DC5 replacement

ChrisD. · 27 Oct 2008 at 12:49

MuGeN said:
Do the boys at itr-dc5 know you're having these dark thoughts? i'm tellin

Possibly!

[TW]Fox;12777445 said:
Ah the Honda NSX. Like a Nissan 300ZX only 100 times more expensive and about as dated to look at it.

After driving both they are completely different cars.

Simon · 27 Oct 2008 at 13:00

merlin said:
I bet your S2K is worth about £6.25 now.

Nah I just filled the tank up - £10 now

ChrisD. · 27 Oct 2008 at 13:16

Oh well, sack the Mugen RR then. Just got a text from an importer I know, with the current exchange rate I'm looking at £40,000 OTR, however he can get one within a decent amount of time should I wish.

Marf · 27 Oct 2008 at 13:17

Yowser, its a nice car but not for £40k

ChrisD. · 27 Oct 2008 at 13:18

Marf said:
Yowser, its a nice car but not for £40k

Hey, I might as well stretch and get the Nissan GTR! lol

Oh well, keep the DC5 for now it seems. Not a great loss.

MuGeN · 27 Oct 2008 at 13:38

MilanoChris said:
Hey, I might as well stretch and get the Nissan GTR! lol

Oh well, keep the DC5 for now it seems. Not a great loss.

oh bleedin' 'ell times are hard eh

"bloody credit crunch, i'll just have to put up with driving around in one of the best fwd cars the world has ever seen"

anyway, how's your eye chris?

ChrisD. · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:19

MuGeN said:
oh bleedin' 'ell times are hard eh

"bloody credit crunch, i'll just have to put up with driving around in one of the best fwd cars the world has ever seen"

anyway, how's your eye chris?

Much better mate, almost healed completely, thanks. I'm having an X-Ray done on my thumb and shoulder though at some point this week.

[TW]Fox · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:27

DreXeL said:
What a bizzare comment, the NSX is nothing like the 300ZX, apart from the fact that it's a Japanese coupe.

Good point, I forgot the fact the 300ZX was considerably faster and that the 90-97 NSX's took 7 seconds to haul themselves to 60.

JediFragger · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:28

Personally though Chris, I'd still modify the '5 for some 10k spm goodness

And Fox, stop digging.

Jonnycoupe · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:31

[TW]Fox;12779147 said:
Good point, I forgot the fact the 300ZX was considerably faster and that the 90-97 NSX's took 7 seconds to haul themselves to 60.

You're getting more pointless as that post count climbs, you have quoted the comments over the looks with incorrect figures on performance.

[TW]Fox · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:43

So whats the correct figure for, say, a 1991 NSX 3.0?

DreXeL · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:44

[TW]Fox;12779147 said:
Good point, I forgot the fact the 300ZX was considerably faster and that the 90-97 NSX's took 7 seconds to haul themselves to 60.

Well firstly, I have no idea where you get the impression that the 0-60 time of the NSX is 7 seconds :confused:

It's actually around 5.5 from most sources that I can find.

Secondly, since when has the NSX been about it's on paper straight-line performance figures? It's a fantastically balanced mid-engine sports car, that is renowned for it's supurb Senna-developed chassis. Comparing it to a fast but fairly heavy GT is like saying your 530 is like a VW Passat because they are both German saloons.

Marf · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:46

DreXeL said:
Well firstly, I have no idea where you get the impression that the 0-60 time of the NSX is 7 seconds It's actually around 5.5 from most sources that I can find.

Ditto

http://www.fastestlaps.com/car45c4816496e8d.html 5.8
http://www.musclecarclub.com/other-cars/imports/acura-nsx/acura-nsx.shtml 5.7
http://members.aol.com/jameslook/index.html 5.2

[TW]Fox · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:48

3.0 V6 2d 7.3 s 162 mph 256 bhp

Seems it was the 3.2 that was the actually fast one?

Or do I need the number for a local plant hire company to get me a JCB to help with getting out of this hole

Jonnycoupe · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:49

5.4 for the 3.0 and 5.0 for the 3.2.

None weigh more than 1400kg. The 1st Gen NSX-R is a touch under 1250kg with 270bhp. I have no idea why you would think that would be slower to 60 than 7 seconds.

Maybe dont use Parkers next time?

Marf · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:49

[TW]Fox;12779339 said:
Or do I need the number for a local plant hire company to get me a JCB to help with getting out of this hole

Yes, this.

Besides, in the real world 0-60 is pretty meaningless and more of a dickpull pub figure, 20-50 30-70 etc are all more representative figures IMO.

[TW]Fox · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:50

So er yea, I'll just grab my coat

-Neil- · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:51

Probably quoting the original 3.0 Auto which is something like 6.x seconds

Neil

Jonnycoupe · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:51

[TW]Fox;12779339 said:
Seems it was the 3.2 that was the actually fast one?

Or do I need the number for a local plant hire company to get me a JCB to help with getting out of this hole

Yes

They will do close to 13 sec quarter miles, stock and this is JDM gentlemens 280bhp. I bet very few make less than that. They are rapid cars, which are reliable and dont cost a total fortune to run... delete the last attributes there on the 300zx options list for a start/

Jonnycoupe · 27 Oct 2008 at 15:51

Marf said:
Yes, this.

Besides, in the real world 0-60 is pretty meaningless and more of a dickpull pub figure, 20-50 30-70 etc are all more representative figures IMO.

Dont be silly, its the benchmark of anything electrically powered

DC5 replacement

Man of Honour