comptech sc 92 nsx vs stock 02 - 05???

Joined
15 August 2007
Messages
488
Location
Atlanta Ga
i was reading with 60 to 70 hp on stock motor with sc...one can expect 0 - 60 4.9....also i have read 0 - 60 on 02 - 05 stock is about 4.9 also...

why is their such a big dif in HP, but darn near similar 0 - 60...

Again I am going by articles on the net?????
 
Mag numbers are all over the board.
Truth be told, later cars are not all that much faster.
6 speed/gearing gives more of an illusion of speed as your shifting
sooner.
The SC car should be quite a bit quicker.......
Flame suit on...............:biggrin:
 
The SC car should be quite a bit quicker.......
Flame suit on...............:biggrin:

Much quicker, IMO.:wink:
 
sc definitly worth the $. if you can get turbo, its even better.

MCM, you got room for 2 in that flame suit.... eeeew. that came off wrong. :biggrin:

i recommend having a SC enabled nsx member take you for an ride.
 
Don't pay too much attention to magazine statistics in that area.
US magazines have stated time down to 4.7 second if I remember correctly. I also have one German magazine which lists the NSX as doing 0-62 in 6.1 seconds. That's quite a difference.

However, I think that practically NO ONE uses those 0-60 time.

Any idea how they are achieved? Rev the engine to 3000-4000 RPM, drop the clutch, put the pedal to the floor until redline, shift and then do it all over again. I guess, not exactly how you will drive on the highway.

I don't think a early year coupe NSX needs an extra 60-70 HP to achieve 4.9 second 0-60 run. I think a mere 40-50 HP will do that for you.
And yes, a 2005 NSX has (a little) more power, but not that much. It also weighs more. With my NSX with I/H/E I have no trouble keeping up with any non-SCed 3.2 NSX.
 
Uh oh. I can hear the rustling. :eek:

The magazine racers are getting ready to sign in ... and the pole position belongs to:________________. :biggrin:
 
And yes, a 2005 NSX has (a little) more power, but not that much. It also weighs more. With my NSX with I/H/E I have no trouble keeping up with any non-SCed 3.2 NSX.

Same thought for me. The extra power of the 3.2 gets eaten up by the extra weight. Remember: The early 0-60 times were done with the boogy long gears.
 
Uh oh. I can hear the rustling. :eek:

The magazine racers are getting ready to sign in ... and the pole position belongs to:________________. :biggrin:

if you dont have an SC NSX or an 05 just laying around, what else do you suppose to go by, other then what you read or somone told you? I don't believe everything I read, so i asked what some might consider stupid..:frown:
 
if you dont have an SC NSX or an 05 just laying around, what else do you suppose to go by, other then what you read or somone told you? I don't believe everything I read, so i asked what some might consider stupid..:frown:

I understand completely what you are saying. That's exactly what 99.9% of all the people are doing. They compare the numbers that they read in magazines or brochures and use that to discuss.
Problem is, most people forget that even those autombile journalist don't actually own the cars they test. They just drive them for a day or perhaps a couple of days. And then give their review based on that. Nothing wrong with that of course, as long as you don't forget it.

But acceleration is more than just a simple 0-60 number, or the 50-80 acceleration in 5th.
You should me interested in more than just 0-60, more like 0-100 mph or 0-150 mph with 10mph increments. That gives you a better understanding of what a car can do. Too many cars are now geared to reach optimal 0-60 numbers.

In real life, on the street, a 0.5 second difference in 0-60 time is totally irrelevant. Starting at the wrong RPM, shifting too slow or at the wrong moment can easily add more than a mere 0.5 seconds.

The very first time a measured my 0-62 time (I don't live in the US) with the AP-22 (acceleration measuring device), I only managed 6.72 seconds. I really thought for a second I had bought a messed-up car.
With some practice however, I brought that down to 5.61 seconds. Same car, same road, same driver.
Think of it:
People always ask me: How many HP does it have? How fast can it go? How fast to 100 kph?

They never ask me at which RPM I reach maximum HP, what the weight of my car is, at which RPM I reach 80% of my maximum torque and for how many RPM I can keep that.

Cruising at 75 mph in 5th gear, my engine is running at 3000 RPM and barely making 90 Hp. That's all I have at that moment. Acceleration from that is slow. However, go back to 3rd and immediately, I have three times than number on tap and things are a whole lot different.
 
