I was unaware that the corvette was that quick, the C5 runs as far as I know a low 5 to 60, and the ZO 6 runs a 4.6. Are you talking about pre production models? I haven't seen that video yet, but I've heard about it. Who won the race?................ Ummmmmm Ferrari F50, nuff said.

 

Here a the car & driver reviews, obviously their numbers are a bit slower than what GM advertises as the 0-60 times, I'm sure they took the best out of 100 runs to get the times they advertise.

from C&D Z06 Review
GM says the Corvette 5.5 will reach 60 mph in less than four seconds and polish off the quarter-mile in 12.4 seconds. Considering we've had trouble slipping 460-hp Vipers under the four-second mark and that a Z06 has never hit 60 in less than 4.3 seconds by our hands or reached 1320 feet in less than 12.7 seconds, it's possible we won't be able to substantiate these claims.
The fact that the Corvette 5.5 may be only slightly faster than the 5.4 will be of little comfort to 2001 Z06 owners, whose identity will soon be made obvious to everyone by the new fender badges with "Z06 405 HP" written on them. True, GM isn't offering any free upgrades, but if you really bitch, perhaps it'll send you two of those.

from C&D C5 M6 Review
Despite a softer launch at Atlanta Dragway than we normally achieve at our sticky test track in Michigan, the preproduction 1997 Corvette hit 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and 100 mph in 11.4 seconds and swallowed up the quarter-mile in 13.4 seconds at 108 mph.

from C&D C5 A4 Review
But when it comes to acceleration, the automatic cant match the manual. The quickest way out of the hole is to brake-torque the car briefly with the traction control turned off. That allows a whiff of helpful wheelspin, launching us to 60 mph in 5.3 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 13.8 seconds. The best manual Corvette we tested could beat both those times by a half-second.

 

I'm not downplaying C5 vette's at all. Here's somethign to remember though. The NSX has been the way it is now since what?....'91? Thats a 12 year production run and it's still near the top as far as performance numbers go. As of right now I wouldn't buy one because you can have similar performance for less money. Keep in mind that the NSX is turning similar numbers with far less power, and very narrow (comparitively) tires. That tells me that the state of tune in the NSX is far superior to that of it's rivels. It's all in tuning. Honda knows how to make stuff work and the way they do it makes for very fun to drive cars, something that can't be quantified by numbers or price. I will say that when and if the new NSX comes out, it is going to stand the performance crowd on it's ear.

 

I agree!

The NSX is built by HONDA get over. It cost more because like all japanese sports cars they faced inflation.

If I were to spend $80,000 it would not be on an NSX. It would be on a Dodge Viper or a Porsche 911 Carrera.

 

true that even is the porsche is used for 2 years still better car over all.. You got up to a gurl and ask her what a nsx shell shrug her shoulders and if u ask what a 911 is shell say porsche.. easier to get head peeps..

 

I sure hope you're not implying that I didn't know honda and acura are the same company? Give me a little credit guy, I'm not a total dumbass

 

let's not forget here that when you buy an NSX your paying for all the research that honda does for their cars. remember, the NSX in 1990 was the first car w/ vtec (oooooo, vtec!) heh.

let's also not forget about the quality of honda, and that every NSX is hand built.

 

my friend told me about that. there was an NSX there too.

 

nuh uh. B16 was first I think. Late 80's

 

nah...NSX was first