Cuz the NSX is a better driver oriented car than the Carrera 4s
.I don't think Honda is smoking anything. Hand Built, Reliable, Great looks, If I had the money, it's definitely on my "Purchase" list.
Cuz the NSX is a better driver oriented car than the Carrera 4s
.I don't think Honda is smoking anything. Hand Built, Reliable, Great looks, If I had the money, it's definitely on my "Purchase" list.
Anyone who buys a brand new NSX NOW must love Hondas a lot or is extremely bored with a lot of money... the car is 14 years old... I don't think Honda could really start lowering the price every year its gets older... i have never seen a car company do that. Most of the NSXs you see around are bought used... but i still think its still a great car for its age. I just don't understand why its taking so long for Honda to kick out a new model... it obviously has fallen behind.
I like the look before the headlight update. It's definitely has sex appeal even though it's 14 years old.
The price is what it is because it's All Aluminum and Hand built.
Look at other hand built cars, they cost a fortune.
I'm gonna try and purchase a 96ish NSX later down the road
Hell I'd be happy with a 91. 
NFS4
No Lifer
- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,636
- 48
- 91
Originally posted by: isekii
Cuz the NSX is a better driver oriented car than the Carrera 4s
I don't think Honda is smoking anything. Hand Built, Reliable, Great looks, If I had the money, it's definitely on my "Purchase" list.
$90,000 is smoking a whole lot. It's probably one of the ONLY Japanese cars that bucks the trend of offering MORE for less than the Europeans.
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: isekii
Cuz the NSX is a better driver oriented car than the Carrera 4s
I don't think Honda is smoking anything. Hand Built, Reliable, Great looks, If I had the money, it's definitely on my "Purchase" list.
$90,000 is smoking a whole lot. It's probably one of the ONLY Japanese cars that bucks the trend of offering MORE for less than the Europeans.
Well labor isn't cheap being hand built and all. The quality and precision is there. Materials (Aluminum) aren't cheap to fabricate either. If I had the money, I think it's worth the purchase. Daily driveable super car ? HELL YES~!
I don't think that I'd ever buy a brand new NSX(unless the upcoming model smokes everything) but if I had ~50k to spend on a sports car you bet I'd look at a mid 90s NSX.
Ok... the aluminum construction was revolutionary back then... but any weight savings it had is now negated by technological advancement. The only NSX on my "if i had the money list" is the NSX-R...
I dont care how old it is... how slow it is... because it isnt if you know how to drive it. 
- Dec 26, 1999
- 25,074
- 4
- 0
A Corvette is a daily drivable "super" car too, it's not very heavy, and it's damn fast. Build quality isn't up to the NSX's standard but it's still very reliable. Costs half as much as an NSX.
It's cool that it's hanbuilt and all, and all aluminum, but the end result is a lackluster 3200lb car. Hell even a Viper weighs in somewhere around 3300 if I recall. They incorporate all of these expensive build processes and it just doesn't pay off in the end to spen 90 grand on. There's many other cars that'd cost less, be as reliable, as fast, and handle as well. Might not get the dynamics of a MR layout, but is that worth paying 90 K for? I just can't justify it
EDIT - and I realize back in 91 (or was it 90 they came out? yeah I think it was 90) a near 300HP V6 was more of a feat, aluminum construction was new and beneficial, it was an impressive car, but recent times have revealed many many more cars that are worth the money. If this was '94 and you asked me about the car, sports cars were more expensive, the sub 100k market was sparse really. Nowadays you can get 911's, M3's, Corvettes, Vipers, there's just more condending with it and it needs serious upgrades, and if they're really going for 300HP (even if it's underrated by 20 HP) *and* giving it a 90k pricetage, they're still behind the ball
It's cool that it's hanbuilt and all, and all aluminum, but the end result is a lackluster 3200lb car. Hell even a Viper weighs in somewhere around 3300 if I recall. They incorporate all of these expensive build processes and it just doesn't pay off in the end to spen 90 grand on. There's many other cars that'd cost less, be as reliable, as fast, and handle as well. Might not get the dynamics of a MR layout, but is that worth paying 90 K for? I just can't justify it
EDIT - and I realize back in 91 (or was it 90 they came out? yeah I think it was 90) a near 300HP V6 was more of a feat, aluminum construction was new and beneficial, it was an impressive car, but recent times have revealed many many more cars that are worth the money. If this was '94 and you asked me about the car, sports cars were more expensive, the sub 100k market was sparse really. Nowadays you can get 911's, M3's, Corvettes, Vipers, there's just more condending with it and it needs serious upgrades, and if they're really going for 300HP (even if it's underrated by 20 HP) *and* giving it a 90k pricetage, they're still behind the ball
Its just way too old for the market its targeting... everyone else is only getting faster. A used one for $50k or less is not bad at all... considering it has Honda reliability. $90k... 10k more and you're dangerously close in getting a GT3... which is another driver's car.
