Ferrari lap times should always be taken with a grain of salt, unlike Porsche or others Ferrari only allow timed laps if they can bring their mechanics to tune the car perfectly for whichever track it's being tested on. Chris Harris had written about this and Ferrari basically blacklisted him for outing them. Not saying their cars are not fast (I've tracked a 458 and it was otherworldly to me), but I wouldn't trust any laptime of their cars unless it was a stock car tested from a owner and not a factory supplied car/crew..
I'm loving the new NSX but that lap time to me is hugely disappointing and sort of feels not right, I mean 4 seconds off an Audi R8 V10 plus which you could argue is more of a direct competitor than the now old gen 458, same price range, similar hp, both AWD... 4 friggin seconds?!?! Would be interesting to see the data, I bet it's higher speed acceleration is where it's loosing time... Nothing extra boost can't fix though..
2 seconds a lap behind the R8 or Huracan, which validates the times as both cars are very similar in their running gear and electronics. and 2 seconds a lap is an eternity. 2 laps becomes 4 seconds, and 4 laps becomes 8 seconds. a few more laps and either one of those cars is a full straightaway ahead. it's an insurmountable difference at this time. it was 4 seconds behind the McLaren, but that is another story enitrely.
all new cars at all media tests are ringers. all magazine tests, all television show tests, etc., there are no exceptions. they all come with a bunch of technicians and engineers. all press cars are hand picked from the first batch, hand assembled, with the sharpest chassis, best tires, highest level of spec, lightest components, and the strongest engines.
don't kid yourself, Ferrari, Chevy, Ford, Hyundai, Mazda, Maserati, and yes, even Honda are supplying the very best they have...
I'm a little confused. On hearsay, the NSX MkII [using Track Tyres] was a wash with the Viper ACR around the Thermal race track earlier this year? So I would have expected that with AWD and Electric Boost it would have been a better fit at the Top Gear track?? So a mid 15 second lap would be more in keeping with the performance at Thermal? {The ACR's time is 15.1 sec.}
Or perhaps the weight penalty is just too much on such a tight track??
We'll just have to be patient and wait for side by side comparisons.
Of course none of this takes away anything from what the NSX is, finally a great achievement by Honda/Acura, and a worthy successor to the MkI.
was there an official time from the Thermal track day?
different tracks will suit different cars, different drivers, different styles, etc. the NSX may be better suited for lower speed, stop start tracks with lots of low speed acceleration corners? the
Top Gear track has some fairly high speed stuff that may not suit the strengths of the NSX? at certain tracks it may be better or worse than its rivals? so far the Porsche 911 turbo beat it up the mountain in Colorado, and a lot of the others beat it at
Top Gear's track. other tracks may tell a different story...
- - - Updated - - -
The new V10 as I said in the other thread is severely underrated at high as 560 whp on the dyno whereas the new NSX is spotted at slightly over 500 whp. That's the 2 second difference.
those V10's and AWD systems in the German cars are mind blowing, absolutely incredible. but watching the laps of the R8 and Huracan in comparison to the NSX's lap, the 2 seconds looks to me in the chassis, not the engine...
