Gordon Murrary says McLaren F1's benchmark was NSX

The NSX got faster through its lifetime, perhaps in recognition of the simple fact that it was not fast at all early in its life and was never really fast enough to be considered a supercar. True super cars like the Testarossa were almost a second quicker 0-60 than the NSX. When compared to its contemporary Corvette, it was generally slower, and remember that a half a second difference in 0-60 times is a week. Also, the RX7 of the mid 90’s was faster than the NSX by a good bit. When the 1997 model came along the NSX got a lot quicker, but the problem was that the bar was moving up even faster, and by 2002 the 405 hp Z06 Corvette was a heck of a lot faster. While yes, the 1997 NSX is almost as fast as a 355, the problem is that by that time the impression that the car wasn’t that fast had been already been made. If they had put the kind of engine that came along in the S2000 (a really screaming high output engine that produced about 400 hp) it might have given the car the cachet that it would have needed to be considered really desirable and that might have made the difference.

Here is a compendium of acceleration times for the NSX and the Corvettes of the time, 0-60 is the first time and the ¼ mile is the second.

1991 Acura NSX 5.8 14.4 1991 Chevrolet Corvette L98 5.3 13.9
1992 Acura NSX 5.6 13.9 1992 Chevrolet Corvette LT1 5.7 14.1
1993 Acura NSX 5.6 13.9 1993 Chevrolet Corvette LT1 5.3 13.9
1994 Acura NSX 5.3 13.6 1994 Chevrolet Corvette LT1 5.2 13.7
1996 Acura NSX 5.2 13.8 1996 Chevrolet Corvette GS 4.7 13.3
1997 Acura NSX-T 4.8 13.3 1997 Chevrolet Corvette 4.7 13.3
2001 Acura NSXV6 4.5 12.9 2001 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 4.6 13.0
2002 Acura NSX 4.8 13.4 2002 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 4.1 12.5

1995 Ferrari F355 4.7 12.8

As you can see, the early NSX was pretty anemic, yes it got faster, but too late to salvage the reputation. Sales of the NSX declined primarily because it wasn’t perceived to be that fast, and it was still considered expensive. By 2006, when faced with garden variety Corvettes that were more than a half a second faster to 60, and the 500 hp Z06 faster my more than second, Honda knew that they would have to totally redesign the car in order to compete, and the costs of that were simply out of the question. The expensive aluminum construction and things like titanium connecting rods made the car so expensive that I sincerely doubt that Honda ever made any money on it. The NSX was introduced early on in the Acura program to give Acura a “halo” car and generate showroom traffic and interest in that new marque. In that regard it was successful, a lot of people came in to look at the NSX and drove home in a Legend. The NSX was a great car and set new benchmarks for being a “liveable” exotic. Had it been a bit faster it could have been a real threat to Ferrari.

 

No, no other car has got it.
The engine was the same from 1991 to 2005. In 1997 (all the way to 2005) it was upgraded from 3.0 to 3.2 l.

1991 NSX has 280 hp, 1997-2005 has 290 hp. Dyno's typically show 240-250 rwhp.


Edit: All the talk about performance figures: You can easily put on a supercharger kit (10.000 $) on a NSX and get 420-450 reliable hp... What's the deal... It would most likely be more reliable even with the supercharger than most of the competetion from factory, LOL

 

The NSX was never about all out performance, it was about refinement, practicality, better build quality and ease of use. For better or worse it did force Ferrari to change in response to it.

Something that is often overlooked is the car that really was the first mid engine performance car that was focused on refinement, practicality, better build quality and ease of use. The Maserati Bora. many of the features of the Bora were used by the NSX and other cars years later.

 

I like the NSX so much it's my daily driver. The porsche, lambo and ferraris are for weekend drives.

 

meanwhile the current Acura's have about 300hp.

 

Some years ago was in dreams about NSX-R GT road version . 50 million yen .
Ended with 996 GT2.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Gordon Murray kept and drove his NSX 7 years.
He admits to admiring and copying many of its attributes.

