290 BHP my A*se!!

[MattS]

Went for a workout this morning on the country lanes. Filled up with 99octane petrol from Tesco's and my friend bought his Ferrari 360 Spyder along so that we could compare acceleration etc. I'd like to point out that neither of us would consider ourselves driving heroes and so our test was pretty subjective..

The Ferrari sounds absolutely gorgeous and the cosmetic detailing is in a different league from the NSX. Honda definitely missed a trick here, if you're in to that sort of stuff.

Acceleration was very similar - I had absolutely no problems keeping up and when I was leading felt that I could pull away slightly. Remember the F360 has 400BHP and 275lb/ft of torque as well as the paddle gear change. The spyder is about 100kg heavier than the NSX. There is no way that the 3.2 NSX has 290BHP and 220lb/ft - no way at all, even taking into account that the F360 wasn't quite as run-in as my car.

Just thought I'd reignite this old debate!

[simonprelude]

As in the NSX has more power ??

Get the car on a rolling road and see.

Or is the Ferrari over estimating it's power ??

[NSXGOD]

There is no way that the 3.2 NSX has 290BHP and 220lb/ft - no way at all, even taking into account that the F360 wasn't quite as run-in as my car. Just thought I'd reignite this old debate!

so how many have you put on the dyno? :mrgreen:

I've run about 20 different cars, and have two 3.2L motors that have come in and out out of the 1992 over the years, they run ~ 258 RWHP "stock", ~ 305-310 with a chip, headers, exhaust, big TB, Comptech cams etc. you can get that up to 370 or so with a dialed CTSC and the rest of those mods. I'm sure if the car was tuned to 99 octane you could gets a bit more out of it as well.

However - ~290 at the crank is what you get on a stock 3.2L everywhere. Take your car to the Dyno and report back - maybe you have a "one off" with a secret Honda Racing JGTC motor. :mrgreen:

Also - when you do it, remember that you can basically tell the dyno guy to report back what you want to see - if you don't believe me ask him how many "correction" options he has.

The DynoJet has:

1) Raw uncorrected data
2) corrected for current temp and atmospheric pressure
3) correct to "SAE" standard
4) corrected to some other standard that I can't remember

each button will give you a different number.

The DynoMax Dyno has those options as well - and an extra button so that it an "emulate" a DynoJet! - you have to love commercialism.

[swlabhot]

There is no way that the 3.2 NSX has 290BHP and 220lb/ft - no way at all, even taking into account that the F360 wasn't quite as run-in as my car.

Just thought I'd reignite this old debate!

Yeah it certainly feels alot more than 290hp. Having not driven the car for a while and been running around in a turbo, it never fails to surprise me just how much quicker it actually feels. 290hp is a very conservative figure especially when you take into account of the weight of the NSX.

[markc]

I suspect 290hp is right on the money and Honda (NSX) horses are very honest ones (like Porsche ones) while Ferrari ones are at least slightly optimistic.

The video evidence available from Best Motoring "Battle" clips suggests that even an F355 (rated 380hp) will slightly outgun both a 3.0L Type-R or a 3.2 Type-S Zero so a F360 should be faster again.

There's no denying that the NSX punches above it's weight, particularly with the JDM gear ratios or the later 6spd g'box. It's probably easier to extract the available performance from the NSX than the F car, shrinking the subjective performance gap.

WRT to this thread... http://www.nsxcb.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=817&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

I'm not a fan of forced induction, frankly it's cheating :P , but a bit more power is always welcome. Hmmm, a 3.8Ltr NA motor, now we're cooking :D circa 350hp???

Remebering my old Porsche days you could (still can) get a 3.8Ltr version of the air cooled 993 motor making 380hp with head, valve and cam work but it would also need a more sophisticated engine management like MoTec M8 to do it. No change from £12K tho'

Mark

[NSXGOD]

Hmmm, a 3.8Ltr NA motor now we're cooking :D circa 350hp???

