Audi R8 the spiritual successor to the NSX?

[GTaudiophile]

Next to Porsche's ubiquitous 911, the NSX might just be the most practical, reliable real-world supercar ever built. But in 1990 there was something more exotic about a low-slung, midengine, aluminum-bodied supercar than there was about any Porsche. And there's still truth in that statement today. Which is why we think Audi's R8 might be the best spiritual successor the NSX could have.

Continue reading...

 

[Subyman]

I don't know about that. AWD vs RWD. V8-V10 vs V6. German vs Japanese. 2900lb vs 3600lbs. On paper it doesn't add up, but I've never driven either car so what do I know haha.

 

[janas19]

Continue reading...

Makes sense in a very broad, "most exotic mass produced car" kind of way

 

[Throckmorton]

It's amazing how much car you get for your money, or how little you used to get.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $60600 in 1991 would cost $95767.30 in 2010.

That's a lot of money for a 5.6 sec 0-60, much less safety than a modern car, bland late 80s/early 90s styling, etc. Why do you get so much more car per dollar now? Has all the parts manufacturing been outsourced to China or something?

 

[DVad3r]

I've always thought that about the R8, it was the next NSX, a supercar but not really a supercar because someone out there can still swing one if they put the effort into it.

 

[punjabiplaya]

It's amazing how much car you get for your money, or how little you used to get.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $60600 in 1991 would cost $95767.30 in 2010.

That's a lot of money for a 5.6 sec 0-60, much less safety than a modern car, bland late 80s/early 90s styling, etc. Why do you get so much more car per dollar now? Has all the parts manufacturing been outsourced to China or something?

Better automotive engineering/materials engineering, CNC machining, more of the car is made by robots, trickle down, economies of scale, etc... and yes for Chinese - ask 5.0 owners...

 

[JulesMaximus]

I couldn't get past the ridiculous intro and the first paragraph without my bullshit meter pegged and alarm blaring loudly.

It's likely that Acura's 21-year-old NSX is most famous for things it never actually did.

1990, you might recall, wasn't a year when supercars covered themselves in the glory of either shocking performance or metronomic reliability. The stink of '80s automotive misery hadn't yet worn off and the glory of middleweight performers like the RX-7, 300Z and fourth-generation Supra was yet to take hold. When it came to supercars, it was the era of the Ferrari 348, a machine so awful to drive it couldn't even find a private investigator drama in which to hide.

I'm curious, is the rest of the article full of as much bullshit as the intro?

Also, we'd never have thought 21 years ago that we'd look back on Honda's '90s design ethos as soulful. But viewing modern cars through the lens of small pillars, a low waistline and simple controls makes us yearn for such unvarnished honesty in design. The R8 has a similar feel, but can't match the NSX's original brilliance.

Okay, they've clearly come back to reality...thank you.

 

[JulesMaximus]

It's amazing how much car you get for your money, or how little you used to get.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $60600 in 1991 would cost $95767.30 in 2010.

That's a lot of money for a 5.6 sec 0-60, much less safety than a modern car, bland late 80s/early 90s styling, etc. Why do you get so much more car per dollar now? Has all the parts manufacturing been outsourced to China or something?

That was state of the art back then. Hell, look at Formula One cars of the era with their low slung cockpits, safety was abysmal compared to today and those were state of the art race cars!

What were the best selling cars in America in 1990?

The Ford Taurus

The Honda Accord

The Chevrolet Cavalier (which was a pile of crap on wheels)

These were cheap cars for the masses. It's a way of doing business that is gone and Acura started that trend with the affordable/reliable supercar.

 

[Arkaign]

It's amazing how much car you get for your money, or how little you used to get.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $60600 in 1991 would cost $95767.30 in 2010.

That's a lot of money for a 5.6 sec 0-60, much less safety than a modern car, bland late 80s/early 90s styling, etc. Why do you get so much more car per dollar now? Has all the parts manufacturing been outsourced to China or something?

