Acura Integra Walks NSX

www.sromagazine.org/videos/race.wmv

opps here is the addy http://www.sromagazine.com/movies/race.wmv

Thanks for the link.

A NSX is fast, but not unbeatable. Nowadays there are much faster cars.

Impressive. :) Though the NSX isn't as fast as it looks, it still is an amazing car.

Nowadays there are much faster cars.

like a turbo'd teg? surprise...

that was the lowest quality video i've EVER downloaded in my entire life...

thats freakin awesome! :silly:

I had a 1969 Camaro and a Dodge Charger in my younger days that would have easily smoked both of those little rice burners.
What a joke watching and listening to those rice burners....wheeeeeeee....wheeeeeeeeeee.......wheee ee. It gave me a good laugh.

Regards,
-Ward

Rice burners,
NSX thats an exotic super car 100,000 $ not a rice burner!

lol i used to have a 1969 Charger, man i wonder what happend to that old thing, these days man was that a while ago, Ward Cleaver how old are you i just turned 47 lol? now i have a Ferrari 360 Spyder, im kindof puttin down america on sports cars, goin from a charger to a 360 Spyder, man thats a big change!

considering that both of those little rice burners will run with the charger and camaro...
have fun.

Smoked a NSX earlier this week in my '04 Audi S4. Wasnt even a race. The NSX is only 290hp, but my car aint even fully broken in yet either(<1000m)!

im VERY impressed...VERY impressed, nice clip

Hahaha...Your fukin 12 sec comet looks like shit you can buy one of those at a junk yard for 900 bucks. An Nsx is more than you can afford. If all that matters to you is the brute roar and straight line acceleration you better start lookin more into cars.
Piece of shit rice burners, hahahahahahhahahahaha
Saying a piece of fine fine engineering worth 70,000+ is a POS and you with a cheap POS in you pic makes me laugh sooo hard....

American Muscle bastard.

1. I wouldnt consider 1 car length "walking" anything.

2. Ward, and Comet, you're both ignorant elitists. And there are many a "ricer burner" that run in the 12s and MUCH faster, that can also work its way around an actual race track. You know, real racing, Mid Engine exotics, that part of the track your redneck ass forgot to build and just kept the straightaway.

There is alot more to a car than acceleration. If that was the be all end all of performance Ferrari would have never pioneered F1

Ward,

The 1969 Chevy Camaro and Dodge Charger from your younger days might not be as quick as you think.

On the 69 Camaro, even with the top of the line 427 ZL1 engine, it'll only do 0-60 in 5.3 and the 1/4 in the low 13's.

As for the 69 Dodge Charger, even if you had the Charger 500 with the 426 Hemi, it'll only do 0-60 in the mid 5's and the 1/4 in 13.48.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

A late model Acura NSX will do 0-60 in around 5 even and the ¼ in 13.5. Therefore, they look fairly evenly matched in the straight. But, put them in a winding road or on a track, and there’s just no comparison.

I'm convinced the main reason the muscle cars from the late 60’s SEEM so much faster then today's higher performance cars is that they handle and stop so poorly that they are extremely scary at high speeds. This I speak from experience as an ex 1970 AMC Javelin and 1983 Firebird TransAm owner.

In the Javelin at 120, I had to fight just to stay within my lane, lets not even talk about the shitty brakes and the fun I had trying to start my car on any cold mornings. The TransAm handled a little better unless you were stupid enough to induce lift throttle over-steer, the 5 liter “Cross-Fire injection” engine sucked big time at 165HP. My 1985 Honda CRX Si with a 91HP, 1.5 liter, 4 banger was faster. Ooh, BTW, my TransAm’s power brake has no “power” if I stand on the gas too long and need to hit the brakes right a way, maybe it’s the shitty brake booster check valve that I’d replaced 3 times in 4 years or maybe it’s the crappy rear brake caliper that I’d had rebuilt twice in the same 4 years and lets not forget the TransAm's leaky T-top.

My current little "ricer" Mitsubishi Evolution 4 door sedan would beat both of the top of the line 1969 Camaro and Charger from 0-60 and be able to keep up with the Charger through the 1/4. All this with an engine one quarter the size, a car that stops and turns much better and with much better gas mileage. Additionally, my AWD would do reasonably well in the snow.

