Comptechs Best NSX not near good enough (C&D)

[NetViper]

The latest issue of Car and Driver has a 10,000 HP shootout. 15 High-HP tuner cars compete for the title. Comptechs NSX (stickering at $155,556) came a dissapointing 12th. Beating a lexus IS300, SLK and a truck.

Here are the stats:
460HP @ 8000 RPM
330 TQ @ 6000 RPM
1/4 Mile 13.0 @ 115
0-60: 4.4
0-100: 9.7

The cars also went through a road course and 150-0 braking.

The total time was:116.1

For comparison, here are the stock results:
911 Turbo: 109.3, 1/4: 12.9@115
Viper ACR: 109.5, 1/4: 12.6 @117
zo6: 110.4, 1/4: 12.8 @114

You will have to read the issue to make sense of all this, but basically, I was pretty dissapointed in how the NSX rated. Maybe next time they can test a BBSC NSX and 500 HP Turbo NSX!

Oh, FYI the NSX did get 5 stars for its everyday driveability.




------------------
1993 White NSX, 70K miles and running STRONG!

[This message has been edited by NetViper (edited 09 August 2002).]

 

[ScienceofSpeed]

The car featured some ScienceofSpeed parts including a GT500 hood and TAITEC JGTC HID fixed headlights. However, I think the testing was a little unscientific and more for "gee wiz" effect.

------------------
Revolutionize your NSX with ScienceofSpeed
www.ScienceofSpeed.com | [email protected] | 877-863-4520

 

[ilya]

The results are not surprising in the slightest. This was a shootout between some of the higher HP vehicles the tuners had to offer. It's not fair to expect the 450HP NSX (when did they ever get 450 out of that SC?) to outperform vehicles ranging from 600-800HP, all of which are putting down near double the torque as well. The Lingenfelter Vette (which won as usual) is one of the fastest production tuner cars in the country.

I think the Comptech NSX is an awesome car. It was just tested against a different class of vehicles. You can count on one hand the number of NSXs in the US that could have competed against these cars in power... and they are probably all custom turbos. The Vipers and Vettes are putting down over 400 ft/lbs of torque at 1500RPMS and they have shaved/molded wheel wells to accomodate the tires necessary to put down that power effectively.

BTW- Lingenfelter's trucks are hard core.

[This message has been edited by ilya (edited 09 August 2002).]

 

[Da Hapa]

darn it. why am i always so late in receiving these mag's that i subscribe to?
ARGH!

Without reading the article, it sounds rather unfair to me. I wonder how the cars would do if you had to drive say 10K miles on them every year. Put a heavier emphasis on real world driving and everyday reliability/practicallity and I bet the results would be different.

 

[8000RPM]

...

[This message has been edited by 8000RPM (edited 16 August 2002).]

 

[NetViper]

Originally posted by ilya:
I think the Comptech NSX is an awesome car. It was just tested against a different class of vehicles.

But ilya, It lost to a Stock zo6, viper and 911TT. Surely those are not a "Different Class" of vehicles.

I, for one, would be really angry If I spent 155K on an NSX and a 50K Zo6 beat me.

 

[NetViper]

Here are a couple more stats:

Comptech NSX 100-150 took 18.5 seconds. ( the slowest of the bunch).

Stock 911 TT: 13.5 seconds
Zo6: 15.8
Viper ACR: 12.9


Gerry.. PLEASE bring your car to this event next time!! I feel bad for the NSX.

They also mentioned that they send out numerous invitations to ferrari owners, f40's, f50's etc, but nobody responded.

PS.. ilya is right about the truck.. 1/4 miles in 10.6 @ 135!!

PPS.. the new Ferrari Enzo is in this issue and in my opinion it is UGLY!! Seriously.. probably one of the worst looking cars ferrari has EVER made. The F50 is 10x better looking.

 

[hk4site]

Every car that was ahead of the NSX had very large displacement engines and there is no replacement for cubic inches. It also looks like the NSX was putting out about 400 hp as the 1/4 mile speeds were the same as the stock porsches and corvettes, not 460hp as advertised.