Originally posted by: bR
Ok... the aluminum construction was revolutionary back then... but any weight savings it had is now negated by technological advancement. The only NSX on my "if i had the money list" is the NSX-R...
haha
the NSX-R is 2 years old 0-60 in 4.4 which is pretty sweet. I do like the look of it, but I prefer the NSX-S with the factory body kit they put on it. btw
NSX-R
Good Read
This Color is the one I must Have
Well the new NSX-R is still the same car... just stripped out and slightly upgraded... the type-s is ok... but i would even take the old NSX-R over any type-s... I don't know... I just like track specialist cars.
I would take a 360 Challenge Stradale over anything... including an Enzo...
just stripped out and slightly upgraded... the type-s is ok... but i would even take the old NSX-R over any type-s... I don't know... I just like track specialist cars. I would take a 360 Challenge Stradale over anything... including an Enzo...
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: isekii
Originally posted by: NFS4
Originally posted by: isekii
Cuz the NSX is a better driver oriented car than the Carrera 4s
I don't think Honda is smoking anything. Hand Built, Reliable, Great looks, If I had the money, it's definitely on my "Purchase" list.
$90,000 is smoking a whole lot. It's probably one of the ONLY Japanese cars that bucks the trend of offering MORE for less than the Europeans.
Well labor isn't cheap being hand built and all. The quality and precision is there. Materials (Aluminum) aren't cheap to fabricate either. If I had the money, I think it's worth the purchase. Daily driveable super car ? HELL YES~!
I like the car. But it is not competitive with other cars that cost $90,000. I might consider getting an used one.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
Originally posted by: OS
The NSX is actually faster than the "only" 290 HP rating would suggest. The NSX has a midengined layout. Almost all ground up, purpose built race cars are midengined, including F1 cars. This layout helps acceleration two fold.
First, the balance and weight distribution puts the CG of the car close to the driving wheels and leverages that distribution during weight transfer under acceleration. Basically, when you accelerate in a midengined car, the weight transfer of the car pushes down the drive wheels, giving more traction when you need it.
Second, the NSX's implementation of the midengine layout does not suffer from a differential/directional change loss. For nearly all RWD cars, the engine torque output must go through a perpendicular change in direction. This transfer saps a couple percentage points worth of power. Also, the long driveshafts of most RWD cars add rotational inertia and loss to the powertrain. The NSX engine is transversely mounted, there is no such directional loss and it gets more power to the ground.
Another thing, the NSX is built almost entirely out of aluminum. It's fairly light and weighs under 3200 lbs.
cliff notes:
NSX haters, STFU
well, the ford gt also has mid engine layout, and it would easily smoke the nsx. course it costs a little more, but in that price range, a little more is a bit of a quibble. not to mention cars like the viper/vette keep up with the gt on the track it seems, so even non mid engine cars would smoke the nsx. atleast the old version.
Originally posted by: isekii
Cuz the NSX is a better driver oriented car than the Carrera 4s
I don't think Honda is smoking anything. Hand Built, Reliable, Great looks, If I had the money, it's definitely on my "Purchase" list.
I'm thinking about buying a '96 model...Going to sell my '00 Eldorado to get it. It's gonna be hard without back seats, but I have a cheap-o '89 firebird v8 if I have to haul someone.
I dunno though, it'd be nice to be the second person in my area to have one, but is it really practical for me to own it? I simply want it for the exotic looks.
If you must get used... try to get a 97 and up... it has the uprated 3.2L and the 6 speed. If you cant find any in your price range... then try to at least get a 95 it still has the 3.0L but it has throttle by wire and a different LSD compared to pre-95.
OK, here's the underlying problem, I think. Honda, with the NSX, have(and continues to?) forced their ethos and corporate culture to the consumer. Perhaps honda got arrogant(for once?) in a way. They drove their "reliable supercar" and Honda user-friendly ideas WELL pass market realities. This also included the unusual and VERY anti-honda view of offering LESS horsepower for the money. Normally, for honda, with cars like the Integra, S2K, Civic Si, Prelude...they dished out a whole lot more power than their competition. I think what most enthusiasts view was, reliability is wonderful and all but nobody wants their $90K mid engine to have the exact interior design and comfort of a honda Prelude(also drove much like a Prelude, albeit on steroids). Further, the style of the car if you looked at it, was sanitized and lacked "gravity and weight"(for a mid-engine design), but the potentials was there. All in all, the NSX had all the right ideas but none of them got carried out in a practical and effective manner. One must look back also and wonder as to what went wrong though. The motivations was a F1 car that could be driven everyday. Ironically, this same motivation by honda spun others like Gordon Murray to build the McLaren F1.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
At any amount of money for a car a $60k difference ($90k vs $150k) is huge.....definitely not quibble.
