With my mods, what's my theoretical 0-60 & ¼ mile time?

[SoCalDude]

We all the discussion about the performance of stock/non-stock 3.0/3.2 vs. the 355 got me thinking. What can my car do? Ignoring the fact that it's a 91 with 96k miles, my car has Comptech headers and exhaust, Type R short gears, and 4.55 rear end. Now theoretically, what would be my 0-60 and ¼ mile times with these mods assuming my engine is neither strong or weak, just average? A previous discussion:<br>
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39312 <br>
decided that there would be no loss to top speed; it would just take getting the engine to redline in 5th gear to get it there. So what should my 0-60 and ¼ mile time be?

 

[AndyH]

well, it depends on how much you weight :tongue: .....Just kidding

 

[NetViper]

Well, if you look in the FAQ, you can see that short gears and 4.55 bring a 0-60 time of 5.5 to 5.0. So there is 1/2 a second. Then you can see adding 20HP brings the time from 5.5 to 5.15. So .35 seconds. So take .5+.35 and there is .85 off of 5.5 and you get 4.65 seconds.

 

[nsxtasy]

Here are the numbers from Bob Butler's analysis (revised since the one in the FAQ was calculated, and published in NSX Driver), for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times:

stock '91: 5.31 and 13.67
stock '91 with short gears and 4.55 R&P: 4.74 and 13.38
stock '91 with +15 hp: 5.00 and 13.35

Improvements are not exactly additive, due to diminishing returns. So you're probably looking at something around 4.5-4.6 and 13.1-13.2.

Of course, these numbers are based on assumptions built into Bob's analysis (for things like time to complete upshifts, for example) as well as the assumption that your exhaust and header mods add 15 hp at the crank across the revband.

 

[The Kid]

I know this sounds dumb, but why dont you just bring in to the track?

 

[SoCalDude]

well, it depends on how much you weight :tongue: .....Just kidding

I'm going on a diet for health and to improve the car's performance!
:wink:

 

[SoCalDude]

I know this sounds dumb, but why dont you just bring in to the track?

I wanted theoretical numbers to eliminate a poor driving performance
:tongue:

 

[SoCalDude]

Thanks to NetViper and nsxtasy for the numbers!

 

[DocL]

You can off another .1-.2 seconds with some pizza slicers on the front too.

 

[nsxtasy]

And you can subtract another 0.6 second for bling bling 18"/19" wheels (0.9 second for 19"/20"), 0.8 second for an ugly big-ass rear wing, and 0.3 second for each sticker you put on your car. We'll have you down close to zero in no time!

 

[caseycarson]

And you can subtract another 0.6 second for bling bling 18"/19" wheels (0.9 second for 19"/20"), 0.8 second for an ugly big-ass rear wing, and 0.3 second for each sticker you put on your car. We'll have you down close to zero in no time!

hehehehehe......Stickers!!!!!

 

[nsxsupra]

I wanted theoretical numbers to eliminate a poor driving performance
:tongue:

You can also test it with GTech competition pro. They are fairly accurate for timing 0~60times.

Very good tool for before after tests, 0~60 time, baseline hp, after hp.

 

[TurboLexus]

You can also test it with GTech competition pro. They are fairly accurate for timing 0~60times.

Very good tool for before after tests, 0~60 time, baseline hp, after hp.

I remember the old Vericom...supposed to be dead accurate with a 'NASA-spec' accelerometer...we found it to be pretty worthless, my buddy's wife's minivan ran a pretty close time to my Grand National . I have heard the GTech is supposed to be pretty accurate, but what fun is it without a timeslip, eh? Bridgewater...soon as E-town opens back up I think we'll have to head over and do some runs.
- Jon

 

[ak]

0-60 in 4.94 second and 1/4mile in 13.0 @ 106mph.

 

[NSXLuvr]

You can also test it with GTech competition pro. They are fairly accurate for timing 0~60times.

Worthless IMHO. GTech is overly optimistic on their times.

 

[Brian2by2]

I would think 1/4 mile times would come down a lot with gears because the worst part of our car is the drop in RPMs from 1st to 2nd gear on the 5 speed C30's.