Just so I don't forget, my A/C, power electronically controlled force distributed ABS brakes, power windows, keyless entry, AM/FM/CD 6 speaker stereo and the turbo charged engine works, every time!!!

Hehe that NSX owner probably felt like crap. Ahyhow, I wonder what year that NSX was? NSXs are fast but not that fast in a straight line for an $80,000 car, but it's meant for more than just straight line racing.

Rice burners,
NSX thats an exotic super car 100,000 $ not a rice burner!

NSX = not an exotic, just rarely seen because most people won't spend $65k for 290hp which doesn't peak until over 7k rpm...

NSX = nowhere near $100k new.

But it is a great car on road courses, where that mid-engine design really balances the car out. Face it, the NSX wasn't built for straight-line and the teg would have it's azz handed to him on the roadcourses by the NSX. But (giving credit where credit is due) for the teg, a kill is a kill.

nice hood on that comet

Not all American Muscle is designed to go straight for 1320 feet, remember there is a little brute called Viper. With that said you take your $100,000 NSX or the $30,000 Detroit Iron, and both will loose to most anything that rolls out of Italy, Germany, Sweden, or England. Total performance Europeans rule! Euros are the kings of Super Cars nobody else comes close. :ylsuper: :worshippy

[QUOTE=Stanimal]Ward,

The 1969 Chevy Camaro and Dodge Charger from your younger days might not be as quick as you think.

On the 69 Camaro, even with the top of the line 427 ZL1 engine, it'll only do 0-60 in 5.3 and the 1/4 in the low 13's.

As for the 69 Dodge Charger, even if you had the Charger 500 with the 426 Hemi, it'll only do 0-60 in the mid 5's and the 1/4 in 13.48.

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclecars/general/musclecars-50fast.shtml

A late model Acura NSX will do 0-60 in around 5 even and the ¼ in 13.5. Therefore, they look fairly evenly matched in the straight. But, put them in a winding road or on a track, and there’s just no comparison.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
And considering that these cars are around 30 years apart, it truly is sad that all a late model NSX can do is provide an even match.

And considering that these cars are around 30 years apart, it truly is sad that all a late model NSX can do is provide an even match.

An NSX is simply a rich man's Honda Civic. You are right, for $100,000 you would expect to clean house with that automobile, especially considering you can get a 500 hp Viper for $70K and it will out run and out handle the NSX, sure the NSX is pretty but that's all.

There is something to be said for those coments of straight line racing. However the video we just saw was, as you can all see, a straight line, there for giving them the right to state that the charger the camaro may be faster in that capacity, (not that they are).

How ever, I wouldn't put any american cars from the 60's or 70's on a road course, bleh! That would be a nightmare. I have a '91 firebird that I would road race, but would get spanked by those mid engine cars, (damnitt!). That was pretty impressive to see an integra beat an NSX. That is very impressive.
jake

Smoked a NSX earlier this week in my '04 Audi S4. Wasnt even a race. The NSX is only 290hp, but my car aint even fully broken in yet either(<1000m)!


S4 really isn't all that fast.

Here it's being beat on the street by an EVO VIII

http://www.socalevo.net/gallery/albums/album42/s4_vs_evo.wmv

Being beat again in a legit review of the STI, EVO VIII, S4

http://www.socalevo.net/gallery/albums/album42/Top_Gear_Evo_STi_S4.avi

Mind you the Mitsubishi EVO VIII is only a 2.0L 271HP car. :)

The Audi S4 has a nice interior and performance wise, it's pretty good if a bit pricey. It might even be a contender if Audi knew how to build reliable cars. The last time I check, Consumers Report, April 2003, not a single Audi model in the 7 years prior got an above average reliability rating. That’s pretty crapy.

IMHO, what makes the Acura NSX special is that it's a pretty high performance, well-balanced sports car with Acura's build quality and bulletproof reliability. The whole car including the engine and the entire drive train is very conservatively designed and built, I have personally drove one with a turbo upgrade. The owner didn't even upgraded any drive train components, not even the clutch. It was a 91 model with the 5-speed. It still shifted smooth as butter and I had no problems getting rubber all the way through 2nd. If I were to guess using my butt dyno, I would guess 400 WHP.

Enough.

Next person to start a flame war like this or continue this one is banned.