Are these numbers true?

[JusSumDiabloGi]

1991 Acura NSX 5.8 14.4

1992 Acura NSX 5.6 13.9

1993 Acura NSX 5.6 13.9

1994 Acura NSX 5.3 13.6

1996 Acura NSX 5.2 13.8

1996 Acura NSX-T 5.8 14.3

1997 Acura NSX-T 4.8 13.3

Now I can see a difference between the 91 and the 97, a difference engine. But why the large difference between the 91 and the 94? I just make an offer on a 93 and now I am wondering if I should go for a 94 instead?

------------------

 

[FAQ Nazi]

The '91 and the '94 are virtually identical. You're looking at statistical "noise" - the fact that an identical car can give different results on different days, in different places, with different drivers, and different weather, as well as variations in performance from one car to another, even within the same model year.

For example, if you go to http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/performancenums.htm you'll see that the '91 NSX with five-speed had 0-60 reports varying from 5.03 seconds to 5.7 seconds, and the quarter-mile varied from 13.47 to 14.0

 

[FAQ Nazi]

P.S.

I just make an offer on a 93 and now I am wondering if I should go for a 94 instead?

No need - unless you really wanted a Brooklands Green car or seven-spoke OEM wheels.

 

[sjs]

Ditto the FAQ Nazi comments.

My bone-stock 93 consistently equaled or beat the 94 numbers you list except on a very hot day.

If you get numbers from different car mags, they tend to have significantly different stated approaches in terms of wheelspin, speed-shifts, etc. which really add up in 10ths. R&T used to publish their standards somewhere in every issue (years ago, possibly not now), and I have seen similar refernces in others at times.

 

[David]

Originally posted by sjs:
If you get numbers from different car mags, they tend to have significantly different stated approaches in terms of wheelspin, speed-shifts, etc. which really add up in 10ths. R&T used to publish their standards somewhere in every issue (years ago, possibly not now), and I have seen similar refernces in others at time.

Very true. Also, I believe (but I am not positive) that the '91 number you list is from a test with an auto tranny car.

One of the (many) reasons I love AutoWeek is that they publish other mags performance numbers for comparison.

 

[ChopsJazz]

FWIW, Car and Driver television just did a bit on the 2001 NSX-T and turned a 4.5 0-60!

 

[sjs]

Originally posted by ChopsJazz:
FWIW, Car and Driver television just did a bit on the 2001 NSX-T and turned a 4.5 0-60!

So, is it more power (regardless of factory specs), or less weight, or lower gearing, or...

Have they published the acceleration curve or 0-100, 1/4 mile etc.? I'd like to see if it gives those tenths back somewhere.