I understand completely what you are saying. That's exactly what 99.9% of all the people are doing. They compare the numbers that they read in magazines or brochures and use that to discuss.
Problem is, most people forget that even those autombile journalist don't actually own the cars they test. They just drive them for a day or perhaps a couple of days. And then give their review based on that. Nothing wrong with that of course, as long as you don't forget it.

But acceleration is more than just a simple 0-60 number, or the 50-80 acceleration in 5th.
You should me interested in more than just 0-60, more like 0-100 mph or 0-150 mph with 10mph increments. That gives you a better understanding of what a car can do. Too many cars are now geared to reach optimal 0-60 numbers.

In real life, on the street, a 0.5 second difference in 0-60 time is totally irrelevant. Starting at the wrong RPM, shifting too slow or at the wrong moment can easily add more than a mere 0.5 seconds.

The very first time a measured my 0-62 time (I don't live in the US) with the AP-22 (acceleration measuring device), I only managed 6.72 seconds. I really thought for a second I had bought a messed-up car.
With some practice however, I brought that down to 5.61 seconds. Same car, same road, same driver.
Think of it:
People always ask me: How many HP does it have? How fast can it go? How fast to 100 kph?

They never ask me at which RPM I reach maximum HP, what the weight of my car is, at which RPM I reach 80% of my maximum torque and for how many RPM I can keep that.

Cruising at 75 mph in 5th gear, my engine is running at 3000 RPM and barely making 90 Hp. That's all I have at that moment. Acceleration from that is slow. However, go back to 3rd and immediately, I have three times than number on tap and things are a whole lot different.


Great Points...

I really only look at the the mags that give

0 -60 feet
0-10
0-20
0-30
0-40
etc......... But yeah you are so right. However, I never seen a full test of an SC like that. Just the dyno with hp/tq.....
 
never judge a car's speed by 0-60 times. too many variables can effect that, even 1/4 mile times are not that accurate. You need to look at the trap speed. for example,

a 97+ nsx, C5 corvette and a STi can all hit low 13 seconds in the 1/4 mile, but if you where to run them on the highway, the NSX and the Vette will easily walk the STi.

the STi averages 100-103mph at the finish line, while the NSX and Vette average 105-109 mph. That is a pretty substantial difference.

the STi will get that good 0-60, and 1/4 mile time by having a ridiculous launch ( a good driver can get down to 1.8-1.6 sec 60ft time at the drag strip ) on street tires!!! but they lose steam on the highway.


The Vette and the NSX gets their good 1/4 mile time by having good aero and good power so it might be a little slow off the line because they are limited by traction ( gripe) but once they get moving, the power takes over and they can really stretch its legs.


When I look at magazine times I look at the trap speed since that is the true indication of power, and shows you what the car is really capable off, the times listed just shows how well the car was driven on that run.


example: my car hits almost 108mph in the 1/4 but I only ran a 13.6, My goal at the track wasn't to run the best time, but to run the best mph I can get. Now I know my car can hit 13.1 -13 flat if i had a better take off based on the mph I ran.


another example:

comptech super charges na1 nsx are known to hit 112-116 mph in the 1/4, that is a mid to low 12 second car right there. While a stock NA2 nsx can hit 106-109mph which is a low 13 to high 12 second car given the same conditions.
 
I feel the CT'd 92 pulls much, much harder. The 05 is quick but by no means lightning fast. If your going by real world stats, Id say 1/4 times for the 05 are around 13.3 ish and a CT'd 92 runs a upper 12 sec 1/4.
 
if you dont have an SC NSX or an 05 just laying around, what else do you suppose to go by, other then what you read or somone told you? I don't believe everything I read, so i asked what some might consider stupid..:frown:

Pres, I wasn't directing that at you. There are a few folks here on Prime that live by the magazine article stats and .1 sec. to them is the Grand Canyon. Two cars side by side going 0-60 with .2 sec. difference and they seem to think it means one was parked.:biggrin:
Magazine are nice to read but their road tests can be significantly different from other magazine tests of the same cars. What I meant to poke at are the folks that quote them like the Gospel.

Again I am going by articles on the net?????

Yes, and it would seem obvious that you quickly see the discrepancies of these so called facts. They just don't make sense as you noticed.

I wouldn't think that's stupid at all, in fact it's just the opposite.

Never meant to suggest otherwise of you. OK?:cool:
 
never judge a car's speed by 0-60 times. too many variables can effect that, even 1/4 mile times are not that accurate. You need to look at the trap speed. for example,

a 97+ nsx, C5 corvette and a STi can all hit low 13 seconds in the 1/4 mile, but if you where to run them on the highway, the NSX and the Vette will easily walk the STi.

the STi averages 100-103mph at the finish line, while the NSX and Vette average 105-109 mph. That is a pretty substantial difference.

the STi will get that good 0-60, and 1/4 mile time by having a ridiculous launch ( a good driver can get down to 1.8-1.6 sec 60ft time at the drag strip ) on street tires!!! but they lose steam on the highway.


