-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
The Negatives of the NSX 2.0
- Thread starter liftcontrol
- Start date
i am literally laughing out loud as i type! I am actually going to be in Ohio next month for business and will be visiting one of my best friends too who happens to be an OSU under grad and grad alum. That being said....I lived many years back in Ohio but when i lived there my Michigan flag flew outside the house every football Saturday! Am a Mich alum in San Francisco area now. Love the ND and Ohio State rivalries. actually know a guy who is a former pro secondary coach from Ohio who coached Charles Woodson here at Oakland (had a chance to meet Woodson; former Mr. Football in Ohio in HS and one of the nicest guys unlike many starts) and who long ago coached with both Bo and Hays at Miami of Ohio. Guess you can tell i get excited about football like cars too...suspect you do too! Cool they are building the new car in Ohio....
Yeah I like football - especially college football. I was at ND when they won their last National Championship under Lou Holtz so its a sickness that I can't completely get over. Interesting coincidences you mentioned.
Not sure if you caught my subtle hints - the project leader for the new car shares your name.
Not sure if you caught my subtle hints - the project leader for the new car shares your name.
Both the 458 & NSX 2.0 are 47.8" tall. The tire diameter does not really have anything to do with the height of the car since the diameters are taken into consideration and a part of the design for a given performance, ride height targets, etc...
It does if you can fit a wide fat tire of a ~25 inch diameter like first gen NSX. Just a what-if situation, think like 285/30/18 or 295/30/18 versus the 295/30/20 as I really don't think the huge BBK needs 19/20s really. That would save a full inch of height in the rear and then couple it with a 1"-1.5" drop to compensate for wheel gap.
Interesting that the 458 is as high, as its design makes it much sleeker, even though its engine is bigger...
Also the 458 has got some unique designs (in the aero department mostly), which make it quite innovative. I really want to see innovation in the NSX 2.0 but so far i didnt see any real world first ?
Also the 458 has got some unique designs (in the aero department mostly), which make it quite innovative. I really want to see innovation in the NSX 2.0 but so far i didnt see any real world first ?
Last edited:
It's because the 458 nose is really long giving the illusion of a super low hood line whereas the NSX is going for short overhangs unlike the first gen. The 458 is definitely more elegant in terms of design treatment versus the aggressive styling of the new NSX.
I'm not fond of the 458 headlights (but i have to admit they look exotic), but the front bumper is sleek, simple, elegant. Also the illusion of a sleeker car comes from the body / door upper line that seems to me much lower on the 458 while it's not (it's actually a bit higher !). From the side the new NSX redeems itself, but that's where it looks like and updated R8 (looks better than the R8, but still there are some shocking similarities). The rear is taken from the 2015 Accord Coupe, while i like the Accord maybe the design could have been a bit more "unique" and "exotic"...?
The photo posted by Gleibig is much more in line with the design cues of the old NSX than the new one, it's also simple and clean. I hope they'll eventually update the front end...
[MENTION=30943]Adamantium[/MENTION]: not sure what the chassis nodes casting is about, but the twin electric motors are not really new by any means on a production car (see for example Tesla but i recall former examples as well), and DCT is nothing special now either. The first NSX wowed everyone with quite a few world firsts, hence the "eXperimental" in the name, and was an engineering marvel, implementation of seemingly complicated requirements was done in an elegant, simple manner. I see a relation to why so many NSX owners are from an engineering or scientific background. I went to see the new NSX in Geneva and wasnt "wow'ed" by anything apart from the crowds on the usually empty Honda stand, in terms of technology actually i saw much more interesting designs around the BMW i8 (laser headlights ! Here, that's a world first).
The photo posted by Gleibig is much more in line with the design cues of the old NSX than the new one, it's also simple and clean. I hope they'll eventually update the front end...
[MENTION=30943]Adamantium[/MENTION]: not sure what the chassis nodes casting is about, but the twin electric motors are not really new by any means on a production car (see for example Tesla but i recall former examples as well), and DCT is nothing special now either. The first NSX wowed everyone with quite a few world firsts, hence the "eXperimental" in the name, and was an engineering marvel, implementation of seemingly complicated requirements was done in an elegant, simple manner. I see a relation to why so many NSX owners are from an engineering or scientific background. I went to see the new NSX in Geneva and wasnt "wow'ed" by anything apart from the crowds on the usually empty Honda stand, in terms of technology actually i saw much more interesting designs around the BMW i8 (laser headlights ! Here, that's a world first).
Last edited:
The new casting technology is a big thing, very much like the first Aluminum production car. I'm curious to the actual weight of the chassis. I have a feeling it's more for structural and safety measures.
The 4WD hybrid is a first technically at more affordable/accessible position. The 918 is similar, but it costs several times more and only has one motor in the front. There is not a hybrid vehicle that does what the NSX does in mid-engine layout at that.
9 Speed DCT is a new high number of gears for DCT, but not automatics in general.
The 4WD hybrid is a first technically at more affordable/accessible position. The 918 is similar, but it costs several times more and only has one motor in the front. There is not a hybrid vehicle that does what the NSX does in mid-engine layout at that.
9 Speed DCT is a new high number of gears for DCT, but not automatics in general.
I agree the back end is kinda ....mundane ...not as exotic looking as other 150 $+ sports cars....Hey Ted stare at the back end of a zonda for about an hour.....please.....I know you are reading this....and add some alacantra / gathered leather/and carbon to the interior..please.
The twin motor unit is twin motors on the front axle providing torque vectoring. No other hybrid has that. The tesla though full electric has a motor on each axle. Not on each wheel. Even the 918 doesn't have twin motors on the front axle.
