Crickey this hasn't been off the market long

[NoelWatson]

Just one more point. Simon's press car did 0-100 in 12.4 seconds, so the 02 flyer beat that by 1.5 seconds, and his could only do ~160 on the bowl. Do the new headlights have secret power generators on board?!

[markc]

Just one more point. Simon's press car did 0-100 in 12.4 seconds, so the 02 flyer beat that by 1.5 seconds, and his could only do ~160 on the bowl. Do the new headlights have secret power generators on board?!

Performance Car (mag) recorded 12.2 secs to the ton and a 13.7 sec 1/4 mile, at 106mph terminal speed, when they tested it. So it's closer, just 0.8 sec, over the 1/4 mile.

The figures for the 02 car are great but on another day/venue/driver the figures could be reversed.

Cheers

Mark

[NoelWatson]

Performance Car (mag) recorded 12.2 secs to the ton and a 13.7 sec 1/4 mile, at 106mph terminal speed, when they tested it. So it's closer, just 0.8 sec, over the 1/4 mile.

The figures for the 02 car are great but on another day/venue/driver the figures could be reversed.

Cheers

Mark

I'm not a drag strip expert, but 0.8 seconds is a big difference - I reckon 40-50bhp worth

[simonprelude]

I'm not a drag strip expert, but 0.8 seconds is a big difference - I reckon 40-50bhp worth

Well as the rolling road proved, my car was the highest powered standard car there. So it was either down to the drivers on the tests or the 02+ styling, somehow I doubt the latter, well unless it was just running away trying to hide it's ugly front end.

259.3 hp at the hubs on the day so the laminated sheet here says.

[markc]

I'm not a drag strip expert, but 0.8 seconds is a big difference - I reckon 40-50bhp worth

It is a big differance.

According to this drag time calculator... http://www.letstorquebhp.com/calculator.asp ... the same weight would need 55hp additional HP!!!

Lets face it, that's just NEVER going to be the case between 2 HUK supplied cars with the same mechanicals. No ECU tweaking is going to give you that much power on a naturally aspirated 3.2 Ltr car. Therefore other factors must be at play.

Using the above calculator the 1st car made 330hp if it weighed 1350kg (to run 12.9 secs), the second made 275hp and 1350kg (to run 13.7 secs). The former is unlikely while the latter is very possible if the car was a bit off colour or it was a hot day or a slippery track.

Weight will help. The 02 cars are supposed to be lighter, plus you leave out the spare (who'd check), tool kit, mats, there's not water in the washers etc etc you might save 30kg? That would give you a whole 1/10th of a second

Assume the car was in rude heath (295hp) on a day with perfect conditions and somehow tipped the scales at 1320kg... result is 13.28 secs.

There must be some rounding in those claimed figures, say the 12.9sec was actually a 12.94sec.

Assume the driver made a perfect launch, the LSD hooked both rear wheels up perfectly, the clutch held up perfectly, the gear changes all went home beautifully etc etc... conditions and technique would have to make up the 0.36sec?

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me but there're a lot of variables that all need to come together.

Cheers

Mark

[AR]

That's why you can't beat rolling starts, 3 beeps and away you go.

[Ferris Bueller]

Another thing is that NSX engines have shown to greatly vary in power from 260 to 300 in stockish form, 50 horses makes a difference.

I'd be amazed if Honda were passing off NSX engines to a tolerance like that.

[NoelWatson]

It is a big differance.

According to this drag time calculator... http://www.letstorquebhp.com/calculator.asp ... the same weight would need 55hp additional HP!!!

Lets face it, that's just NEVER going to be the case between 2 HUK supplied cars with the same mechanicals. No ECU tweaking is going to give you that much power on a naturally aspirated 3.2 Ltr car. Therefore other factors must be at play.

Using the above calculator the 1st car made 330hp if it weighed 1350kg (to run 12.9 secs), the second made 275hp and 1350kg (to run 13.7 secs). The former is unlikely while the latter is very possible if the car was a bit off colour or it was a hot day or a slippery track.

Weight will help. The 02 cars are supposed to be lighter, plus you leave out the spare (who'd check), tool kit, mats, there's not water in the washers etc etc you might save 30kg? That would give you a whole 1/10th of a second

Assume the car was in rude heath (295hp) on a day with perfect conditions and somehow tipped the scales at 1320kg... result is 13.28 secs.

There must be some rounding in those claimed figures, say the 12.9sec was actually a 12.94sec.

Assume the driver made a perfect launch, the LSD hooked both rear wheels up perfectly, the clutch held up perfectly, the gear changes all went home beautifully etc etc... conditions and technique would have to make up the 0.36sec?

Doesn't sound unreasonable to me but there're a lot of variables that all need to come together.

Cheers

Mark

It sounds unreasonable to me that the NSX can do the kilometre in 22.8 seconds @145mph. For comparison

http://www.lambocars.com/tab/kilometer.htm

it was a ringer....

[Ferris Bueller]

It sounds unreasonable to me that the NSX can do the kilometre in 22.8 seconds @145mph. For comparison

http://www.lambocars.com/tab/kilometer.htm

it was a ringer....

The times are questionable, I guess.

However, what I would say is that I drove that car and it felt no different to mine on the road.

ETA I drove RO03 WYF the Imola Targa.
Autocar figures were from a RE02 ### IIRC.

[markc]

It sounds unreasonable to me that the NSX can do the kilometre in 22.8 seconds @145mph. For comparison

http://www.lambocars.com/tab/kilometer.htm

it was a ringer....

Was that from the same test? What issue (date) is it, I'll try and get myself a copy.

Assuming it was a ringer, how do suspect it was rung?

Cheers

Mark