 

[DnSxK]

I would think 1/4 mile times would come down a lot with gears because the worst part of our car is the drop in RPMs from 1st to 2nd gear on the 5 speed C30's.

Except you run out of 3rd gear at 90 and have to make an extra shift. Now, if you could just run it up to 10K... :biggrin:

Are the GTech's (or any of the other accelerometer based data collection devices) consistent enough that you could at least use them to get an idea of overall gain due to a mod, even if the absolute number were bogus?

 

[robfenn]

What is the agreed 0-60 time for the 3.2 Coupe?

I just can't see a +20bhp NSX getting anywhere near the above figures, my dad had an M3 and that felt much much faster in a straight line.

I was reading EVO and they had the Type-R quoted as 4.4secs whilst a Porsche with like 60+bhp/per ton more did it in 4.5. Personally i think Honda bullshit a bit..

-Rob

 

[Brian2by2]

What is the agreed 0-60 time for the 3.2 Coupe?

I just can't see a +20bhp NSX getting anywhere near the above figures, my dad had an M3 and that felt much much faster in a straight line.

I was reading EVO and they had the Type-R quoted as 4.4secs whilst a Porsche with like 60+bhp/per ton more did it in 4.5. Personally i think Honda bullshit a bit..

-Rob

and a Corvette with 100+bhp does 0-60 in 4.5. Whats your point?

You think EVO magazine just takes Honda's word for it? i don't. Just about every car mag has the C32 NSX running 0-60 in under 5 seconds (4.7-4.9) and some have it going 12.9 in the 1/4 mile, while others have it a 13.3-13.5. Depends on the conditions, whose driving etc.

The NSX has a lot less drive-train loss than the Vette, and it can put that power down more efficiently with its MR layout. It also has a smaller gearbox than both those cars to allow quicker shifts, and I think it revs higher (not sure on that one).

 

[nsxtasy]

I would think 1/4 mile times would come down a lot with gears because the worst part of our car is the drop in RPMs from 1st to 2nd gear on the 5 speed C30's.

According to Bob Butler's calculations, 1/4 mile time with a stock five-speed is 13.67 seconds, and with short gears, is 13.56 seconds. Remember, the short gears make the car quicker from 45-74 mph, but slower overall above 74 mph.

What is the agreed 0-60 time for the 3.2 Coupe?

There was one test where the coupe did 4.5, but 4.7 is more typical. Keep in mind that the 3.2 Coupe is very rare. The more common 3.2 NSX-T is typically 4.8-5.0. 1/4 mile times for the 3.2-liter engine are around 13.0 for the coupe, 13.3 for the NSX-T.

I just can't see a +20bhp NSX getting anywhere near the above figures, my dad had an M3 and that felt much much faster in a straight line.

"Feel" is not always the same as actual. The US-spec E36 M3 does mid to upper fives 0-60, and the E46 M3 acceleration figures are 4.8-5.0, the same as the 3.2-liter NSX-T. Remember, compared with the NSX, the E36 had a significant power disadvantage (240 hp) and the E46 has a significant weight disadvantage (3400 pounds).

Personally i think Honda bullshit a bit..

Honda doesn't publish acceleration figures. Aside from the numbers for the gearing differences in the first paragraph of this post, these numbers come from magazine tests. The magazines all use the same procedures to test their cars, including the same professional drivers, bone stock equipment and tires, full tank of gas, etc. That's why they are usually quite consistent from one magazine test to another, within a couple of tenths of a second.

 

[Litespeeds]

You can guess all the numbers you want but I totally agree with Bridgewater Acura because the numbers are only as good as the driver and his/her car. If your car is capable of doing a 13.0 in the quarter by a professional driver, most people are only able to maybe get it down to around 13.3-13.5 range. Weight of the driver has a little to do with your times as well. The biggest factor is how abusive you want to be on your car. Some people power shift and get a little bit better times than some of the pro drivers so it all comes down to you, your car and the christmas tree lights at the track.
I was curious about my 92 with I/H/E, short gears, lightweight flywheel, race clutch with 17/18" wheel combo which are heavier than stock and me about 195 lbs with only the spare tire out of the car and I ran a best of 13.2 at 106mph. Before the header and Cantrell AIS, I had only a K&N FIPK and Comptech Exhaust with stock 15/16" wheels with A022 tires and only ran a best of 13.6 at 103mph. My 0-60 ft. times were in the 2.0-2.1 range with the stock wheels and 1.9-2.0 range with the 275/35/18 S-02 on 18x10 Volk AV3 wheels.

