NSX vs Evora round Bedford

[NoelWatson]

In this month's EVO. An early 3.0 vs Evora. NSX does surprisingly well, but a fair bit slower lap time.

[Nick Graves]

I would have thought a 3.2 might possibly even things up a tad.

Must have been an enjoyable comparo to run; both cars are unusually good.

[NoelWatson]

Related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsb6dtXAEPw&feature=related

[TheSebringOne]

Interesting comparison, the NSX R did well considering how technology has moved on with the other cars. The R8 seems highly rated again ,just beating the GTR by one point and the Type R beating the Lotus, but this was the R and not a standard one, which would be a more geniune comparison between the two. I think it too close to call if its a standard 3.2 against the Lotus.

[madras]

I don't think a 3.2 would make much difference, the NSX is probably quicker in a straight line than the Evora anyway, it's the cornering speed and braking - chassis technology has moved on a lot in 20 years. With a new suspension setup and better brakes the NSX would probably be quicker. I think the NSX is a better car to drive anyway, more involving I think.

[PeteM]

The fact that they still use the Nsx 20 years on as the "bench mark" says it all.

Pete.

[Rob_Fenn]

To be fair, having driven our 3.2 (pop up) and 3.2 (facelift) back to back, Honda have IMO not listed the amount of changes they made continously. The facelift is subtley better in quite a few areas. Not sure how much that would add up in time round a track, but it certainly felt better.

I like elements of the Evora, but not sure it quite works for me...

[Nick Graves]

Go try one!

Ultimately I prefer the NSX, but the Evora ain't bad.

[havoc]

I don't think a 3.2 would make much difference, the NSX is probably quicker in a straight line than the Evora anyway, it's the cornering speed and braking - chassis technology has moved on a lot in 20 years. With a new suspension setup and better brakes the NSX would probably be quicker. I think the NSX is a better car to drive anyway, more involving I think.

And tyre tech. My RE040's are far from the paragon of supercar rubber, while RE050A's aren't bad but aren't the best. Worse, I suspect the early car they used (on 15"s/16"s) would have been on RE010s or those odd Yoko's.

Brakes I can agree on - my '96 needs bigger front discs, and I think they're the same as the early cars.

Chassis - I'm not so sure - I'd rather keep the car supple, it's one of the things that's given it the status it has. Maybe slightly stiffer ARBs front and rear but nothing else.

[markc]

... the NSX is probably quicker in a straight line than the Evora anyway...

Not according the data trace, they're neck and neck until the NSX has to brake slightly earlier. Given the near identical power to weight ratios isn't this what you'd expect? A 3.2 6spd with it's superior power to weight AND better gearing should see it stretch ahead on the straights.


... it's the cornering speed and braking - chassis technology has moved on a lot in 20 years. With a new suspension setup and better brakes the NSX would probably be quicker. I think the NSX is a better car to drive anyway, more involving I think.

Tyre tech has definitely moved on considerably but there's nothing to stop you using the latest rubber on your NSX. That's not to say the NSX can't make good use of modern tyres even with the original, slightly soft, spring/damper set-up.


To be fair, having driven our 3.2 (pop up) and 3.2 (facelift) back to back, Honda have IMO not listed the amount of changes they made continously. The facelift is subtley better in quite a few areas. Not sure how much that would add up in time round a track, but it certainly felt better.

Are you sure that's not just age/wear related? Most people comment that any differences are so small that they can be put down to wear and variations between individual cars.

Cheers

Mark

[TheSebringOne]

Mark, in addition to more bhp/better gearing, theres more torque too. Thats not accounting for wider rubber and bigger stoppers front & rear. Wasn't the suspension slightly beefed up and the ABS revised?

The main differences between a pop up and the fixed lights were slightly better aero dynamics, wider rear tyre and thicker ARBs.

[NoelWatson]

Rob, in addition to more bhp/better gearing, theres more torque too. Thats not accounting for wider rubber and bigger stoppers front & rear. Wasn't the suspension slightly beefed up and the ABS revised?

.

Not forgetting in 1995

Limited Slip Differential Changes on manual transmission cars. Went from Torque Control Ddifferential to a Torque Reactive Differential - when combined with Throttle-By-Wire, increases speeds out of a corner by 10%. Automatic cars keep old differential.

[NoelWatson]

The main differences between a pop up and the fixed lights were slightly better aero dynamics, wider rear tyre and thicker ARBs.

Think there was some debate about whether ARBs were different. Front springs were stiffer

[NSX 2000]

To be fair, having driven our 3.2 (pop up) and 3.2 (facelift) back to back, Honda have IMO not listed the amount of changes they made continously. The facelift is subtley better in quite a few areas. Not sure how much that would add up in time round a track, but it certainly felt better.

I like elements of the Evora, but not sure it quite works for me...

I agree with Rob, Honda would not have listted evrey little change but put these changes together and they make a differance. I've always felt that 55 is more willing to rev all the way to the limiter than W2 was. However the first time I drove 55 with any gusto it was very twitchy compared to W2 which I put down to the crap Dunlops it had on, but I've not been as happy with the Goodyear F1's as compared to when I had them on W2. I sold W2 with brand new Bridgestones, I wonder how they have performed?

[Nick Graves]

The move to 17" at the front did indeed require such detailed supension and brake revision. The reduction of Cx by 0.02 would also give the facelift an increased high-speed advantage over the Evora.

The Evora could retaliate with forged wheels and CR gearbox options. And you can made two kids sick, which you cannot in any NSX on any track.

So comparisons are really meaningless, but fun nonetheless!

[TheSebringOne]

Paul, I know this has been discussed frequently, but Bridgestones suit all NSX more than GoodYear F1s, even though GY are a good all round tyre with exceptional wet weather grip, but the stiffer sidewalls of BS feels more planted & more grippy IMHO.

[jaytip]

Are you sure that's not just age/wear related? Most people comment that any differences are so small that they can be put down to wear and variations between individual cars.

Cheers

Mark
I read a number of mags back in 02 when the facelift came out and they ALL said it was a much better car.
I have owned a 92 manual,a 96 targa with the short gearing and an 04.Give me the 04 everytime.