What Is Stock NSX Performance?
[MCA] The published numbers for a factory engine are obtained by averaging the output of several test engines. Production engines are not "Blueprinted"; the output of any two given engines coming off an assembly line can vary as much as 10% — depending upon the level of quality control exercised by the engine’s manufacturer. Honda can probably give us better statistics.
This coupled with other sources of variance (state of air cleaner, accuracy of O2 sensors, tire diameter, to name a few) could add up to a 30 HP swing (which, while it seems wide, is within the 10% range, e.g. 235 +/- 10%)
Magazine Numbers
| Model Year |
Trim Level |
Body Style |
Source | Issue Date |
Engine | Spec | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 00 | Coupe | Cpe | R&T | Jan-01 | 3.2 V-6/6M | 0-60, s. | 4.90 |
| 60-0 Braking, ft. | 134.00 | ||||||
| Slalom, mph | 62.10 | ||||||
| Skidpad, g | 0.92 | ||||||
| 97 | T | Cpe | PS | Jun-97 | 3.2 V-6/6M | 0-60, s. | 5.30 |
| Skidpad, g | 0.91 | ||||||
| Slalom, mph | 49.40 | ||||||
| Idle, dBA | 46.00 | ||||||
| 50 mph, dBA | 72.00 | ||||||
| 97 | T | Cpe | MT | May-97 | 3.2 V-6/6M | 0-60, s. | 4.80 |
| 1/4 Mile, s. | 13.30 | ||||||
| Top Speed, mph | 162.20 | ||||||
| 60-0 Braking, ft. | 120.00 | ||||||
| Skidpad, g | 0.94 | ||||||
| Slalom, mph | 69.50 | ||||||
| 97 | T | Cpe | R&T | Feb-97 | 3.2 V-6/6M | 0-50, s. | 3.90 |
| 0-60, s. | 5.00 | ||||||
| 0-70, s. | 6.50 | ||||||
| Top Speed, mph | 168.00 | ||||||
| 1/4 Mile, s. | 13.50 | ||||||
| 60-0 Braking, ft. | 123.00 | ||||||
| 80-0 Braking, ft. | 212.00 | ||||||
| Skidpad, g | 0.89 | ||||||
| Slalom, mph | 63.00 | ||||||
| Idle, dBA | 45.00 | ||||||
| 1st Gear, dBA | 81.00 | ||||||
| 50 mph, dBA | 70.00 | ||||||
| 70 mph, dBA | 73.00 | ||||||
| 96 | T | Cpe | R&T | Jun-96 | 3.0 V-6/5M | 0-60, s. | 5.30 |
| 0-80, s. | 8.60 | ||||||
| 1/4 Mile, s. | 13.80 | ||||||
| 60-0 Braking, ft. | 128.00 | ||||||
| 80-0 Braking, ft. | 219.00 | ||||||
| Skidpad, g | 0.91 | ||||||
| Slalom, mph | 63.80 | ||||||
| Idle, dBA | 46.00 | ||||||
| 1st Gear, dBA | 86.00 | ||||||
| 70 mph, dBA | 74.00 | ||||||
| 95 | T | Cpe | C&D | Jul-95 | 3.0 V-6/5M | 0-60, s. | 5.20 |
| 1/4 Mile, s. | 13.80 | ||||||
| 0-100, s. | 13.0 | 0-130, s. | 24.7 | ||||
| 0-150, s. | 45.5 | ||||||
| Braking 70-0, ft. | 173 | ||||||
| 5th 30-50, s. | 7.3 | ||||||
| 5th 50-70, s. | 7.3 | ||||||
| 300′ Skid Pad, g. | 0.95 | ||||||
| Top Speed, mph. | 162.00 | ||||||
| 95 | T | Cpe | MT | Jun-95 | 3.0 V-6/4Auto | 0-60, s. | 5.80 |
| 1/4 Mile, s. | 14.30 | ||||||
| 0-50, s. | 4.5 | 0-70, s. | 7.4 | ||||
| 0-90, s. | 12.1 | ||||||
| Braking 30-0, ft. | 29 | ||||||
| Braking 70-0, ft. | 170 | ||||||
| 600’Slalom, mph. | 68.4 | ||||||
| Skid Pad, g. | 0.93 | ||||||
| Top Speed, mph. | 162.00 | ||||||
| 93 | Base | Cpe | MT | Jul-93 | 3.0 V-6/5M | 0-60, s. | 5.60 |
| 1/4 Mile, s. | 13.90 | ||||||
| 60-0 Braking, ft. | 117.00 | ||||||
| Skidpad, g | 0.92 | ||||||
| Slalom, mph | 65.30 | ||||||
| Sources: | AUTO = Automobile Magazine |
| CR = Consumer Reports | |
| C&D = Car and Driver Magazine | |
| MFR = Manufacturer Data | |
| MT = Motor Trend Magazine | |
