That was funny! Good investigation there Floyd.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Supercar or not to supercar is the question..
- Thread starter VegasSpeed
- Start date
That was funny! Good investigation there Floyd.
I didn't see a recent post about this topic even though I am sure it has been here so I started a new one inquiring what people thought. Especially since MT put out that article with the damn corvettes in it. How does a lousy corvette qualify but a rare exotic nsx does not?
Last edited:
I'm no great Corvette fan, but a ZL1 Corvette with 600+ hp that beats the pants off other supercars is definitely a supercar.
Add a turbo.
Make it a supercar.
Make it a supercar.
- Joined
- 5 May 2009
- Messages
- 56
Doing a search on autotrader for 2004 and newer corvettes reveals 2,033 automatic shift and 1,901 manual shift corvettes for sale. Hardly rare and automatics outnumber manuals.
However, narrowing it to Z06 gets 830 manuals and 34 automatics. ZR1's was 174 manuals and 2 automatics.
Subtracting the Z06 and ZR1 from my original search reveals that out of the regular corvettes from 2004+, you have a total of 2,894 cars with a whopping 1,997 of them being automatic shift.
I have no doubt based on performance numbers that some variations of the Corvette are supercars. But those rare monster cars are intermixed with all the automatic shift regular corvettes being driven by middle aged men going through their mid-life crisis. That results in seeing a corvette everytime you turn your head, no matter how bad ass the Z06 or ZR1 is.
(NSX's on sale are at 137 manuals and 15 automatics for all 15 years of production.)
However, narrowing it to Z06 gets 830 manuals and 34 automatics. ZR1's was 174 manuals and 2 automatics.
Subtracting the Z06 and ZR1 from my original search reveals that out of the regular corvettes from 2004+, you have a total of 2,894 cars with a whopping 1,997 of them being automatic shift.
I have no doubt based on performance numbers that some variations of the Corvette are supercars. But those rare monster cars are intermixed with all the automatic shift regular corvettes being driven by middle aged men going through their mid-life crisis. That results in seeing a corvette everytime you turn your head, no matter how bad ass the Z06 or ZR1 is.
(NSX's on sale are at 137 manuals and 15 automatics for all 15 years of production.)
Before the NSX was launched, you already had the Porsche 959 and Ferrari F40. I would not have called it a supercar in their company...
Yeah, that ^^^
Attachments
959 is not an exotic??!! It was probably the first true "Supercar" that ever came out and wipped everyone's ass. Even by today's standard, its 0-60 in 3.6s and south of 200mph top speed still put it up there with the best.
I never liked the F40 since it is really a race car with minimal interior appointments. It is "super" in a car sense.
I considered the 1991 NSX a true supercar in 1991. But 2002+ NSXs are just embarrassment to the company and a slap in the face for all NSX enthusiasts.
Of course this is just my opinion, out of all high performance cars, "supercars", exotics, or whatever you called back in 1991, there was not one car out there that I wanted more than the NSX. Now these young kids are debating if the NSX is/was a supercar using today's standards?
I have always been a Porsche guy since being a child and have been reading up on all performance cars even now. The 1991 debut of the NSX was like a lightning bolt declaring the new king of the road. All of a sudden, my dream of owning the 911 Turbo, Testarossa, BMW M1, and many others became absolutely insignificant. At the time I was doing a surgical rotation working with a group of car loving and obnoxious surgeons. Our rare lunch time favorite activity was to go to the parking lot to check out one urologist's new NSX. There was also a Lotus Espirit there but no one cared about that. We would talk about that NSX all the time and EVERYONE swore that they would get one once out of training. The NSX was THAT big when it came out and ALL magazines declared it a "supercar". Many megamillionaires, CEOs, and movie stars were buying them left and right.
It is only fair to judge a car by the standards at the time of the launch. Imagine if the NSX was only made for 4 years from 1991 to 1994?? We would not even have such discussion if that was the case.
Steve
I never liked the F40 since it is really a race car with minimal interior appointments. It is "super" in a car sense.
I considered the 1991 NSX a true supercar in 1991. But 2002+ NSXs are just embarrassment to the company and a slap in the face for all NSX enthusiasts.
Of course this is just my opinion, out of all high performance cars, "supercars", exotics, or whatever you called back in 1991, there was not one car out there that I wanted more than the NSX. Now these young kids are debating if the NSX is/was a supercar using today's standards?