#1 reason is MOAR Power. Now common midsize sedans are in the 300hp neighborhood. Add to that improvements in wheels/tires and the absolutely vast improvements in auto and computer controlled manual transmissions, and you have a recipe for vast improvements.

Not to say that it's all that difficult to take an old car and get similar results. Take that NSX, put some good rubber on new wide 18" wheels, give it a turbo to boost it up to modern power standards, and you'll probably see basically identical performance to a new car with the same power/weight. Hell, even do some cheap mods to an old Fox 5.0, slap some big sticky tires on the back, and watch the 1/4 fall quickly.

Working with aluminum is still expensive, but was even more so back then, that's a lot of the reason the NSX was so pricey. They could have brought out a similar product with more conventional materials and been a lot cheaper, but it would have been a bit heavier, and most of the point of the NSX at the time was as a halo vehicle/engineering validation.

 

[foghorn67]

That was state of the art back then. Hell, look at Formula One cars of the era with their low slung cockpits, safety was abysmal compared to today and those were state of the art race cars!

What were the best selling cars in America in 1990?

The Ford Taurus

The Honda Accord

The Chevrolet Cavalier (which was a pile of crap on wheels)

These were cheap cars for the masses. It's a way of doing business that is gone and Acura started that trend with the affordable/reliable supercar.

Too bad Acura couldn't keep up with their mythos. Honda for that matter. They lost their touch. In fact, it's like they are in their own little world.
BTW - That Honda Accord you pictured, is one of my favorite designs. Those were a joy to drive.

 

[foghorn67]

It's amazing how much car you get for your money, or how little you used to get.

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
What cost $60600 in 1991 would cost $95767.30 in 2010.

That's a lot of money for a 5.6 sec 0-60, much less safety than a modern car, bland late 80s/early 90s styling, etc. Why do you get so much more car per dollar now? Has all the parts manufacturing been outsourced to China or something?

Obvious you have never driven one. They are awesome.
Even then, they could have used more power, but it didn't make it less of a car.

 

[Throckmorton]

That was state of the art back then. Hell, look at Formula One cars of the era with their low slung cockpits, safety was abysmal compared to today and those were state of the art race cars!

What were the best selling cars in America in 1990?

The Ford Taurus


The Honda Accord


The Chevrolet Cavalier (which was a pile of crap on wheels)


These were cheap cars for the masses. It's a way of doing business that is gone and Acura started that trend with the affordable/reliable supercar.

That is exactly my point. You spend the same amount now, and get a better vehicle in every way. Yes they're heavier, but they're also more efficient, safer, and faster.

 

[Throckmorton]

#1 reason is MOAR Power. Now common midsize sedans are in the 300hp neighborhood. Add to that improvements in wheels/tires and the absolutely vast improvements in auto and computer controlled manual transmissions, and you have a recipe for vast improvements.

Not to say that it's all that difficult to take an old car and get similar results. Take that NSX, put some good rubber on new wide 18" wheels, give it a turbo to boost it up to modern power standards, and you'll probably see basically identical performance to a new car with the same power/weight. Hell, even do some cheap mods to an old Fox 5.0, slap some big sticky tires on the back, and watch the 1/4 fall quickly.

Working with aluminum is still expensive, but was even more so back then, that's a lot of the reason the NSX was so pricey. They could have brought out a similar product with more conventional materials and been a lot cheaper, but it would have been a bit heavier, and most of the point of the NSX at the time was as a halo vehicle/engineering validation.

OK, compare the Fox mustang to the current one. For $22k you can get a 300hp car that does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds.

In 1990 you paid $23k (2010 dollars) for a Mustang GT with 225hp that took 6.4 seconds to get to 60mph, had crappy build quality, an awful interior (probably in some burgundy color), much worse gas mileage, and was a deathtrap by modern standards (the current Mustang gets 5 star ratings).

 

[Arkaign]

Oh yeah things have improved a ton for sure. The Fox mustangs were pretty terrible vehicles in almost every respect.

 

[Via]

I would give my left nut for an original NSX.