A lot of the difference in the cars is in exulsivity and not being quickest in the 1/4 mile or having the highest top speed. There is more to the puzzle.
Basically if you want a fast 1/4 grab a POS Vega and drop in a 500ci+ engine...tub the rear and add in the largest slicks possible and the lowest rear end and be happy with 9-10's in the 1/4.
The Vette will never be a 'super car'....it's probably one of the closest to it though. Stock the NSX is limited by Japanese HP limits. Tinker around with it and the true performance is known.
Build quality is way beyond many others in it's price range, reliablility is also. Many don't have the 'luxury' (pun intended) to sit and play around with these big buck cars. I have been in a Lambo. and the crap on the inside was cheap and not lined up even as well as a $10k Civic....the thing was insanely fast though ... but fit and finish not much better than a kit car.
The Ferrari's (308, 328, 348 and testarossa) were nice but still had a fit and finish level inside that didn't seem to match the price. The 308 and 328 I remember were quick but not that quick when we took them to the track.
The 930 turbo was nice, but had that heavy rear-end...now I understand you can learn to adjust to that, but it's just not a good solution for anything but straight line performance.
The mid engine NSX, MR2, or having front engine and rear transaxle a la Corvette is a great solution....really anything that gets you 50/50 or close to it is fine.
Å
The NSX is a joke, at least in its current state. I don't see how the new Honda supercar is going to be any different. For a bit more than half the cost of an NSX, the Z06 will beat it in ANYTHING...the SRT-10 will beat both of those in most stuff...not to mention that Vettes are easier to maintain, repair, and get parts for...
I'm not confirming/denying this same claim for Honda's supercar, but Honda is nuts if they think they're going to sell a 290HP V6 with crazy styling for almost $100K. I don't care how light it is, you can only get so far with weight reduction.
And to you NSX fanboy idiots who blame the drivers...the stats are probably either produced by the same drivers, or by official manufacturer testing stats, in which case the driver would do the BEST job driving the car, and they'd pick the best guys.
Honda needs to stick to commuter cars where they belong. But I do like the S2000.
I'm not confirming/denying this same claim for Honda's supercar, but Honda is nuts if they think they're going to sell a 290HP V6 with crazy styling for almost $100K. I don't care how light it is, you can only get so far with weight reduction.
And to you NSX fanboy idiots who blame the drivers...the stats are probably either produced by the same drivers, or by official manufacturer testing stats, in which case the driver would do the BEST job driving the car, and they'd pick the best guys.
Honda needs to stick to commuter cars where they belong. But I do like the S2000.
I mean it bR. That's what they do best...the Civic is a great commuter car...gets one from A to B reliably, saves on gas, and is cheap. You'll never hear me bash Honda for that market. But these attempts at dethroning Ferrari with a 290HP V6 for $100K make me laugh, since we all know its impossible. All the weight reduction in the world isn't going to get them there.
Well if theres anyone that can make a very optimistic claim like that... i think Honda has the engineering capability to do it. Theyre one of those companies that always has a serious racing program... and they did dominate Formula One for six years. I seriously doubt the 300hp is a definite power figure for that car. But we'll see. I guess its just one of those thing you have to see to believe. I for one, would like to see them pull it off being the underdogs and all.
2200 lbs will make it equal to a Modena in terms of power/weight ratio. Thats figure is almost unbelievable for a quasi supercar/daily driver... which is why i dont believe the final 300hp rating.
HSC
"Honda would only say the HSC gets a V-6 that is ?bigger? than the NSX's current 3.2-liter. We hear the engine will be in the 3.5-to-3.8-liter range. Honda says only that the car generates ?more than 300 horsepower.? Considering the current engine makes 290 horses, 300 would not be a large bump. But when you check out the huge tires (245/35ZR-19 up front, 295/30ZR-19 at the rear) and the six-piston Brembo brake calipers on the front and rear, you get the idea that this will be no incremental increase in horsepower. Credible sources put the real power output of the naturally aspirated V-6 at more than 350; others think it could be as high as 380!"
"Honda would only say the HSC gets a V-6 that is ?bigger? than the NSX's current 3.2-liter. We hear the engine will be in the 3.5-to-3.8-liter range. Honda says only that the car generates ?more than 300 horsepower.? Considering the current engine makes 290 horses, 300 would not be a large bump. But when you check out the huge tires (245/35ZR-19 up front, 295/30ZR-19 at the rear) and the six-piston Brembo brake calipers on the front and rear, you get the idea that this will be no incremental increase in horsepower. Credible sources put the real power output of the naturally aspirated V-6 at more than 350; others think it could be as high as 380!"
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter