NSX review on Metro

[swlabhot]

Anyone seen the praise received on the free Metro paper this morning (27/06/05)?? :D

[BrownBear]

Yes - saw that. It was very complimentary. I predict a rash of London-based users registering their interest to buy.. (well, ok, maybe not!)

[SimonB]

Except that (yet again) someone quotes the honda speed figures which make the car look d*mn slow. Autocar clocked the 2002+ NSX at 4.8 secs to 60 (which seems right to me). Honda's quote is 5.7 secs - which is quick but not quite the same......

[swlabhot]

Except that (yet again) someone quotes the honda speed figures which make the car look d*mn slow. Autocar clocked the 2002+ NSX at 4.8 secs to 60 (which seems right to me). Honda's quote is 5.7 secs - which is quick but not quite the same......

I guess it depends on whos behind the wheel. 4.8secs seem a little over exaggerated to me (~1 sec?! difference :shock: ) regardless of how good the driver is and as much as I'd like to believe this to be accurate, I think over thje 5sec mark to be more realistic..

[SimonB]

Not really. I can confirm, for example, that the NSX is _exactly_ as quick as a new 911 carrera S up to... erm...... 70 mph exactly and not a mph over honestly. But Honda's figures don't reflect this.

Autocar's figures are pretty rigorous. I'd take them over the manufacturer any day.

[DamianW]

I recall reading somewhere that the 5.7 quoted refers to the original 3.0 car, they never updated the performance figures for the 3.2.

3.2 is definitely quicker than 5.7 to 60 in my opinion.

[Paul]

The other factor to consider is the gearing ... UK cars don't share the shorter gears that the Japanese cars enjoy ... according to a reliable source and fellow NSX owner.

Does anyone know if the performance figures are based on the Japanese gearings, or UK ones?

My *** import model certainly feels sub 6.0sec for 60 from a standing start ... but wheather it's sub 5.0sec is another matter ... regardless I'm rather happy with the acceleration ... as the grin on my face often demonstrates ... :D

[SimonB]

I think feelings can be deceptive. My NSX doesn't "feel" as fast as my M3 was. It has less hp (allegedly) and weighs the same. But against the clock (or my neighbour's carrera S) it is faster...

[MattS]

I've always been interested in this 0-60 thing (guess it comes from playing Top-Trumps not so long ago!)

Autocar ran a 1998 3.2 as part of their 'fleet' for a year. They reckon that at 4800 miles the car was doing 5.5 0-60, BUT at 20,000 miles the time was 5.0. The respective times for 0-100 are 12.0 and 11.5 seconds.

I reckon that at 80,000 miles (and nicley loosened up) it's a bit quicker still, particularly with 98RON petrol.

Back in 1997 Performance Car did a group test and have the 3.0 posting a 0-60 of 5.2 and 0-100 in 12.2.

Honda's website still shows a 0-60 time of 5.7 s which is clearly rubbish and based on a brand-new (not run-in) 3.0 1991. They are also very conservative about the BHP which for the 3.2 is generally calculated at about 320-340, definitely not 276! If only Honda had marketed this car properly in the UK....

:roll:

My 1998 3.2 ( the actual motor Autocar ran back in 1998) is no slower than my friend's F 360, although you could argue that his car isn't quite run in yet!

[DamianW]

I really doubt the engine is at 320-340hp to be honest. 290-300 I can believe.

[SimonB]

Honda NSX "280" hp, 1320 KG
Porsche carrerra S 355hp, 1420 KG

They are as quick as each other. Both acceleration & gearing (as top speed similar)

If we assume power, weight an acceleration are linearly releated (ie assume no drag) then this gives 330 HP for the honda.

I'm not saying this is right. But it sure ain't 280 hp.

[SimonB]

<edited>