Actually I don't know what HP the 3.8L upgrade would do just on its lonesome as I doubt it would be workable with the factory ECU. The guys doing it tell me that it will require the AEM/EMS to run properly, so that is also kinda an unfair comparison. The first motor we are putting together is optimized for an NA application, with slightly higher compression and very much lighter pistons - they tell me 100grams per piston/wrist pin combo. The way it was said indicated that I was supposed to be *really* impressed so I was. :mrgreen:

The OEM connecting rods are reused, a new crank is supplied along with the pistons. So the motor will not be stock in any meaningful way for comparison sake, as it gets the new cams and 3.2L valves and all the rest.

When it is done I'll post the dyno charts - maybe I'll post them all so that you can see why dyno charts are like statistics :mrgreen:

[MattS]

I was just reading on NSXprime that "Ferrari 360's typically show a 20-22% drivetrain loss, Porsches about 16% and NSXs about 12%".

Therefore a 400BHP F360 has about 315BHP at the wheels as opposed to the NSX's 255BHP which gives a BHP/Ton of about 217 as opposed to 190 for the NSX

This may go someway to explaining the apparently similar performance.

I know that well run in NSX's are noticeably quicker than newish cars with less than 20k on the clock.

[modarr]

Hey Matt!

That's some going there. Especially with the extra 20 stone you carry over Little J in his Ferrari!

[710]

My Cosworth Escort has all the mods for 340hp. It’s about 1150kg. But 4WD, so more power loss. My NSX is a stock 1991 and runs very well so I believe it is not down on power due to wear etc.
The Cosworth leaves the NSX standing. It’s in a completely different league.
This is hardly scientific, of course, and I’ve had neither on the dyno.
OK, I still drive the NSX everyday, it’s in a completely different league.(!)
Peter

[Martin]

I think it is important to remember that roads in the UK have bends, and this is where the NSX comes alive, and turns the normally quoted stats on their head anyway!

However, just to add to the debate, I met a newish looking 911 targa on the road a few days ago, driven enthusiastically, and my little NSX baby came out on top by a nice wee margin. Got the thumbs up from the 911 driver which was nice 8)

[Rob_Fenn]

My dad had an E46 M3 before the NSX and that felt a lot quicker to me than the Honda. There is a thread on Prime about it..

-Rob

[markc]

M3(E46) is 340hp & 1540kg = VERY similar performance to a 3.2 NSX

Mark

[BrownBear]

One other thing, Mark. You have a type-S, don't you? If so, it's likely to have a factory blueprinted engine, which may push up your numbers slightly - David's (Type-R) was quoted @ ~350hp IIRC, so maybe you do have a few more than 290 - be interested to see the Dyno charts..

[markc]

Yes, mine is a Type-S but I've not seen any claims or evidence that these early 3.2 motors were blueprinted like the 3Ltr Type-Rs?

I'd very much doult the later Type-R made 350hp, could they have meant 315hp, that might be possible?

No plans to strap mine to the rollers but maybe one day. Apparently they're going to have a portable dyno at the Japanese Performance Car show at Sandown this weekend but I expect there'll be a long very queue of trick Skylines, Supras and Civics.

I have one of the Best Motoring videos where they put an NSX Type-R, F355, 911RS (993) and a McLaren F1 on a rolling road.
The NSX rated at 280hp made 276hp, the Porsche rated at 300hp made 297hp and the F355 rated at 380hp made 333hp.
Sadly the Macca output either couldn't be measured or the Japanese translation didn't work. Suffice to say it was more than enough to destroy the others running a 19.5sec standing kilometer. :shock:

So, although the Italian ponies were exagerated there were still enough of them to overcome the extra weigh and outrun both the NSX and Porsche over a standing kilometer clocking 24secs flat to the other two's almost identical 24.4secs. Not a lot but it was gradually pulling away over the seconf 500 meters.

Good video "Best Motoring 033. 1995 Super Battle '95 GT Cars". I have the 602MB MPEG file if anyone wants it.

Cheers

Mark

[Martin]

From Autocar road test results (28/6/2005 mag)

Doesn't prove anything, but I thought it was interesting..

