Vuey

same as the RX-8's . I think the auto is down something like 30kws on the manual version .

NA-088
[QUOTE]yeh was speaking to the owner at a dyno day few months back. for 32k i wouldnt care if it was auto either

honda9krpm

is the lower power from the drivetrain loss or is that from the engine?
What year is that car? I "heard" that fitting 18" on the earlier model is almost impossible.

AusS2000

Wiki:

[QUOTE]
1997 Performance-Enhancing Changes (Worldwide)

1997 brought the biggest changes to the performance of the current generation NSX for the Japanese domestic versions and abroad. For 1997 engine displacement increased from 3.0 L to 3.2 L. This new 3.2 L C32B engine gave it slightly more rated power. This improved horsepower from 270 hp to 292 hp while torque increased from 210 to 224 ft

Austblue

That explains why the post 97 models are different but what about pre 07 auto?

AusS2000

Post 97s are pre 07. You got the millenium bug?

Austblue

AusS2000

Actually I was under the impression that autos were less powerful than manuals because Honda didn't believe the auto box was up to the extra power. But I couldn't find anything to back this up.

Austblue

That would be the simple logic behind it but I was thinking that was a rather poor excuse when you're looking at a relatively low powered car that costs quite a packet.

blacks2k

apparently with subarus, the autos have less power, with the wrx and the liberty gts.

i also believe it is due to the drivetrain not being able to handle teh power over the long haul. i guess the company wants to keep any potential costs down with regards to warranty claims

ninelarge

I was always under the impression that Honda thought that buyers who wanted the auto weren't after performance and offered the 3.0 V6 auto instead. I think this was rated at 250-odd horsepower.

Aus, I found this from Autozine:

"Worst of all, Honda