I have always been a Porsche guy since being a child and have been reading up on all performance cars even now. The 1991 debut of the NSX was like a lightning bolt declaring the new king of the road. All of a sudden, my dream of owning the 911 Turbo, Testarossa, BMW M1, and many others became absolutely insignificant. At the time I was doing a surgical rotation working with a group of car loving and obnoxious surgeons. Our rare lunch time favorite activity was to go to the parking lot to check out one urologist's new NSX. There was also a Lotus Espirit there but no one cared about that. We would talk about that NSX all the time and EVERYONE swore that they would get one once out of training. The NSX was THAT big when it came out and ALL magazines declared it a "supercar". Many megamillionaires, CEOs, and movie stars were buying them left and right.
It is only fair to judge a car by the standards at the time of the launch. Imagine if the NSX was only made for 4 years from 1991 to 1994?? We would not even have such discussion if that was the case.
Steve
Last edited:
Steve,
You are right of course and in a later email on the subject of the 959 I recanted this idea that it wasn't by todays standards - it surely is and surely we do have to judge these cars by the standards set at the time of production.
I do agree with you as well about the 91 but that the later editions of the NSX were not evolved enough but I gave reasons why I thought that was the case as well. I believe if you read my posts again on this subject you'll find what I feel to be a reasonable case for why it didn't evolve any more than it did - that however doesn't make it right and from Honda we should expect more! They should take a few notes from other manufacturers like Porsche and others about evolution of sports cars. I believe that Honda could if it just would continue to blow the doors off the competition and that it is not a satisfactory representation of the marque to apparently "sit" on it's laurels so quickly. I believe we all feel the same here about that.
You are right of course and in a later email on the subject of the 959 I recanted this idea that it wasn't by todays standards - it surely is and surely we do have to judge these cars by the standards set at the time of production.
I do agree with you as well about the 91 but that the later editions of the NSX were not evolved enough but I gave reasons why I thought that was the case as well. I believe if you read my posts again on this subject you'll find what I feel to be a reasonable case for why it didn't evolve any more than it did - that however doesn't make it right and from Honda we should expect more! They should take a few notes from other manufacturers like Porsche and others about evolution of sports cars. I believe that Honda could if it just would continue to blow the doors off the competition and that it is not a satisfactory representation of the marque to apparently "sit" on it's laurels so quickly. I believe we all feel the same here about that.
Well, consider myself slapped in the face and I'm sorry I endorsed an embarassment to the company. I've never been so happy owning an embarrassing car that silently pisses-off other NSX owners. :wink:
This is a great post Keith I really think your point is right on. We all love our NSXs and just think - at least Honda built this fine car! I am really happy you found yours and I love all of them. I can't wait to hang out with you some and do some driving together up in the mountains - hopefully soon.
I don't consider the evolution a slap in the face as one put it but surely it would have been nice to see Honda evolve the engine specs more for more displacement and offer perhaps a stock SC or TC. I really think that there is always room for improvement in all autos and all ther sports car manufactureres are always trying to get better and making their cars faster, handle better, more reliable ,etc. I wish Honda had put more effort into keeping their sports car alive and advertising it waaaaaay more! Look at the advertising that Porsche does!
Anyway, happy trails my friend,
Here is my opinion on the NSX. The EARLY NSX's (91-93) were in my opinion Supercars because they brought technology and design into the cars which were used in "Supercars" such as the all aluminum monocoque chassis and body, titanium connecting rods, electric water pump, electronic throttle control, and a transversely mounted engine. The early NSX's had good power for their ERA BUT as the years went on the the HP deficiencies left it behind. The early NSX had the exact HP rating as the Ferrari 328 & a little less than the 348.
The NSX was a great car for the ERA..... unfortunately Acura didn't continue to develop the platform.. especially the engine.
The NSX was a great car for the ERA..... unfortunately Acura didn't continue to develop the platform.. especially the engine.
Well I'm with Steve...Heck after 14 years of "evolution" put the 91 next to the 05......compare the real differences ie..significant improvements....now if man evolved at that relative pace the degree of change that you or I would have from say a mitochandria=91 nsx would be a mitochandria with one more atp molecule
If we are talking "exterior evolution" then I don't see how we can complain about Honda when Porsche is lauded for the same practice with the 911....
1963
1989
2009
With most everyone (professional and amateur reviewers), Porsche is highly regard for keeping the 911 "classic" with minimal bodyline changes over it's 46 year lifespan.
However, if we are talking performance and technology evolution, then yes, Honda could have put forth better effort evolving the NSX. I still would never call the 02+ models an "embarrassment" to the moniker.
1963
1989
2009
With most everyone (professional and amateur reviewers), Porsche is highly regard for keeping the 911 "classic" with minimal bodyline changes over it's 46 year lifespan.
However, if we are talking performance and technology evolution, then yes, Honda could have put forth better effort evolving the NSX. I still would never call the 02+ models an "embarrassment" to the moniker.
Hi All,
Just a FYI...