Make that my right one.

 

[Howard]

I would give my left nut for an original NSX.

Make that my right one.

You have pretty cheap organs.

 

[Via]

Hey, what can I say?

To each his own.

 

[HAL9000]

I'd agree with that, the R8 is the modern user friendly reliable super car, like the 911, much in the same way the Honda NSX used to be.

 

[dawheat]

A lot of ex-NSX owners on nsxprime certainly agree. After waiting years and years for a new model NSX to replace their current ones, many of them moved to the R8. I was always surprised how many of them didn't move to a 911.

 

[overst33r]

A lot of ex-NSX owners on nsxprime certainly agree. After waiting years and years for a new model NSX to replace their current ones, many of them moved to the R8. I was always surprised how many of them didn't move to a 911.

Why would they?

The R8 is only a bit more $ than the Carrera S and provides the mid-engine balance they are used to. The Porsche will certainly be more reliable, but is also much more anonymous compared to the R8, which the NSX wasn't. I think the R8 is the more logical choice, all things considered.

 

[Arkaign]

Why would they?

The R8 is only a bit more $ than the Carrera S and provides the mid-engine balance they are used to. The Porsche will certainly be more reliable, but is also much more anonymous compared to the R8, which the NSX wasn't. I think the R8 is the more logical choice, all things considered.

There still is a pretty big gap though in two critical areas :

Weight

Reliability

The NSX was a very simple recipe overall, aside from the fairly sophisticated aluminum manufacturing process it was a very straightforward design. And it was the epitome of easy maintenance and reliability.

Audis are never known for being cheap to maintain, and the R8 is vastly heavier than an NSX was.

There really is no true successor to the NSX, but I think an argument could just as easily be made for a Vette Z06 than to an R8 (simple, super reliable, world-class handling). But that ignores fairly significant differences as well, namely front-engine and non-exotic styling.

The R8 is an absolutely terrible value $ for $. Nobody cross-shops an R8 with a Carrera, although they perform similarly, an R8 base price is more than the 911 Turbo, which utterly destroys the base R8.

 

[Arkaign]

Oops, got the 911 turbo price wrong, lol.

911 Carrera S, base $79k
Audi R8 4.2 V8, base $115k
911 Turbo, base $137k (not sure why some numbers in google show $110k new??)
Audi R8 5.2 V10, base $150k

There's a pretty big gap between Carrera S and R8 4.2 (~$35k), and then another $20k+ gap between R8 4.2 and 911 Turbo.

 

[overst33r]

The R8 is an absolutely terrible value $ for $. Nobody cross-shops an R8 with a Carrera, although they perform similarly, an R8 base price is more than the 911 Turbo, which utterly destroys the base R8.

The R8 is $115k, the 911T is 138k.

I agree to an extent, but still maintain that the R8 is one of, if not the cheapest "exotic" (mid engine) you can buy, as was the NSX back in its day.

 

[overst33r]

Oops, got the 911 turbo price wrong, lol.

911 Carrera S, base $79k
Audi R8 4.2 V8, base $115k
911 Turbo, base $137k (not sure why some numbers in google show $110k new??)
Audi R8 5.2 V10, base $150k

There's a pretty big gap between Carrera S and R8 4.2 (~$35k), and then another $20k+ gap between R8 4.2 and 911 Turbo.

Porsche raised the S to about $96k with the 991. So the gap is only about 20k or about 20%, not too large considering the price.

 

[Arkaign]

Porsche raised the S to about $96k with the 991. So the gap is only about 20k or about 20%, not too large considering the price.

Yeah their prices don't line up too evenly. Although someone who could buy a 911 Carrera could probably afford a 4.2 R8 as well, and those who could afford the 4.2 R8 could afford the 911T, beyond that it starts getting to real exotic pricing.

The R8 looks a lot more exotic, the 911 is a better value for performance. Of course it's all relative. The Z06 is kind of the elephant in the room when price/performance starts to enter the conversation, but the people who buy those are much more concerned with performance than badge/appearance.