 

[matteni]

There was a stock Z06 at Gingerman this summer - driver was pretty good and this thing drove around me like I was standing still.

It's good to know it is so fast - I get a little of my pride back!

I too would be seriously pissed to have a $155k CompTech supercharged and fully tuned car and get spanked that hard by a stock Z06.

JMO.

------------------
Nick M

91' Red/Black with Many Mods
99' Honda Odyssey with Many Kids

 

[Michigan NSX]

Originally posted by hk4site:
...and there is no replacement for cubic inches...

All other things being equal this may be true, but a Formula 1 engine is a bout 200 cubic inches and makes over 800 horsepower with NO turbo or supercharger (on pump gas!). Technology can and does beat displacement (almost every time).

------------------
'91 Black/Black

 

[Number9]

With the NSX trap speed the same as the Porsche TT and 1/4-mile time within a tenth, I'd say that the car did OK. None of the cars were impressive in the quarter mile times (though some were off scale in trap speed!) which suggest bad conditions or bad drivers. Kinda cool living in the baddest, bestest manufacturers HP war in history. Damn those Ford dealers that won't even take my deposit for the GT-40...

 

[hk4site]

The 1/4 mile time were slow as the cars were traction limited. ET is traction, MPH is horsepower. Put some racing tires on the car and it would be a different story.

 

[Number9]

From which you can infer that the conditions were bad as earlier stated, duh...

 

[Jim]

I see they included John Hennessey's Viper. What's going on with this guy? Is he still in business? I thought there were a bunch of lawsuits against him because he ripped off a couple of his customers.

 

[Dr.Honda]

I think its cool that they included the NSX with cars that have twice it's displacement and horsepower. The automobile mags should
run a shootout article for cars 2.0-3.0 liters, 3.0-3.5 liters and so on. I think its widely understood that Honda builds some of the most formidible engines on a hp/cc
basis. Can you imagine a SC'd 4.0 liter V-8
with a prancing H on it?! Then we'd be comparing apples to apples! Just a thought,
I have to take my medication now.

 

[POWERED by HONDA]

I am very disappointed by the NSX's showing.

But you know what, I hope Honda sees just how much the NSX is getting it's butt whooped and gets its act together for it's replacement.

 

[NetViper]

Originally posted by JimK:
I think its cool that they included the NSX with cars that have twice it's displacement and horsepower. The automobile mags should
run a shootout article for cars 2.0-3.0 liters, 3.0-3.5 liters and so on.

Just to let you know, the car that came second was a 2002 AutoThority Stage V Porsche 911 TT. It's displacement is only 3.6 Liters. Not much more than the NSX's 3.2 and a far cry from the Vipers and Vettes. However, with HALF the displacement of those cars, the 911 kicked most of their butts.

I would like to know why a 911 can come in with 700 HP and the NSX can only do 450?? I think we need to see more development in TT for the NSX as the superchargers just don't make enough power.



[This message has been edited by NetViper (edited 11 August 2002).]

 

[RyRy210]

Factory turbocharged cars usually have a low compression ratio and can withstand insane amounts of boost without having to crack the engine open.

I suspect Comptech left the bottom end stock and retaining the NSX's high compression ratio. There's not much realiable boost u can run on a car with such a high compression ratio w/o getting detonation. Plus the 911 TT would also have a factory intercooler that one could switch out for a better one.

Converting an N/A car to force induction requires more careful planning than modding a car that had forced induction from the factory to begin with.

The Lingenfelter TT Corvette also had beefed up internals to run that kinda of power.

Wasn't there a few members on the board doing exactly just that? Installing low compression pistons and beefing up the internals to run more boost? I would really like to see how that project is going and how much power they are putting down.

Ryan

 

[TheSwishh]

This is what I do not understand...

Ok, the Comptech NSX did the 1/4 in 13.0 at 460hp (did they rate this as RWHP?)

My TT NSX is at 401RWHP and I do the 1/4 in 12.2 What's up with this??? I even have my stock gears.

