• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

the NSX's deadly rivals

you may want to rethink that one?

2.6 seconds to 60 is difficult to fathom with a mere 413 torque. Moreover, no one else has recorded a sub 3 second 0-60 for the R8 Plus. Most are quoting 3 seconds. In this recent article, the author concluded that the NSX is faster to 60: https://www.carthrottle.com/post/5-cars-you-could-buy-instead-of-the-new-acura-nsx

"If we assume for one moment that you will be able to get the Plus for around the same price as the NSX, you’ll have a car that’s more powerful - with 602bhp - but a little slower to 62mph at 3.2 seconds."

Of course, that is based on speculation as opposed to an actual comparison.
 
the Huracan is listed as making 412 ft. lbs. of torque, and it too gets to 60 mph well under 3.0 seconds. 2.6 to 2.7 are the usual numbers i've seen. and it's been tested all year long so we know those numbers are good.

the R8 has already been tested, the NSX not. i'm not sure how the author of carthrottle gets his info, which is obviously a guess on both counts...
 
^ Good point. I thought the Huracan had more torque. I also thought Audi intentionally kept the R8 slower than the Huracan. Apparently that is no longer the case.
 
so what's the criteria for the new NSX being a hit?

showroom sales of the allotted amount diminished? or universal acclaim from the automotive press? or both, or something else?

Honestly, the criteria should be how it makes you feel when you see it in person, then drive it and then if you decide to own one.

The reviews and sales are all bragging rights for sure, but I think the fact that they delivered a baby 918 for $150K is groundbreaking already and a fantastic value. It's within grasp of people who do well for themselves but doesn't need to clear 7+ figures to afford the 918 or likes of those exotic hypercars.

The recent numb or baffling rationale critiques from the reviewers are meant to make the new NSX better, not kick it in the gut and keep it down IMO. They all recognize the astounding potential and leading/cutting edge of the tech that is tangible to the general public. It would be wise for Acura to accommodate those flexible software changes ASAP or the aftermarket will take precedent.
 
The recent numb or baffling rationale critiques from the reviewers are meant to make the new NSX better, not kick it in the gut and keep it down IMO.

i would say the job of the reviewer is simply to review. to drive the package they're offered and report to the magazine buying public how they see it. nothing more, nothing less...
 
I'm a bit surprised that there's so much focus on the 0 to 60 times, my impression over the last five years is that manufacturers are looking at the overall driving experience.... sounds, seating position, vision, steering feel....most of the recent modern sports cars that I've experienced are far far too much for the Street....i've said many times that I often will find my S2000 more enjoyable to drive on the street than my 996 turbo

Even if performance is on par or better than a 997 or 991 turbo, the NSX has the looks of super car

outside of car enthusiast the average person on the street often can't tell a difference between a cayman and a 911.....i Love my porsches but the nsx is in a different league.
 
I'm a bit surprised that there's so much focus on the 0 to 60 times

Assuming one is inclined to occasionally mash their gas peddle on the street (I am not recommending such conduct), what performance metric is most likely to be implicated? Historically, 1/4 mile times have been a widely used benchmark for a car's performance. However, how often do you have the opportunity to go WOT from a dig for a full 1/4 mile on the street? Almost never. 60-130 is a great measure of a car's raw power, and it eliminates any launch differentials (e.g., advantages achieved by AWD). How often does one have the opportunity to accelerate from 60 to 130 on the street? Almost never. 0 to 60 is a performance metric that has greater real world application. There are many more opportunities to go WOT from 0 to 60 on the street. Hence the reason why I pay particular attention to 0 to 60 times . . . this metric best translates to my daily driving regime.

Even if performance is on par or better than a 997 or 991 turbo, the NSX has the looks of super car

Completely agree.

outside of car enthusiast the average person on the street often can't tell a difference between a cayman and a 911

I don't know if most people confuse a 911 with a Cayman, but they certainly confuse a 911 with a 911 Turbo. In Southern California, 911s are a dime a dozen, 911 Turbos are likewise common, and most people don't know the difference. My GT-R received MUCH more attention than either of my 911 Turbos.
 