Great point Adamantium. And I feel that if they can pull it off, Honda will be the only company that has cracked the "motor at each wheel" code. This could eventually be applied to an all electric vehicle with 4 motors! That seems to be an inevitability with battery tech developing as expected. They would be very well positioned, indeed.
It's why I'm so excited by it.
I believe the electric Mercedes so's had a motor at each wheel but I don't know if it was a genuine production car and it was completely electric.
For me the nsx has by far the most exciting hybrid drivetrain.
The laferrari to me is a cop out as it simply augments big NA engine power all the time. It has no electric only mode, no regen, no low fuel consumption or emissions boasts.
The 918 is much better as it has 4wd, but again single front axle motor and for me, crucially, it lacks a turbo.
The P1 is an abomination, thrown together as an answer to the other two. Its finish is comparable to a kit car. The tech driving its drivetrain is not refined and was rushed through. The torque fill concept is a great label for something that could be excellent but in use is poorly executed. This does not come from first hand experience but from friends who are owners, some of a P1 and one of the others (not both).
Of those that I know the 918 is considered the best package and most developed complete everyday car.
i find this exciting as 918 drivetrain seemed the most intelligent, especially with 4wd, but just lack twin motors and for me, turbo chargers. Then Honda came along and addressed both of those concerns - hence my excitement and my deposit.
I believe the electric Mercedes so's had a motor at each wheel but I don't know if it was a genuine production car and it was completely electric.
For me the nsx has by far the most exciting hybrid drivetrain.
The laferrari to me is a cop out as it simply augments big NA engine power all the time. It has no electric only mode, no regen, no low fuel consumption or emissions boasts.
The 918 is much better as it has 4wd, but again single front axle motor and for me, crucially, it lacks a turbo.
The P1 is an abomination, thrown together as an answer to the other two. Its finish is comparable to a kit car. The tech driving its drivetrain is not refined and was rushed through. The torque fill concept is a great label for something that could be excellent but in use is poorly executed. This does not come from first hand experience but from friends who are owners, some of a P1 and one of the others (not both).
Of those that I know the 918 is considered the best package and most developed complete everyday car.
i find this exciting as 918 drivetrain seemed the most intelligent, especially with 4wd, but just lack twin motors and for me, turbo chargers. Then Honda came along and addressed both of those concerns - hence my excitement and my deposit.
Sure, for the aftermarket.... but you'll lose 1" of ride height too which is a lot and will make the car less ergonomic (for driveways) than Honda designed. Not that it matters, but the height of the car is dictated by the height of the car's floor-to-roof as well as the ground clearance. All of which is dictated in the design phase. -But then again you can change the OD or 'slam' any car to get it lower; but that wasn't my point.
I know it wasn't. I was saying a what-if instance if the car was originally designed to fit smaller wheels and have decent ground clearance.
Many people will lower an inch anyways tho and even the type R version will see some lowering I'm sure.
Unless you change the physical dimensions of the chassis (floor to roof), changing the wheel diameter sill not affect the overall height of the car if you keep the ground clearance the same.
If you put a 2" smaller wheel on the car, the ride height lowers 1" and you increase the wheel-fender gap 1" as well. If you lowered the ride height with coilovers another inch to close this gap back to stick, the car will now have 2" less ground clearance.
Now if Honda kept the same chassis dimensions and ground clearance with 2" smaller wheels, the wheel wells would have been accordingly smaller but the overall height would be the same.
It's likely an NSX-R would be lower, but I would be surprised if they compromised 1" or more of lowering/loss of ground clearance.
0.02
If you put a 2" smaller wheel on the car, the ride height lowers 1" and you increase the wheel-fender gap 1" as well. If you lowered the ride height with coilovers another inch to close this gap back to stick, the car will now have 2" less ground clearance.
Now if Honda kept the same chassis dimensions and ground clearance with 2" smaller wheels, the wheel wells would have been accordingly smaller but the overall height would be the same.
It's likely an NSX-R would be lower, but I would be surprised if they compromised 1" or more of lowering/loss of ground clearance.
0.02
Can someone explain why vehicle height is such a talking point? Is it something to do with the original?
absolutely, this way it looks like a tuned Toyota Celica, from side at least
The 458 and the 488 are both organic designs, they look like animals with flowing skin over muscular haunches; the NSX design is more of a tool, a machine, a knife.
The original NSX did have more of this clean uncluttered shape and emotional appeal, compared to the more sterile shape of the next NSX.
I think that's a big part of the difference in feeling. The 2016 model front end "tries too hard", it reminds me of all these plasticky cheapo people movers that i see all around, with cluttered front ends that try to mask the misery of their design.. That's a bit sad, for instance the design posted by Gleibig is definitely a lot more attractive.
As for innovation, torque vectoring is not new, all i see is an addition of previously done things on a supposedly affordable supercar. I still have to be convinced, maybe the production model road test will take me by surprise, maybe not...
For me personally, even if it has amazing performance, it has to look sexy just standing still.
The GTR has had killer performance for a very long time, it just does not look the part.
The insect-mouth-parts-front-end of the NSX is just plain overdone and lacks a cohesive elegance that so many well executed exotics have and must have.
One should not have to apologize or make excuses for the way one's technological masterpiece of a car with outstanding numbers looks.
Yeah the design should speak by itself. Well it's not a butt-ugly GTRzilla, but I see more of a Nissan Z than a Ferrari or Lambo in there.. Maybe our sensibility to design, some friends of mine (who arent so much into cars, admitted) saw the new NSX at Geneva auto show and told me it looked fantastic. Different tastes, different target ? Maybe we are not the people they aim the new gen at.
Similar threads
