see if they have been photoshopped. If you'd like, I can also send you formulas for you do to some calculations yourself regarding wind resistance and horsepower. If you could then let me know what the terminal velocity an NSX thrown out of a C-130A at 25,000 feet would be, I'd like to know. Especially the altitude at which the highest velocity is reached. However, I am not going to mount two gps devices in my line of sight above the speedometer and then take one hand off the steering wheel and both eyes off the road at top speed to take a picture for you. Nor will I buy another camera just because my Fuji FinePix F30 doesn't have a setting to automatically take a picture every few seconds.
According to the web site you linked to, a pop-up headlight NSX with stock aerodynamics needs 288 rwhp to overcome aerodynamic drag at 189 mph. The web site also calculates that an NSX would need 341 rwhp to reach 200 mph. Anyone with a bigger engine or forced induction and a six speed transmission want to test it out?
- .32 as the drag coefficient
- 19.16 as the frontal area in square feet
- 50 degrees F as the temperature
- 30.00 inches of mercury as the air pressure
- 168 mph as the vehicle speed
- 3000 pounds as the vehicle weight
- 37 psi as the tire pressure
If you type in 189 mph as the vehicle speed and 44 psi as the tire pressure, it spits out that you need 288 horsepower to overcome aerodynamic drag and 72 hp for rolling resistance and drivetrain losses.
My car has a slightly lower drag coefficient than stock since it's lowered, has a front undertray, I closed off the a/c openings in the nose with pieces of styrofoam for the high speed run, and my European license plate is bigger than US plates thereby blocking off more of the radiator opening. The frontal area is also a tiny bit reduced since the car is lowered, exposing less of the wheels to the air flow. Therefore, my NSX should need somewhat less than 288 rwhp to overcome the aerodynamic drag at 189 mph. How many less horsepower, I don't know because I don't know my car's exact drag coefficient.
I know one dyno here in Austria measured my car as having 265 rwhp. Another dyno in the US (where I had the chip custom programmed) said it had 408 hp. That's such a wide difference that I don't trust either number, but I especially don't trust the higher number from Autothority. If you remember the 1993 Car and Driver article about Comptech's NSX, the car was listed as having 358 crank horsepower. That article was one of the things that got me to buy an NSX and my car has all the engine mods that car had except my intake manifold wasn't polished by hand, it was extrude-honed. If my car has a similar crank horsepower figure, it should go about 189 mph according to your web site.
If you have "forensic software", I could gladly send you all the original photos for you to investigate and see if they have been photoshopped. If you'd like, I can also send you formulas for you do to some calculations yourself regarding wind resistance and horsepower. If you could then let me know what the terminal velocity an NSX thrown out of a C-130A at 25,000 feet would be, I'd like to know. Especially the altitude at which the highest velocity is reached. However, I am not going to mount two gps devices in my line of sight above the speedometer and then take one hand off the steering wheel and both eyes off the road at top speed to take a picture for you. Nor will I buy another camera just because my Fuji FinePix F30 doesn't have a setting to automatically take a picture every few seconds.
According to the web site you linked to, a pop-up headlight NSX with stock aerodynamics needs 288 rwhp to overcome aerodynamic drag at 189 mph. The web site also calculates that an NSX would need 341 rwhp to reach 200 mph. Anyone with a bigger engine or forced induction and a six speed transmission want to test it out?
Wooo thats movin!! Nice pics. The fastest I have ever taken my NSX was about 120-125mph on the way to my Aunt's house up by raging waters a couple years back. Kinda sketchy with traffic around even though it was very light traffic. Most of the time I am grandma driver though, plus most of the time there is lots of traffic around, so no speeding when people on the roads. I'd rather just kill myself in case something bad happens and don't want to take any innocent people with me due to a random attack of speed crack.
Hi
Da** you are in a hurry that's for sure.
I "only" did 275 km/h on the speedo when I drove home after buying the NSX. I have had about 300 km/h on the speedo on my now sold Kawasaki ZX9R. I guess I am not in such a hurry as you are, but I want to be :biggrin:
Regards
Martin, I was actually only in a hurry to see how fast my NSX would go. I didn't have any pressing appointments. But I do find that driving fast is fun - that's why I bought a sports car!