For me 5 to 60 is more realistic, I rarely like to launch my cars even with the launch control option, although I've never had a proper paddle shifter, nothing out there can really beat all-wheel-drive 0 to 60 times
 
another great video, and some very quotable sound bites, which are also very telling...

"it's actually automotive sign language for, i love you" and "this is what it's all about".

i re-watched his review of the new NSX after watching this one. the tone is certainly different, he wasn't giddy after driving the Acura.

"Acura's decision to insert all that complexity comes at the expense of driver involvement. the NSX is very fast, very capable, but it's also not very engaging"

looks like Honda missed the boat entirely...
 
It's a little bit depressing to see the less than stellar reviews about the new NSX. It's REALLY depressing when some of these reviews allude to similarities with the GTR, whereby the car is utterly capable and fast, but isn't particularly fun to drive. I hope Acura makes enough last minute improvements to the car before it goes on sale to change people's minds about it. I have a lot of fond memories of just how much fun the original NSX was. Oh, and here's EVO's 5-star review of the new R8, in case anyone's interested.

http://www.evo.co.uk/audi/r8
 
. . . some of these reviews allude to similarities with the GTR, whereby the car is utterly capable and fast, but isn't particularly fun to drive.

I previously owned a GTR. It was a blast to drive. If the NSX provides a similar amount of enjoyment, I am going to LOVE the NSX.
 
I previously owned a GTR. It was a blast to drive. If the NSX provides a similar amount of enjoyment, I am going to LOVE the NSX.

Looking forward to see your build, delivery date & details etc.....
 
It's a little bit depressing to see the less than stellar reviews about the new NSX. It's REALLY depressing when some of these reviews allude to similarities with the GTR, whereby the car is utterly capable and fast, but isn't particularly fun to drive. I hope Acura makes enough last minute improvements to the car before it goes on sale to change people's minds about it. I have a lot of fond memories of just how much fun the original NSX was. Oh, and here's EVO's 5-star review of the new R8, in case anyone's interested.

http://www.evo.co.uk/audi/r8

5 stars, that's a pretty good review... :cool:

p.s. Sebring, which or your R8's do you find has the best driving experience?
 
i re-watched his review of the new NSX after watching this one. the tone is certainly different, he wasn't giddy after driving the Acura.

looks like Honda missed the boat entirely...

I guess you were so focused on the emotional tone of the reviewer that you missed all the negative things he said....


1. It makes a worse daily driver than the NSX

"getting in and out of this car is not exactly easy"
"everything is controlled by a screen and it's not exactly usable, but it's beautiful"
"most McLarens ride like a Rolls Royce, but this thing rides stiff"


2. The NSX has superior linear acceleration

"every time you hit the gas the 1980's calls and asks for its turbo lag back"


3. The NSX's handling is more secure

"I don't know how he does 120 mph on that corner in a car that loves to be sideways"
"that car is fast and loose"
"when I got it on the track I didn't entirely trust it"
"[the 650S is] more controllable in the corner, but this thing is alive. I'm having to constantly counter steer when aiming for the apex"
"it's loose when entering the corner"
"on the street drive I didn't think the brakes were that good"


4. The NSX is a super car, but the 570S is a sports car

"this McLaren looks like a super car but it's actually a sports car."

I just love how the NSX critics are saying the new NSX contains too many compromises, yet the 570S is filled with compromises in order to make it "fun". McLaren has said the 570S was designed to provide less down force than the 650S in order to make it feel more "loose" when cornering. Care to defend this as a desirable trait for a super car? If not then perhaps we should view the 570S as being a really fun high end sports car and not a true super car.

So a fully optioned 570S will cost about $50,000 more than the NSX and it will have slower lap times. But the 570S provides more emotional appeal.
 
I agree with the questionable "funner" approach. They supposedly made the car have traction issues to make it a fun car to drive.

I suppose this is the difference between a sports car and a supercar? One is messier and the other is more efficient.

Again, the supercar definition is constantly being challenged.
 
I guess you were so focused on the emotional tone of the reviewer that you missed all the negative things he said....