Car----------0-60,,,,,0-100,,,,,Max,,,,,Kgs,,,,,BHP,,,,,BHP/Ton
911CarrS----4.6,,,,,10.8,,,,,182,,,,,1420,,,,,350,,,,,246
NSX3.2------4.8,,,,,10.9,,,,,172,,,,,1320,,,,,276,,,,,209
E46 M3------4.8,,,,,11.5,,,,,160,,,,,1577,,,,,339,,,,,215
EVO8--------4.8,,,,,12.7,,,,,152?,,,,1410,,,,,276,,,,,195
ImpSTi------5.3,,,,,13.5,,,,,148,,,,,1470,,,,,261,,,,,178
BoxsterS----6.0,,,,,14.2,,,,,161,,,,,1295,,,,,252,,,,,195
S2000------5.6,,,,,,14.3,,,,,147,,,,,1260,,,,,237,,,,,188
Boxster2.7---6.3,,,,,15.2,,,,,155,,,,,1275,,,,,228,,,,,178

(So, to get to 1st place, just take the spare wheel out of your NSX! :) )

Question - how is it that the 911 is so much higher than the NSX on power to weight, but only just ahead of the NSX on performance times?

[MattS]

Could be drivetrain loss, gearing and an overly optimistic BHP rating by Porsche to make the nice round number of 350!

[mcibuk]

getting to 182 mph v 172 mph doesn't sound a lot but it sure needs a lot of power to overcome the extra wind resistance and drag etc...

[Nick Graves]

Remember it's the area under the torque curve that's important - not the peak BHP, which is basically manufacturers dick-waving.

The NSX has a very flat torque curve, meaning it's consistently strong across the rev range.

Perhaps the Ferrari is a lot peakier.

[Clive]

M3(E46) is 340hp & 1540kg = VERY similar performance to a 3.2 NSX

Mark Probably not. My E46 engined ZM Coupe (325bhp rather than 340bhp for the M3) (but 150kg lighter than the M3) was streets faster than my NSX. But pretty much worse in every other respect. Was characterful for a BMW though. Good to be back with the Honda.

Clive :roll:

[Martin]

Really! I own an NSX (manual '96), have driven 3, and driven 2 M coupes, (also driven 6 E36 M3's and 2 E46 M3's) and found the manual NSX to be definitely faster than the M coupe. If the m coupe was based on the current M3 I could believe you due to it being lighter, but as it was based on the old E36 M3 which didn't quite have the same urge hmmm.. :shock:

[ctrlaltdelboy]

my business partner has an E46 M3 conv and he outdragged me even with a comptech 4.55 and breathing mods on my NSX - he was on my bumper from 0 to 150 until I pulled over for him to pass.

yes they are heavy, but with 343 BHP, a redline at over 8,500 and a 6 speed box they just eat up the road.

throw some corners in though and the NSX has the edge, but the handling of the E46 M3 is actually very impressive too.

[wgmr]

sadly Darren is right, the Beemer has awesome performance and much better acceleration, but who wants to be seen i one of those?

Darren, I am surpirsed though as I though your mods had got you down to 0 to 60 in 4.3, its 4.9 for the m3.

Will

[Martin]

Guys, I think you need to go to Honda and ask for replacement NSXs! Dont know if you noticed, but I included Autocars accurate road test results of NSX3.2 vs M3 on the last page. Remember to change gear after the engine starts roaring! Sorry, only kidding :D

[ctrlaltdelboy]

Darren, I am surpirsed though as I though your mods had got you down to 0 to 60 in 4.3, its 4.9 for the m3.
well, on a drag from 0 to 150+ the first 4-5 seconds kind of fade into insignificance with a hulking M3 up your chuff :lol:

suffice to say I was beaten and made way for him to pass

this was in pre-stripped days when I has hauling over 1300kg not inc driver (see below)
http://www.darrenferneyhough.com/images/nsx/corners1-2003.jpg

and when I was on standard gear ratios, but with 4.55:1 final drive)

must get it weighed again sometime soon