The magazine didn't state that the NSX is equally comparable to the Diablo, but it was considered the top ten supercars, oh wait, I think it said "exotic cars".
"Supercar" is a vague term, which can mean a car that sets apart from the rest, like Chevy Malibu for example. Malibu is not a supercar. It was referring to cars that are extraordinary, with stellar performance and has exclusive feel and looks. You don't set the supercar standard yourself. 😉
GT-R today is considered supercar, even though I don't like to admit it (am not a fan of GT-R) due to its extra ordinary performance and look to it.
Wipes floor in what?? Lap times? It doesn't have to have killer lap times to be qualified as supercar. Mustang is a cheap plastic junk which certainly falls in the class of Chevy Malibu, meaning, normal car.
Your term for being supercars are actually referring to the "hypercars". The Veyron, Saleen SSC, Zonda F Clubsport, Koenigsegg CCX/CCX-R/Agera-R, etc are considered "hypercars". They fall under supercar car category but the specifically hypercar sub category. The Diablo VT was good and considered supercar but is not in the hypercar subcategory.
The S-Class and 7 series fall under normal cars, but they are sport-luxury vehicles. They are not supercars.
NSX is very rare. I only see once a year or once every other year here. Which makes NSX even more special. It's actually easier to find other supercars on the road today, not NSX.
NSX was expensive in its time and still is. In the early days some magazine source tried to group the NSX in the RX-7, Supra, Mitsubishi 3000GT VR-4, etc but they realized they made a mistake when the NSX sets the record in overall handling and driving feel, nothing like the others. After many years past, the reviewers and the car enthusiasts realized that the NSX is something else... It's not a normal car.
You are forgetting (or don't know) that the NSX was underpriced. It was worth well over $100k. The cost of R&D and production costs much more than the cars sold. Honda wasn't after making profit on the NSX model. It was done to improve the company's image and reputation.
There were reviews where the NSX bests the Ferrari F355 in terms of performance, and with better looks (IMO). Both cars are supercars btw. 😉
cheez
Haha, I think we're pretty far apart here :
(1)- Supercar is not an official term, but for it to have any real meaning, it must be pretty strict in terms of what qualifies.
(2)- GT-R is only considered a supercar by fanboys. It's a wonderful car, and truly impressive. But it's common, cheap, and has some weak spots compared to many real supercars.
(3)- Regarding new base Vette : It wipes the NSX in the floor in performance, period. Lap times, grip, braking, 0-60, 0-100, 0-100-0, etc. Changing the subject to the interior is pointless. Many 'supercars' have horrible interiors, such as the Diablo. A modern Chevy Cruze has a nicer interior than a Diablo. But a Diablo is a certified supercar, and the Cruze is an econobox.
(4)- "Hypercar" is a term meant to speak to truly ridiculous cars, but it's needless and should be ignored by anyone serious, imho.
(5)- The NSX wasn't underpriced when going by performance. Remember, the C4 ZR-1 was the same price on launch, and was plainly faster (heaps more power). You did get a very cool design, and imho a much more unique piece of automotive engineering, but 'underpriced' just because it was a halo car money loser is not accurate when you are looking at pure $/performance. After all, in the end it doesn't matter to you and I how much money the company is losing selling us the car, it matters how it compares to other vehicles in the price range. Dodge sold the Viper for a loss for many years, and the Viper also would eat an F355 alive in performance (see Nurburgring, Laguna Seca, etc), yet the Viper is not a "Supercar".
(6)- The NSX is somewhat rare, but I see them
far more often than the relatively common Gallardos and F458s around here.
(7)- The NSX wasn't that expensive in the big picture. As noted, same price as Vette ZR-1. Far less than real supercars of the era. The comment on the S-Class and 7 series was the opposite of what you thought it meant. They are clearly NOT supercars. Yet they cost more than the NSX.
(8)- As for the F355, and the 360, and the 458,
none of those are supercars. Those are sports cars. The 355 actually wasn't very good in the big picture (horrible interior, iffy brakes, questionable suspension whether track or street, etc), though of course the 458 is spectacular. Ferrari does make supercars, but their entry-level mass-market vehicles don't really qualify.
(9)- Comparing to the 3000GT VR-4, Supra Twin Turbo .. is an interesting one. IIRC, the NSX was down on power and straight-line performance, but lead the others in handling, both in feel and in track times. Still, the fact that all of those cars perform in the same ballpark is = not supercar.
(10)- As noted by anyone who follows cars : The NSX is a great achievement in many ways. It's still pretty nice looking 20-odd years later. It just isn't, nor has it ever been, a supercar, unless you lower the definition so much that the term loses all credibility.
