3.2 Litre Performance Question

[Oliver]

Do any of you knowledgeable gentlemen know if the facelifted 2003 NSX has a performance increase over the previous 1998 3.2 litre car?

Regards to all, keep up the good work

Oliver

[Kevin]

Slightly better I'd say for the new one. Suspension setting are different (I think). Also the wheels are 17" all round, and the rear tyres are wider.
The front is more aerodynamic, and the lights are lighter (no pun intended).

Whether you or I could tell the difference, I don't know. Whether a professional racing driver can, on a track, maybe.

[jaytip]

i have a magazine in front of me(japanese performance car)which begs to differ.
the journalist who drove the car seems to think that Honda are telling porkies when it comes to the cars bhp.he feels the car is alot more responsive in the mid range than the older cars.i cant be sure if he is on about the 3.0L or not but he does mention a 6 speed 'box,and as we all know that came along at the same time as the 3.2.
he also quotes 0-60,0-100 and top speeds between the two cars(speeds quoted from autocar magazine)but i dont put too much faith in these figures because i have seen figures of 5.7 sec 0-60 for the 3.2 and we all now that is a load of c**p

[Welshman]

he also quotes 0-60,0-100 and top speeds between the two cars(speeds quoted from autocar magazine)but i dont put too much faith in these figures because i have seen figures of 5.7 sec 0-60 for the 3.2 and we all now that is a load of c**p

Why, is that too slow?

[jaytip]

i think that you could take the better part of a second off that 0-60 time.
U.S magazines have got the 3.0L recording about 5.2-5.4sec so yes i would say high 4s to 5 sec for the 3.2