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

The NSX is slow...oh really?

they're all close. 1-2 seconds amongst friends. but seeing how Probst was the driver in most of them, it should be pretty accurate.
 
Not making excuses, but do we know what tires were on the car Probst drove? If it was the Conti's, then there is the problem. I've heard that the Sport Cup 2's are as much as 2 secs per lap faster? When it was announced that the 2019's were 2 secs a lap faster at Suzuka, I read somewhere that the new stickier Conti tire they made stock was responsible for most of the lap time gain...... I watched the video of Probst driving the car at Laguna Seca and didn't hear anything about the tires. Even the optional Pirelli's were supposedly a lot better than the stock Conti.
 
nsx878 said:
Not making excuses, but do we know what tires were on the car Probst drove? If it was the Conti's, then there is the problem. I've heard that the Sport Cup 2's are as much as 2 secs per lap faster? When it was announced that the 2019's were 2 secs a lap faster at Suzuka, I read somewhere that the new stickier Conti tire they made stock was responsible for most of the lap time gain...... I watched the video of Probst driving the car at Laguna Seca and didn't hear anything about the tires. Even the optional Pirelli's were supposedly a lot better than the stock Conti.
Click to expand...
Motor Trend compared 12 cars at https://www.motortrend.com/cars/mclaren/570/2016/2016-motor-trend-best-drivers-car/ including testing them all at Laguna Seca. Pics accompanying the article show the NSX at the track, and a couple of them show a wheel in enough detail to read Trofeo R on the tire sidewall. Their test listed a 1:36.36 time for the NSX.
 
With the comfort level of the NSX and how quiet and how smooth it is, it is probably not a track monster, correct me if I am wrong, even the original NSX, probably slower than Z06, ZR1, 993/996 turbo, F355/360 even R34 etc vehicles.
I don't understand why Honda/Acura chose to make the NSX so comfort, Honda can easy dumb some leather, insulation, set the seats couple inch lower, lower the car, harder spring, bigger roll bar etc to improve track performance for the NSX (can still keep the hybrid) but Instead, Honda makes it very comfort, and easy for daily driving... (Kind of like a 996 turbo, or even a DB9....) but again, it works for me, and works for certain people. I rather the NSX can squeeze two tiny dog seats than 1 second faster on track....lol
 
nsx878 said:
Yes, Sabine is amazing....... She knows the Nurburgring like the back of her hand, but she can drive..... and talk up a storm while doing it. Too bad she retired, certainly another bucket list item. Just some things you never get to in life. I also regret never having gone to a formula 1 race when Michael Schumacher was driving in the V-10 era..... Would like to have heard that in person...... but I digress...... !
Click to expand...

Oh man, those babies ripping down the Indy front straight (backward) at 21,000 rpm was something I'll never get out of my head. It was surreal. I kept looking around at people with earplugs knowing they were smarter than me, but how could they give up hearing that sound unadulterated. I still love going every year, but the sound today is so sad compared to the V10/12 era.
 
piano said:
With the comfort level of the NSX and how quiet and how smooth it is, it is probably not a track monster, correct me if I am wrong, even the original NSX, probably slower than Z06, ZR1, 993/996 turbo, F355/360 even R34 etc vehicles.
I don't understand why Honda/Acura chose to make the NSX so comfort, Honda can easy dumb some leather, insulation, set the seats couple inch lower, lower the car, harder spring, bigger roll bar etc to improve track performance for the NSX (can still keep the hybrid) but Instead, Honda makes it very comfort, and easy for daily driving... (Kind of like a 996 turbo, or even a DB9....) but again, it works for me, and works for certain people. I rather the NSX can squeeze two tiny dog seats than 1 second faster on track....lol
Click to expand...

Track monster, no, not really, but it's still stupid fun. I've been able to do one track day a month this summer and it never gets old. One more and it will be time for tires and brakes.
 
Not everyone is a track whore or lives for track time. Many are dads who enjoy a nice fast sports car to enjoy with wife / kids and a little comfort cannot hurt on a hot sweltering day.

Tires can easily be swapped if that is the only culprit. When the tires on our car are due for replacement, we will try something different but no rush....

We've had a GT3 (2008) with 6-speed manual and it was a great car in every way but most definitely not a daily driver!
 
