• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

NSX v.s C32 AMG

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
133
Location
San Francisco, CA
This is pretty weird. I was late for picking up my gf today, so I drove a little bit faster (about 70 mile/h). Suddently there was a MB-C32 right beside me and tried to race with me. Oh ya, I did have some fun with that C32; but damn...C32 is quite fast. I'm not sure that if my driving performence is good enough, C32 was just fast as my NSX.

I've checked the performence of C32 which has about 350hp with supercharge(amazing HP for that kind of sedan car). Of caurse, my '92 NSX only has 270hp. I suddent have a though: if once I change sport ECU, header, exhoust, will I see the difference ? :rolleyes:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
994
Location
MARIETTA, GA
monarch_kiss said:
This is pretty weird. I was late for picking up my gf today, so I drove a little bit faster (about 70 mile/h). Suddently there was a MB-C32 right beside me and tried to race with me. Oh ya, I did have some fun with that C32; but damn...C32 is quite fast. I'm not sure that if my driving performence is good enough, C32 was just fast as my NSX.

I've checked the performence of C32 which has about 350hp with supercharge(amazing HP for that kind of sedan car). Of caurse, my '92 NSX only has 270hp. I suddent have a though: if once I change sport ECU, header, exhoust, will I see the difference ? :rolleyes:
My brother got a 02 C32 AMG. and he ran a 13.6 all stock, so it is comparable to stock NSX. I can't wait to run my car against his. :wink:
With all the mods you plan, it may help at lower speed, The C32 pulls very hard from 100-130 mph. I hope the NSX's aerodynamics will be better to stay ahead.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Messages
1,661
Location
St. Louis
You should definitely be able to keep up with the C32. They do 0 to 60 at about 5.4 with 349 HP. If you go by Mercedes numbers, the C55 is much faster, but it doesn't make sense to me. The C55 has 362 HP and is listed to do the same 0 to 60 in 4.5. Wow, what a difference 13 HP makes. :rolleyes:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 21, 2005
Messages
1,384
A friend of mine has a MB AMG C32 which has the Kompressor (17.5 PSI boost with a CR of 9.0:1), a chip upgrade, inner-cooler, water injection and a few other goodies. His car puts down close to 400 WHP/400 FT-LBS TQ. What a monster.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Messages
1,994
Location
Bay Area (SF)
I have raced my cousin's C32 numerous times/ No match to the nsx.
from freeway on ramp the nsx just pulls away. he he he :biggrin:
I guess it's becuse the MB is 3500lbs and the NSX being 3100lbs
and both cars were stock...

we are planning to run out cars on Infineon race way for a 1/4 mile run this summer to get some 1/4mile runnnnnn time....
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jul 23, 2003
Messages
3,732
Location
Seattle, WA.
They do 0 to 60 at about 5.4 with 349 HP. If you go by Mercedes numbers, the C55 is much faster, but it doesn't make sense to me. The C55 has 362 HP and is listed to do the same 0 to 60 in 4.5. Wow, what a difference 13 HP makes.
I don't know MB cars nowadays nor I had time to research. But Torque is responsible for Accelaration, HP is for the speed the car could acheive in given weight, aerodynamic drag and gearing. I suspect the V8 had a lot more torque than the V6 supercharged engines. It prossibly more linear output and have meatier tires than the V6, both helps tires hooking up thus shorter time in 1/4 mile.

One thing for sure, I drove my freind's CLK 500, it's not AMG but the car is so effortless at triple digit speed while my nsx at the same speed pull all my attention together. I will not say it's more enjoyable ride, but those German Big engine sedans are really at home at the autobahn speed.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 10, 2003
Messages
884
Location
Los Angeles, CA
amgnsx said:
I have raced my cousin's C32 numerous times/ No match to the nsx.
from freeway on ramp the nsx just pulls away. he he he :biggrin:
I guess it's becuse the MB is 3500lbs and the NSX being 3100lbs
and both cars were stock...

we are planning to run out cars on Infineon race way for a 1/4 mile run this summer to get some 1/4mile runnnnnn time....

That's also cause yours is a later model vs. the poster's '92. :biggrin:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 7, 2003
Messages
699
Location
Seattle, WA
amgnsx said:
I have raced my cousin's C32 numerous times/ No match to the nsx.
from freeway on ramp the nsx just pulls away. he he he :biggrin:
I guess it's becuse the MB is 3500lbs and the NSX being 3100lbs
and both cars were stock...

we are planning to run out cars on Infineon race way for a 1/4 mile run this summer to get some 1/4mile runnnnnn time....

I've had the same happen when I raced my friend in his C32 :biggrin:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
1,072
Location
Clearwater, Fl
It always amazes me the people with the stock cars seem to do all the racing!! :biggrin:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Feb 4, 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
NSXDreamer2 said:
Torque is responsible for Accelaration, HP is for the speed the car could acheive in given weight, aerodynamic drag and gearing.
But HP is important because it reflects gearing, which torque doesn't. That's why a car like the NSX, with relatively paltry torque numbers, accelerates at least as well as cars with similar horsepower numbers - because VTEC keeps the torque curve flat, which enables the torque to be maintained at very high RPMs where other cars would need to upshift. So, both torque and horsepower are important.

