New Technical Details of the Next Generation Acura NSX Revealed

[Adamantium]

I don't think you are wrong about the GT-R's status. I'm hoping the NSX performance is more than a match for the standard GT-R though. I've grown quite used to it and a little bored too.

I suspect the driving dynamics, centre of mass, torque vectoring and chassis layout will make for a much more compelling drive but let's not dismiss the capabilities of the GT-R. Porsche have had to work damn hard to match it for lap times and even now they struggle despite a significant weight advantage. It's difficult to explain that.

 

[2slow2speed]

I don't think you are wrong about the GT-R's status. I'm hoping the NSX performance is more than a match for the standard GT-R though. I've grown quite used to it and a little bored too.

I suspect the driving dynamics, centre of mass, torque vectoring and chassis layout will make for a much more compelling drive but let's not dismiss the capabilities of the GT-R. Porsche have had to work damn hard to match it for lap times and even now they struggle despite a significant weight advantage. It's difficult to explain that.

FYI, The R35 GT-R has had torque vectoring on both front and rear axles since day 1, part of the reasons why the car seems to defy the laws of physics at the track.

Based on the track video of the test mule testing at Sebring the NSX2.0 will probably push in similar ways to the GT-R while cornering, it will probably change directions better than the GT-R since it is mid engined.

 

[Adamantium]

Torque vectoring on the Gtr?

where?

it has an active centre clutch but an open front diff. I didn't think it had brake force distribution.

 

[Superfluous]

my previous statement was talking about the GTR vs. the 911 Turbo S. Superfluous said he was keeping the 911 and selling the GTR to make way for the NSX, that was my point. obviously he likes the Porsche better since he's keeping it and losing the Nissan.

Incorrect. My wife prefers the TTs, although she has finally warmed up to the GT-R, and I wanted to retain some diversity among my cars (e.g., one Euro sports car and one Jap sports car). Personally, I prefer driving the GT-R. It is more visceral and engaging, whereas the TTs is more refined and tame.

I would say that the GTR isn't really competing directly against the new NSX.

The NSX better be competing with the GT-R, because the GT-R defines reasonably priced supercar performance, and that is, to some degree, what Acura is going for with the NSX. Yes, certain people will buy a Ferrari for 3x the price of a GT-R, regardless of performance. The Ferrari name and prestige engenders such loyalty and spending and, frankly, the NSX will have a very difficult time stealing customers loyal to the Ferrari/Lambo brands, who require the prestige that comes with driving these cars -- people who value prestige over performance, and are willing to pay more for the prestige. If Acura is relying upon Ferrari owners to jump ship en masse, it may be sadly disappointed. Therefore, if the NSX is going to prevail, it must steal customers who want reasonably priced supercar performance AND are willing to drive a car that does not carry the Ferrari/Lambo prestige. The GT-R is exactly this type of car. It equals or exceeds Ferrari and Lambo performance, at 1/3 the price, but without the prestige. Ironically, albeit to a lessor degree, the 911 TT is also this type of car. The 911 TT's performance equals or exceeds the Ferrari, but for 1/2 the price. Because the 911 TT lacks the prestige of the Ferrari, people are still willing to spend more for the Ferrari.

If the NSX is going to succeed, it must steal customers who seek reasonably priced supercar performance AND do not demand the prestige associated with owning a Ferrari type car. In other words, Acura must target owners of GT-Rs, 911 TTs, ZO6s (I said it), R8s, and the like.

Going a step further, Acura should carefully study the success of the GT-R. Respectfully, the GT-R does not have classically beautiful looks. As much as I love my GT-R, the 458 is much better looking. Likewise, as much as I love my 911 TTs, the 458 is better looking. Why then do I own these two cars in particular? Insane performance at a reasonable price. Porsche admittedly has a history and prestige factor that helps to sell cars. The GT-R has exactly the opposite -- the Nissan branding has always been a drawback and obstacle for the GT-R -- hence the reason why many GT-R owners remove the Nissan badges. The prior GT-R iterations were obscure anomalies that few outside of Japan and street racers knew about. The GT-R overcame the considerable obstacles and exploded on the market with no history or prestige to speak of, and with the undesirable Nissan branding. The GT-R quickly became a benchmark for sports cars. How did the GT-R do it? Notwithstanding its rather odd appearance, lack of history and undesirable Nissan branding, the GT-R simply outperformed the competition. Thus, people like me -- long time sports car owners previously loyal to Porsche (I owned several) suddenly took notice and entertained the prospect of spending over $100,000 to purchase an odd, relatively unknown car from Nissan in lieu of a tried, tested and safe Porsche.

Acura must overcome similar obstacles if the NSX is to be successful. The NSX -- like the GT-R -- is being offered by a consumer oriented brand that, with one rare exception, is not know for high performance sports cars. Do not under estimate this obstacle. Many people will have a very hard time shelling out over $150,000 for a sports car produced by Acura/Honda (I guarantee you that many NSX 2.0 owners will remove the Acura badges). In the beginning, there will be very little recognition or prestige associated with the car -- just like the GT-R. It took a long time for the GT-R to transcend Nissan -- the NSX must do the same. If the NSX is going to steel customers from Porsche, Audi, Nissan and others, it MUST achieve the same benchmark as the GT-R: insane performance. The NSX must not only do what the GT-R did, but the NSX must do it better in order to steal people who are presently loyal to the GT-R (like me). The NSX must do it better than the 911 TT in order to steal some 911 owners. Fortunately, Acura does not have the looks drawback -- the NSX is much better looking than either the GT-R or the 911 TT.

Some here will observe that Acura offers history and prestige arising from the prior NSX 1.0. Respectfully, the gap between the NSX 1.0 and the NSX 2.0 renders the 1.0 largely irrelevant for purposes of the 2.0's success. The vast majority of people long ago forgot the NSX 1.0. Acura cannot rely on the 1.0 to provide the 2.0 with instant credibility (in the same manner that prior iterations of the 911 create instant credibility for subsequent models). Rather, the NSX 2.0 must make it on its own, just as the GT-R did.

The NSX must follow a very similar path as the GT-R. Thus, Acura better be paying attention to the GT-R . . . close attention

Finally, early reports regarding the R36 GT-R suggest that it may compete with the P1 and 918, again for a small fraction of the price. Therefore, Acura should not only be looking back at what the R35 GT-R did, but also forward at the next GT-R which may set all new standards for "reasonably priced super car performance."

I'm hoping the NSX performance is more than a match for the standard GT-R though.

Its gotta be. I am counting on it!

 

[2slow2speed]

Torque vectoring on the Gtr?

where?

it has an active centre clutch but an open front diff. I didn't think it had brake force distribution.

Yep you are right the GT-R has an open front differential on the front axle but the car does have EBD.

 

[fastaussie]

Yep you are right the GT-R has an open front differential on the front axle but the car does have EBD.

2slow is correct. you can feel it when pushing the car hard. you can feel all the computer interaction, one of the biggest complaints with the GTR. there is simply too much of it.

Personally, I prefer driving the GT-R. It is more visceral and engaging, whereas the TTs is more refined and tame.

more tame? are you sure you have the Turbo version of the 911?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox5Fi_lLfpk

my seat-of-the-pants impressions, and every video and real life comparison I've ever seen between the Porsche and Nissan, the 911 always rips the GTR a new one, always.

watch this video with the 600 horsepower Nismo version GTR, still gets smoked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ9NVz_LKj8

Yes, certain people will buy a Ferrari for 3x the price of a GT-R

you're right about that, I sure as hell would. in an instant!

have you ever driven a 458? you mentioned it quite a lot, but mostly in the looks department.

