Does Honda understate horsepower of 3.2?

[DeHaldaswerth]

I recently disposed of a Corvette C5 hard top, which felt pretty quick 0-60. Now that I have driven my '00 NSX enough to become accustomed to it, it feels at least as quick,if not quicker, than the Corvette. (This is confirmed by the Car and Driver 0-150-0 test, where a NSX coupe outgunned the Corvette). IMO, the NSX feels like it easlily puts down as much power as the Corvette, at close to the same curb weight. Wouldn't this, along with the Car and Driver results mean that either 1)The NSX's supposed output of 290 horsepower is underrated, or 2) The Corvette's supposed 340 horsepower is overrated? Does anyone have facts/opinions as to whether the 3.2 is actually putting out more that the advertised horsepower?
(Sorry FAQ Nazi, I ran a FAQ search but didn't find the answers I was looking for

)

 

[Edo]

Actually we just had a thread about this not too long ago, HAHAHA I arrived on the scene even faster than the Forum's Nazi...MUAHAH.
ok, enough of that.
In either case, as was stated before, acceleration isnt necessarily determined by peak horsepower figures. The NSX uses a much shorter gearing than the C-5 Corvette, and consequently ends up putting almost an identical amount of Horsepower to the ground per gear. (Torque multiplication, Torque x number of revolutions engine needs to turn to make rear wheels turn once.)

The C-5 peaks at 345 or so, but has a relatively short powerband, and is a bit peaky from what I understand. The NSX puts down 85% of its maz torque from 2000-8000rpm's or so. Coupled with a a shorter gear ratio, it should in theory perform fairly close to a C-5.

Someone wrote an entire essay on the whole bit, so I think if you look around enough you'd be able to find it.

 

[Forums Nazi]

Someone wrote an entire essay on the whole bit, so I think if you look around enough you'd be able to find it.

Or, you can always ask you-know-who to find it for you.

http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001575.html

 

[ilya]

The C5s are rated very close to the actual power output, although I've noticed output varies a bit on vettes. ZR1s varied as much as 30 horsepower. The Z06 is conservatively rated. A number of owners on the vette forum have dynoed their Z06s over 400 horsepower stock (claimed 385 by GM). I'm just guessing, but it may be so GM can claim they bumped the output for 2002 or 2003 to 415 without actually doing much.
The vette marketing folks can't be trusted to give accurate numbers. In the advertising, they claimed a 0-60 of 4 seconds flat. 4.3 is the best anyone has ever gotten, and many have tried... not that that's a bad time.

 

[FuzzyGreenCarpets]

One other thing to consider is the fact that since the c5 has a different engine drive wheel layout (FR) it is more prone to powertrain loss. Also, Honda's usually have very efficiant transimissions as far as putting the power of the engine to the wheels. I doubt that a transmission made by Chevy is even close to the Honda's minimal driveline loss. One other thing, maybe the NSX has less rotational mass on the axles and wheels?

Just some ideas.

Steve
The Fuzzy Green Carpets http://www.mp3.com/fuzzygreen

 

[ilya]

In addition, the vettes don't needs as radical a ratio in first gear as the NSX. They have 350 ft/lbs of torque. As it was explained very well in the thread above, it's a multiplication issue. The NSX needs a more aggressive ratio in first gear to maximize the torque that it has.
An auto C5 will have a 3.15 diff, manual a 3.42. An NSX would be a DOG off the line with that kind of gearing.
I know a few people who have put 4.10 gears in a vettes and I've driven with them. It's sick.