You can read a more complete explanation here.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 31, 2003
Messages
84
Location
Chicago, IL
As a C55 owner I can say it's quite a bit faster than the C32 simply because it's a V8 with only 13 more bhp, but it also has 44 more ft/lbs of torque. In addition, the naturally aspirated V8 is going to have a much easier time accelerating than the S/Ced V6. These are just a few reasons why the C55 is considerably faster than a C32. Not that the C32 is any kind of slouch...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
1,072
Location
Clearwater, Fl
K.O. said:
Mercedes stuffed a 5.5L V-8 monster into their C-class. They did not s/c it like the E-class, S-class, or SL class though.

your right i was thinking of the cl 55
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
13
Location
Irvine, CA
I raced a C32 started off at a turn. The C32 obviously turn off his traction control and spun out around the turn. He was scared. If he had his traction control on it would have cut engine power. Either way it's an unbalanced sedan with too much power for it's own good. Just don't go around a turn in a C32. I"ve owned an M5 for 3 years prior to my NSX. The NSX will get a good launch 8 of 10 times. The M5 got a good launch 3 out of 10 times. Sedan based muscle cars save the car companies money because they use most of the same parts as the production models. The NSX is a purpose built sports car. It's overall driving experience is unmatched. Mercedes AMG drives would really rather be sitting at home on a comfortable leather couch not enjoying the entire driving experience. Sorry MB drivers. :biggrin:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
365
Location
Houston, TX
NSXDreamer2 said:
I don't know MB cars nowadays nor I had time to research. But Torque is responsible for Accelaration, HP is for the speed the car could acheive in given weight, aerodynamic drag and gearing. I suspect the V8 had a lot more torque than the V6 supercharged engines. It prossibly more linear output and have meatier tires than the V6, both helps tires hooking up thus shorter time in 1/4 mile

Don't forget about gearing...
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 12, 2003
Messages
173
Location
SoCal
ferris3001 said:
I raced a C32 started off at a turn. The C32 obviously turn off his traction control and spun out around the turn. He was scared. If he had his traction control on it would have cut engine power. Either way it's an unbalanced sedan with too much power for it's own good. Just don't go around a turn in a C32. I"ve owned an M5 for 3 years prior to my NSX. The NSX will get a good launch 8 of 10 times. The M5 got a good launch 3 out of 10 times. Sedan based muscle cars save the car companies money because they use most of the same parts as the production models. The NSX is a purpose built sports car. It's overall driving experience is unmatched. Mercedes AMG drives would really rather be sitting at home on a comfortable leather couch not enjoying the entire driving experience. Sorry MB drivers. :biggrin:

But yet, sedans like the Subaru WRX can compete with our precious exotics?

I've come to understand that all cars are capable, it just depends on how they were built to compete.. ie: what purpose. You can build a light-weight car that will be great in the small twisties, like a Mini Cooper. You can increase the wheels, tires, and brakes.. then get something that will compete better in higher speed twisties. Then, you can increase the power and the car is no longer a car that you'll want to carve canyons with because it will be too powerful -- these cars belong on the highway hitting triple digits.

So, you cant say that the NSX is a purpose built sports-car, because it really depends on the NSX and how it is modified. The NSX is an all around good performer, and depending on what you do with it.. it could be used in different ways.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
13
Location
Irvine, CA
you are correct. What I found with the NSX is that it's not the fastest in a straight line but the sound of the engine, the feel of the steering, the low seating position all give you the sensation of speed and the excitement to experiencing driving. Even when you're going to the grocery store you feel like your racing. I've never driven a WRX. I've had a bmw M3, M5 and Boxster S. The only one that truely excited me even though I may not have been going that fast was the NSX. I find myself turning down the music to listen to the sound of the engine. :redface:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2003
Messages
434
Location
Houston, TX
old_S13 said:
But yet, sedans like the Subaru WRX can compete with our precious exotics?

First of all, a WRX is no match. An STI comes close. If you would do to the NSX what Suburu did to the Impreza to make an STI, you would destroy the STI.

1. Lighten the car
2. Add 25% more displacement
3. Add a turbocharger
4. Put on bigger brakes
5. Add uprated suspension components
etc, etc, etc...

A $32k Impreza is as absurd as a $180k NSX. I'd rather have a 325i than an STI, no offence.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Oct 16, 2003
Messages
133
Location
San Francisco, CA
slashmatt said:
First of all, a WRX is no match. An STI comes close. If you would do to the NSX what Suburu did to the Impreza to make an STI, you would destroy the STI.

1. Lighten the car
2. Add 25% more displacement
3. Add a turbocharger
4. Put on bigger brakes
5. Add uprated suspension components
etc, etc, etc...

A $32k Impreza is as absurd as a $180k NSX. I'd rather have a 325i than an STI, no offence.


Same here. I would rather have Acura new TL than an STI.
One of my friend has STI. It's def. a super sport sedan; however, the quality of int. is not worth to spend that much $ to buy it.

We NSXers would spend 4 times $ than an STI to get NSX. The reason is simple, because it's worth it ! :wink:
 
Top