In the February 2010 issue of Motor Trend on Page 10 there is an article
titled "a question of character" ...what really makes a supercar great...
The NSX & R32 GT are referred to as a "Supercars" in this article...
Interesting read.
Seeya,
Jeff
Just a FYI...
In the February 2010 issue of Motor Trend on Page 10 there is an article
titled "a question of character" ...what really makes a supercar great...
The NSX & R32 GT are referred to as a "Supercars" in this article...
Interesting read.
Seeya,
Jeff
And I agree (I love driving my wife's Mk.V R32 -- VW, not Nissan ;-) ). Certainly the NSX was, and is, a supercar by any definition. Ask someone with a Ferrari to take your NSX for a spin and watch the surprised look on their face. Sure the horsepower is different, but the NSX just feels better. Driving on our country roads horsepower is seldom the cause for delight.
Last edited:
You are totally missing the point. Before the 2002 came out, there was a LOT of speculations and expectations about the 2002 NSX. With the level of performance of the S2000, Ferrari 360, M3, Corvette, and the capabilities of everyone else's cars exotic or not, Honda needed some major enhancements to keep up with its OLD competitors. So after all the longings, what did we get? A car with a few pieces of new body panels and gold colored calipers WITHOUT any changes in engine and tranny. Even the tape deck stayed. By itself, the 2002+ is not a bad car. Afterall it is the newest and most updated version of the NSX. But that was the BEST Honda could do back in 2002!!!??? That was embarrassing in my book. To the the NSX enthusiasts such as myself who had patiently waited for a new level of evolutions and have bought 4 NSXs so far, I don't think Honda delivered what it's founder nor their fans wanted.
Your car does not piss off NSX owners "silently". It was just not good enough to be called a supercar or exotics in 2002 nor being hailed as a Honda flagship. But the 1991 NSX was so revelating that it made the ENTIRE Japan proud and the whole world amazed. To me the 2002+ NSX are no better than the early ones. My 2001 NA2 coupe is what I consider one of the best in this country. If I want a better NSX, I will have to buy the Audi R8.
If Ferrari tried to sell the 360 Modena with 400 hp in 2010 as a bottom of the line model for $200k, people will laugh their asses off like ROFLTAO. Even tiny companies like the Ferrari or Lamborghini won't embarrass themselves in this way. Why would it be acceptable for Honda, being much more capable, innovative, and resourceful company, to pull that off? I suspect the Honda top management is to blame, but regardless of whose fault or reason, Honda did not measure up with the 2002 NSX.
Steve
Can we just love the NSX for what it is ? Is that OK ?
I personally call it an exotic. It was and still IS.
To me it was never a "supercar". It lacked 100 HP (at least) for that designation.
When Road and Track compared it in their August 1990 magazine they did not put it up against the F40 and 959.
They used the Porsche 911SC and Corvette ZR1. It held its own spec wise.
The beauty of the NSX is not measured with statistics.
I personally call it an exotic. It was and still IS.
To me it was never a "supercar". It lacked 100 HP (at least) for that designation.
When Road and Track compared it in their August 1990 magazine they did not put it up against the F40 and 959.
They used the Porsche 911SC and Corvette ZR1. It held its own spec wise.
The beauty of the NSX is not measured with statistics.
Tim,
You are/were a fellow Porsche owner. Porsche sells cars not because of advertisement, but from substance. The word "evolutions" is practiced by Porsche. There is no evolution in the NSX in any meaningful way other than the 200cc increase in displacement and the 6th gear. I love the NSX and I also wish it could get the progresses the entry level Ferrari got.
Here is my garage currently. I still love these senile Porsches because they were truly great cars when they were still in production. They are slow and clumsy by today's standards.
Steve
I was just discussing why NSX has such a wide variations in its perceived status of good sport car, exotics, and "supercar". Regardless of what people think, it is among the best performance cars ever made. And certainly was a major milestone of automotive history. I am glad that I am fortunate enough to have experienced it daily for the past 12 years.
Steve
Re: been there, done that... lots of great reads on prime regarding this!
I agree 100%
I agree 100%
Tim,
You are/were a fellow Porsche owner. Porsche sells cars not because of advertisement, but from substance. The word "evolutions" is practiced by Porsche. There is no evolution in the NSX in any meaningful way other than the 200cc increase in displacement and the 6th gear. I love the NSX and I also wish it could get the progresses the entry level Ferrari got.
Here is my garage currently. I still love these senile Porsches because they were truly great cars when they were still in production. They are slow and clumsy by today's standards.
Steve
Fine looking stable you have there Steve; what year is the 911? I love 911s and if I had a place for one I might have another but - I have enough in toys. Glad you have some nice ones and that white NSX looks mighty nice! What year is it?
