Bruntingthorpe today 156mph

I agree, most of it I can just about understand, to further add arguement the speeds reached by the non turbo / gt 911's was slower than for the NSX's, the 911 has roughly the same cd and frontal area (as the front end of 911, cayman and boxster is the same car) and the 911's 'should' have the same or more power than the cayman, also added benefit from the LSD.

But, I am thinking about running an NSX dyno day sometime in the future.

http://nsxcb.co.uk/forum2/viewtopic.php?p=11887#11887

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlaltdelboy

cool - a proper debate :D

---

Again, I have to agree with Darren. Like Darren I stopped accelerating at 165, but "Panther" was still pulling very strongly. I just eased off. But there was plenty left in the can.

As for comparisons to the Cayman S....well, I've been up against 996 911's straight line, and found out to my delight that the NSX has better acceleration (albeit with just some minor mods to the NSX). So I would have thought the only NSX struggling against a Cayman would have been an automatic... :?:

Gentlemen, draw your weapons and start taking your twenty paces!

Excellent debate.

I would add that in my experience over numerous laps at the Bedford Autodrome, my 3.0 is slower than a 996 911 Carrera.
I have chased my friend around Bedford countless times. He drives as well/poorly as I do. Coming out of the hairpin at the start of the long straight at around 60 in 2nd, hard on the tail of the 996, it starts to pull away over the km straight. Not massively faster but definitely faster. His maximum speed usually passes 135mph, mine is just under 130. I don't hold back with the revs either.

Go figure.

Mo

This is a great debate!

So here goes with my 2 pennies worth :?

To start with I will compare 2 completely different cars, 1st is a Lotus Esprit GT3 the second an unknown Audi A3, the place a very quiet French auto route. We're doing about 100mph and what looks like a bog standard A3 is stuck on our arse, So I drop down to 4th and boot it, at first the A3 starts to shrink in the rear view mirror then it starts to stay the same and then it's obvious that it's keeping up with us. We get to about 155mph when I bottle it and still this A3 is keeping up. I do know my cars (IMO) and I'm therefore convinced that this A3 must have been chipped as an esprit is made to go fast and an A3 is not! (as explained by Darren in an earlier post).

My second bit of info proved to me, at least, that all this figure business is not what it seems when Top gear took an old V12 XJS jag and put it in drag race with other fast cars. (I'm sure someone will post a link to this clip) but If I remember rightly the NSX came in second, but when they said what the other cars were (They all basically had more BHP than the NSX) then I thought it would come in second to last with it only beating the jag. The car that came first was a 911 Turbo and as I hate them this just confirmed it that I had to have an NSX.

Like I said just my 2 pennies worth, don’t know if adds anything.
:?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NSX 2000

My second bit of info proved to me, at least, that all this figure business is not what it seems when Top gear took an old V12 XJS jag and put it in drag race with other fast cars. (I'm sure someone will post a link to this clip) but If I remember rightly the NSX came in second, but when they said what the other cars were (They all basically had more BHP than the NSX) then I thought it would come in second to last with it only beating the jag. The car that came first was a 911 Turbo and as I hate them this just confirmed it that I had to have an NSX.

---

If memory serves me correct the cars in that race were

1) NSX

2) 360 Modena

3) 911 turbo

4) Corvette

5) Venturi

6) Jag

I think the 911 came in second behind the 360 and ahead of the NSX,with the Corvette fourth and the Venturi last.

As i say this is from memory so i may be wrong.

the episode in question was aired on 25th May 2003 and featured David Soul in the reasonably priced car.

here's the clip following the intial drag race, where they add a 200 shot of Nos to the Jag - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbGBKede7Gg

I told you somebody would find the clip :P :P .
Plus its another one to add to the NSX Database :wink:

the complete episode is available as a DivX file of 350MB downloadable as a torrent here http://www.mininova.org/tor/340733 - YOU CAN'T DOWNLOAD THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE A BITTORRENT CLIENT INSTALLED!

the supercar feature starts at 22min 24s in

I'll keep seeding it for a week or so for anyone who wants it.

if you want to get this make sure you have a bittorrent client and the DivX codecs and player - links below

http://bittorrent.com/download.html

http://www.divx.com/divx/windows/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ctrlaltdelboy

stuff.....

---

But alas no empirical data to prove the genuine 170mph+ capability of a standard NSX in normal conditions. Could Autocar / Honda / EVO etc, etc. really have been wrong all these years? I dont think so.
The only 'proper' evidence I have seen is my own cars 160mph after 1.5miles @ Bruntingthorpe & Simonpreludes 156mph at the same venue. Both suggest a true 165-170mph max in normal conditions.

The mass thing is damned confusing; good job it's less significant in Vmax!

Basically, sometimes dry mass is quotes, kerb mass is determined with differing quantities of squirt required in different regions.

According to the EU CoC, my S2000 weighs 1,199-1,259 dry, 1,320-1,380 wet & with driver.

The handbook gives the EU mass as 1,260 'curb' mass.

NSX-wise, kerb mass of the 3.2 (final model) is quoted as 1,445 (T=1,500).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Graves

The mass thing is damned confusing; good job it's less significant in Vmax!

