300zx, Supra, NSX, 3000gt?

[QUIKVETTE]

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever

Originally posted by: OMGoddess

Originally posted by: PowerMac4Ever

Originally posted by: scorp508

Originally posted by: PowerMac4EverNope. Race what ya brung. You won't see many stock Supras at the drag strip.

You're such a keyboard racer it isn't funny. I can now understand your 1.55 user rating. You cannot compare a list of vehicles for possible purchase and then pass judgement on one in modified form compared to the others. Yeah no s*** it is run what you brung once you get the damn thing. That would be why my car now makes over 500hp & 600 ft/lb, but from a buyer's standpoint you have to start with what ya got and go from there. You could easily say the 300ZX-TT or an NSX-T could blow the Supra out of the water as well with your thinking if you'd like to skew it even more.

Well, the #1 reason why people buy Supras is that they are incredibly easy to modify. I don't think you understand this. The 300ZX can not blow the Supra out of the water. There are more 11-second Supras on stock twins than 300ZX's. Also, the lowest ET on a stock twin Supra (11.10x no nos) is lower than the lowest 300ZX on stock twins. When you start factoring in upgraded turbos and such, the Supra's advantage rises exponentially. As for an NSX-T.. lol... I laugh at anyone wanting to turbocharge an NSX to compete with a Supra in straight line performance. Come on now...

Oh, you're cool because your car has 500 or whatever hp.. I don't know how this factors into the argument but congrats

It's people like you that give car enthusiaist a bad name.
The supra is a great car, it really is, bullet-proof enigne, and you're right about the fit and finish. But it's somewhat a bad race/drag car. Half of what you said was out of your arse or someone told you it out of theirs. I have met and SEEN people with 800hp Supras doing 10's and 11's. Know why? Because Supras suck at putting that power to the ground! Also on a road course I'd rather get Corvette, it sticks and all it's power is usable. But I'm being a little biased, I prefer road tracks to the strip.

Also I've seen a SC NSX do 9's....But no proof of that yet because I haven't seen it since, but he probably poured a lot of money into it.

Oh and as for Supras being chick magnets...if you want a lot of asian girls. And IMHO a Supra looks plain without a bodykit and some different rims.

So what if someone's 800hp Supra does 10's and 11's? It's their car, their money, and they tuned it the way they wanted. The Supra is a good drag car if it is tuned for the 1/4. Right now the Supra dominates the import street tire class in professional drag racing. As for the roadcourse, the Supra dominates the C4 in many ways (brakes, acceleration, skidpad, slalom). It is a heavy car though. The C5 Z06 would be a much more fair comparison to the Supra.

I never said Supras are chick magnets and could care less... also body kits and bling bling wheels are for ricers... glad you like them.

nullALL RICERS CLICK HERE

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

:roll:

 

[Excelsior]

Cant do images like that.

 

[QUIKVETTE]

Blasted Forum....I got it right now...go up.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The NSX is a piece of crap. Costs a ton and has no power. It's the ultimate poseur sports car. For the cost of an NSX you could get a newer corvette that would show it what a real car is.

Come on Skoorb...your way out of base there.

An NSX will OUTLAP the 300ZXTT, Supra TT, and 3000GT on any race track.

But you right, a newer Corvette Z06 would probably beat it out.

But to say a NSX is a posuer car is just wrong. It's just about faster than the other Japanese "muscle cars" in almost every way.

A later model NSX would, but not a '94.

how are they different? they only have had minor changes and minor increase in power.

Let's face it, the 1990 NSX was faster than the equivalent Ferrari of the time. Actually, it was pretty much faster than other cars its in class and slightly above. It was about as fast as the 993 TT as well I think (could be wrong).

Then once the 360 Modena came out, it was obviously trounced. The problem with hte NSX is that hasn't changed much or evolved significantly enough to be faster over the years. But it still outpeforms the other Japanese cars on the track.

And I haven't even included the NSX-R that wasn't offered in North America. Which is even more hardcore. It was EVO magazine's car of the year for 2003 I think (or 2002).

It, however, fails to keep up with the current crop of uber-high performance cars.

You are obviously just an NSX whore. 😛

Yeah..you are definitely wrong about the 993TT comparison.

993TT
450HP
430 lb-ft
Weight: 3209lbs
0-60: ~3.9 sec

1990 NSX
290HP
224 lb-ft
Weight: 3,153 lbs
0-60: ~5 sec

😀

where was I talking about 0-60 times? All my comparisions were based on track time.

Also the NSX does 0-60 in under 5 seconds.

Go look at Speed GT results for the past few seasons.

Here I'll show you them:

2002 Season
2003 Season

Ok so I was wrong on them "dominating", but they came 2nd in both seasons, which is higher than the numerous 911s.

And in my comment, I compared the NSX to beating 993 911s, not the current crop of 996 911s. My point was that it was faster than other cars in its class in its debut year.

Go here to see lap times on the Nurburgring
Search for NSX on the page (using your browser's FIND feature), you should find three instances of NSX...look at the cars that it beat.

 

[Excelsior]

Why would I bother with 2002 or 03 results when you were talking about 1990.

And that is a supercharged NSX.

Oh, and regardless of the difference in 0-60 times, the Porsche would still beat it on track. Those two links arent' comparable because they are different drivers, you know that.

Edit: And those specs WERE of a 993, not a 996.

 

[nan0bug]

Originally posted by: QUIKVETTE
Corvettes arent just cars, they are legends, each and every one of them.

Since 1953 The earth has been lucky enough to be graced with the Corvette. People dont question a Vette, or wonder if it has "the high option engine", because all vettes have the best engine available.

My 85 vette has over 125K miles on it, stock internals on the 350, and stock 4spd auto. True, its not the fastest Vette built, but in its day, nothing could hang with it. Even to this day, it has no problem sprinting to 120 and holding it effortlessly. No Groundeffects kit, no NOS, Tubos, Superchargers...no ram air or anything. IT is a Factory Muscle car.

But Vettes have a little more than Speed on their side, they have a Pedigree, all vettes are fast, and demand respect on the street, track, even from the person behind the wheel.

the 350 sbc engine used in vettes are Torque Monsters. While they dont produce big HP numbers, they produce a whole lotta Torque, and unlike Jap cars, they produce it in a resonable power band. No need to rev high in the dig, or keep it over 5K to shift or any of that crap. Most vettes produce the most power under 4-5K.
But QUIKVETTE, doesnt more HP = speed?

No, sorry but...NO. Hp is a great number to advertise, because its usually higher on most cars. Ever wonder why they rarely, if ever advertise Torque, or HP and Torque for Jap cars? Because 6 bangers, and 4 bangers cant produce a large amount of Torque (aka Twisting power).

My car came stock with 230hp, but 330ft/lbs of Torque, and trust me, thats alot! The Z06 makes...what 400 ft/lbs? And its the TOP OF THE LINE, MOST RECENT VETTE, and it only has 70 ft/lbs more than a car built in 85...that says a lot for both cars.

Im not saying Rice cars are slow, because there are some real sleepers out there that would hand my butt to me on a Rice-lined platter, but come on, Dont Dis a whole sect of Cars simply because you are Jealous....

RED-85-Z51....

Who were you before you re-registered under a new username?

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Why would I bother with 2002 or 03 results when you were talking about 1990.

And that is a supercharged NSX.

Oh, and regardless of the difference in 0-60 times, the Porsche would still beat it on track. Those two links arent' comparable because they are different drivers, you know that.

I was showing you that the NSX are capable cars on the track. That was my point. I can't find any 1990 info, you'd have to check old magazine archives (if that's possible...not sure).

They may be different drivers, but it still shows the car is fast. That's all.

Oh and watch the latest Top Gear...they drag race the C6 Vette, the 996 911, the NSX, and a TVR of some sort.

Guess who beats the 911?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
Why would I bother with 2002 or 03 results when you were talking about 1990.

And that is a supercharged NSX.

Oh, and regardless of the difference in 0-60 times, the Porsche would still beat it on track. Those two links arent' comparable because they are different drivers, you know that.

I was showing you that the NSX are capable cars on the track. That was my point. I can't find any 1990 info, you'd have to check old magazine archives (if that's possible...not sure).

They may be different drivers, but it still shows the car is fast. That's all.

Oh and watch the latest Top Gear...they drag race the C6 Vette, the 996 911, the NSX, and a TVR of some sort.

Guess who beats the 911?

I never said they weren't "capable" cars on the track, and I agree with you that the car is fast.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Just read QUIKVETTE's posts.

I gotta say, while I love Corvettes, the C4 was probably one of the worst Corvette ever built.

It had a chassis that was as soft was spagetti, it had horrible power output stock, it was ridiculously uncomfortable, it would leak water, and it was slow for what it was. The chassis was so soft that body flex could crack the rear glass. Don't believe me? Read the book "All Corvettes Are Red", the engineers from Team Corvette state that. Hell they even mention they were getting their asses handed to them by the competition, and hte C5 had to be substantially better in everyway except price (price had to be cheaper).

 

[Excelsior]

And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

When they did the powerlap for the NSX Type R it was under wet condition.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: It is only 415HP.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

actually not bad for a 290hp car in the wet like isekii 😀

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

 

[Shockwave]

I missed all the NSX fun in this post 🙁

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

are you talking about the laptimes you posted above or the drag race I talked about?

And while your right about different drivers, apart from the launch it shouldn't really matter..and if you watched the video...the 911 was FAR behind. Not a bit behind due to poor shifting...but FAR behind.

And they weren't racing a 911-TT, just a plain old 911. The Turbo would have wiped the floor.

edit: bR, how come you haven't joined this debate? Got too tired from defending the NSX in the previous threads? I never really got into those...so I guess its my turn to defend now eh?

 

[LongCoolMother]

i think the nsx and supra TT is more of an issue of availiability rather than cost. my brother wanted to buy a supra TT before he got his s2k but everytime he located one, it was sold so quickly, usually the first day its listed. he never got a chance to get one. same with the NSX's (92's). cost isnt too bad, but getting ahold of it.

out of those. the NSX.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

are you talking about the laptimes you posted above or the drag race I talked about?