1. It makes a worse daily driver than the NSX

"getting in and out of this car is not exactly easy"
"everything is controlled by a screen and it's not exactly usable, but it's beautiful"
"most McLarens ride like a Rolls Royce, but this thing rides stiff"


2. The NSX has superior linear acceleration

"every time you hit the gas the 1980's calls and asks for its turbo lag back"


3. The NSX's handling is more secure

"I don't know how he does 120 mph on that corner in a car that loves to be sideways"
"that car is fast and loose"
"when I got it on the track I didn't entirely trust it"
"[the 650S is] more controllable in the corner, but this thing is alive. I'm having to constantly counter steer when aiming for the apex"
"it's loose when entering the corner"
"on the street drive I didn't think the brakes were that good"


4. The NSX is a super car, but the 570S is a sports car

"this McLaren looks like a super car but it's actually a sports car."

I just love how the NSX critics are saying the new NSX contains too many compromises, yet the 570S is filled with compromises in order to make it "fun". McLaren has said the 570S was designed to provide less down force than the 650S in order to make it feel more "loose" when cornering. Care to defend this as a desirable trait for a super car? If not then perhaps we should view the 570S as being a really fun high end sports car and not a true super car.

So a fully optioned 570S will cost about $50,000 more than the NSX and it will have slower lap times. But the 570S provides more emotional appeal.

I agree. In fact, I posted similar observations a couple of days ago and, in response, I was told that I should buy a Buick (the exchange was subsequently deleted).

Every car has certain compromises in order to achieve the balance desired by the particular manufacturer. That's because buyers seek different balances. There is no absolute correct balance. Rather, there are only subjective preferences. If a buyer seeks a looser, tossable car that is more fun to drive on the track (and perhaps also spirited canyon driving) by someone with superlative driving skills, and the buyer is not dissuaded by difficult ingress/egress, nor meaningful turbo lag, nor the other identified shortcomings, the 570s is likely as great option. I personally am looking for a slightly different balance. I prefer precise, planted and predictable over loose and tossable, less turbo lag, and manageable ingress/egress (not necessarily sedan ingress/egress, but not back breaking ingress/egress). I am looking for a sports car/supercar/whatever label you prefer that I can comfortably drive every day. I am willing to make certain compromises to achieve this balance (although for me, the lack of turbo lag and lack of propensity to "go sideways" are not compromises, but rather, improvements). For some, my compromises go too far, and reflect a dilution of what a supercar/sports car/whatever you call it should be. So be it. I respectfully disagree.

These same arguments have gone on for years with other models. Owners of GT2s and GT3s have historically disparaged Turbos as being too demure and sedate. The GT2 and GT3 indisputably are more "fun" to drive by a skilled driver on a track. Nevertheless, I choose the Turbo (996 and 997) because it reflected the balance better suited for my needs. Others criticized the GTR as being too easy to drive. That did not bother me one bit. I have no problem if my car is easier to drive well, and does not require superlative driving skills to enjoy. In fact, I prefer if my car is easier to handle and drive fast on a spirited canyon drive, and less prone to going sideways. The truth is that I don't have the driving skills to manage a wildly loose car that easily goes sideways. I'm not that good. Therefore, such a car is NOT more fun for me. To the contrary, such a car is far LESS fun for me. "Fun" is also a subjective balance. What a track-centric reviewer perceives as "fun" is not what many regular folks, with less developed driving skills, perceive as fun.

I have been skiing for 40 years. I learned how to carve a turn on relatively narrow and straight skis, when the ability to properly carve a turn was a meaningful accomplishment. Now, with modern parabolic skis, every Tom, Dick and Harry can carve a turn after only a few outings. It is exponentially easier to carve a turn on parabolic skis . . . . stated another way, parabolic skis practically carve themselves. Thats just fine with me. Even though I was perfectly able to carve a turn using straight, narrow skis, I switched to the parabolic skis and I now take advantage of the new technology. The parabolic skis are easier to use, and require less effort, which is also just fine as I age.

My wife loves the look of the new Alpha Romeo 4C. A few months ago, we went to the Alpha dealership. She was willing to deal with the lack of certain technology. However, the insanely difficult ingress/egress was a deal breaker. The 4C is wildly difficult to enter and exit. Fine for an occasionally used track car (which is precisely what Alpha was shooting for), but not practical for a daily driver. I don't know if the 570s is as difficult to enter/exit as the 4C -- if it is, that alone would be deal breaker for me (again, because I seek a daily driver).