 

[nsxtasy]

You can guess all the numbers you want but I totally agree with Bridgewater Acura because the numbers are only as good as the driver and his/her car.

Of course, that's true. Still, you can calculate the effect of a given set of mods on the times. All else being equal - including the driver's weight, ability, quickness at shifting, amount of gas in the tank, etc - the time improvement for a given mod can be calculated, and will usually be reflected in real world results (if you hold all those other things constant, which is often impossible).

For example, as noted above, Bob Butler's model (which has assumptions for things like the time taken to shift, etc) shows a stock '91 doing a quarter mile in 13.67 seconds, and adding 15 hp reduces this to 13.35. Your actual numbers may be higher or lower than these, but in general, a difference of 15 hp should still reduce your times by approximately 0.32 second.

 

[Litespeeds]

13.67 is a very fast time for a totally stock 91 NSX. I have heard that some of the vehicles built in 91 and 92 had a little bit more horsies than others. I don't think I ever saw a test result from any magazine resulting in times faster than 13.8 range for a stock NSX. If you add 15 horses by doing something like just headers, I find it hard for the NSX to get down to 13.35.
I consider myself a pretty good driver and the best that I turned was a 13.6 at 103 with Comptech exhaust, K&N FIPK, race clutch, lightweight flywheel, short gears. When I added headers and switched back to the stock airbox and added a Cantrell AIS and Unifilter, I ran a 13.2 at 106.
My friend with a 91 NSX also had similar stuff that I have but with lighter weight wheels, removed the passenger seat, tool tray and spare tire and Dali Hot Chip and 4.55 RP turned a best of 12.9 at 108. He was also about 40 lbs lighter than me. I should have let him drive my car and see what he could have turned. In any case, I just think that B0b's model is just a little misleading. Those numbers look like the BEST CASE SCENARIO imho.

 

[nsxtasy]

13.67 is a very fast time for a totally stock 91 NSX.
.
.
.
I don't think I ever saw a test result from any magazine resulting in times faster than 13.8 range for a stock NSX.

Motor Trend, December 1990: 13.7
Sports Car International, December 1990: 13.47

I have heard that some of the vehicles built in 91 and 92 had a little bit more horsies than others.

The number of such cases is exceedingly small. If you take a group of bone stock NSXs, almost all of them will have horsepower numbers that are within 5 hp of each other, which is a range of 2 percent. That is remarkably consistent, more consistent than almost any other car out there.

If you add 15 horses by doing something like just headers, I find it hard for the NSX to get down to 13.35.

Again, you are TOTALLY missing the point of Bob's analysis. If you add 15 horses, then you will reduce 1/4 mile times by 0.32 second. THAT is the point - not the actual times themselves.

Heck, Bob could have used different assumptions in his model. For example, he assumed that the stock '91, with driver, weighed 3200 pounds, and he assumed that each shift took 0.3 second. If you assume a different time to shift, or you assume that the car has a different weight (due to a different driver or a different amount of gasoline), then you will get different acceleration numbers. But the improvements achieved by a given gearing mod, or by a given horsepower increase, or by a given weight increase, will remain almost exactly the same.

In any case, I just think that B0b's model is just a little misleading. Those numbers look like the BEST CASE SCENARIO imho.

Yes, they are - and that is exactly what the absolute numbers represent: what the car is capable of, best case scenario (which is the question that SoCalDude was asking in this topic). But the differences between those numbers, due to different gearing and horsepower mods, will apply in ALL cases.

 

[Litespeeds]

Thanks for the clarification Ken. I guess adding headers to my car which is about a 15 hp addition, I was able to shave off a little over .32 seconds off my 1/4 which is basically what I did going from a 13.609 to a 13.258.
I should have figured that you had some documentation of a stock NSX doing times that are faster than what most people believe.