The Vette and the NSX gets their good 1/4 mile time by having good aero and good power so it might be a little slow off the line because they are limited by traction ( gripe) but once they get moving, the power takes over and they can really stretch its legs.


When I look at magazine times I look at the trap speed since that is the true indication of power, and shows you what the car is really capable off, the times listed just shows how well the car was driven on that run.


example: my car hits almost 108mph in the 1/4 but I only ran a 13.6, My goal at the track wasn't to run the best time, but to run the best mph I can get. Now I know my car can hit 13.1 -13 flat if i had a better take off based on the mph I ran.


another example:

comptech super charges na1 nsx are known to hit 112-116 mph in the 1/4, that is a mid to low 12 second car right there. While a stock NA2 nsx can hit 106-109mph which is a low 13 to high 12 second car given the same conditions.

Great information.

True, those FWD Stis and EVOs can jump off the line wickedly quick and the 0-60 times and even 1/4 mile times are not a true indicator of the car's power. A C5 ZO6 or an NA2 NSX is going to smack an EVO 60-120 mph but the 0-60 times are much closer with all of them right around 4.5-4.9 sec 0-60.

0-60 mph/0-100 kph times are very, very dependent on tires and the skill of the driver. As others have noted, I've seen NA2 NSX times of 4.7 sec to 5.3 sec.
 
Great information.

True, those FWD Stis and EVOs can jump off the line wickedly quick and the 0-60 times and even 1/4 mile times are not a true indicator of the car's power. A C5 ZO6 or an NA2 NSX is going to smack an EVO 60-120 mph but the 0-60 times are much closer with all of them right around 4.5-4.9 sec 0-60.

0-60 mph/0-100 kph times are very, very dependent on tires and the skill of the driver. As others have noted, I've seen NA2 NSX times of 4.7 sec to 5.3 sec.

hahah you mean AWD STi's and EVO's :wink:
 
Pres, I wasn't directing that at you. There are a few folks here on Prime that live by the magazine article stats and .1 sec. to them is the Grand Canyon. Two cars side by side going 0-60 with .2 sec. difference and they seem to think it means one was parked.:biggrin:
Magazine are nice to read but their road tests can be significantly different from other magazine tests of the same cars. What I meant to poke at are the folks that quote them like the Gospel.



Yes, and it would seem obvious that you quickly see the discrepancies of these so called facts. They just don't make sense as you noticed.

I wouldn't think that's stupid at all, in fact it's just the opposite.

Never meant to suggest otherwise of you. OK?:cool:


no problem..I understand all now...and can trully say the 5speed manual with sc rocks....My automatic seemed fast..But not anymore
 
"no problem..I understand all now...and can trully say the 5speed manual with sc rocks....My automatic seemed fast..But not anymore"

Post some pic's of your new / ninety two.:biggrin:
 
"Is there some basic formula that they use to determine 0 to 60 MPH?"

Magazines use the "Kickback" method.

Auto makers use the "ringer" method.

So, I use "seat of the pants" method.
Never fails.
 
"no problem..I understand all now...and can trully say the 5speed manual with sc rocks....My automatic seemed fast..But not anymore"

Post some pic's of your new / ninety two.:biggrin:

here she is....
 

Attachments

  • 1992.jpg
    1992.jpg
    58.6 KB · Views: 30


Do you think this is correct? Maybe with some super tires. I also put the numbers in with 575 HP this is about where I should end up when I'm finished. The 0-60 time was 2.7 sec.

0-60 mph Calculator for cars
This calculator has been designed around real-world numbers and statistical averages based on sample data. It is not based around physics formulas so it's important that you enter the data it asks of you and NOT whp numbers, or gross vehicle weight. It takes into consideration the performance advantages of RWD and AWD over FWD, and the advantage of a Manual transmission over an Automatic. Of course there are other variables that could be considered, but the 0-60 times that are calculated should be reasonably accurate for most cars.


Horsepower
(at the flywheel): hp
Curb Weight: lbs
Drive Type: FWD RWD AWD
Transmission: Manual Automatic


Power / Weight Ratio: 0.18421052631578946
0-60 mph: 2.973049152348117 seconds
written by:
 
Back
Top