Ken, you can add my wife's new AMG C-32 to your list of sub 5 second 0-60 cars. It ran 0-60 in 4.89 seconds (limited by poor tire adhesion) and the quarter mile in 13.34 seconds @ 106.7 mph at the local track. It is considerably faster than either my 92 or 95 NSXs.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Im Getting Mad at Sites with Slow NSX 0-60's
- Thread starter Redeye
- Start date
Not according to the magazines. Remember, they have professional drivers and standard test conditions so that they can adjust for differences in environmental conditions etc. According to the September issue of Road & Track, her car takes 5.1 seconds to get to 60. And that car is probably limited as much by its ponderous weight (3540 pounds) as it is by the tires.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 19 December 2001).]
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 19 December 2001).]
I borrowed a friend of mines. Here are the results. (Gtech Pro)
92 w/ K&N and RM Exhaust
with TCS enabled
6.4 0-60
14.77 1/4 Mile
W/O TCS
5.41 0-60
13.67 @ 106.6 1/4 Mile
1K RPM Launch with bald tires...
how accurate does this seem??
Jonathan
how accurate does this seem??
We have no way of knowing how good a driver you are.
The published magazine figures for a stock '91-94 coupe with tread on the tires are generally 5.2 to 5.4 0-60, and 13.8-13.9 in the quarter.
We have no way of knowing how good a driver you are.
The published magazine figures for a stock '91-94 coupe with tread on the tires are generally 5.2 to 5.4 0-60, and 13.8-13.9 in the quarter.
Yup, that's me. No time for a long post now, but search the forums for my posts with g-cube in the text. I've rambled on the subject several times, but the biggest benefit is the continuous logging of g-forces which tells you about acceleration throughout the RPM and MPH range, not just ET. This is even more true when you move from the drags to the road course.
I'm told he recently started using a more accurate accelerometer, so I’ll probably replace/upgrade my cube soon.
[It is not just 0-60 that makes the NSX..that only pne part of it it is the whole package that makes a true sports car. Sure the Z06 is a great car..probably the best vette yet (finally an acceptable car) but I don't like the package. The 2002 BMW M3 is a much better package than the Z06 and I passed on that one too. I sold a Ferrari 355 and I still like my 98 NSX-T as a package much better. My wifw ask my which car is next? I will but a deposit on the 2004-5 NSX and bet that the Honda engineers will once again come to the table with a full cours meal.
PS the Z06 looks a lot like every other vette to me. I see hundreds of vettes everywhere I go..that is boring to me. When I see an Aston Martin, I feel that that is special. I had a vette for 3 months once. Convertible..I love cars that the top can come off. Z06 can't do that. Anyway, the vette I got rid of was a mess of poor fit and finish. The horn did not honk. The lid where the top went down into stuck up 1/4 inch on the right side. The driver side window would get stuck half way up. How could a car come off the line and out of a dealership without been caught by someone? I had a 1992 NSX once that blew a transmission at 13000 mile ( I bought it used) and several years AFTER the warranty was over. Acura (Honda) gave me a new transmission for free (I paid installation only). GM can't fix cars IN warranty let alone give you a $5-6000 transmission for FREE!
I happened to come up to a stop light next to a new Z06, and as been known to happen
when the light turned green the race was on.
I was able to get about three car lenghts on
him until we hit about 60, and I was in my
S4 Avant ( it was raining ).
when the light turned green the race was on.
I was able to get about three car lenghts on
him until we hit about 60, and I was in my
S4 Avant ( it was raining ).
i tested a lot of cars, and i like the nsx the best.
it felt bigger, handled smaller, and like the others have said, LOVE that vtec sound at high rpm
it doesnt have the horsepower, doesnt have decent cupholders, and is slower 0-60 that other exotics--but i still bought it
if you want it faster, make it faster. stock it is still plenty fast if you work it.
as my buddy said after driving it, "ive been in a lot of fast cars, but this is a real giggle factory".
ps. didnt love the vette either, it really is a great value but you can tell where they cut costs in fit and in finish. when the vette feels as smooth as a nsx i will consider it.
it felt bigger, handled smaller, and like the others have said, LOVE that vtec sound at high rpm
it doesnt have the horsepower, doesnt have decent cupholders, and is slower 0-60 that other exotics--but i still bought it
if you want it faster, make it faster. stock it is still plenty fast if you work it.
as my buddy said after driving it, "ive been in a lot of fast cars, but this is a real giggle factory".
ps. didnt love the vette either, it really is a great value but you can tell where they cut costs in fit and in finish. when the vette feels as smooth as a nsx i will consider it.
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
0-60 times for 1000+ cars under performance data:
http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/
http://www.missouri.edu/~apcb20/
That table is pure rubbish. They publish only one figure, without listing the source or any information about the car that was tested. For example, they quote the 0-60 time of the '91 NSX as 5.8 seconds. The '91 NSX with a five-speed was tested by five major magazines, and the tested 0-60 times were 5.03, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, and 5.7 seconds. The only test by a major magazine which yielded a 0-60 time of 5.8 seconds was when Motor Trend (8/91) tested an NSX with an automatic transmission.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 10 January 2002).]
Similar threads
- Sticky
