It is hard to believe the GTR was THAT much faster on the track. WOW. damn impressive. I have to laugh at the vette forums.. they are all like "yeah.. but would you drive a datsun!".. and I am like... how is that any worse than a chevy?
I am looking forward to more tests on different tracks (and not drive my MILLEN -- NISSAN race driver, but so far i am very impressed.
lol,
so your saying that in 1991 when the nsx came out with 270hp weighing 3100 pounds that it wasnt an impressive car,
much like the c6 z06 "upped" the bar,
That is exactly what I am saying. My old 951 weighed the same, made similar power and yet out braked and out performed the NSX that came out a full 3 years later. I also read every magazine article and the first thing I realized is just how much crap there was in the articles. Makes you wonder if they weren't just catering to their biggest advertiser. I also read every article on the car - pages upon pages talking about how lightweight it was with titanium this and aluminum that. Yet the damn thing weighed more than a 911 and about the same as my 951. Wow, what an accomplishment. Funny I never saw magazines raving about how "light" the 951 or 911 was. Hell, one magazine article even marvelled that Honda went so far as to put an aluminum jack in the car to save weight. Talk about hype and BS. It still weighs over 3000 lbs people! The brake unit is from an Acura Legend and the engine - well lets just say that the car was horsepower deficient. And this was at a time when Honda was dominating F1. They should have put a face ripper of an engine in it and given it supercar performance. After all, they priced and hyped it like a supercar. Instead of aiming for the 348 - pretty much the worst Ferrari ever - they should have went after the F40. I hope the new NSX pushes the envelope and makes GT-R owners want to trade in their cars in droves.
Is the NSX a good car? Yes, most definately. Was it driving nirvana as it's made out to be? Definately not. That is why they didn't sell very well. Nissan reached for the gold ring with the GT-R and from the looks of things they got a giant killer on their hands. The NSX was only hyped as being the giant killer and it fell short. I hope they don't do the same with the new one.
P.S. This is the engine they should have put in the NSX. Now that would have been a machine!
First I have never seen a 2700 lb 951 - typically they are in the 3100 lb range. Are you sure you weren't looking at the non turbo model? As for performance comparisons it all depends where you get your statistics from. For example:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/other-cars/imports/acura-nsx/acura-nsx.shtml
They list a 1991 NSX at 14 second 1/4 and 5.7 0-60. Naturally some here will say that's way off.
I can also find stats for the 951 here:
http://vista.pca.org/stl/944turbo.htm
Where they list the 1/4 mile at 13.5 and 0-60 at 5.5 seconds. Naturally some here will also say those are way off. Even the top speeds are close (170 to 162). Regardless of how exacting the numbers are the point I was making is that you can't deny that the two cars offer similar performance numbers. They both offer a similar driving experience and handling. However, my 951 "feels" like it has more power. Probably due to the difference in power delivery and the torque the turbo car makes vs the n/a car. So what in the NSX justified all the hype? That it was the next supercar? Especially when one could debate it's no better than an old 951? To put it in perspective take a look today. Do you think anyone could argue that the Cayman is a better car than the GT-R? Absolutely not. Nissan set their goals much higher and delivered. You aren't going to find a car from 5 years ago that comes close to touching it - at least not something that isn't in supercar territory. The same isn't true about the 1991 NSX and the cars that came before it.
Don't get the impression that I'm an NSX hater - I'm not. I love my NSX and appreciate the build quality and reliability. However the power was dissappointing - as was the "squeel like a stuck pig boy" ABS unit. What bastard accountant made them put that piece of junk on this car? Couldn't they steal a nice set of Brembo's from Porsche to do the job right? How much more would that have cost? The car was nearly $100K over 15 years ago. What is that in todays dollars? Is it unreasonable to think that maybe they should have spent an extra grand on the brakes? My car currently has a CTSC on low boost and it's finally feeling closer to what I think it should have come out of the factory to begin with. The next step for me is to raise the boost and then tackle the brakes. Hopefully that will keep me happy......until I get the Lovefab turbo itch.
"My car's faster than yours"
"No my car is faster than yours"
You can have variances of over a second for 0-60 times for different magazine articles. I remember when the EVOs and STIs first came out, magazines said they were 0-60 in 4.5 seconds, later that went to 5.5 and now seems to settle in the low 5s. -WHO CARES?
I personally dont care much about those 'raw' numbers. Heck, even lap times (which are a better gauge), still isnt that good when you take into consideration all the variables in terms of weather, tire condition, driver (BIG variance), etc...
My full interior stock NSX (with bigger 17-18" wheels - heavier), 1/2 tank of gas, sub, amp, and with me in it weighed in at 3,050lbs.
Early NSXs had 15" wheels - hard to fit a bigger caliper with the suspension geometry, wheel sizing, high offset at the time. Larger rotors and calipers won't necessarily make you stop in their 1-stop panic brake exercise (again useless) any better, but the NSXs stock brake system holds up to track abuse pretty well as is.
0.02
