Bull shit - you gave example from just two very particular reviews that were particular in intent and focus. You claimed as you are apt to do, that these represent the consensus of the majority of reviewers, when in fact the majority of reviewers in the public domain have said the opposite (from their perspectives). Granted, the great majority of motoring journalists are not professional racing drivers, and so their tests and reviews are mostly about identifying the car with the predominant interests of their readers, and potential likely buyers. You are welcome to your point of view, and I will defend your right to free speech, but others and myself have rightly countered your negative biases with alternative viewpoints that indicate we see the philosophy and potential of the car from different angles.
But you do continue to slate it regardless of; that it is a 'new' effort out of the block; that it has not yet had the benefit of development of the competing marques; that Honda have stated publicly it is under continuing development and improvement, including reference to the GT3 program; that Honda have specifically developed the car to have a unique appeal to market that differentiates it and therefore will appeal less to some and more to others (like myself). Glass half empty, or half full?
You say is has 'some big negatives', but you omit the essential disclaimer that it is in 'your' opinion, and instead claim a majority of (phantom) reviewers agree with you. But simply because you say it so, no doubt now much you think your opinion matters, and based on your own unique experiences and preferences in the car world, doesn't mean it is or will be for others and most probably the majority.
So you have stated you have an earlier iteration NSX, and it appears you still have a high regard for it, but you don't really like the new one, so why your continued lurking here?