Every time I hear a Ferrari purist bemoan the NSX's lack of "soul" ( and I hear it often ) I just judge his opinion against Gordon's.

The NSX is a Milestone.

 

I too had an NSX. It was a wonderfully centered car with incredible reliability and literlly no maintenance. I wish Ferrari would take some cues from the maintenance cost side. The main problem with the NSX was it was seriously underpowered.

The Japanese, sadly, abandoned the car and just gently tweaked the car's appearance. They had a winner on their hands and just let it languish. All the other car manufacturers were paying very close attention to what was going on at Honda, and they took what was good about the car (a lot), and used it.

The car was very well made and required little maintenance. Strange how things just never developed for them.

 

I thought the 2002 NSX had a bump in HP? Great cars!
BT

 

No bump, 1997 - 2005 models, all have the same 3.2 engine (with slightly more hp).

But the fact is, there are almost only NSX-Targas with the 3.2 l. engine available in North-America - and the Targa adds some weight. So the earlier 91 coupe's are realistically as fast as the last 2005's.


Attaching a couple of pics. Can you say... Dated?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I like 'em a little, appreciate and respect what they do well, but just never was crazy about the styling, bottom line :/

 

I've always liked the NSX - the exterior was soooo cool back in the early 90s. I always said they should have put a factory turbo one together - I'm sure they could have gotten 420-450hp out of a TT setup, that would have been real threat to everyone performance-wise.

 

guys.. as you all know performance is more than HP.. on a TRACK the NSX was very effective..

my pal has an NSX that he is turned into the NSX-R and it's very very good on the track... feels like a racecar..

It's a special car no question.. you gotta respect what they accomplished with it.

 

I actually get more of a rush from seeing an NSX than I do a Ferrari unless it's not your average everyday Ferrari.

 

Actually, Honda did put together a factory Turbo NSX, albeit a race car, two of which raced at Le Mans in 1995 in the GT1 class. That same year a non-turbo NSX won GT2 and finished 8th overall.

The NSX aftermarket turbo market has grown substantially in the last few years. There are proven setups from several tuners that offer 400-900 rwhp.

 

The first model year for the NSX was 1991, but it doesn't much matter in pointing out the inaccuracy of your statement either.

 

400 RWHP is the consensus on max reliable HP in stock high compression cast piston, stock clutch form.
I am prolly going to supercharge my stocker to 350 HP using a cheap Basch mechanically driven centrifugal unit possibly adding methanol for a safety margin. The original piggyback engine management system was faulty causing many expensive blown engines. The new AEM systems are said to be bulletproof. These SC's can be picked up fairly cheap ($3k plus AEM) because of the reputation as opposed to $10k for a Comptech SC or the same for a good turbo kit. Clutch life still limits either.
I was actually pondering a properly built 550HP turbo car for $43k till the garage space issue finally sunk in. It's capable of 750.
But 350 HP is all I need. Promise. No really.

There is one money is no object 1000 HP car out there but it is strictly a Mad Scientist project.

 

The Basch Boost seems to be a bit down on torque compared to the other options, but you are correct that the use of an AEM standalone has solved the detonation problems that existed under the old Split Second box.

I assume you are referring to the Autowave-built turbo NSX for sale in California, listed on nsxprime by diegonsx. That car is quite tempting, as are a few others. The amount of money you can save buying a car that has already been built is only tempered by the uncertainty that the car could turn out to be a disaster. Autowave has a good reputation, which makes that car quite attractive.

For my car, the plan is either the SOS SC kit or the Lovefab Stage 1 Turbo. Both are capable of producing the 400 rwhp that most consider to be the limits of a stock NSX motor and clutch, as you note. That should tide me over for a couple of years before the motor is built to handle 600 rwhp and the boost is turned up.

 

Exactly. The NSX was an all around great car and shined on the track. It was designed in the 80's and still keeps up with alot of current supercars. Watch this vid:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x42ldw_best-motoring-gallardo-murcielago-3_auto