Got 33.59mpg on a long road trip to Utah last year. I was being pretty nice to it though.
Dave
Impressive. Were you keeping the speeds down in the 60-65 mph range? and I am guessing the terrain was pretty flat?
Got 33.59mpg on a long road trip to Utah last year. I was being pretty nice to it though.
Dave
Edinkali:
The trip was from Seattle To SLC. There are two mountain ranges to go over. I did the speed limit. In Washington that was 60 on the westside and 70 over the top through Central Washington. As I recall Oregon was 55?. Idaho was back up to 70. I went 521 miles on that particular tank of fuel. It was a warm, calm day. Just before the trip I pulled the injectors and had them cleaned by Witchhunter Performance. (www.witchhunterperformance.com)
I was really impressed with the mileage. For the remaining few hundred miles of the trip my mileage went down. I was leaning on it a little more through Idaho and Utah.
Dave
Initially I was talking about the NA2 that comes with the 6 spd but since there are obviously differences like displacement and as you said "weight and wheel/tire pkg" I decided to ask if there was anyone with an NA1 with a 6 spd conversion.
Not sure how some of you are able to get that kind of mileage. I've never gotten even 25 mpg hwy in my '95. I thought it was my gearing, but a lot of these 28mpg claims are on na1's as well.
Not sure how some of you are able to get that kind of mileage. I've never gotten even 25 mpg hwy in my '95. I thought it was my gearing, but a lot of these 28mpg claims are on na1's as well.
NA1 is ideal if you are looking for the following:
- Better MPGs (thanks to the smaller displacement)
- stiffer chassis
- lighter car
- you have $$$ left over to modify the NSX ( or buy stocks at it's low for gallardo future)
NA2 coupe has stiffer chassis also slightly lighter due to stronger higher grade aluminum. Now finding a NA2 coupe is a whole different story ..LOL
What grade alloy is it?
......Using a Cray supercomputer, the engineers performed millions of Finite Element Modeling (FEM) and stress analysis calculations. The result of this research and development effort is a chassis that weighs 210 Kg (462 lbs) with doors, hood and deck lids installed-about 40% less than a steel chassis, but with the same rigidity and impact protection. The NSX structure is significantly stiffer than every other competitor currently on the market. Both models, the NSX and the removable-top NSX-T, meet 1997 federal side-impact standards.
To counter the small weight increase of the new 6-speed transmission and larger brakes, key body parts are now made with a newly developed 6000 series aluminum alloy that is up to 50 percent stronger, thus requiring less material to perform effectively. This thinner, lighter-weight new material is used in making the doors, fenders, and front and rear deck lids, among other key parts of the NSX. For example, by using this high-strength alloy, thinner doorskin material netted a 2.2 kg (4.9 lbs.) weight reduction without any sacrifice in strength.......
What alloy was the NA1 made outta?
The impression that I get is that the 6000 series used in the NSX was more for non-structural parts like the skin. Was there something in the chassis pertaining to safety that it was used for?
Ok I found this here
http://www.hondanews.com/search/release/2596?q=nsx&s=honda
The biggest problem to overcome, by far, was how to create a lightweight aluminum chassis with the rigidity of steel. The engineers' primary ally in this quest was the Cray supercomputer. With it, they were able to perform the vast number of Finite Element Modelling and stress analysis calculations necessary to optimize the original concept. To begin with, all the existing software, which was programmed for the torsional and bending values of steel, had to be re-written for the properties of aluminum. The R&D staff conducted extensive investigations of eight different aluminum alloys. They were analyzed for mechanical properties such as bending and tensile strength, formability, weldability and corrosion resistance. When this investigation was completed, the goal of building an aluminum chassis came within reach. They had a fairly accurate picture of which alloy and in what thickness would best work in any given area of the structure. In a sense, this was like solving an enormous jigsaw puzzle.
The unit body utilizes a number of different alloys for different applications. The structural sections are made of HA5182P-O.This is a non-heat-treated 5000 series alloy which provides excellent corrosion resistance, good weldability and excellent malleability.The exterior body panels are made of three different 6000 series alloys. These alloys are particularly resistant to corrosion. They're also heat treated to provide excellent resistance to minor denting. The exterior panels are 40% thicker than comparable panels made of steel."
I'm still researching the NA2 chassis to see if there's it's any different. Also here's something I never knew and wonder how many here knew this as well:biggrin:
"Structure
A rigid structure is of paramount importance in a performance car. High rigidity provides a stable platform for proper suspension geometry and alignment, and it makes possible a tight, rattle free interior. A structure that flexes under torsional or bending loads will upset the suspension geometry causing unwanted toe-change, steering deflection and a host of handling problems.
Additionally, central to the goal of performance is a favorable power to weight ratio. It's obvious that a heavy car needs a lot of power to achieve high levels of performance. Conversely, a very light car can achieve the same performance levels with less horsepower. With that goal in mind, several research projects were launched.
This project examined virtually every material to determine its feasibility for a light weight unit-body chassis. The materials examined included steel, aluminum, carbon fiber, sheet molded plastic, fiberglass,and many other forms of plastic. They were examined for strength, rigifty, weight, flammability, formability, cost and of course, availability in the quantities necessary for production.
The result of this investigation lead the project team to the conclusion that aluminum was the ideal material for this application."
Wow Honda actually looked into making the NSX out of CF way back then
I was under the impression that alluminum was more rigid than steel. Steel is stronger and doesn't have a fatigue life. Of course my info comes from researching bike frames, but I suspect that the science, applications and principles are universal.
I just want to know if indeed there was a difference between the NA1 and NA2 in terms of the alloys implemented on the structure and safety of the NSX.
I've found nothing so far.
I don't get how the S2000 and FD were a steel chassis and still lighter than the NSX. Is the NSX engine that heavy?
Where's this weight coming from?
BTW, since Carbon Fiber was invented in the late '50's by the Americans where Rolls Royce did a darn good job of making it good enough for Aerospace and Defense applications.
The guy that started Assos (VERY high end bike clothes) made the first CF bike in the mid '70's.
Bottom line is that I think CF is over hyped since it was introduced to the asian car market where they orgasm from the very name of it.
BTW, did you know that the RX8 comes with a CF drive shaft?
I believe that goes by the thickness of the application. Aluminum is more flexible than steel so it takes more of it to make it as strong as steel.
I'm still searching as well. I've been able to find safety wise that the NA2 has more welds but no mention on if the actual chassis material was changed.
Well S2K has no roof and I believe the NSX engine is heavier plus there is less car dimension wise on both plus they also both use aluminum on various body parts to bring down weight. FD engine is flyweight it's considered a 1.3L compared to 3.0-3.2 V6.
No didn't know that. I knew the 350Z had one though.
Got 33.59mpg on a long road trip to Utah last year. I was being pretty nice to it though.
Dave
KyleMo:
Do you have a manual gearbox? Mine is the auto. I'm real happy with the mileage during relaxed cruising, which is all I really do. Having a cruise range of just over 500 miles gives plenty of options for routes.
Dave
But the month before winter storage after I got home was between 20-25 depending on my mood:tongue: