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

zeroto60times

Joined
11 August 2011
Messages
2,634
Location
Arlington, VA
A friend of mine linked me over to this site and asked me why my year (2001) was so different from the rest. I told him it was probably an error as it is unlikely the 2001 models ome how magically gained 0.3 sec in the 0-60 and 0.5 in the 1/4 mile. Does anyone know the full story though?

Acura NSX 0 to 60 mph and Quarter Mile Times


1991 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 14.2
1992 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
1993 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.7
1994 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 5.2 Quarter mile 13.4
1995 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 5.5 Quarter mile 13.5
1996 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 5.7 Quarter mile 14.1
1997 Acura NSX-T 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.1
1998 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 4.8 Quarter mile 13.1
1999 Acura NSX Alex Zanardi Edition 0-60 mph 4.6 Quarter mile 12.9
2001 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 4.4 Quarter mile 12.7 (wtf!!)
2002 Acura NSX 0-60 mph 4.7 Quarter mile 13.2
 
Aren't 95 and 96 identical in every way? What explains the difference in times?
 
If memory serves those amazing 2001 times were from a na2 coupe that infamously had a "strong" motor...possibly a R ringer sent to the US to post good times.
 
If memory serves those amazing 2001 times were from a na2 coupe that infamously had a "strong" motor...possibly a R ringer sent to the US to post good times.

I think you are right. A yellow coupe also put down really fast times.
 
I've heard those stories as well.

Also all of these tests were done with different drivers on different days at different temperature, humidity, and altitude.
Probably a .5 second margin of error in these times if you take all that into account.
 
The 1995/1996 should be the slowest of the manual NSXs of all years due to it's heavier weight from the Targa and smaller 3.0L motor. The 1996 times look more correct.

I'm guess this table is taking times posted by multiple publications from multiple testing conditions with completely different drivers. Also, it's not stated which transmission is in each and not completely clear if the car is a Targa or Coupe (1998, 2001 & 2002 are coupes??).
 
I know motortrend did 4.5 and 12.9 in a 1998 NSX.
Is 12.7 NSX-R?

- - - Updated - - -

If memory serves those amazing 2001 times were from a na2 coupe that infamously had a "strong" motor...possibly a R ringer sent to the US to post good times.

It would be interesting to have a decent size group of people with stock cars at the same time on the same dyno.
I'm curious how much variance there is in engines.
I seem to be able to outrun everything. It's like my NSX has 400hp or something.
 
Last edited:
This thread and a friend inspired me. Last night a friend of mine (a former NSX owner) that has an 1100 HP Supra, invited me to go to the local drag strip for test and tune night. I've always wondered how this car that wasn't built for straight line speed would do in the quarter mile so I took it on a couple runs. Now I don't want to abuse my Orange Unicorn so I sent a text to my mechanic Scott before I went to the track. He said keep the TCS on, don't dump the clutch over 3.5K and don't miss a shift and it will be fun and easy on the car. With that info and the knowledge that a 2002 NSX can run a 13.2 quarter mile my goal was low 14s to high 13s. Well, having never drag raced, my reaction time sucked (damn the tree moves fast after you stage). My first pass was a 14.31 @ 106.74 mph. I didn't get the revs high enough and almost stalled at the start so I decided I would do one more run to see if I could get it right. My second pass was a 13.5005 @ 107.27 mph. I stopped there having accomplished my goal and watched my friend's Supra run a 10.63 @ 130+mph before going home. The timing sheet doesn't give 0-60 mph times but, it did give 0-60 ft time and I did 60 ft in 2.02 sec. and the 1/8th mile in 8.76 @ 82 mph. This isn't much help for this thread but it makes me think that someone very good at running the quarter mile could get one of these cars in the 12s if I can get mine to 13.5 with no experience.
 
13.5 isn't a bad time for a gentle launch. 107 MPH isn't bad either. Are you 100% stock?
 
Just Angus cat backs and the Downforce scoop.
 
Yeah, I watched a video of them trying to get 0-60 times out of the new C7 Corvette.
They just thrashed it over and over and over and over.
I think they couldn't care less about destroying the car.
Makes a difference I'm sure...

There's some more times here from people's drag strip time slips.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura--NSX-Drag-Racing.html

7) 12.900 110.000 8.413 1.970 Acura NSX T-top 2003 NSXmofo
Stock except TAITEC Lightweight Exhaust

8) 12.900 107.300 Acura NSX 2001 NA
Stock
 
Last edited:
You should have driven your friend's supra . 10.63 with 1100 hurts to read. I'm bringing my car to the track soon , 92 with Headers, exhaust, test pipes and custom scoop should be good . I'll make sure my car has less than a half a tank too lol. Never hit the strip with it yet so 13-13.2 is what I'm aiming for
 
There's some more times here from people's drag strip time slips.
http://www.dragtimes.com/Acura--NSX-Drag-Racing.html

7) 12.900 110.000 8.413 1.970 Acura NSX T-top 2003 NSXmofo
Stock except TAITEC Lightweight Exhaust

8) 12.900 107.300 Acura NSX 2001 NA
Stock

After looking at those times and speeds I can see how my reaction time hurts. Maybe a lot more experience would get my car into the 12s. But, I'm not going to abuse it so that was the end of my drag racing career with this car. I just wanted to see what my NSX could do and join in the fun at the track. Though the sound of that Angus exhaust was intoxicating. I got a lot of questions and comments about the exhaust from some of the others there. As for driving my friends Supra, I would never ask or consider it. But if he offered a ride in the navigator's seat I'd do it in a heart beat. Good luck with your Supra.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I watched a video of them trying to get 0-60 times out of the new C7 Corvette.
They just thrashed it over and over and over and over.
I think they couldn't care less about destroying the car.
Makes a difference I'm sure...

Would like to see - where is that video?

- - - Updated - - -

Actually - never mind, a quick look @youtube gave me more than enough views of clutch drops and 0-60 runs!

This one does a good job of illustrating the difficultly to get consistent 0-60 times, let alone get anywhere close to a low number seen in a magazine.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/jJl0SW6zcZ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Admittedly I personally lost most of my fascination with 0-60 times after spending an afternoon with Bob Bondurant and 10 other Ford new hire engineers in 1993. Bob spent the day with us at the Dearborn proving grounds on the final day of a vehicle dynamics class for new hires. We learned basic handling skills on paper in the classroom and then on the track. Steer by throttle, etc.. Tried different cars with different suspensions & handling characteristics on the handling track. But the real kicker was when Bob put 6 or 7 of us in an Econoline van to further demonstrate a few things only to then best all of our times on the handling track by a wide margin and while looking like he wasn't even trying!!!! And with minimal squeal from the tires. That day and the time spent with Bob made me realize how much of it's about the driver, and that those car magazine numbers are about as close to reality for any owner as is the reality that Tiger Woods and Shaq owned and drove Buicks!
 
The new owner of my 1991 ran a 12.7 about 2 months ago. Basically just 4.23 gear, headers and exhaust, plus a "ram air" intake for an extra 5 horse or so.
 
After looking at those times and speeds I can see how my reaction time hurts.

Reaction time has no influence on times and speeds. It WILL affect whether you get to the finish line first in a head-to-head race, but will not affect your times. Here's why:

Reaction time is measured as the time between when the green light goes on and the front tires trip the start beacon, which is very close to the staging lights. Elapsed time (ET), is measured as the time between when the clock start beacon is tripped and the finish beacon is tripped 1/4 mile away. You can sit there a whole second before launching and your ET will be the same. If you were in a head-to-head race, chances are you'd lose by a whole bunch, but your time could still be very good. Reaction time is why you may see a pro drag race on TV, and a higher ET will win a race against the next lane, even though that other lane might have had a lower ET; in this case, the driver with the better reaction time is the winner.

I don't know if you were using the "pro" lights or the weekend warrior ("sportsman") lights: in the pro version, the yellow lights all come on and almost instantaneously the green light then comes on (.4 seconds later). In the other version of the light sequence, it's "yellow-yellow-yellow-green", with the yellow lights coming on 1/2 second apart. If this is the version of the tree you were on, here's a tip: Stage "deep", meaning stage where the first staging light comes on, then inch forward very slowly until the second light comes on, and don't creep up beyond that. This gives the longest distance between where you are staged and where the starting beacon is. It's only a few inches difference, but you hit the start light with that little extra bit of momentum. And if you stage in this manner, for a good reaction time think "yellow-yellow-GO". The idea is the drop the clutch right as the second light is going off (the third light is coming on). Since you deep-staged, this gives the driveline to load up and your car a chance to start moving, and hit the start beacon even though you are actually starting to move the car before the green light comes on. This technique will cut it pretty close, so you may end up red-lighting once or twice until you can dial in the technique.

Of course, you may need to adjust a hair of a second quicker or slower depending on how soft and sticky your rear tires are, the surface condition, temperature, etc. But again, this is totally unnecessary if you're only out there to get 1/4-mile ET and MPH. I've not done a 1/4 mile with my NSX but have done Christmas Tree lights at autocross Pro Solo events, where the start is side-by-side using the lights. I routinely cut lights around 0.1 seconds, and my son even nailed a perfect light reaction time: 0.000!

