Lamborghini owner claims NSX is not a supercar but claims lotus elise is....
thoughts, comments!
thoughts, comments!
Last edited:
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Lamborghini owner claims NSX is not a supercar
- Thread starter dlynes
- Start date
- Joined
- 10 June 2007
- Messages
- 1
Clearly the Lambo owner is talking about price...other than the fact that most supercars cost over $100,000 I can't think of a reason why this car would not be considered one. All aluminum, mid-engine, leather dash...something hard to define but I just refer to it as 'the look'.
The difference between a supercar and the NSX is like the difference between a superstar NBA player and your average star. The NSX is not a supercar, sorry. It was a great car when it came out but even then it was not a supercar IMO. I know we all want to think they are supercars but I disagree and I'd love to hear the arguments as to why the NSX would be one. The term supercar is not timeless either. Cars can be supercars when they come out and lose that connotation later on when superior cars are introduced. I think we all know what the current supercars are (S7, Koenigseggs, Carrera GTs, Zonda, McLaren F1, etc).
I think the Lambo guy is right.
I think the Lambo guy is right.
I agree, the NSX is definitely no supercar. I would include the Enzo, Porsche C-GT, Maclaren F1, F-40, Veyron and a few others in the supercar bracket. I would even venture to say that the F360 and F430 as well as other Lambos are not supercars.
obviously with technology and time everything gets replaced....please enlighten me on what supercars existed in 1991, and what cars could have out performed the nsx and were built better...also, please tell me after 16 yrs if that car is still running and steal captures attention today
I don't think being well built is a prerequisite of being a supercar. But at that time, you had the Ferrari F40, the Diablo, Porsche 959, Vectors... That's just off the top of my head, help me, what else was there?
Thread over.
Depends on how you define supercar. The Elise handles, brakes and accelerates better than the NSX, so maybe he was just comparing their performance. I mean honestly, I love NSX's, but by today's standards they're nothing special. There are $30k Lancers and Subarus that outperform the NSX. If the NSX is a supercar, then so are Lancers and Subarus and Supras and 300ZX's, etc. etc.
Looks and price are the only supercar qualities the NSX has in today's world. But for what they were in the early '90's no one can deny that back then they were supercars.
And yes, before anyone asks, I do think that the term "supercar" is relative to the times...that is to say, a Lambo Diablo may be considered one today, but ten years from now it probably will be in the same boat as the NSX.
The difference between a supercar and the NSX is like the difference between a superstar NBA player and your average star. The NSX is not a supercar, sorry. It was a great car when it came out but even then it was not a supercar IMO. I know we all want to think they are supercars but I disagree and I'd love to hear the arguments as to why the NSX would be one. The term supercar is not timeless either. Cars can be supercars when they come out and lose that connotation later on when superior cars are introduced. I think we all know what the current supercars are (S7, Koenigseggs, Carrera GTs, Zonda, McLaren F1, etc).
I think the Lambo guy is right.
Wow, guess I shoulda read the thread before posting because you pretty much said exactly what I did.
Question to everyone here-
What is your definition of "supercar"?
Mine is-
1) Elite overall performance by today's standards.
2) Performance relative to other production vehicles of it's time.
Without satisfying condition number one, it cannot be a supercar. And by default if it meets #1 then it will also meet standards of #2. A supercar HAS TO rank in say the top 2% (or whatever other arbitrary number you wish to use) in performance categories to satisfy condition number two. However, satisfying condition number 2 alone is not enough, it must meet BOTH.
To demonstrate, let's say in order to qualify as a supercar by today's standards, a vehicle must be able to do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds or less and also pull 1.0 g on the skidpad. The NSX certainly is in the top 2% in acceleration and skidpad (I do not have hard data to back that statement up, but for the sake of arguement let's assume it is true.) of all production vehicles made during its model run. So therefore, it meets condition number 2 listed above. However, since it only does 0-60 in ~5.0 seconds or so and ~0.92 g on the skidpad, it falls short of todays standards of supreme performance, and therefore falls short of meeting condition number 1.
I do think that there should be just a little wiggle room there. Say a car doesn't pull 1.0 g, it only pulls 0.95. But if it accelerates well under the 4.0 second limit for 0-60 (lets say in 3.4 seconds), then it could be considered enough to compensate for the other shortcoming.
I don't factor in technology when determining whether or not a car is a supercar or not. What does it matter if a car is made of all aluminum and carbon fiber and has dual flux capacitors if it can't meet basic peformance requirements?
I also don't factor in looks, price, accruements or prestige. Because then all of a sudden we end up with what we have today....the term supercar being used to describe anything that is basically a cool, rare or fast car, instead of being reserved for the select few that deserve the title.
What is your definition of "supercar"?
Mine is-
1) Elite overall performance by today's standards.
2) Performance relative to other production vehicles of it's time.
Without satisfying condition number one, it cannot be a supercar. And by default if it meets #1 then it will also meet standards of #2. A supercar HAS TO rank in say the top 2% (or whatever other arbitrary number you wish to use) in performance categories to satisfy condition number two. However, satisfying condition number 2 alone is not enough, it must meet BOTH.
To demonstrate, let's say in order to qualify as a supercar by today's standards, a vehicle must be able to do 0-60 in 4.0 seconds or less and also pull 1.0 g on the skidpad. The NSX certainly is in the top 2% in acceleration and skidpad (I do not have hard data to back that statement up, but for the sake of arguement let's assume it is true.) of all production vehicles made during its model run. So therefore, it meets condition number 2 listed above. However, since it only does 0-60 in ~5.0 seconds or so and ~0.92 g on the skidpad, it falls short of todays standards of supreme performance, and therefore falls short of meeting condition number 1.