| R&T = Road & Track Magazine | |
| AW = Auto Week | |
| PM = Popular Mechanics | |
| PS = Popular Science |
| Legend: | 0-60, s. | Acceleration from 0 to 60 mph, timed in seconds |
| 60-0 Braking, ft | Min. stopping distance from 60 mph, in feet | |
| 1/4 Mile, s. | Acceleration for a quarter mile distance, in secs. | |
| Skidpad, g | Max. lateral acceleration during cornering, in g’s | |
| Slalom, mph | Control and grip during transient handling, in mph | |
| CD | Coefficient of drag (lower is better) | |
| Idle, dBA | Decibel level at idle | |
| 60 mph, dBA | Decibel level at 60 mph | |
| Full Throttle, dBA | Decibel level at full throttle acceleration | |
| 1st Gear, dBA | Decibel level at maximum first gear |
| Publication | Car | Date | 0-60 Time | 1/4 Mile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automobile | 3/94 | 5.0 | 13.9 | |
| AutoWeek | 8/26/91 | 5.3 | – | |
| Car & Driver | 9/90 | 5.2 | 13.8 @ 102 MPH | |
| Car & Driver | 7/98 | 4.5 | 12.9 @ 110 MPH | |
| Motor Trend | 12/90 | 5.4 | 13.7 @ 103.1 MPH | |
| Motor Trend | 9/90 | 5.5 | 13.9 | |
| Motor Trend | 1991 NSX Automatic Tranny | 8/91 | 5.8 | 14.4 @ 93.3 MPH |
| Motor Trent | 7/93 | 5.6 | 13.9 | |
| Road & Track | 8/90 | 5.7 | 14.0 @ 100.0 MPH | |
| Road & Track | 6/93 | 5.8 | 14.0 | |
| Sports Car International | 12/90 | 5.03 | 13.47 @ 105.6 MPH |
[AW] I took my bone-stock ’91 with 24,000 mi. to MechTech in Escondido this morning and had Jim McFarland run it on their Dynojet. Here are some of the torque and power numbers (corrected for temp. and pressure):
RPM lb-ft HP
2000 131 50
2500 167 80
3000 170 97
3500 178 119
4000 182 139
4500 181 155
5000 181 172
5500 184 193
6000 182 207
6500 186 230
7000 175 234
7500 164 234
8000 87 133
Peak torque was 186 and peak HP was 235.5 (@7250).
Jim also gave me a plot for a ’92 NSX with CT Airbox, headers, HKS exhaust, and g-force ECU. It’s only significant deviation from my curves is ~10 lb-ft increase in torque starting around 6500 RPM, and about 17 more HP starting there as well. Below 5,500 the curves were for all practical purposed identical. Doesn’t get my juices flowing given the amount of money involved.
Finally, he also gave me plots for a Bell twin-turbo they had done for a Bay area customer, where they ran 8 lbs boost after totally redoing the fuel delivery system and lowering compression. The torque curve is astonishing, rising linearly from 160 @ 2,000 RPM to 307 @ 4,000 RPM, staying above 300 until 6,000 RPM and then falling off roughly linearly to 250 @ 7500. Horsepower peak is about 360 at 7,000. Says customer has put 15,000 mi. or so on the installation and it continues to run fine. Says it’s really fun to drive. I bet it is.
[MS] My 1991 car, number 601, was an early model. Power at the rear wheels (stock) was 249 hp at just under 7500 rpm. My chassis dyno guy recommends a conversion factor of 1.26 x wheel hp to get engine, resulting in 313 hp. And remember Honda rated the engine at 270 hp. Losses are actually probably less because the power train does not need to bend the power through 90 degrees, the NSX is a side winder…so power is probably even greater.
You must log in to post a comment.