My new ride, Punto owner no more

[Debo]

Well, the Clio only has one inlet cam profile for starters - so revving to 8.5k in a VTEC is completely different than revving to 5.5 / 6k in a Clio. Infact it's so different, in the Clio you're getting a linear power increase, you hit 5.5 /6k and then it starts tapering off and you change gear... in the VTEC you get the linear power increase to those revs, and then ~6k the power increases by about 40hp for the last 2500/3000rpm. In Honda's infinite wisdom, and with their amazing engineering ability, they then created gearboxes that were matched perfectly to the engine - and so, you rev to 5800rpm, hit the big cam, and you're never off it when going up through the gears.. there is no "waiting around"

[Debo]

Thats the only thing I found out when I test drove an NSX - the torque was gutless below 5Krpm - which I just couldn't live with on the many motorway miles I do.

Well, it's a 3.0 V6 (or 3.2, depending on what year you drove) - so, hardly "gutless", just not in the realms of turbo torque. I only have 140lbs/ft in my 1.8 DC2.. this however, is identical torque to the 2.0 Clio 172 cup, and still around about the same as most modern 2.0 N/A engines. VTEC's don't lack any torque, what they do lack, is the torque of a turbo car of smaller or the same displacement, and so often is the case, they are compared to turbo's because they can produce the same hp power output!

[PuntoGt031087]

I know someone who has one of these pretty well and he can only crack about 6.6 to 100kmh (62mph) using our Gtech R/R Pro - and when he does it is really right at the top of 2nd gear.

The sub 6 seconds time was performed using an N1 version of the EK9 or so he tells me (I am not too clued up on them), which was more stripped and was devoid of Recaros and red trim etc.

He's going back to something with a slightly bigger engine as he always rants on about the engine being "such a bi**h to get power out of".

Thats the only thing I found out when I test drove an NSX - the torque was gutless below 5Krpm - which I just couldn't live with on the many motorway miles I do.

that would explain why my old GT was level with one to 60 before now with an extra person in the car and the GT would never see 60 in sub 6 seconds. Cant moan about anything else though, lovely looking car, always fancied one

[jrracing]

Well, it's a 3.0 V6 (or 3.2, depending on what year you drove) - so, hardly "gutless", just not in the realms of turbo torque. I only have 140lbs/ft in my 1.8 DC2.. this however, is identical torque to the 2.0 Clio 172 cup, and still around about the same as most modern 2.0 N/A engines. VTEC's don't lack any torque, what they do lack, is the torque of a turbo car of smaller or the same displacement, and so often is the case, they are compared to turbo's because they can produce the same hp power output!

I drove a 91 3.0 (1st series). The torque was gutless low down (for a V6) - but then it surged higher up in line with the VTEC. The gears were nicely matched to the VTEC, but due to the nature of driving I do, I CBA to stick stir every 5 seconds.

I ended up going for my GTA because although it lacks vtec and 276bhp as opposed to around 260 for my GTA, the GTA can deliver its power and torque from 1.5K to 7K, making 6th in Town a doddle. The NSX could simply not do this.

This is no disrespect as the EK9 is a beaut to look at for a Jap car. For a 1.6 the power is also fantastic which can't be overlooked.

[Debo]

Well, I don't disbelieve what you're saying, but when you look at some figures:

147 GTA, 3.2 V6 ~1300kg's
221lbs/ft @ 4800rpm
250hp
0-60 = 6.2secs

1990 NSX, 3.0 V6 ~1230kg
210lbs/ft @ 5500rpm
270hp
0-60 = 5.0secs


We're talking about 11lbs/ft and only 700rpm difference where these peak figures are made.. and with the NSX being lighter by the weight of an average male, I doubt anyone would notice any difference tbh. Don't forget, the GTA is 200cc bigger aswell! Comparing like for like, the 3.2 NSX has 224lbs/ft and 276hp (just for reference).

As I said, I don't disbelieve you, I'll take your word for it because I've never driven an NSX, but looking at the figures, it looks on paper as if there's no difference. However, for the type of driving you do, which is lots of motorways and town driving presumably, the NSX probably wouldn't have been the best choice anyway.. it's more of a sunday car tbh.

[jrracing]

My GTA is re-mapped (which I should have mentioned) and has an LSD so take another half second off

In fact we have timed it (again using the GTEC R/R Pro) at 5.79 seconds to 60. It is the lack of FWD traction which kills the 0-60 times on it as standard.

I believe the early NSX's (3.0's) were in the high 5's (5.7 rings a bell) in the original brochure I was showed, it was the 3.2 which clocked in the low 5's (also aided by the 6 speed box as opposed to the 5 in the 3.0).

I must say that my comment was made from a drivability perspective - if you follow. For example it is ok saying that peak torque is at 5500 rpm as opposed to 4700 rpm in the Alfa, but it is how that torque curve looks in the rest of the rev range.

My car is making over 200 ft lb at 3000 rpm - I bet quite a bit the NSX 3.0 would not be at 150 ft lb at this point.

It is like the diesel argument, "my car makes 400 ft lb of torque" - yes but only for about half a second - then you are in the next gear! That is not true drivability.

I'd rather have for example 200 ft lb from 3000 to 7000 rpm than ~150 ft lb from 3000-5000 rpm, then a surge at 5500 rpm.

The fact at the end of the day is this - the two cars (my modified example) and an NSX would be quite similiar in performance. But when I drove the NSX in 5th and 55mph and floored it, nothing much was very impressive. In the Alfa - it took off.

[Debo]

Later NSX's were sub 5's to 60, like 4.7/4.8 or something. They were given slightly more power, and better gearing (6 instead of 5). Quite alot of magazine reviews have the early NSX timed at 5.2secs for the 0-100kph dash. It's a supercar, not something that looks like one but would struggle against a modern hatchback

Totally understand where you're coming from though, and I'd hope the torque and power curves would be better for a remapped car. In standard trim, I think it's a case of splitting hairs tbh, there wouldn't be much in it, main difference would be in the gearing I suspect, which is a point (not that you have) many people overlook.

Coincidentally, been out in my mates 350Z, and that felt it had quite alot of urgency lower in the rev range. When we went for a bit of a drive out at the end of summer last year, there was nothing in it on the open roads between him and me in mine, although I was having to sit back on the corners (superior DC2 chassis ).. around town however, mines just like an average car, his Z was still as quick as it looks

[Ashy C]

There are a few more differences between the EK9's and Jordans, for instance the EK9 has a seam welded chassis etc.

Yeah thats correct the 0-60 was set with no rear seats, plus run on Japans fuel, which is 105octane. For me i love the acceleration, the way you can be flat down clip the limiter and drop back into Vtec @ 7k and repeat while negotiating bends being pulled by the LSD.

Overall no quicker than a seb4 in a straight line, but decades infront in the handling stakes!! Over a competive lap there would be a very noticeable difference. I thought my GT with coilovers "handled" well, but i can see what other people have been on about for years now!

[COOG]

The Jordan is my favourite of all the Civics but that's only because it's yellow

some things never change on here lol ,it is a great car and the gearbox is awsome i realy want one as for looks and shite the ek 9 is far better interior wise and looks awsome from behind ,my teg just has a fat arse

[Puntoboy]

What that I like yellow? Well that's kinda obvious lol.