Ricer STI Vs NSX!
 

I was driving in San Diego the other day when a black STI pulls next to me. Its the one with the large ass air scoop on the front hood. I kept my A/C on the whole time.

Well first of all I drop to second but he takes off over a second early so I hit it. At this point he's already over a car ahead. I rev out second and hit third right when he puts his flashers on Im like WTF ok ricer so hes 2 cars ahead but stops pulling at the end of third. (120) Hit 4th and I was about to catch up but we stop because of 2 cars up ahead.

Im a stock 90 and ran a 9.1 1/8th first try at the Q with 2 inch taller tires then stock.

I believe I have a higher top speed then STI and should beat them from a roll. I don't think AWD will hit 168mph?

lol...at 120. I guess it make sense for you to start to creep up on him at that speed. The AWD drivetrain loss may begin to kick in then. But I doubt you would be creeping much...if you were gaining ground AT ALL. I doubt it mattered then anway..he already pulled you through the other gears.

However, it doesn't matter whether he started early or not. He would have won regardless. Hell, when you were catching up...it was probably let off the gas.

Nice death though.

the sti is a ricer how????

Ricer for the fact that he used his flashers just a few seconds after hitting it before I even reved out second.

Romancer I don't think you read it clearly see he was a half car ahead before I even hit it since he got the jump. He didnt pull at the end of third. If we started at the same time I would have been ahead in third and a couple cars in 4th :) Thank you.

After all we both have about the same power ~270hp@2980lbs? but his AWD kills him.

im sorry but i would have to give the race to the sti anyways. i dont think your stock nsx would outrun the sti to 120. especially with an 1/8 mile time 9.1 :)

21K95RX7

The 9.1 was from a Launch on a slick track. I'm talking about a rolling freeway race here.

BTW I don't even rev out 2nd gear in the 1/8th. Thats how long my gears are.

yes i know, but i still think the sti has the balls to get you till 120 but past that like others have said his drivetrain and your d/c will win the day

eventually yeah the awd would have killed him. EVENTUALLY

Sti's top out at like 180 mph with the governer

I'll call BS on this story - there was no NSX in 1990 - they started as a 1991 model. Either that or the author doesn't know a thing about the car he supposedly was driving. But then again, how many people own a car and don't know what year it is? Probably none.......at least none that could be considered car enthusiasts.

Oh, and the 1991 NSX is slow - I test drove one and compared to my chipped 89 944 Turbo it didn't have anything. Compared to a stock STI it wouldn't stand a chance. Just my $0.02

Beat me to it.

owned with the bs flag

sti's don't top out at 180, i believe its 146 governed and theoretical top speed in the 150's or low 160's. check road and track top speed statistics in the back. if i remember right the outback actually had a higher governed speed. i was pretty pissed about that. and yea i looked up autotrader and saw there was no 90' nsx. who knows could be a 91'

OH WOW...:rofl:

I've been in an STi going 160mphon multiple occasions. My father and I have blasted down an empty road around here on the way to the track a couple of times.

I'll find the pictures that he took at 160. Although, most of you will probably call bs just because the picture is "clear" and "no one would take a picture at 160mph." :rolls eyes:

well 160 on a speedo doesn't really mean 160 .....at those speeds your speedo will be off by quite a bit ;)

Hmm...


'05 STi 0-60: 4.6sec
'91 NSX 0-60: 5.6sec

STi Redline: 7000rpm
NSX Redline: 8000rpm

STi 0-100: 12.6
NSX 0-100: 14.1

STi 1/4: 13.2
NSX 1/4: 13.9

STi Top speed: 145
NSX Top speed: 168

STi Curb weight: 3298lb
NSX curb weight: 2976lb

STi HP: 300
NSX HP: 270

The NSX is in no way slow. And uh...to the guy who claimed 160mph multiple times...eh...I think Subaru would say you lie...

With the NSX lower weight, higher redline, and the fact that this was from a roll....the NSX WOULD have started to pull on the STi. It is a commonly known fact that the STi and EVO highly lack high-speed capability, as is told with many a kill by slightly-underpowered cars on this forum.

we believe you

Compared to cars today the NSX is nowhere fast either. I've dreamed of owning an NSX since it came out and almost memorized every article written about the car. But after my test drive I was the most dissappointed man on the planet. Fast? Nah - a 1992 Corvette and early Dodge Stealth Turbo had better 0-60 times but how come everyone isn't raving about them? Lightweight? Not really. At 3000 lbs it makes you wonder what all that high priced titanium and aluminum were doing since a stock FD weighs about the same and an R1 probably a little less. Great Handling? Better than average but not in the upper eschelon. Great Braking? My 951S has way better brakes. Reliable? Sure, but so is my moms Camry and you won't see me raving about how great a car it is. The NSX is one of the most over hyped, over rated and over priced cars every made. I still would like one in my garage because I think they are sexy as hell but now I'm realistic about what the car can really do versus what every ricer out there thinks it will do. And for performance potential there are much better platforms to begin with. Just go to www.nsxfiles.com and read Doug Hayashi's enjoyable articles and watch his DVD's. His car is modified as much as he can take it and he gets pounded on by guys in 911's. And his modified NSX is probably not as reliable either. Just read how about how many engines he's had to get built recently.

Solo racer951 A true enthusiest knows his model year lol. On the contrary only a true enthusiest would know that my car was made on December of 1990 and sold in 90 as a 91 lol.

Ok han solo first off Im just describing the race I never said my car was fast Im just stating facts of the race.

Solo thanks for your opinion but were talking about 90 here. The later coupes are 12 second cars.

BTW I know the car is expensive but you would know why after driving one for a week. It spoils everything else I get inside and it being hand built quckly becomes apparent. No squeeks, rattles or broken plastic.

The amazing thing is after 17 years all the car has had is oil changes and it's scheduled service so I guess you can call that overrated but I can afford it so....

BTW the Gallardo is overrated. Get's beat by everything. So I guess we should all buy corvettes since it's the best bang for you buck.

Considering similar HP output a 2WD will beat a 4WD rolling. At high speeds the effect of 4 wheels generating power to the ground will reduce cause a drag. This is evident becuase not the front wheel and rear wheels are spinning at the same speed and this effect increases with higher speeds.

Plus a consider the drivetrain configuration. STI has to pay a higher tax to the drive train, hence more power is lost through the 4WD components. Opposed to an NSX which motor and tranny sits on the axles will have less differential from hp -> whp.

early NSX's have extremely long gears, thus making it slow in acceleration, however it is compensated at high speeds.

Ya very long.

Soloracer I don't see why you think the NSX should weigh less then a 3rd gen. The NSX has a bigger engine, bigger brakes, bigger demesions, more glass and heavy power leather seats. Comparably to the Stealth and Supra it's 800lb's lighter without sacraficing ride and comfort. Now maybe you can see why a sub 3000lb NSX is so impressive.

Take it as you will:

https://img81.imageshack.us/img81/5053/kp3t87040ls.jpg

2004 STi: downpipe, COBB AccessPORT Stage 2 91 Oct. tune. Stock wheels, tires, and suspension.

I have a short series of photos leading up to this point, as well, if you guys care at all....

Personally I don't and your "modded" STI is a little off subject.

It was done when it was stock, as well... ;)