And while your right about different drivers, apart from the launch it shouldn't really matter..and if you watched the video...the 911 was FAR behind. Not a bit behind due to poor shifting...but FAR behind.

And they weren't racing a 911-TT, just a plain old 911. The Turbo would have wiped the floor.

edit: bR, how come you haven't joined this debate? Got too tired from defending the NSX in the previous threads? I never really got into those...so I guess its my turn to defend now eh?

The drag race, Far behind looking at it but timewise? I doubt it was that bad. What seems far to you, probably wasn't. I know they were only doing a regular 911 🙂.Still, Id rather have one driver do both, a number of times, and average the results. We know it isnt about drag racing though, it is about the track, where the NSX also does very well.


You don't have to "defend" the NSX exactly, because I am not "attacking" it. I guess it comes down to preference, where you would rather have the NSX, myself, a 911.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

are you talking about the laptimes you posted above or the drag race I talked about?

And while your right about different drivers, apart from the launch it shouldn't really matter..and if you watched the video...the 911 was FAR behind. Not a bit behind due to poor shifting...but FAR behind.

And they weren't racing a 911-TT, just a plain old 911. The Turbo would have wiped the floor.

edit: bR, how come you haven't joined this debate? Got too tired from defending the NSX in the previous threads? I never really got into those...so I guess its my turn to defend now eh?

The drag race, Far behind looking at it but timewise? I doubt it was that bad. What seems far to you, probably wasn't. I know they were only doing a regular 911 🙂.Still, Id rather have one driver do both, a number of times, and average the results. We know it isnt about drag racing though, it is about the track, where the NSX also does very well.


You don't have to "defend" the NSX exactly, because I am not "attacking" it. I guess it comes down to preference, where you would rather have the NSX, myself, a 911.

actually I'd rather have a 911 too....but a 993. Sure its slower and harder to drive than the 996...but dammit I want one. It sensual curves, the flares, the round lights...it's perfection on wheels, well apart from the oil leaks and maintenance...but I'll ignore that. 😀

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

are you talking about the laptimes you posted above or the drag race I talked about?

And while your right about different drivers, apart from the launch it shouldn't really matter..and if you watched the video...the 911 was FAR behind. Not a bit behind due to poor shifting...but FAR behind.

And they weren't racing a 911-TT, just a plain old 911. The Turbo would have wiped the floor.

edit: bR, how come you haven't joined this debate? Got too tired from defending the NSX in the previous threads? I never really got into those...so I guess its my turn to defend now eh?

The drag race, Far behind looking at it but timewise? I doubt it was that bad. What seems far to you, probably wasn't. I know they were only doing a regular 911 🙂.Still, Id rather have one driver do both, a number of times, and average the results. We know it isnt about drag racing though, it is about the track, where the NSX also does very well.


You don't have to "defend" the NSX exactly, because I am not "attacking" it. I guess it comes down to preference, where you would rather have the NSX, myself, a 911.

actually I'd rather have a 911 too....but a 993. Sure its slower and harder to drive than the 996...but dammit I want one. It sensual curves, the flares, the round lights...it's perfection on wheels, well apart from the oil leaks and maintenance...but I'll ignore that. 😀

Sweet, but, oil leaks and maintenence? Porsches are extremely well built and reliable, dude.

 

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

edit: bR, how come you haven't joined this debate? Got too tired from defending the NSX in the previous threads? I never really got into those...so I guess its my turn to defend now eh?

lol... well honestly the poll results are a little surprising considering the amount of slagging the NSX has gotten on this board. 😕

The NSX-R is one hell of a car, i don't care what anyone says. 😛

 

[isekii]

Originally posted by: bR

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: mAdD INDIAN

Originally posted by: Excelsior
And mAdD INDIAN:

from the top gear Power Lap times.

Porsche 911 turbo - 1.31.0
Honda NSX Type R - 1.31.6

hehe...that's not bad for a 320hp car is it? Compared to an AWD 450hp beast? It proves my point, that with that much power deficit, the NSX is still capable enough to come close to the 911 TT's track time. It goes to show that numbers aren't everything. NSX's chassis is still awesome.

So I was wrong about it eating 911 TT..I admit that....but it's safe to assume its faster than a regular 911?

Most likely 😀.

Edit: And it doesn't have AWD, and it is only 415HP.

the 911 Turbo is AWD.

Oh, my bad.

And still, that was a drag race, with different drivers. (what you mentioned a few posts above).

edit: bR, how come you haven't joined this debate? Got too tired from defending the NSX in the previous threads? I never really got into those...so I guess its my turn to defend now eh?

lol... well honestly the poll results are a little surprising considering the amount of slagging the NSX has gotten on this board. 😕

The NSX-R is one hell of a car, i don't care what anyone says. 😛

8/1 top gear 🙂 NSX takes 2nd 😀 Vette takes 3rd.