Not surprise the NSX is quicker .. but not expected that much quicker! And at 500-600m attitude, shouldn't affect the NA engine that much.
Even Drag race between 610 vs 580, the gap is not that big .. and Andre from Dragtimes, he has huracan himself too, he probably doesn't want to see Huracan lose ...

However, it seems like late model NSX is quicker, early reviews in 2016, early 2017 NSX did 3.0sec, 3.1sec 0-60mph, but then in mid 2017 and on, consistently 2.8-2.9 sec, 1/4 mile also from 11.1 to 11.3 down to 10.8/10.9 .. did Honda/Acura do something like add 10-20hp? more aggressive launch? ( Modded Ecu?)

By compare, most German's numbers are getting slower in time, say the AMG GTS, some reviews got 3.0 to 3.2 before the car officially sells, but then 3.5 sec, 3.6 sec, some even 3.8 sec .. which is big difference, even the AMG GTR, 3.3 to 3.4 sec (which is awesome track monster! ) even the new M5, reviews got 2.8 to 2.9 sec before owners could touch one, now, 3.2/3.3 sec .. (still crazy fast for a big sedan!) Even Porsche and Ferrari sometimes ..early production always quicker!

So, what number should we (consumers) believe ? I used to trust car and driver, road and track, motor trend etc .. but should I trust them anymore? Or it is Manufactures' marketing? Sending higher HP vehicles for reviews, and then tune down their vehicles to consumers (for reliability reason?)

:confused::confused::confused: confused ...
 
piano said:
Not surprise the NSX is quicker .. but not expected that much quicker! And at 500-600m attitude, shouldn't affect the NA engine that much.
Even Drag race between 610 vs 580, the gap is not that big .. and Andre from Dragtimes, he has huracan himself too, he probably doesn't want to see Huracan lose ...

However, it seems like late model NSX is quicker, early reviews in 2016, early 2017 NSX did 3.0sec, 3.1sec 0-60mph, but then in mid 2017 and on, consistently 2.8-2.9 sec, 1/4 mile also from 11.1 to 11.3 down to 10.8/10.9 .. did Honda/Acura do something like add 10-20hp? more aggressive launch? ( Modded Ecu?)

By compare, most German's numbers are getting slower in time, say the AMG GTS, some reviews got 3.0 to 3.2 before the car officially sells, but then 3.5 sec, 3.6 sec, some even 3.8 sec .. which is big difference, even the AMG GTR, 3.3 to 3.4 sec (which is awesome track monster! ) even the new M5, reviews got 2.8 to 2.9 sec before owners could touch one, now, 3.2/3.3 sec .. (still crazy fast for a big sedan!) Even Porsche and Ferrari sometimes ..early production always quicker!

So, what number should we (consumers) believe ? I used to trust car and driver, road and track, motor trend etc .. but should I trust them anymore? Or it is Manufactures' marketing? Sending higher HP vehicles for reviews, and then tune down their vehicles to consumers (for reliability reason?)

:confused::confused::confused: confused ...
Click to expand...


We had a LP610-4 and driven many 580's as well. Just wanted to note the 580 IS SLOWER than the 610-4 stock for stock. Add in the AWD factor of the NSX and the LP580-2 has a big disadvantage regardless.
 
that will be my excuse for not buying a huracan
 
piano said:
Not surprise the NSX is quicker .. but not expected that much quicker! And at 500-600m attitude, shouldn't affect the NA engine that much.
Even Drag race between 610 vs 580, the gap is not that big .. and Andre from Dragtimes, he has huracan himself too, he probably doesn't want to see Huracan lose ...

However, it seems like late model NSX is quicker, early reviews in 2016, early 2017 NSX did 3.0sec, 3.1sec 0-60mph, but then in mid 2017 and on, consistently 2.8-2.9 sec, 1/4 mile also from 11.1 to 11.3 down to 10.8/10.9 .. did Honda/Acura do something like add 10-20hp? more aggressive launch? ( Modded Ecu?)

By compare, most German's numbers are getting slower in time, say the AMG GTS, some reviews got 3.0 to 3.2 before the car officially sells, but then 3.5 sec, 3.6 sec, some even 3.8 sec .. which is big difference, even the AMG GTR, 3.3 to 3.4 sec (which is awesome track monster! ) even the new M5, reviews got 2.8 to 2.9 sec before owners could touch one, now, 3.2/3.3 sec .. (still crazy fast for a big sedan!) Even Porsche and Ferrari sometimes ..early production always quicker!