Basically, sometimes dry mass is quotes, kerb mass is determined with differing quantities of squirt required in different regions.

According to the EU CoC, my S2000 weighs 1,199-1,259 dry, 1,320-1,380 wet & with driver.

The handbook gives the EU mass as 1,260 'curb' mass.

NSX-wise, kerb mass of the 3.2 (final model) is quoted as 1,445 (T=1,500).

---

So what if the driver is 115 K, like me LOL.

:D

I think in Japan, they probably just 'trim off' your limbs, until you're down to the standard mass!

I'll just get a castration before weight in and I'll fly through. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trackdemon

But alas no empirical data to prove the genuine 170mph+ capability of a standard NSX in normal conditions. Could Autocar / Honda / EVO etc, etc. really have been wrong all these years? I dont think so.
The only 'proper' evidence I have seen is my own cars 160mph after 1.5miles @ Bruntingthorpe & Simonpreludes 156mph at the same venue. Both suggest a true 165-170mph max in normal conditions.

---

Autocar got 172mph when testing the 2002 model

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trackdemon

ctrlaltdelboy - my retort 'dear boy'

I concede that the 'overall' aerodynamic drag of the NSX may be lower than the Cayman taking into account frontal area - I really ought to have taken this into account! I'd be interested in your data sources though - I couldn't find anything concrete through an admittedly brief google session.

There is no concrete data to prove the NSX power output is anything more than that stated by the manufacturer, so until proved otherwise I'll stay with 286bhp at most.

Weight has little bearing on top speed, a 120bhp/750kg Elise tops around 124mph, and a 113bhp/1125kg MINI Cooper tops around 125mph (source Autocar). Nonetheless, Autocar quote NSX 3.2 @ 1320kg & Cayman S @ 1340kg - insignificant.

There is no supporting evidence which states the Caymans power curve drops off after peak power at 7200rpm; chances are (and this is surely borne out factually by the Caymans S top speed) the power output stays more or less level from then through to cutout.

I do believe the Cayman develops more bhp than an NSX, this conclusion is drawn both from on paper stats (and my interpretation thereof) and actually driving the 2 cars back to back.

So:

1. The Cayman has more power (proven, on paper, factually quoted)
2. Almost exactly the same weight (which has little effect on top speed anyway)
3. Alleged marginally more drag, although sources unquoted

So @ 171mph - speed is higher just as I would expect.

If someone can prove their factory spec NSX is capable of 180mph or more in normal circumstances then I'll happily eat a Honda hat. Otherwise, claims of realistic 175mph+ capability remain poppycock IMHO.

For the purpose of adding balance - people never cease to be impressed my my NSX's acceleration and speed capabilities when they experience it; I am certainly not underestimating NSX performance rather just trying to add a degree of realism to the discussion.

---

Cayman and NSX NA2 have the same power

http://www.caymanclub.net/cayman-uk/...-dyno-day.html


"I went there today with my Stock Cayman - (Before the garage full of bits gets put on next week) and At SRR my Cayman made 284.75 [Corrected] at the crank with 233.8 at the wheels. These figures may be considered low as my Cayman only has 2200 miles on it and everything will loosen up when it approaches 10,000 miles."

I got 233.9

http://www.noelwatson.com/blog/Perma...5d4560c45.aspx

There is a Cayman going to VMax this weekend so I will try and get a run against it

Seems rather slow to be proper, espicially two NSXs getting that speed or lack there of. The air density would have a small effect but you should have made 170 at least.
Their measuring equipment must be bollicksed up. Next time try and have some kind of porable GPS device that just plugs in to the fag lighter and that would be a reliable way to check their equipment and your indicator.
I have an older portable GPS, (Garmin 100) I take from aircraft to aircraft and put it on the instrument panel just ahead of me and found my installed indicator was off 4 mph. Maybe not fancy but accurate.
From being with Honda motorbikes for many years i've found their mph indicators are usually off a few mph and get worse the faster you go. Not enough to matter but off a bit until the digital ones came about.

Cheers
nigel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel

Seems rather slow to be proper, espicially two NSXs getting that speed or lack there of. The air density would have a small effect but you should have made 170 at least.
Their measuring equipment must be bollicksed up. Next time try and have some kind of porable GPS device that just plugs in to the fag lighter and that would be a reliable way to check their equipment and your indicator.
I have an older portable GPS, (Garmin 100) I take from aircraft to aircraft and put it on the instrument panel just ahead of me and found my installed indicator was off 4 mph. Maybe not fancy but accurate.
From being with Honda motorbikes for many years i've found their mph indicators are usually off a few mph and get worse the faster you go. Not enough to matter but off a bit until the digital ones came about.

Cheers
nigel

---

I don't think it's a case of the NSX not being able to reach 170MPH,it just cant reach it in 1.8 miles,which is the length of the runway prior to the braking zone(i think)

Indeed, when I did the run, I had my GPS in the car showing the speed.
The traclk temperature was in the 40's C and cars that had previously run 200mph plus were have trouble getting to 190mph.