I've never drivin an nsx nor have I ever ridden in one. one thing I have heard tho is that it is underpowered. why doesnt honda put a larger motor in it or a turbo on the current motor? something to create more power. I know it is a very well balanced car and I've watched a few best motoring videos of nsx and a tiff needle review on it. NSX is actually my favorite exotic I just had that one question.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ludetech &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">one thing I have heard tho is that it is underpowered.</TD></TR></TABLE>

You've probably heard that from people who favor cars that have more horsepower, without realizing that many of them weigh hundreds (even over a thousand) pounds more, and are not any faster. So horsepower isn't everything in determining straight-line acceleration.

Also, straight-line acceleration is not the only criterion for how fast a car is. On a racetrack, there are very, very few cars that can turn faster lap times than an NSX. That's because the NSX has great handling and great braking, and again, the lower weight is also a significant factor.

Bottom line: the NSX is not underpowered.

 

The nsx is a great car! something even a skyline should be afraid of! people always talking smack about "oh skyline this skyline that" and always leaving the NSX out, oh wells they just don't know, the only thing wrong with it is that i think it looks alot like a ferrari depending on the color (the first one i saw was red), and why turbo a nsx! go ITB like Science of Speed!

 

ive been under the impression for years japanese car werent allowed to export cars with more than 300hp, think i read it in road and track a bunch of years ago.

 

I thought that it was just an emissions thing, and that the 300 hp thing was japans limit on the the maximun hp a passenger or widely distrubuted cars hp could have, i read all this back when i was got into cars and was always wondering why the skyline and nsx and evo and stuff all had the same hp but some were TT and some were 4WD and stuff u knowz-

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

You've probably heard that from people who favor cars that have more horsepower, without realizing that many of them weigh hundreds (even over a thousand) pounds more, and are not any faster. So horsepower isn't everything in determining straight-line acceleration.</TD></TR></TABLE>


Correct. My NSX feels similar (not the same, but similar) to my H22 Civic hatchback (gutted track car) in throttle response. Meaning, I can be driving around and give it gas or mash the throttle and the pickup/response of the car is instantious and quick and both feel pretty similar. The NSX being a much bigger car, it pulls with ease. Top end is a different story as the NSX can leave the H22 Civic after 6000 rpms or at high speeds. Those who say the NSX feels slow are usually guys who have driven, or ridden in, V8 RWD cars that were modded or turbo V6 RWD cars and think the NSX is slow because it's not a V8 or doesn't have FI.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

On a racetrack, there are very, very few cars that can turn faster lap times than an NSX.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

stock, yes; but in the scc/super street time attack challenge, the most heavily modified/fastest nsx (science of speed) couldnt best 2 evo8's, a celica, a supra, an sti, a sentra, an integra, a 360, and a skyline.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Newman &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Those who say the NSX feels slow are usually guys who have driven, or ridden in, V8 RWD cars that were modded or turbo V6 RWD cars and think the NSX is slow because it's not a V8 or doesn't have FI.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Or, they're bench racers (magazine racers). Either way, most making such claims about the NSX have never driven one.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hites Undying &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">stock, yes; but in the scc/super street time attack challenge, the most heavily modified/fastest nsx (science of speed) couldnt best 2 evo8's, a celica, a supra, an sti, a sentra, an integra, a 360, and a skyline.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Which doesn't mean anything. It's easy to pick an example of a car that has been modified within a budget, or whose modifications are mostly cosmetic, and compare it against another car with performance objectives and an unlimited budget, and claim that the other car is faster. Every modded car is (or can be made) unique, which is why comparisons between modded cars are meaningless. The fact is, you can modify ANY car to be faster than ANY OTHER car. All it takes is enough money.

 

One of the things I remember the article saying is that it was one of those things that shouldn't happen but did. Kudos to the Sentra and the driver. Obviously, that Sentra is a very well prepared racecar.

I think once SoS gets all the kinks taken care of with their car, this particular race b/t a street car and a racecar will be much closer.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ponyboy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">One of the things I remember the article saying is that it was one of those things that shouldn't happen but did. Kudos to the Sentra and the driver. Obviously, that Sentra is a very well prepared racecar.

I think once SoS gets all the kinks taken care of with their car, this particular race b/t a street car and a racecar will be much closer.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i liked that k24 teg more than that sentra .

 

Well, I work for Honda as an engineer, and I can tell you that the "ScienceOfSpeed" represented Nsx is not anything special. The fuel mapping is horrible, the ECU is all fvcked up, and the vtec switch point(for some reason) was changed to 6000 rpms. Now, personally, I'd recommend either keeping the switch point stock at 4800 rpms, or(for track racing, as you seem to be discussing here) changing it to 4000 - 4300 rpms. For quicker launch out of the turns, and for hanging a turn on the outside at quicker speeds.

Anyways, I guess my point is, that not any idiot is cut out to improve upon the internals of Hondas ferrari(NSX). And, anyone who says the nsx is slow is quite simply stupid. The 2004 has almost perfect 50-50 weight distribution, and if you're not dreaming about these cars, then you're having the wrong dreams.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tuning. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I work for Honda as an engineer... I'd recommend either keeping the switch point stock at 4800 rpms, or(for track racing, as you seem to be discussing here) changing it to 4000 - 4300 rpms.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Seems like someone who presents himself as an engineer for Honda should know the correct VTEC switch-over RPM. That same individual should also know that the high-lift profile will make significantly less torque at 4000-4300 RPMs compared to the low-lift profile which operates at that RPM range.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tuning. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The 2004 has almost perfect 50-50 weight distribution</TD></TR></TABLE>
Um... Wrong. It’s not even remotely close to 50-50. However, it’s safe to say the benefits of the mid-engine configuration will overcome the lack of an ideal weight distribution (in most situations). By the way: Why did you even bother to include the "2004" qualification? For all practical purposes, the weight distribution of the 2004 is the same as an NSX of any other year.

 

give him a break, not every engineer works on the NSX powertrain.

engineers are specialized in areas like powertrains, brakes, electics, suspension, chassis, etc...and often by model/platform. The NSX was designed over 15 years ago, too.

anyway, that 276HP limit was only a gentleman's agreement and was not a law. many cars that came out while this agreement was in effect had well over 276HP (sklyine GTR anyone?), yet the spec was published at 276. Recently, this agreement was abandoned.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by steven975 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">give him a break, not every engineer works on the NSX powertrain... engineers are specialized in areas like powertrains, brakes, electics, suspension, chassis, etc...</TD></TR></TABLE>
Why point out the obvious and irrelevant? And why should anyone (especially me) give someone who is incorrect in every claim he makes a break?

Reread his post and you will realize Tuning. was the one who suggested that he, as an engineer, knows more than the tuner who has produced these parts. He was the one who made claimed "The fuel mapping is horrible" and "the ECU is all fvcked up." I wonder what data he has to support his conclusions and am particularly curious when, in the engineering community, vaguely classifying a condition as "fvcked" became an acceptable substitute for proper articulation.

He was wrong about VTEC RPM. If he had done any research, he would know lower VTEC RPM will reduce torque. I’m still not sure where he got the 50-50 weight distribution on the 2004 model. I suppose I should give him points for creativity.

 

if he's truly a powertrain engineer for honda, he knows a lot more about ecu tuning than any aftermarket tuner out there. he may know the full code on the ecu, and, if what he says he is, could do a MUCH MUCH better job. Since he works at Honda, he can't as the ecu coding is proprietary.

aftermarket tuners have to reverse engineer the code, and sometimes they figure out key parts and make it perform better. i wouldn't be surpriesed if the aftermarket code was all messy...that's what reverse engineering does. a honda powertrain engineer could probably do a much better one, as he/she would have knowledge of every key.

What is the weight distribution WITH A DRIVER? could that be the point of contention?

 

Enjoying this little conversation.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by steven975 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">What is the weight distribution WITH A DRIVER? could that be the point of contention?</TD></TR></TABLE>

That factor would change the percentages by less than 1 percent.

For example, take a car whose 3000 pound weight is distributed 40 percent front, 60 percent rear (if I recall correctly, that's about what the NSX is, but I'm going from memory so I could be mistaken). Meaning, 1200 pounds front, 1800 pounds rear. Put a 200 pound driver in the middle of the car. It's going to change the weight distribution to 1300/1900, or 40.6 percent / 59.4 percent.

 

Well, as for your saying that high end rpm switches will result in more torque, yes. But, when racing, you have to take into account the fact that a lower vtec switch point will allow for even pull throughout the 3rd and fourth gears. It also stretches the ratio for higher top end speeds when cornering. Too much high rpm torque when cutting into a turn can result in any number of disasters. The goal is, to have a lower vtec switch point, so when you hit those high angle turns, you can hit them at high speeds with much more driver control, and when angling out of the turn, you don't have too much TQ( I hope that you can understand why too much TQ can result in many failures when angling a high speed turn).

And the "ScienceOfSpeed" NSX does quite literally have a fvcked up ECU. That car is running strait shot NX, and the ecu isn't allowing for more fuel flow at all when the juice is used. In other words, that car will be short lived, you can't shove a watermellon down a 7 year olds mouth.

 

That's the first time, I've heard of the SoS car running nitrous. Couple things: wouldn't you just use a higher gear to counter any "high rpm torque" when entering a corner? And since the NSX's torque curve is pretty (that's for you nsxtasy) dang flat already, doesn't it really matter that much?

 

I'm starting to doubt that we're talking about the same sienceofspeed car....
I'm talking about a strait line built 92 nsx in the nc area. Solid black. And yes, exiting a turn in high gear will make for much lower tq levels, but, my point was, that by hacing a lower switch point, the driver would have much more control over the car, I'm talking about eliminating any factors that put more stress on the car, but that's my job.

 

OMG, not another one.

Yes, the NSX is underpowered and I have a beach house in Arizona.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Tuning. &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm starting to doubt that we're talking about the same sienceofspeed car....
I'm talking about a strait line built 92 nsx in the nc area. Solid black. And yes, exiting a turn in high gear will make for much lower tq levels, but, my point was, that by hacing a lower switch point, the driver would have much more control over the car, I'm talking about eliminating any factors that put more stress on the car, but that's my job.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The car they are discussing is the Science of Speed car in the SCC Time Attack. It's white.

Keep up.

 

Yeah, it's white with ITB's.

Still not sure about the lower VTEC switch over point. My torque curve changes all of 15-18lbs from about 4250rpm to 8300rpm. At 4250rpm, my NSX may not be screaming like a vengeful demon kicked out of hell but the acceleration will be very close to the same at 7000rpm.

 

Hey, I found a sound clip from Saturday's dyno. I feel like Tan!

Dyno Soundclip

 

I've never heard anyone claim this. Ever. Then again, I've only been tracking cars for 18 years - 13+ in the NSX - so maybe you have more experience at this than I do.

Everything I've ever heard has said that, from a power/torque standpoint, you want as much torque at the wheels available as possible, and it's the driver's job to manage that torque to best advantage. Since the NSX torque curve is so flat (as Ponyboy notes), you can get the highest torque at the wheels by keeping the car in as low a gear as possible without exceeding the engine's redline. I don't understand why you would want to lower the VTEC point in order to reduce the amount of torque; that doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

It's also worth noting that on a racetrack, if you are always in second gear or higher (which means you are always going 47 mph or higher - true of all the tracks I have been on), and if you are always in the lowest gear possible (i.e. shifting at redline), then you will ALWAYS be in VTEC*. Which means that, on a track, lowering the VTEC crossover points will make no difference whatsoever.

*If you upshift at redline, here are the RPMs after you are done shifting (first number shown is RPM with '91-'94 US 5-speed; second is '97-'04 US 6-speed; third is '91-'96 Japanese 5-speed):

1 -&gt; 2 4499 5106 5085
2 -&gt; 3 5698 5837 5738
3 -&gt; 4 6289 6266 5903
4 -&gt; 5 6378 6500 5971
5 -&gt; 6 n/a 6330 n/a

Be careful when you talk about a "Science of Speed car". That term should refer to a car that is owned and run by Chris Willson, proprietor of Science of Speed, a shop located in Phoenix, Arizona specializing in aftermarket modifications for the NSX (and S2000). (And I think that is how Ponyboy is using the term.) It sounds like you (Tuning.) are using that term to refer to anyone's NSX, on which they have slapped a big Science of Speed decal across the windshield, and on which they may have installed any variety of aftermarket mods, which may or may not have been obtained from Science of Speed.

I'm not pointing this out to get into a debate over semantics with you. I'm pointing this out because the way you are using the term, the natural implication is that you are criticizing Science of Speed's products - criticism which may not be justified in any way. (For example, AFAIK SoS does not offer ANY nitrous kits as part of its product line, yet you repeatedly criticize the "Science of Speed NSX" for the management of its nitrous induction.)

Since the NSX motor is designed to drive all day long at any revs up to redline without any problems, please explain how "stress on the car" is alleviated by lowering the VTEC crossover point. If you are talking about lowering "stress on the car" by reducing the amount of torque available at the wheels, why not just use a higher gear (restating the point that Ponyboy already made)? But for that matter, why is "stress on the car" even an issue, since we know that the engine parts don't get overstressed from high RPMs?

I bet that on a track, you are shifting at redline, and that you are never going 4250 RPM anywhere except on pit out, and even then, only when you are accelerating through 24 mph...

EDIT: Combined replies to various posts into one friggin' long post.



Modified by nsxtasy at 6:17 PM 8/3/2004