I do think that there should be just a little wiggle room there. Say a car doesn't pull 1.0 g, it only pulls 0.95. But if it accelerates well under the 4.0 second limit for 0-60 (lets say in 3.4 seconds), then it could be considered enough to compensate for the other shortcoming.
I don't factor in technology when determining whether or not a car is a supercar or not. What does it matter if a car is made of all aluminum and carbon fiber and has dual flux capacitors if it can't meet basic peformance requirements?
I also don't factor in looks, price, accruements or prestige. Because then all of a sudden we end up with what we have today....the term supercar being used to describe anything that is basically a cool, rare or fast car, instead of being reserved for the select few that deserve the title.
I disagree with your statement that supercars lose their title as newer cars outperform them. It is true that some Lancers, Subaru's, and Supras outperform NSX's, but who cares? They also can outperform earlier Ferraris such as the 348 and the 355 as well as Aston Martin DB7's all of which are considered supercars. However a car out performing another doesn't give it the title of being a supercar. A supercar must be a car that is deeper then you just comparing the performance aspect of it. The NSX was built with the same soul as the Ferrari's and Lambo's by Honda and it will always be a supercar that has been meticulously hand assembled. Think of it like this, the term supercar is given to cars that have those criteria, therefore a supercar will always remain a supercar no matter how many cars outperform it simply because it had the qualifications to be one, while cars that never beared the title will never be supercars. The Diablo in your example will always be a supercar no matter what amount of cars outperform it in the future.
Well if he is driving a gallardo there are many that would also say that it is not really a Lambo......but that is another argument
You do raise a good point, some cars just have that certain something...they leave you with a feeling of awe. For example, my father in law owns a Z06, and although that car meets the performance standards I mentioned in my previous post, I still can't bring myself to think of it as a true supercar.
I have never driven an NSX, only driven in one. That being said, my impression of the car was, "Wow, what a sweet car!" Which was much different from the impression I got after checking out a 360 Modena a few months ago (felt like I was looking at a masterpiece that demanded respect).
I see your point and agree with it now that I reflect on it, however I still don't agree that the NSX is a bona fide supercar. There is no debate when you see a true supercar, it's presence commands attention and you just know it is what it is.
I've always thought of the NSX as an exotic but not really a super car.
Lovefab NSX is a supercar. :tongue:
- Joined
- 22 September 2005
- Messages
- 1,215
The difference between a supercar and the NSX is like the difference between a superstar NBA player and your average star. The NSX is not a supercar, sorry. It was a great car when it came out but even then it was not a supercar IMO. I know we all want to think they are supercars but I disagree and I'd love to hear the arguments as to why the NSX would be one. The term supercar is not timeless either. Cars can be supercars when they come out and lose that connotation later on when superior cars are introduced. I think we all know what the current supercars are (S7, Koenigseggs, Carrera GTs, Zonda, McLaren F1, etc).
I think the Lambo guy is right.
Can you please tell me what was a supercar in 91 that that was out of the nsx's league?
This should be good
Okay...I am the only one here that wants to hear the rest of the story? There has to be more than that.
He is absolutely right!!! Because Lambo cannot make a cross country trip without worries. That is just one of the super car virtue. Lotus Elise on the other hand, is in the same category because the driver cannot do the same trip without breaking his/her back.:biggrin:
I guess Ayrton Senna was lying when he said the NSX is a super car!!! Ask the Lambo owner who Ayrton Senna is. NSX may not have the acceleration of the modern day super cars, but it just don't loose the title because it's old. You can't really take titles away from things once it's earned.
I never take any Tractor manufactures seriously when they Tried to build F1 engines that can't last more than a race.
HOWEVER, everything said, the good, bad and ugly, who cares if the NSX is a super car. I believe most of us bought the car because we enjoy driving it. I know Ferrari owners from the past did not enjoy driving their car, but own one because they admire the brand. I remember long time ago reading some thing about how most of the Ferrari owners will keep their car (s) for a long time, but Lamb owners don't. It was an interesting article.
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6uRmVbzsj0I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6uRmVbzsj0I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
Last edited:
Supercars in the early '90s, Jaguar XJ220/ Aston Martin Zagato.. as the Lambo being a supercar while NSX is or is not, personally I would not care less and ask the Lambo owner how much $$ he has put intt the unit to get it running..? maintainence $$ could be a very weak link for most supercars, but when you are at that level, do you really care or just after the looks on people faces when you drive/park!! Lotus Elise would be the best supercar/ go kart if you can get in/out in a hurry..
Can you please tell me what was a supercar in 91 that that was out of the nsx's league?
This should be good
See post #7.
James Dean's Porsche spyder would be considered a supercar at the time it came out but to say it is a supercar now just would not make sense. According to the Supercar Wiki :
In the end, we are arguing about a nebulous word that can have many interpretations.
I wonder if his 1989 Countach still runs?
I would not consider the NSX a supercar. Or the elise. The nsx it an exotic no question. Elise isn't even that in my opinion. I wouldn't consider lambo's supercars either. Being a supercar goes far beyond performance. Cars like the Enzo, f50, 40, 288gto, Mclaren f1, veyron, carerra gt, jaguar xj220...... I would consider supercars. A supercar for me is a handbuilt limited production(actual production) car that is a purpose built to be more of a street legal race car than a road car.