Hugh, putting both GPS devices on my bike and then riding 230 miles from my home to Germany while a friend tags along in the NSX is a good idea, but at least with my bike, it wouldn't work. My bike is a BMW R60/6 which runs into the redline in top gear at about 100 mph. My BMW 750i runs into the speed limiter at 155 mph according to GPS so that wouldn't work either.
Following your suggestion, I could however have someone with a Hayabusa come along, mount both GPS devices on the bike and then switch them over to the NSX at a rest area. Since the Garmin measures and displays the time the vehicle was stopped, we'd need to work fast, though.
The attached picture was taken before I stopped at a rest area to take better pictures. The first picture shows the photo as it was taken with the sides cropped off and the picture shrunk to 800 x 800 to fit into this post. The second picture is a close-up of the GPS displays not shrunk at all, just cropped. Unfortunately it's so over-exposed that you can barely see anything. The third picture is the cropped area with the brightness reduced so that you can start to make out the numbers on the Garmin.
If you look at the lower right field in the Garmin display, you'll see the time the vehicle was stopped: 00 minutes and illegible seconds. If you look at the upper right, you'll see the number of kilometers travelled: 70.3. By the time I pulled into the rest stop to take better pictures (see pictures in post # 1), the odometer showed 80.9 km, so this picture showing a top speed of 305 km/h was taken before the vehicle stopped at the rest area. If you'd like the original picture, I'll send it to you to check with your forensics.
Now that doesn't mean we didn't pull the old "have the guy on the Hayabusa unmount both GPS devices and throw them into the open window of the NSX while both are driving on the autobahn" trick, I guess...
Hugh, putting both GPS devices on my bike and then riding 230 miles from my home to Germany while a friend tags along in the NSX is a good idea, but at least with my bike, it wouldn't work. My bike is a BMW R60/6 which runs into the redline in top gear at about 100 mph. My BMW 750i runs into the speed limiter at 155 mph according to GPS so that wouldn't work either.
Following your suggestion, I could however have someone with a Hayabusa come along, mount both GPS devices on the bike and then switch them over to the NSX at a rest area. Since the Garmin measures and displays the time the vehicle was stopped, we'd need to work fast, though.
The attached picture was taken before I stopped at a rest area to take better pictures. The first picture shows the photo as it was taken with the sides cropped off and the picture shrunk to 800 x 800 to fit into this post. The second picture is a close-up of the GPS displays not shrunk at all, just cropped. Unfortunately it's so over-exposed that you can barely see anything. The third picture is the cropped area with the brightness reduced so that you can start to make out the numbers on the Garmin.
If you look at the lower right field in the Garmin display, you'll see the time the vehicle was stopped: 00 minutes and illegible seconds. If you look at the upper right, you'll see the number of kilometers travelled: 70.3. By the time I pulled into the rest stop to take better pictures (see pictures in post # 1), the odometer showed 80.9 km, so this picture showing a top speed of 305 km/h was taken before the vehicle stopped at the rest area. If you'd like the original picture, I'll send it to you to check with your forensics.
Now that doesn't mean we didn't pull the old "have the guy on the Hayabusa unmount both GPS devices and throw them into the open window of the NSX while both are driving on the autobahn" trick, I guess...
Attachments
Last edited:
I don't think 300 km/hour is out of reach for the NSX.
I would very much like to test my car for it's topspeed again once I have mounted my latest modifications to it.
For the record, I have seen 290 km/hour on my speedo on a two occassions now (180 mph) in the last year, although it took a pretty long time to get there. Had my car dynoed just last week and ended up with 275.7 RWHP on a Dynojet. I have a 320 km/hour speedo, but I don't know how accurate this is. Could very well be that 290 on the speedo is only 280 in real life of course. But the use of a GPS device which can measure speed probably more accurate was a smart thing to do.
Still, would very much like to know what the car can do given enough road to test it.
I would very much like to test my car for it's topspeed again once I have mounted my latest modifications to it.