EDIT: P.S. Clarification: in drag racing ET is the time between the start beacon and the finish beacon. In autocross Pro Solo, the time is measured when the green light goes on, so sitting there DOES influence time. Disclaimer: this is how I understood timing to work. I am not 100% sure all tracks use this timing method but I am pretty darned sure. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
^^^^what he said, technically your 1/4 mile run is not from a standing start

Ever notice how a car with a slower ET wins the race? And mph is not calculated at the finish line either----but that is a different discussion.
 
Last edited:
Reaction time has no influence on times and speeds. It WILL affect whether you get to the finish line first in a head-to-head race, but will not affect your times. Here's why:

Reaction time is measured as the time between when the green light goes on and the front tires trip the start beacon, which is very close to the staging lights. Elapsed time (ET), is measured as the time between when the clock start beacon is tripped and the finish beacon is tripped 1/4 mile away. You can sit there a whole second before launching and your ET will be the same. If you were in a head-to-head race, chances are you'd lose by a whole bunch, but your time could still be very good. Reaction time is why you may see a pro drag race on TV, and a higher ET will win a race against the next lane, even though that other lane might have had a lower ET; in this case, the driver with the better reaction time is the winner.

I don't know if you were using the "pro" lights or the weekend warrior ("sportsman") lights: in the pro version, the yellow lights all come on and almost instantaneously the green light then comes on (.4 seconds later). In the other version of the light sequence, it's "yellow-yellow-yellow-green", with the yellow lights coming on 1/2 second apart. If this is the version of the tree you were on, here's a tip: Stage "deep", meaning stage where the first staging light comes on, then inch forward very slowly until the second light comes on, and don't creep up beyond that. This gives the longest distance between where you are staged and where the starting beacon is. It's only a few inches difference, but you hit the start light with that little extra bit of momentum. And if you stage in this manner, for a good reaction time think "yellow-yellow-GO". The idea is the drop the clutch right as the second light is going off (the third light is coming on). Since you deep-staged, this gives the driveline to load up and your car a chance to start moving, and hit the start beacon even though you are actually starting to move the car before the green light comes on. This technique will cut it pretty close, so you may end up red-lighting once or twice until you can dial in the technique.

Of course, you may need to adjust a hair of a second quicker or slower depending on how soft and sticky your rear tires are, the surface condition, temperature, etc. But again, this is totally unnecessary if you're only out there to get 1/4-mile ET and MPH. I've not done a 1/4 mile with my NSX but have done Christmas Tree lights at autocross Pro Solo events, where the start is side-by-side using the lights. I routinely cut lights around 0.1 seconds, and my son even nailed a perfect light reaction time: 0.000!

EDIT: P.S. Clarification: in drag racing ET is the time between the start beacon and the finish beacon. In autocross Pro Solo, the time is measured when the green light goes on, so sitting there DOES influence time. Disclaimer: this is how I understood timing to work. I am not 100% sure all tracks use this timing method but I am pretty darned sure. :biggrin:

I would agree and we were using the weekend warrior lights. But, my reaction time was influenced by the TCS as I was obviously driving conservative with TCS on. On one start I hit the throttle on the light but the car sputtered when the TCS kicked in. I figured out that I wasn't at a high enough rev when I dumped the clutch. I was around 3K or just under. On the next run I reved at 3.5K and the car launched properly and my speed at the starting beacon was much improved. This was my first time at the strip so perhaps I used the wrong term to discribe my lack of experience. At 13.5 I feel I accomplished my goal so I'm not planning on taking the NSX there again. But if I did I might try without the TCS. Thanks for your starting tips. I'll use them as I plan to take my S2K out there next time the weather looks cold (50 degrees) to see what it will do.

PS. Doug I was hoping to meet you at NSXPO as you gave to my late wife's charity last year and I wanted to thank you in person. However, My son and I are going to be in FL over the holidays and would like to meet up with you some time while we are there. This year I'm bring the NSX. I'll send you a PM as the we get closer to that date. And Thanks again. Ed
 
Last edited:
Re: 0-60 times...

They tend to come from various magazine reviews, and thus can vary wildly depending on environmental conditions, launch methods, track surface, etc. Some sources adjust results for altitude and weather, some do not. Your 0-60 time may vary.
 
The 1995/1996 should be the slowest of the manual NSXs of all years due to it's heavier weight from the Targa and smaller 3.0L motor. The 1996 times look more correct.
QUOTE]

Without references this list is purely anectodotal evidence, not data. THe NSX wiki at least quotes the source of its data.

1995 NSX-T M 5.2s 13.8s (Jul95- Car & Driver Supercar Shootout)
1996 NSX-T M 5.3s 13.8s (Jun96- Road and Track)
</SPAN> </SPAN> </SPAN> </SPAN>

<TBODY>
</TBODY><COLGROUP><COL><COL><COL><COL><COL><COL></COLGROUP>

</SPAN></SPAN> </SPAN> </SPAN>

<TBODY>
</TBODY>
 
Back
Top