With the NSX, Acura sought a particular balance. This balance is not for everyone. If you want a loose, tossable car -- with meaningful turbo lag -- that is more fun for a highly skilled driver who is comfortable and capable of pushing a car to its limits on a track, the NSX is not the best option. Rather, a 570s appears to be a better option. Conversely, if you do not require these characteristics and/or prefer a fast, great handling, more precise, planted and predictable car that is easier to drive without superlative skills, and has no turbo lag, the NSX may be the better option. For some, the compromises made by the NSX are too much. For some, the NSX balance no longer qualifies as a "supercar" or a "sports car" or whatever label you want to use. I don't care about the label. The balance achieved by the NSX -- as described by the reviewers -- is what I am looking for, notwithstanding the necessary compromises (again, all cars have compromises).
 
I liked the skiing analogy......technology vs human effort and skills...same thing with a manual transmission vs the new crop of auto/manual paddle shifters....At some point the manufacturer has to lay it on the line,build what they feel is the best version 1 of whatever and tweak from there.From all my reading I think for me I would choose the Michelin tires and keep the car in sport or track mode most of the time.They should call the ev only quiet mode the Ashley Madison mode :tongue:
 
Superfluous has excellent points. I ve had 996tt and a 997 gt2. Day to day the 996 awd turbo is much nicer to drive, feels capable and safe for an amateur like myself. The gt2 is a special experience reserved for once in a whileouting that feels like you are driving on the edge. I was thinking about a huracan but will wait on the
nsx to drive it and make my own decision
 
Superfluous has excellent points. I ve had 996tt and a 997 gt2. Day to day the 996 awd turbo is much nicer to drive, feels capable and safe for an amateur like myself. The gt2 is a special experience reserved for once in a whileouting that feels like you are driving on the edge.

Decent Porsche analogy but there's one major shortcoming with it.... The fun "on the edge" car (the GT2) is faster around the track than the comfortable secure car (the Turbo). However when comparing the NSX to the 570S this situation is likely reversed. In the aforementioned video we can see that the 570S track time was lower than both the Turbo and the significantly older GT-R. Thus I believe the more comfortable and secure NSX will actually have superior track times to the "on the edge" 570S.

So what's the final verdict?

NSX wins: comfort, stability, acceleration, track times, reliability, price
570S wins: style, fun, prestige

Since the Motor Trend video reviewer previously said he'd rather have an "Acura sedan for a daily driver and an old stick shift Ferrari for the weekends" we can assume he places a high value on style, fun, and prestige. But you have to admit that the NSX's list of virtues is nothing to laugh at. In many categories that many people place a high value on, it is better than the 570S.
 
Decent Porsche analogy but there's one major shortcoming with it.... The fun "on the edge" car (the GT2) is faster around the track than the comfortable secure car (the Turbo). However when comparing the NSX to the 570S this situation is likely reversed. In the aforementioned video we can see that the 570S track time was lower than both the Turbo and the significantly older GT-R. Thus I believe the more comfortable and secure NSX will actually have superior track times to the "on the edge" 570S.

So what's the final verdict?

NSX wins: comfort, stability, acceleration, track times, reliability, price
570S wins: style, fun, prestige

Since the Motor Trend video reviewer previously said he'd rather have an "Acura sedan for a daily driver and an old stick shift Ferrari for the weekends" we can assume he places a high value on style, fun, and prestige. But you have to admit that the NSX's list of virtues is nothing to laugh at. In many categories that many people place a high value on, it is better than the 570S.

^ Well said
 
Last edited:
^ More disparaging, ad hominem comments . . . no room for differing opinions or personal preferences . . . anyone who disagrees or seeks something different is categorically wrong or, worse yet, a "poser." No problem. I waive the white flag. You are absolutely right. The car I want -- a good looking, good handling, decidedly fast sports car that can be driven comfortably every day -- is abhorrent and reprehensible to any and all legitimate sports car enthusiasts. Thank you for further reinforcing that fundamental truth. I look forward to enjoying my new NSX notwithstanding your condescending opinion of me and my car purchasing decisions.
 
Back
Top