I've been pondering a change to RWD for autocross, and looking at a number of possibilities. I want something that I can mod the **** out of. Thats why an S2000 is not yet in the running. It would be a shame to take a 3-4 year old car, and do the kinds of things I've done to my 89 Civic.

I thought about Porsche for a while (85-88 944 with a 968 engine), but I'm a Honda freak. What would prevent an NSX (other than high cost) from making a good SM2 or SP (Canadian SP, not US SP) car? Does it have decent low end grunt? Can the suspension be made to work well on an autocross course (really fast transitions)?

An 86-87 944 with the 968 engine would weigh about 2,700-2,800 lbs and have about 240 whp. What would an NSX weigh, and how much whp and torque would it have with some minor mods (compression bump, headers and exhaust, mild porting, good intake system, re-tuning of the ECU)?

Thanks

Jacques

 

The NSX has a longer wheel base, so it is going to be faster in high speed sweepers. It is going to be as much as a transitional car as something with a short wheel base. I bet it would still be a blast to drive in one though.

 

Well, cost aside (cost of car, mods, repairs)...

Wouldn't the width of the car be an issue? It might make slaloms and "chicago boxes"/"garages" more difficult. I heard Z06 owners complaining about having to move the whole damn car over and back in these situations, and I'm guessing that the dimensions of the Z06 and NSX are similar. I guess it depends how they're classed though, and I don't know anything about that.

 

If you are already interested in the 944 series, why not a 951? Power through boost doesn't seem that difficult to attain and the gearbox shouldn't have a problem with a reasonable increased load. I think the 968 is a great car but would think dollars for doughnuts, the 951 would be the more inexpensive and easy to "mod the **** out of" and should very well be able to get it cheaper than the 968. If you can get the earlier (85.5-86) 951, you'll be able to run the Fuchs (as far as I know - you might want to confirm that) which along the 944 line are the lightest rims you could get your hands on. You cannot run the Fuchs or Cookie Cutters on the 87+ offset (52mm IIRC). They are extremely fun to auto-x even in B-Stock But dayamn you'll want a limited slip on that puppy.

 

I would actually do an 85 1/2 to 87 944 NA with the 968 engine. Thats an update/backdate since they are on the same line in the classifications. I want to stay NA. I have thought about the 951, but lag is an autocrosser's enemy. Especially when you get into the modded classes. I'd be running on some 275 rears and some 245 fronts in 17" Hoosier S03 or S04s on some wide Kodiaks. LSD for sure with a really sorted suspension setup. Lightweight flywheel, closer gearing, etc...

I'd want to do some very similar if I was running an NSX. Maybe even look at that Toda 3.5L stroker kit, though I hear its outrageously expensive.

 

I say throw the same money into an S2000, a brand new one.

 

Thanks for the input, but ask anyone that knows me. Not my style.

 

I don't think that's right. The 968 is the 944S3, the 16v S2 w/ a variocam from my understanding. Now if my 944S is in B-Stock with the 951 and 944S2, then I cannot fathom how a 237hp variant of my motor can be and update/backdate to the 8v 944. Plus, I'd be suprised if its a viable update/backdate for my car - perhaps it is but I'd be suprised.

 

The NSX is very unmanuverable, the turning radius is horrible. It can't make laft hand turns around the traffic cirlces we have in Seattle. The NSX is a blast to drive though and has good torque IMO. The lack of power steering in older mdels makes it even more difficult to handle at low speeds. I think it will make a poor autoX car, but we'll see

 

Under SCCA SP rules, the 968 is in ASP, the 16V are in BSP and the 8V are in CSP so cant use u/b rule. HOWEVER, he's in Canada and AFAIK (we use SCCA rules in our region), the canadian SP rules allow this kind of updating/backdating so as long as the car will be classed in in the highest class the donor car is classed. In this case a 944-8V with the 968 swap would go from CSP to ASP...

 

the biggest reason i can see about the NSX not making a good autocross car were narrow tires in oem form, and the gearing is quite long. 2nd gear goes to something like 85mph IIRC. A 400 hp Z06 can do that and get away with it, but a similar weight 270 hp NSX just can't.

If my info on the gearing is wrong, disregard the entire post.

 

Jaker,

What do you plan to do with the EF then? You could probably talk to Dan Phan. I know him and Eddy have been playing with an NSX. He might be able to give you some input.

Francisco

 

From experience:

- less than ideal gearing.
- less than ideal lateral traction from stock size tires.
- not what one could consider a torque monster.
- long wheelbase hurts it a little making tight AX turns.

 

That's pretty much it right there in the above post coming from first hand experience. I've also heard the NSX's main downfall are the narrow oem front wheels/tires. It just does not generate sufficient front grip to be competitive. The gearing for the 5 speeds is also tall with a relatively large rpm drop between 1st and 2nd. Even though the newer 6 speeds are better in this regard, they are quite expensive and rare.

(And speaking of the Z06, actually I believe it has shorter lower gears than the normal C5 for even better acceleration. 2nd on a Z06 is "only" good for around 65 mph, which is a quite short 2nd gear for a 400 hp car.)

