Twin bottle Nitrous kit, very easy to install and cost less than $2000 including professional installation (jetted to a 125 shot which should have made about 100 to 110 at the wheels, but obviously it made more power than that). Could do the same on a 951 obviously with similar results, but to get that rear wheel number would require something akin to a 200 shot of nitrous which I wouldn't send through any relatively stock engine.

The $12,000 is a very conservative estimation including labor for a Master NSX Tech to do the install at an Acura dealership.

 

I could have swore that supercharger kit was around $10,000 and then to get the best out of it you needed to get the headers and exhaust which would put you well over the $12,000 mark just in parts. One other thing to note is that the 370 rwhp would be on a later model NSX (3.2 litre) I don't believe the early 3.0 litre cars got to that number. Check Comptechusa.com Maybe it's just me but I really don't consider Nitrous when talking about bolt ons. I believe that most people consider "bolt on's" to be things like exhausts, headers, intakes, etc. Nitrous is sort of like running C12. It's only good when you have the gas and usually used for just short bursts or glory runs. Once you run out you are back to stock again. For most bolt on comparisons I believe Nitrous should be excluded just like for when comparing dyno numbers I believe that race gas should be excluded.

 

I can see your point. But if Nitrous is out, then swapping Turbo's would have to be excluded from the comparison as well since that is actually a more involved "bolt-on" modification.

And if we're excluding turbo swaps, the early 951's are severely limited in the HP they can make because they simply run out of breathe at higher RPM's. Even the Turbo S isn't going to put all that much at the wheels. Sure you could try to run 22 lbs of boost, but you're just going to mangle your engine doing that.

The SC kit retails for around $10k, but any dealer can get it for much less than that and a dealer with a good relationship with Comptech will get it for substantially less than that. There are other kits on the market as well that actually make more HP but I prefer the comptech kit mainly because of the very flat torque curve that results.

Neither of these cars is going to make much over 320 HP without real work, neither the 951 or the NSX.

And like I've said, I love them both and enjoy driving both. Had the NSX not been passed by in the Grand-Am Cup series, I'd still be racing one, unfortunately that isn't how professional racing works. I still own my 951 though I don't drive it nearly as often as I'd like.

And while I wouldn't sit quietly by while the 951 was defamed on an NSX board and I won't sit quietly by while the NSX is unfairly abused on this board.

 

Agreed. Although it is important to note that a turbo swap on a 951 is going to be much more cost effective than a turbo/supercharger install on an NSX mainly due to the fact the 951 is turbocharged from the factory. My biggest point of contention has been the "elite" status that seems to have given to the NSX. I think they are a nice car but in comparison to my 951 it wasn't an "Oh my god, I need to get one of these" type of experiences. The NSX should have been compared to the Nissan 300/350Z, Mazda RX7, Toyota Supra, Chevrolet Corvette, etc. as these are the cars that it would compare to favorably on the road. So what were people paying $100,000 plus for when they bought an NSX new? Blistering performance? Not really since the car was decent but not blindingly so. Brand name? Not really since Acura isn't really known as a marquee name. The only reason I could think of for someone to pay $100,000 for the car was because they somehow thought that by driving one they were better than everyone else. It's that same BS attitude that I hate in guys I have met who tell me they bought a Porsche but can't tell me the first thing about it. The only good thing I could say about one of these guys is that at least if he bought a 996 or 997 Turbo he definately got a car that will blow your hair back and outperform 99% of the cars out there. That's something that I couldn't say about the pretentious NSX drivers out there.

 

"Neither of these cars is going to make much over 320 HP without real work, neither the 951 or the NSX"

You are referring to the wheels correct?

To the crank with MAF/Chips/Cat out and 16-18psi, 320 at the crank is achived with no problems on 951; as that is only about 270 to the wheels.

 

how much rwhp do stock NSX's usually put down?

j/w.

 

I am looking them too. Very closely. I need to drive on locally and see what the feeling is like. Its a honda. Its mid engined. The aftermarket support seem svery strong. The brake upgrade is about the same as for an early 928. SC and turbo options as well.

Oh, and AEM has a freaking (pretty much) Plug and play computer for the 91-95s. The crank, rods, and pistons for the stroker kit are already packaged for the buyer. They aren't cheap, but hey, neither is porsche.

 

Check post #30............

 

yeah, i know how much crank hp they make. i was wondering how much a stock NSX puts down to the wheels.

it cant be 270.

unless it's doing the old skyline trick, where it supposedly makes 280hp, but put it on any dyno and it makes more like....300.



i really dont think i'll fit......


sad, cuz i always wanted to drive one.....

 

ahhh...ok to the wheels....well I dont know.......i suppose u could calculate the average 15% loss but maybe someone else knows for sure.........I do understand that Japanese manufactures will always say their cars only make 300HP when in fact they make more.....I think something about Japanese regs or something..........

 

10 seconds on google got:
Those are great #'s Boyd, my '00 S2000 (stock) made 206 rwhp and 135 rwtq. NSX made 236 rwhp and 187 rwtq (also stock). My '93 1.6 liter Miata made a heart pounding 97 rwhp, I think torque was ~90 ft-lbs. All on a Dynojet.

I'd guess that's the 3.0, as driveline loss for MR cars is a lot less than FR cars.

-Jon

 

well I suppose thats good....but can that be trusted??....anyway sounds about right.....approx 15% loss

 

Best way to have a 951 beat a NSX is to have me driving the NSX while a decent driver is driving my 951! lol I've looked at NSX's before deciding it wasn't the car for me. I like 951's and they are potent enough for my driving skills/level, and I'm not driven to compete at any sort of "professional level". Having said that, there is a guy in KC with an NSX that I have been on the track with, and I was able to get by him in short order. There's another guy with a different NSX (stock to the best of my knowledge) that handed me my a$$. For most of us, I think either an NSX OR a 951 would be a LOT more car than we are drivers, so it pretty much comes down to preference, imo.

For what its worth, I've never heard anyone I know that owns (or owned) an NSX complaining about the maintenance costs like us 951 owners do.

 

You're f'ing kidding me, right?

Newsflash, Inspector Cluso, chassis dyno's are about as accurate (Deviating only slightly or within acceptable limits from a standard) at measuring horsepower as my hand is at measuring .001". If anything this guy's rwhp are lower than I'd expect from a mid-engined car. I'm sure he has everything to gain from lying about his dyno numbers, and he's winning cash prizes for BS'ing on the internet.

With all the critical information provided in this thread (with the exception of BB), someone should probably go find a chassis dyno that's been calibrated with the best butt-dyno in the world, and run their bone-stock NSX and their bone-stock 951, to finally settle the argument of how much more hp the NSX produces compared to a 951. Because, clearly the factory crank-horsepower numbers don't bring any valuable information to this discussion.

God knows the argument won't be settled until this precise test is performed.

-Jon

 

woooooooooow.


no need to go completely ape **** over someone posting someone else's dyno numbers....