FoxNotch

I agree that the last thing the underdog needs here is an auto trans.

Whereabout is this taking place?

BlackMagicC5

iTrader: (2)

This is pointless for 2 main reasons.

#1, You are obviously biased in favor of the NSX. If your going to do this, find a manual transmission for both cars, or an auto for both cars. Otherwise, I say don't even bother.

#2, You said Fbody/C5 which makes no sense. They are two completely different cars with two completely different speeds and performance. Also, what are you racing against? WS6 transam? Firehawk? Z28? SS? And for the vette, 2001+ with 350hp instead of 345? 99 or 2000 FRC with less weight? 01 Z06 with 385hp? 02+Z06 with 405hp? You need to be a lot more specific about whats going on. And of course the race needs to be from both a dig AND a roll otherwise nothing is proven. There are a lot of factors and I think you'll play that to the NSX's advantage, but we'll see.

I can tell you right now, when my 99 FRC vette was stock I'd put any amount of money against a pos NSX, dig, roll, top speed, you name it. Your crazy if you think that stupid car is faster than a late model vette. And lets not even mention the Z06.

Sparetire

Manual vs Manual dig and roll FTW.

germeezy1

Killemall are you at it again, I know this is in response to my thread of *** stomping an NSX on the freeway. 1st you insulted my knowledge of cars and said I raced an earlier year and I know I race a fixed headlight car. And then you acted as though a high 12 second on its best day with John Force driving NSX would beat my C5. Mind you this is before you knew anything about my car. Give it up would you? Your beating a dead horse if you like the NSX so much go buy one! And a stock A4 LS1 Camaro isn't going to be as fast as a Vette except for off the line. From a roll a stock C5 would have an advantage especially with the performance axle ratio.

Killemall

Whoa..Guys..I equally love the LS1..remember i bought a brand new c5 off the show room floor only 3 years ago...

I just get tired of people calling it slow and over rated. because it is neighter of the two.


Last night me and my buddy took out 3 of our cars and ran them all at exactly the same location...

One was his stock 05 NSX

One was his 1K rwhp Supra

And lastly was my 440 rwhp viper

We were both in each vehicle on every pass and did 5-7 runs with each vehicle..

My friend weighs 270 and I weigh 220 for a combined weight of 490 pounds.

All runs were made at the same location in 70 degree weather at 1000 ft elevation

First up was his supra ( wich is on rubber band tires )...

At 550 rwhp he ran a 13.3 at 125 mph
Did a few more runs with the boost up and 650 rwhp and he ran a 0-60 in 5.4 (slower than stock)and a 13.1 at 128 mph off a 2.4 60 ft

Then next was the 05 NSX. First run launching off idle turned a 13.7 at 103 mph

The next run we launched at 5500 rpm's and cut a 1.9 60 ft on the oem tires!!!!!

0-60 came in 4.9 seconds (right on the money)with the 1/4 mile coming in at 13.2 at 106 mph..

13.2 at 106 mph with 490 pounds worth of fat guys and 1000 ft elevation!!!!!!!

The BEST I ever did in my bone stock 2004 auto C5 with 2.73 gears at the same location was 0-60 in 5.0 and 13.3 at 105 mph..And that was when I was 190 pounds...

No way my c5 would have ran that with my 220 pounds PLUS my friends 270...Probally more like 13.5 at 103

POINT is..that with an average 180 pound guy and no passanger at sea level it would have turned an 12.8-9 at 108-9 mph 100% bone stock

UP last was my viper....Ran a pretty dissapointing 12.6 at 116 mph under the same conditions with a 2.2 60 ft...

Tried many times but the stock pilot tires sucked pretty bad and I would spin all through second gear every run resulting in mid to high 12's..

Best 0-60 was 4.6 (slower than stock)

Anyone can say what they want about the NSX..But i have raced it with vette/viper and done direct comparison test against it..

It is an amazing car

BlackMagicC5

iTrader: (2)

Ok, not taking into account all your "math" and just going by what actually happened, its quite funny. A 650rwhp Supra couldn't get out of the 13's. Go figure. The NSX was almost exactly the same as an automatic C5 with the shitty 2.73 gears. I think its pretty self explanatory. Put a manual C5 vs. a manual NSX and the C5 is going to win. I'll keep my thoughts on those stupid NSX's.

Killemall

a 270 pound passanger is pretty significant. your talking a 2-3 tenth differance..

without me in the NSX he would have ran a 13.0 at 108 mph in hawaiian weather at 1000 ft elevation his second time ever racing it...

Not saying a manual C5 cant do the same thing. But it would take a LOT more skill...

Now on a roll..Bye bye c5

Man i should really set him up with a manual C5 next...



************************************************** *************** UPDATE*

I was just called up by the stock auto fbody owner.

May be going down shortly

germeezy1

My post simply said that I killed an NSX, and that I knew that he wasn't stock because he actually surprised me by the fact I didn't put bus lengths on him. And really high 12's and that mph make an NSX slower than my bolt on 99 Cobra....which my C5 is a whole lot faster than! And even stock 99 and 01 N/A Cobra's have run those times. Of course a 2.73 geared A4 Vette isn't going to have a great 0-60 time. I considered an NSX heavily but it came down to the fact that I would have rather just kept modding my Cobra then get a car that wasn't a big performance bump. Plus I already knew from my research how much money it took to get an NSX into the 11's let alone the 10's! No offense to some but high 12's just isn't fast enough for me especially since I already owned a high 12 second car and it just felt slow!

germeezy1

I never understood why people assume a car with a narrow powerband somehow becomes better from a roll vs a dig???? A wide powerband is going to give you the ability to make up for shifting mistakes that a narrow powerband won't. And unless you do 6,000 rpm clutch dumps on your daily commute you can't just drive around an engine with no torque!

B.W.

iTrader: (3)

Can someone post up a typical stock '05 NSX dyno?

germeezy1

I believe this is from a stock with CAI 3.0 NSX. This isn't a 3.2 car from what I can see. Keep in mind those are only rated at 20 hp more.

Also keep in mind that if the NSX had a 100% efficient drivetrain it would put out 290 RWHP and 224 lb ft before you Acura nut huggers start saying how low the dyno #'s are, and thats its not an 04 3.2.

Slow Vette

iTrader: (1)

it doesn't matter, because it would get owned by an 05 vette tranny for tranny...

chavez885

iTrader: (12)

nsx's are slowwwww and overpriced...but damn they look nice for a honda

g-ryde1

iTrader: (3)

umm wow that does seem low, but is the one racing a 3.2 or 3.0? thats the question, cause if its a 3.0 it wouldnt seem to be too fair on the NSX's part.

Killemall

3.2's are in the 260-270 rwhp range..

The 3.0 is rated at 270 HP and actually dynos around 225 rwhp..So it really is 270 HP..

The 3.2 was rated at 290 HP ( only 20 more HP than the 3.0) But this was because japan had that rule about cars not exceeding 290 HP..

Really the car dynoed about 265 rwhp on average ( a full 40 more rwhp than the 270 HP 3.0 versions)

Wich means that the 3.2 litre NSX's should have really been rated at 315 HP

unit213

Post the vid when you get it. Bench racing sucks.