Accomplice8

There is a thread under the car comparison forum on nsxprime.com about how the NSX should fair against the C32. I'm curious as to the results of any races you guys have had.

Kevin

KL316

my friend wit a E46 M3 (manual) raced a NSX b4, wether or not it was stock or modded is unknown, but he said he smoked the NSX pretty bad, i have no reason 2 doubt him

since C32's are capable of beating E46 M3's (lets jus leave it as C32 and M3 are the same) i would think that the C32 is also capable of similar results

99ITR_SC

I think it heavily depends on the year of the NSX. I understand they upped the power in 97 which resulted in a (high) 12 second quarter mile. If it is a 97> NSX, not a great chance, but an older one, definitely beatable.

steve s

saw in a japanese televised race... m convertible pulls ahead an nsx coming out of a turn behind the nsx...

Bux

i've raced plently of the older ones ..used to drive out with them all the time, on a road course they would definatley beat us but straight line c32 would win. i don't know anything about the specific years or the newer ones.

KL316

didnt post that

FrankW

older ones have a 3.0 liter engine for both auto/manual. The newer ones have a 3.2 liter for the manual and 3.0 liter for the auto. The newer engine has slight hp increase and wider torque band. The 3.0 liter for the auto version of the newer NSX is different than the older 3.0 liter engine.

straight line, they aren't that quick now, by today's standard. The C32 and M3 can probably take one on or just even w/ it. Unless we C32/M3 gone up against the NSX S-zero or the new NSX typeR. On the track no doubt the NSX in any form is better than the M3/C32.

I'm not very impressed by the NSX tho. IMO although it's a very very good sports car, it's still horribly overpriced in any parts of the world. Hand built, sure, but it's still a HONDA that's more than 11 years old. IMO the NSX should be priced around the competition like the Supra RZ, RX-7 GZ (or something...forgot), the GTO, and the Skyline GTR v-spec.

steve s

they still cost over 30k for some of the oldest used ones...ouch....

99ITR_SC

FrankW: I think you're missing the point of this car. Sure, we might be able to take it on the straights, but handling wise, this car outperforms 99% of the cars on the road including Porsche Turbo, Modena, etc.

Driving an NSX is like driving a pure race car, with perfect layout, incredible feedback, etc. You get Ferrari beating performance at a much better price. Sure, its starting to LOOK old, but underneath the aluminum body, its anything but. The Supra/RX7/Skyline's you mention (even though they are the "pimped" racing version) are in a totally different league; this car is classic!

KL316

i didnt write that

Sleestack

I agree. By today's standards, the NSX is underpowered, but it is definitely one of the best, if not the best, handling cars I have ever driven. I'm psyched to see the next generation NSX's powerplant. It just might well be my next car.

FrankW

I think we ARE talking about the same thing...

of course, the NSX is one of the best handling car exist today. I'm simply saying it's still overpriced for a underpowered sports car.

ultraseven

Hopefully your justification of the price is the car is riding on a 11 year old platform, and NOT because it's a Honda. Giving it a Porsche/Ferrari emblem would not change my opinion of the car.

I do agree that it is overpriced by today's standards. In terms of performance numbers people can get a C32, M3, STi for much less. But then, they don't ride on an aluminum chassis, and aren't hand built (sans the C32's motor).

steve s

becareful what u wish for...rumor has it honda may put a hybrid engine on the nsx...

FrankW

the age of the car is a major part of my view, but then again, would you spent around $70k or so in 1991-92 for the NSX when Porsches and Ferraris was costing only slightly more?

My opinion on the NSX is that it's a great performance machine just not the price, now or 11-12 yrs ago even it is a pure hand built car. IMO the car is in the same catagory as the Skyline GT-R v-spec, Supra RZ, etc, but is it worth twice the price tag to get one just because it handles better. That's basically my arguement.

Jon200

I see where ya coming from. When the NSX was first released, its price tag was DEFINITELY justified. It was miles ahead of its time in terms of built quality, performance and handling.

But now..I am not so sure.

Its been well over 10 years for the NSX and it still performs damn well against those Porsche and Ferraris.

I heard that the next NSX is 4L V8 400bhp?

Renn 208

Not that this really means much, but I was able to beat a 3.0L NSX consistantly around the big track at willow springs. We were both new to the track, and are both pretty crappy drivers...but I was anywhere from 2-4 seconds ahead the whole weekend.

Sure the story would probably be different with drivers to push both cars to 8or9/10ths, but hey, what happened happened. The NSX is still a pretty dope all around, so props where they are due.

carl

The NSX S Zero and NSX Type R are something near 400 bhp...
because of the gentlemen agreement, they have to say the car is 280 or something.
I saw once the Type R racing 996 Turbo and Mondena...
cornering is faster than Porsche and Ferrari...
straight line and 200 km/h +?
Turbo just a hair faster follow by the Type R... and Modena is the slowest.

I don't like japanese car... but i gotta say this is the fastest japanese car... and the chasis is like 14 year old. (since 1989)

FrankW

Only the type R has slightly increase of power from the regular NSX. The S-Zero has no power increase from the regular NSX, but it shedded a lot of weight by ditching the a/c, power window, insulations, etc that Honda felt unnecessary for the car to be a light weight machine. The typeR replaces the S-zero when the NSX was facelifted last year.

it's not the fastest Japanese sports car, it's the quickest around the track. The fastest is probably the Tommy Kiaira's sports car or the R33/34 GT-R vspec

I was framed.

I have a Japanese supercar shootout video with a GT2, 996, F50, Lamborghini Murc, NSX (Type R I think) and a few other cars.

The NSX danced circles around the Lamborghini. The only reason the Lamborghini beat the NSX was because of the long straight. I think if you gave the NSX a bit more power, it would be one very very nice car. Not that it isn't already.

steve s

i remember hearing stories about having tires replaced in 3k miles for the rear...huge toe-in... these cars came out with 16" tires remember? how things have changed ... that gentlemen's agreement was true for all them skyline and 3000gt too...weird...

Prasith32

Do you have a link to this video?

carl

yeah... i have no idea how those honda engineer do that...
the tyres used on nsx is very thin... isn't the norm theory -the thicker tyres, the more grip = faster in corner?
the NSX type R only have like 245 or 255 17" rear tyres and 205 in the front, but it is faster than the modena and as fast as the mighty awd GT(996 Turbo) in both small and big corners.

carl

search for BEST MOTORING in ebay...
you can find their dvd/vcd video easily...
they worth to watch for like 10 bucks only.

the nsx type R vs 996 Turbo vs360 race was take place on the Japan F1 track. the NSX represent the fastest car of Japan to race the europe beasts. lambo, gt2, gt3s...etc, there is other ferraris too.

The nsx type R just can't let go to the 360 and 996... it is as fast as them in the corner, even long straight run pass 130mph... nsxr is ridiculiosly fast... and i hate it... coz its a HONDA!

and its hp for the nsxr is like just 276 HP... (or 280 ps), compared to 400 and 420ps for 996 and 360.

afew porches and ferraris eat dirt in that race

pocholin

Since W210 E55 and C32 have similar performance numbers I'll pitch in:

I've raced a NSX in the past, here is the link . Long story short, stock NSX vs Stock C32, C32 will win easy.