For the record, I have seen 290 km/hour on my speedo on a two occassions now (180 mph) in the last year, although it took a pretty long time to get there. Had my car dynoed just last week and ended up with 275.7 RWHP on a Dynojet. I have a 320 km/hour speedo, but I don't know how accurate this is. Could very well be that 290 on the speedo is only 280 in real life of course. But the use of a GPS device which can measure speed probably more accurate was a smart thing to do.
Still, would very much like to know what the car can do given enough road to test it.
AR99NSX, I'll have to see if I can find that video on the NSXCB web site. It sounds good!
MvM, this is probably nothing new for you, but the A31 in Germany between the A30 and the A280 is a fantastic place to drive fast. While I was working in Amsterdam a colleague and I drove over there before work one morning and he took the picture in my avatar.
MvM, this is probably nothing new for you, but the A31 in Germany between the A30 and the A280 is a fantastic place to drive fast. While I was working in Amsterdam a colleague and I drove over there before work one morning and he took the picture in my avatar.
Thats Fast---I visit Germany every summer. wow don't get in the far lane in the AutoBahn and drive slow....
Great Speed and Way to defend your results....
I have done 140 in a CTSC car and it still has some pull to it, but I always back down......Once you done 170+(R1) on a bike, 140 in a car seems slow....
Great Speed and Way to defend your results....
I have done 140 in a CTSC car and it still has some pull to it, but I always back down......Once you done 170+(R1) on a bike, 140 in a car seems slow....
Con grats! Have you considered taping all the panel gaps . I know it makes a big diff in aircraft top speed. It would be really easy and not a perminant mod. You're going fast enough that it would help.
Re: broke wind, not 300...
I call rude, disrespect and bs on both of you. You may or may not know that the stock NSX with 168 MPH with a cd of .32 and the 2002+ will do 172, if not 175 with a drag of .30
17X in a "290 HP" car - that's amazing! Do you know of many other cars such as that? I've personally been in a 98 stock above 170 though the speedo is not as accurate.
With the HP addition and aerodynamic upgrades, his #s are within reason and should attest the strength of the NSX.
Give the guy a break and let him share his sense of accomplishment. If I had the Autobahn where I'm at.. I'd be shooting for 200...
Thank you, Hugh. Finally someone w/ some sense and balls to call it as it is!
I call rude, disrespect and bs on both of you. You may or may not know that the stock NSX with 168 MPH with a cd of .32 and the 2002+ will do 172, if not 175 with a drag of .30
17X in a "290 HP" car - that's amazing! Do you know of many other cars such as that? I've personally been in a 98 stock above 170 though the speedo is not as accurate.
With the HP addition and aerodynamic upgrades, his #s are within reason and should attest the strength of the NSX.
Give the guy a break and let him share his sense of accomplishment. If I had the Autobahn where I'm at.. I'd be shooting for 200...
Thanks, guys.
Johnboy, I thought about taping the panel gaps of the front hood to reduce wind resistance further, but I wanted to keep the headlights free to pop up in case I needed to flash my high beams. My hood closes flush with the bumper so I didn't think that taping those two together would bring anything. If I taped over the gap between the hood and the quarter panels behind the headlights, I thought the air that got in around the headlights might rip the tape off, so I didn't tape there, either. In retrospect, I should have tried it.
I didn't think about taping panel gaps other than those of the front hood but there probably is still some drag reduction to be found. Taping the sytrofoam pieces into the a/c vent openings instead of just sticking them there would have probably gotten some smoother airflow, for example.
Johnboy, I thought about taping the panel gaps of the front hood to reduce wind resistance further, but I wanted to keep the headlights free to pop up in case I needed to flash my high beams. My hood closes flush with the bumper so I didn't think that taping those two together would bring anything. If I taped over the gap between the hood and the quarter panels behind the headlights, I thought the air that got in around the headlights might rip the tape off, so I didn't tape there, either. In retrospect, I should have tried it.
I didn't think about taping panel gaps other than those of the front hood but there probably is still some drag reduction to be found. Taping the sytrofoam pieces into the a/c vent openings instead of just sticking them there would have probably gotten some smoother airflow, for example.
Similar threads