 

Now that I look again, you are right in some respects. I could therefore use any 944 16V or 951 for my update/backdate plans. These are just ideas I'm throwing around. Who knows, I might just stick with the Civic. Its getting pretty well sorted now.

 

If you ever decide to part the Civic. You KNOW who to talk to

 

150 ft-lbs, <2500lbs, RWD, not a convertible... can anyone help me find my dream car?

 

Dream car for AX? I'd think a Z06 is difficult to beat.

 

I know you said cost aside but if you took the money it would take to buy the car plus "mod the **** out of" you could have built a much faster autocross car out of anything else.

The base price of the NSX would be enough to buy a Z06 and go with custom tripple adjustable penskes super light wheels and hoosiers and still have some money left over.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hatch2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">150 ft-lbs, &lt;2500lbs, RWD, not a convertible... can anyone help me find my dream car?</TD></TR></TABLE>
maybe a 91 MR2 Turbo that's been on a diet? I think they were around 2800 from the factory with T-Tops, leather, subwoofer, etc... if you could find a hardtop turbo you'd be well on your way

 

Hmmm... lots of misinformation here, probably from folks who have probably never driven one.

The NSX makes a good autocross car, but there are better ones out there. The NSX was really designed for high-speed handling and balance, not for low-speed tossability. But there are a few folks autocrossing the NSX, and doing pretty well at it.

Good, not great. Like most Honda VTEC cars, the advantage of the cars is not in the amount of torque; it's in the fact that VTEC keeps that torque available at high revs, thus creating an advantage in gearing. So it's not that it's quick off the line; it's quick because the grunt stays all the way up to very high revs. You can read more about this here.

Sure. The stock suspension is actually excellent, giving a smooth ride on the street, and firming up when you push it hard on the track. If you don't mind less comfort on the street, there are lots of aftermarket options for springs, shocks, and coilovers, too.

Most folks who track the NSX use the coupe version (available '91-94, and in very limited numbers '96-01), which weighs around 3000 pounds. It has 270 hp and 210 lb-ft stock. Good aftermarket headers and exhaust can add ~20 hp. However, it comes with a good intake system stock, and there isn't much to get from the other things you mentioned, either.

No.

Nope. The Z06 is 73.6 inches wide, the NSX a more normal 71.3 inches - narrower than a 2004 Accord sedan.

Sorry, but that's just nonsense.

Also totally untrue - unless you normally drive an autox course at speeds under 10 mph.

The gearing is actually an advantage, not a disadvantage. See above. However, let's come back to that in a moment.

I disagree with that, 100 percent. My NSX does wonderfully on the track with stock size tires. They are R compound tires in the stock sizes. The difference between those and wider tires is very, very minor, I can assure you.

The large RPM drop between first and second is indeed a disadvantage - not because of the RPM drop (torque is actually pretty flat), but because it reflects a gearing disadvantage when you upshift to second. However, if you plan to autocross competitively, then this can be easily cured by installing the short gearset that was used in the JDM NSX, which replaces second, third, and fourth gears and narrows that gap.

The newer '97+ six-speeds are not rare, unless you are referring only to the NSX Coupe and not the NSX-T. However, they are indeed more expensive than the older coupes.

Part of what makes a particular car good for autocross depends on the class they've assigned it to. Certain cars tend to do very well within their classes. I would suggest checking out which cars usually do the best in each class, and choose one of those.

 

/\/\/\ wicked answer, boss, pretty good info!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by hatch2k &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">150 ft-lbs, &lt;2500lbs, RWD, not a convertible... can anyone help me find my dream car?</TD></TR></TABLE>

My E-stock MR2 is that except 130 ft-lbs at the rear wheels. That equates to ~150 at the crank. Runs high 15s all day

Otherwise, call up Factory Five Racing about their Daytona Coupe. Of course, you'd have to deal with double your torque numbers...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nsxtasy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hmmm... lots of misinformation here, probably from folks who have probably never driven one.

The NSX makes a good autocross car, but there are better ones out there. The NSX was really designed for high-speed handling and balance, not for low-speed tossability. But there are a few folks autocrossing the NSX, and doing pretty well at it.

The large RPM drop between first and second is indeed a disadvantage - not because of the RPM drop (torque is actually pretty flat), but because it reflects a gearing disadvantage when you upshift to second. However, if you plan to autocross competitively, then this can be easily cured by installing the short gearset that was used in the JDM NSX, which replaces second, third, and fourth gears and narrows that gap.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Those wishing to autocross competitively usually aren't allowed to do gearset changes....hence why the long 2nd gear with limited grunt IS a disadvantage.

Jesse, who thinks lots of silly opinions, probably from folks who don't autocross competitively

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DMF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The NSX has a longer wheel base, so it is going to be faster in high speed sweepers. It is going to be as much as a transitional car as something with a short wheel base. I bet it would still be a blast to drive in one though. </TD></TR></TABLE>

5" shorter than a Z06 vette, which seems to do pretty well at autocross.