So, what number should we (consumers) believe ? I used to trust car and driver, road and track, motor trend etc .. but should I trust them anymore? Or it is Manufactures' marketing? Sending higher HP vehicles for reviews, and then tune down their vehicles to consumers (for reliability reason?)

:confused::confused::confused: confused ...
Click to expand...


Several years ago there was an article on Jalopnik about the way Ferrari acted when a magazine or journalist requested a Ferrari model for testing. If it was found they wanted to track the car, Ferrari would first setup a specific car for that particular track, just so the car would do well.
I am not sure if all brands would go to the same length to get the best numbers, but my bet would be that at least every manufacturer would try to at least deliver a car that was a flawless as possible.
With todays turbo-charged engines and high-tech car management software (engine, throttle response, suspension, braking, ESP etc), it is probably technically easier than ever for a company to just dial in that little bit of extra juice. A little more boost, a little more agressive throttle, and voila, you have car that will at least perform slightly better than the stock car that customers will eventually and actually be getting.

AFAIK, the cars in this video were basically stock off-the-shelf cars which some miles behind them, routine maintenance etc. etc. etc. In others words, they are the cars that customers are actually driving. So I would not be surprised that if you take these cars to a dyno and do the same with the 'special' PR-cars, the PR-cars suddenly perform much better.
 
That is why I like to follow Dragtimes channel, they are riding "real" vehicles for some drag / rolling race, I couldn't stop laughing how many times they tried to launch the Dodge Demon "right" ... still can't get what dodge "claims"! And they usually do 4 or 5 races, drag/roll for fair results, rather than the manufactures supply their "factory" vehicles for reviews. (and will get them back)

I am sure the 580 is quick, super quick, just the NSX is quicker. I do believe if it is the 610-4, the 610 will beat the NSX, but will be a close race! At the end, from most reviews, the 610 is 0.2 to 0.4 sec quicker than NSX .. and ~ $80-100K more!
 
Last edited:
Altitude on that particular track may have played a big role on the Lambo losing some NA power. 2700 ft above sea level. 3-4% loss per 1000 feet on NA motors.
 
Last edited:
MvM said:
Several years ago there was an article on Jalopnik about the way Ferrari acted when a magazine or journalist requested a Ferrari model for testing. If it was found they wanted to track the car, Ferrari would first setup a specific car for that particular track, just so the car would do well.
I am not sure if all brands would go to the same length to get the best numbers, but my bet would be that at least every manufacturer would try to at least deliver a car that was a flawless as possible.
With todays turbo-charged engines and high-tech car management software (engine, throttle response, suspension, braking, ESP etc), it is probably technically easier than ever for a company to just dial in that little bit of extra juice. A little more boost, a little more agressive throttle, and voila, you have car that will at least perform slightly better than the stock car that customers will eventually and actually be getting.

AFAIK, the cars in this video were basically stock off-the-shelf cars which some miles behind them, routine maintenance etc. etc. etc. In others words, they are the cars that customers are actually driving. So I would not be surprised that if you take these cars to a dyno and do the same with the 'special' PR-cars, the PR-cars suddenly perform much better.
Click to expand...

The NA2 NSX-R press cars are somewhat infamous for their suspected enhanced tuning. The Best Motoring hosts implied (but never confirmed) several times over the years that those PR cars had something extra from the factory. So, I agree that it's likely current press cars do the same thing.
 
Honcho said:
The NA2 NSX-R press cars are somewhat infamous for their suspected enhanced tuning. The Best Motoring hosts implied (but never confirmed) several times over the years that those PR cars had something extra from the factory. So, I agree that it's likely current press cars do the same thing.
Click to expand...

The NSX from ProCar in Germany (the guy that sold all the carbon fiber parts) had an original NSX-R engine installed in his NSX and put it on the dyno.
If I remember correctly, it made something like 323 HP. That's more than the 'standard' NSX, but not that much more.

I do know that although the NA2 NSX officially mady only 290 HP (US specs), but that over the years little tweaks and improvements on the ECU gave it a few more HP at the 2002+ model than the original 1997 model. A friend of mine had is '97 engine replaced by an original 2003 engine and had to include the engine wiring because the old wiring would not line up. It also told me that the new engine 'feels' stronger than his original one, although that could be a placebo effect since there were never any measurements made.