Anyway, back to the discussion here and super cars - well we're a little off topic but I beg to differ with you a bit on the advertising front. I do surely believe that one of Porsches best weapons for sales is having their name all over the place in every magazine where sports car types would be lurking. I garauntee if Honda had been as diligent with the adveritising for the NSX as Porsche has for the 911 there is a good chance they'd still be making them - but Honda wasn't making any money off of them and Porsche has been able to and they've surely done a lot with the materials, and plastic to make that happen.
I could go on an on about Porsche and what they haven't done with the mechanicals of thier cars - as in the 996 and 997 and the lay shaft, RMS issues they've had even though they haven't affected all the cars - but people don't drive their Porsches usually like we here drive our NSXs. So that helps. I would love to discuss this issue with you but in my opinion one of the hurdles that Porsche overcame even though there are lists out there that would surely make you think the RMS and Intermediate shaft failures and with them engine failures were a big problem - but advertising and the fact that Porsche has become a prestige symbol has kept them alive! The new one - 997.2 or whatever they're calling the one with direct injection is a step forward. But it is early to tell whether they have flaws like ever other Porsche ever made has an intinsic "achilles heel" except for possibley the 87 -89 Carrera - has achieved almost bullet proof status! The only one I might add - but time has marched on way past that car. And then they followed that up with the 964 which suffered thru many maladies but finally got sorted about the last year before they stopped making it. It had 250 hp - but was it a supercar - no - it was a fine sports car but not a super car - and i believe it didn't hold a candle to the NSX but it surely did recieve plenty of accolades due to advertising and getting into print in magazines, etc.
Then there are the magazines - 2 of them at least - that are totally dedicated to the Porsche marque and then there is panorama and the PCA which is much stronger but also longer lived than our NSXCA. When you have that going for you and the articles that always appear in R&T and Car and Driver - and every other car mag out there then you have a recipe for success and even though you have cars with "achilles heels" you are overcoming that with history of racing that is long. It's a household name and NSX is anything but that! We all know that advertising and the weak sales contributed to the downfall of the NSX - short and sweet but wonderful 15 years of production and only 8000 cars sent to America - one years production from Porsche would fly by that just about.
There is no comparison between the marketing of Porsche and NSX - as far as advertising it might as well been almost an after thought. It is truly sad that Honda understood so poorely the art of advertising the NSX but then maybe they actually wanted to quit loosing money with it and were happy to let it go into obscurity....mmmm...anyone ever think of that?
I don't know but there is something to it. Our cars are wonders and Honda made a real break thru with it and made a statement but would have a tough time making it as a sports car only manufacturer as Porsche has done but then look at Porsche now - it's succumbed to a buy out by VW. It's a tough business.
I just hope that Honda can come back with another NSX and this time make it a viable enterpise so that it can continue a line of truly amazing sports cars. I love my NSX and I am so happy to have it. To me it is a super car and an exotic - and it's a 91 so is the 05 the same - well it may be.
I guess I've written more than enough at this sittting....later dudes.
Boy this is a tough crowd
As mentioned, the NSX is unique in automotive history and manufacturing. A wonderfully long run for a very Well Balanced car.
The issue isn’t about horsepower, or how fast it gets down the quarter mile or track, it’s about the emotion it stirs in the hearts and souls of the owners and drivers. This is what makes it wonderful. Call it what you want, but if Honda had decided NOT to manufacture the NSX, the ENTIRE automotive industry and especially Ferrari would be worse off for the decision. Honda held “Supercar” manufacturers accountable and demonstrated what should and could be achieved from well thought out engineering, while remembering the driver and owner involvement.
“GREAT” is what I’ll chose to call it, Super, Exotic or Sports are all just monikers for the same thing. Stirring your soul when you push the pedal.
As mentioned, the NSX is unique in automotive history and manufacturing. A wonderfully long run for a very Well Balanced car.
The issue isn’t about horsepower, or how fast it gets down the quarter mile or track, it’s about the emotion it stirs in the hearts and souls of the owners and drivers. This is what makes it wonderful. Call it what you want, but if Honda had decided NOT to manufacture the NSX, the ENTIRE automotive industry and especially Ferrari would be worse off for the decision. Honda held “Supercar” manufacturers accountable and demonstrated what should and could be achieved from well thought out engineering, while remembering the driver and owner involvement.
“GREAT” is what I’ll chose to call it, Super, Exotic or Sports are all just monikers for the same thing. Stirring your soul when you push the pedal.
shawn110975
Suspended
Man would I like to have the rear of your garage!! Yikes Lucky Basta_d !!! LOL
Similar threads