 

[Z18]

Originally posted by TheSwishh:
This is what I do not understand...

Ok, the Comptech NSX did the 1/4 in 13.0 at 460hp (did they rate this as RWHP?)

My TT NSX is at 401RWHP and I do the 1/4 in 12.2 What's up with this??? I even have my stock gears.

That's my issue with it too... where did these numbers come from? Since when did that SC (or any) get 460hp out of an NSX, and then IF it did, it sure as heck would do better than 13.0 (which is about what my Zanardi does, stock). And you're right -- 12.2 is pretty much consistent with your hp/weight... Cars with low-mid 400hp usually get low 12 second quarter miles.

*boggle*

It is also funny to note the reliability issues of all these hopped up cars, and then also note how well the stock cars do at the end relative to them.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not against enhancing your car IF it's truly enhancing it... but it seems like one can pour a punch of cash into allegedly 'go fast' parts and end up with a 'cool, decked out' car that doesn't really go any better than a stock car, but breaks down a lot more often.

-Z18

 

[Number9]

I think the CT provided numbers are just optimistic CT estimates. The typical CT SC kit puts down around 320-325 RWHP for both 3.0L (with I/H/E) and 3.2L (otherwise stock) engines. High boost bumps that about 20 RWHP. Some extremely strong outliers have run as high as 355 RWHP with the standard SC kit and Mike N's and my Z-NSX (both with high boost) have dynoed as high as 360 RWHP. Other than CT advertising collateral, I haven't personally seen nor even heard of any better CTSC dyno numbers (without NOS). [Note: forgot DH's car which dynoed in the 385 RWHP range, but that wasn't even remotely street legal.]

Looking at trap speed, the CT car seems to have roughly the power-to-weight-ratio of the stock TT 996. The latter has AWD which presumably has more driveline loss hence its AWD HP to the ground should be on the order of mid to high 300s and since it trapped the same as the CT, the CT should have similar (actually slightly less, since the car is lighter) RWHP numbers. So 460 crank HP? No way...

P.S. I like CTs stuff, but I wish they'd advertise typical numbers as opposed to best case fully optimized, no-one-can-actually-achieve-them-in-the-real-world-including-us type numbers for their go fast parts. </end rant>

[This message has been edited by Number9 (edited 11 August 2002).]

 

[ilya]

There is nothing wrong with 1/4 mile numbers. They were typical for the day. The Comptech NSX ran 13sec and the Lingenefelter Vette, which generally runs low 11s ran low 12s instead. You can't compare different runs from different days under different conditions.

 

[mdoan300]

If I'm not mistaken, that yellow twin turbo C5 belongs to John Page. He lives here in Frisco and goes by NO EXCUSES on corvetteforum.com. And, if I'm not mistaken again, he's married to Lingenfelter's daughter. Anyway, there is a video of him pulling away from a Hayabusa on the George Bush turnpike (for the locals) floating around on the net.

On that note, there's a supercharged Electron Blue Z06 also here in Frisco. It put downs down over 600rwhp on stock internals. The owner goes by jnation on z06vette.com. And it's a complete sleeper too; the license plates says "406HP."

Cheers!

Michael.


------------------
1994 300ZX Twin Turbo

 

[Timbo]

Originally posted by Jim:
I see they included John Hennessey's Viper. What's going on with this guy? Is he still in business? I thought there were a bunch of lawsuits against him because he ripped off a couple of his customers.

Yeah, one of the editorials in that C/D issue (think it was Csere's) was on Hennessey and all his recent problems, lawsuits, BBB complaints and the like.

But it summed up by saying he was still in business and trying to improve in this regard, not taking cars in till he's ready to work on them, so good luck..

[This message has been edited by Timbo (edited 11 August 2002).]

 

[Z18]

Originally posted by ilya:
There is nothing wrong with 1/4 mile numbers. They were typical for the day. The Comptech NSX ran 13sec and the Lingenefelter Vette, which generally runs low 11s ran low 12s instead. You can't compare different runs from different days under different conditions.

Good point -- if they were all a second slower than typical, I guess it's all good.

-Z18