The 2002 NSX-R was quick mainly because it lost almost 300 lbs in weight, a more agressive throttle response and a better final gear ratio. Since at most tracks, speeds rarely exceeds 130 mph the loss in acceleration high-up was more than offset with the better acceleration below 100 mph.
 
MvM said:
......The 2002 NSX-R was quick mainly because it lost almost 300 lbs in weight, a more agressive throttle response and a better final gear ratio. Since at most tracks, speeds rarely exceeds 130 mph the loss in acceleration high-up was more than offset with the better acceleration below 100 mph.
Click to expand...

The NSX feels like a Momentum car like the miata to me.
 
MvM said:
The NSX from ProCar in Germany (the guy that sold all the carbon fiber parts) had an original NSX-R engine installed in his NSX and put it on the dyno.
If I remember correctly, it made something like 323 HP. That's more than the 'standard' NSX, but not that much more.

I do know that although the NA2 NSX officially mady only 290 HP (US specs), but that over the years little tweaks and improvements on the ECU gave it a few more HP at the 2002+ model than the original 1997 model. A friend of mine had is '97 engine replaced by an original 2003 engine and had to include the engine wiring because the old wiring would not line up. It also told me that the new engine 'feels' stronger than his original one, although that could be a placebo effect since there were never any measurements made.

The 2002 NSX-R was quick mainly because it lost almost 300 lbs in weight, a more agressive throttle response and a better final gear ratio. Since at most tracks, speeds rarely exceeds 130 mph the loss in acceleration high-up was more than offset with the better acceleration below 100 mph.
Click to expand...


interesting re: your friend’s experience with the 2002 engine; mine is the opposite. My 2000 C32B had a much more pronounced VTEC kick from the factory at 5800RPM while my 2003 felt far more linear and seamless.
I had to bolt on the giant carbon fibre GruppeM intake to get the 2003 engine to feel and hear more of the VTEC crossover. The stock 2000 motor I always felt was tuned much more dramatically than my 2003; might have been more drama than Power but it definitely felt better...
 
MvM said:
The NSX from ProCar in Germany (the guy that sold all the carbon fiber parts) had an original NSX-R engine installed in his NSX and put it on the dyno.
If I remember correctly, it made something like 323 HP. That's more than the 'standard' NSX, but not that much more.

I do know that although the NA2 NSX officially mady only 290 HP (US specs), but that over the years little tweaks and improvements on the ECU gave it a few more HP at the 2002+ model than the original 1997 model. A friend of mine had is '97 engine replaced by an original 2003 engine and had to include the engine wiring because the old wiring would not line up. It also told me that the new engine 'feels' stronger than his original one, although that could be a placebo effect since there were never any measurements made.
Click to expand...

Detlef's engine was a production engine, not a press car engine. Honda keeps the press cars in its own fleet, so we'll never be able to test one. My guess is the press cars are probably north of where Detlef dynoed his engine.

BATMANs said:
The NSX feels like a Momentum car like the miata to me.
Click to expand...

The old one was. The NC1 is a power car first.

Gondo89 said:
interesting re: your friend’s experience with the 2002 engine; mine is the opposite. My 2000 C32B had a much more pronounced VTEC kick from the factory at 5800RPM while my 2003 felt far more linear and seamless.
I had to bolt on the giant carbon fibre GruppeM intake to get the 2003 engine to feel and hear more of the VTEC crossover. The stock 2000 motor I always felt was tuned much more dramatically than my 2003; might have been more drama than Power but it definitely felt better...
Click to expand...

Since all NSX engines were at least partly hand built (including NC1), there will be some variation between engines. If the valve adjustment is even slightly off, for example, it can be a dramatic difference in responsiveness and feel. This is why Kaz spends 3 hours on that task- a perfectly adjusted and balanced NSX engine is amazing.
 

Similar threads

F
OEM Rear bumper Rear beam front bumper beam ducts side skirt b pillars for sale
Replies
4
Views
229
FSFNSX
F
C
Is this 1990 worth 90k? Pics and info inside.
Replies
10
Views
455
drew
drew
G
Exterior F/S New PRIDE Carbon NA1/NA2 NSX Widebody Kit (20mm each side)
Replies
6
Views
580
ttuckwalker1
T
A
Awkward rattling noise behind center console ?Aspirator fan
Replies
5
Views
381
drew
drew
V
History behind this 1991 - JH4NA1154MT002713
Replies
17
Views
663
vh_supra26
V
Back
Top