Kirk Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 whats the weight of the n\a hardtop when it has no extra`s such as the aircon and that if we stripped it out and some how added extra horses we could be close to the nsx Engine 2,977 cc (181.7 cu in) C30A V6 270 bhp (201 kW; 274 PS), 210 lb·ft (280 N·m) Curb weight 2,950 lb (1,340 kg) (1991–1996) which in my oppinion is a very cool car The NSX is a totaly different animal. For 1 its mid engined so its better balanced and very light for what it is. Doesnt matter how much weight you save on an NA. It would run circles round you I couldnt believe how good it felt on track when i drove 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w41k3r Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 lol yeah no doubt says supra is Curb weight 1,460 kg (3,219 lb) (non-turbo) Due to the strength of the stock non turbo engine, the 2JZ series 1994-1996 has remained a popular import platform for modification. The non-turbo cars were capable of going from 0-100 km/h in as few as 6.2 seconds and had 220 hp (164 kW; 223 PS) from the factory. alot of money and modding to do then hey kids lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marc_p Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 Just fold down the rear seats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Carbon boots and bonnet are not much lighter than stock to be perfectly honest Lots of unpainted "carbon" bonnets for Skylines are heavier than the standard factory painted aluminium one.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w41k3r Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 what power to weight ratio would the n\a supra have to be to coe clost to the likes of the nsx or tt supra ? just in theory Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 I thought about this, then worked out that i was better going on a diet than the car. one and a half stone down, 2 more to go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 what power to weight ratio would the n\a supra have to be to coe clost to the likes of the nsx or tt supra ? just in theory NSX is circa 210 BHP /ton N/A Supra MKIV is circa 150 BHP /ton so for similar power to weight an N/A would need to gain 60 BHP and no weight. Apples and oranges though, the MKIV can never be an NSX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w41k3r Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 lol o yeah i know that, but just wanted to know what you`d have to loose or gain to be around its figure surely if the weight is lost it would allow for better braking and handling ? if done properly front and back correct me if im wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Not sure what you are asking then, sorry. Gain 60 BHP or lose about 950 pounds (432 kilos) Then drop the C of G dramatically, mid engine it, reduce its frontal area dramatically, reduce the drag, massively reduce unsprung weight, reduce drive train inertia, blah blah. Just buy an NSX and pray it doesn't go wrong, I rebuilt an NSX engine years and years ago, parts were terrifyingly expensive, hard to get and info was scarce outside of main dealerships accredited to work on the things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w41k3r Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 sorry why 432 kilos ? as i am a noob im still getting my head round this lol going of the info i found which i know could be rubbish it says : Curb weight 2,950 lb (1,340 kg) (1991–1996) is the nsx weight Curb weight 3,219 lb (1,460 kg) (non-turbo) is the supras weight so thats 120 kg the supra is heavier by so to lose the 120kg and gain 45bhp as the n\a supra is 225bhp and the nsx is 270bhp and i think the torque is around the same 210 lb·ft (280 N·m) but im not sure obviously you know alot more than me chris wilson but i like learning about these cars so your oppinion is greatly appreciated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil-NA Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Looking at the 270hp i would take that as the figures of the "gentlemans agreement" in Japan and wouldnt be surprised if it was closer the 320 mark i know the nsx-r's were Then you have to take a look at the drive train losses afterall its WHP rather than FWHP you need to look at and then with the nsx mid engine layout its going to go off the line alot better than a FR layout supra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko_supra Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 sorry why 432 kilos ? as i am a noob im still getting my head round this lol going of the info i found which i know could be rubbish it says : Curb weight 2,950 lb (1,340 kg) (1991–1996) is the nsx weight Curb weight 3,219 lb (1,460 kg) (non-turbo) is the supras weight so thats 120 kg the supra is heavier by so to lose the 120kg and gain 45bhp as the n\a supra is 225bhp and the nsx is 270bhp and i think the torque is around the same 210 lb·ft (280 N·m) but im not sure obviously you know alot more than me chris wilson but i like learning about these cars so your oppinion is greatly appreciated What Chris was getting at is that to have the n/a supra the same power to weight ratio as an nsx, you would need to loose 432kg whilst leaving the power stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko_supra Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Oh and btw, don't think that you can now go and shed 400+kg off the car. I'm not too sure it's even possible and if it was it would cost a fortune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
w41k3r Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 lol o no im not i was just trying to get a better understanding the 270bhp was for the first model the litre and power went up after that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Oh and btw, don't think that you can now go and shed 400+kg off the car. I'm not too sure it's even possible and if it was it would cost a fortune. BULLSHIT! wheres my grinder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_jekyll Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 so as i have gained around 100bhp and shed around 30kg this means my car is better than an nsx so that means im a better driver than ayrton senna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 you could always do what the top gear boys did when they went across africa does the car float when the tyres are filled with helium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_jekyll Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 you could always do what the top gear boys did when they went across africa does the car float when the tyres are filled with helium yes , thats why im never stuck in traffic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxluc Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 i want carbon fibre doors So I guess you're going for a rollcage, which brings up some kg ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supra joe Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 wont shedding all this weight mean that you cant put the power down, and spin out and wreck the car due to it being unbalanced though? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_jekyll Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 So I guess you're going for a rollcage, which brings up some kg ? yes, after futher reaearch last nite i found the only thing worth getting would be a bootlid with a plexi . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_jekyll Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 wont shedding all this weight mean that you cant put the power down, and spin out and wreck the car due to it being unbalanced though? i wonder this. i remeber driving a striped out clio 182 and it was so light there was a distinkt lack of road holding. i think if you want to make a real light car that works hevy aero dynamic investment would be needed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miko_supra Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 wont shedding all this weight mean that you cant put the power down, and spin out and wreck the car due to it being unbalanced though? It is important obviously to keep the weight distribution the same. What about the guys who fit 50kg worth of MDF stereo installs in their boots? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Raven Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 It is important obviously to keep the weight distribution the same. What about the guys who fit 50kg worth of MDF stereo installs in their boots? You have to eat shed loads of haribo to gain the 50kgs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 wont shedding all this weight mean that you cant put the power down, and spin out and wreck the car due to it being unbalanced though? No. Not at all. Tyre compound and width will need thinking about, as well as spring and damper rates. A gearbox two stroke kart has amazing grip, very limited aero, and is featherweight. No such thing as too light Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.