I can only ask because if you had, you would consider the GTR to be slow, fat, wobbly, and an anchor without properly functioning brakes. stock for stock, there is no comparison. I don't spend much time driving any of these cars on the street (where the limits are much more accessible and shortcomings hidden). but there's a reason, actually many reasons why the 458 is considered the best car on the planet (save the new Hypercars which are otherworldly, although the 458 Speciale is hot on their heals), and has been since it's inception. if you're talking 0 to 60 times, then yes, the performance of the GTR and even quicker 911 Turbo S are superior, as any AWD car of this calibre should be. but not for long, and not around a proper racetrack. the Ferrari turns, stops, and accelerates more quickly than either once on the move. it has almost no perceivable body roll, whereas the GTR moves around like a cruise ship on rough seas any time the weight transitions front to back, or side to side. the 911 splits the difference more or less, but it isn't as thrilling of a ride as the 458 either, not even close. the 458 is like a big go kart with 560 horsepower. and the 488 takes that notch up another 100 ponies, which I cannot wait to see.

you're absolutely right that some people do buy Ferrari's for the prestige. but some people buy them for what they were made for also. you mention the price of the new NSX at $150,000, but that hasn't been confirmed yet as far as I know, like everything else about the car? 458 prices are now just under $200,000. that's R8 V10 and 911 Turbo S territory. I think that's your main NSX competition. as it's been said before, an optioned out NSX could easily be close to that, maybe $170,000 to $180,000? currently a fully equipped GTR is significantly closer to $100,000 than $200,000.

the NSX will indeed have to possess the same performance as the GTR, which I already said. basically every Supercar out there must possess this performance, it’s not an option, it’s a requirement. If the NSX doesn’t possess this type of performance, it will fail on the global Supercar stage, as has also been said already.

but again, in my opinion I don't see a lot of people deciding whether to purchase a GTR or an NSX. some will yes, but they're very different cars designed for different crowds, in a lot of ways. I can't see Honda's and Nissan's design briefs being at all similar...

 

[Superfluous]

more tame? are you sure you have the Turbo version of the 911?

Yes, a Turbo S, and my second 911 Turbo – my wife drives the NA.

Perhaps “tame” was a poor choice of words. The Porsche is more refined, which is why my wife prefers it. The GT-R is more raw and visceral, which is why I love it.

have you ever driven a 458?

Yes, albeit not on a track, and not aggressively. It’s a great car.

I don't spend much time driving any of these cars on the street

This may be the primary reason for the differences in our opinions. I drive my cars exclusively on the street and, therefore, street performance is paramount. As you correctly observe, there are many differences between street driving and track driving. The GT-R excels on the street, and exceeds the 458 in certain metrics relevant to street performance

if you're talking 0 to 60 times, then yes, the performance of the GTR and even quicker 911 Turbo S are superior, as any AWD car of this calibre should be. but not for long, and not around a proper racetrack.

Given my focus on street driving, 0-60 is absolutely a relevant and important consideration. I spend far more time accelerating from a stop than I do accelerating from 100 to 200, or driving a road course.

you're absolutely right that some people do buy Ferrari's for the prestige. but some people buy them for what they were made for also.

The vast majority of Ferraris never get near a track. I am not suggesting that people only buy Ferraris for prestige, but most do not buy them for the track (with few exceptions).

the NSX will indeed have to possess the same performance as the GTR, which I already said. basically every Supercar out there must possess this performance, it’s not an option, it’s a requirement. If the NSX doesn’t possess this type of performance, it will fail on the global Supercar stage, as has also been said already.

Agreed.

but again, in my opinion I don't see a lot of people deciding whether to purchase a GTR or an NSX. some will yes, but they're very different cars designed for different crowds, in a lot of ways.

Disagree. They are both $100,000 plus Japanese sports cars (as distinct from Euro sports cars). Many will compare them. Many will shop them both, along with other cars.

Most importantly, notwithstanding their differences, the NSX and the GT-R must overcome similar obstacles. The GT-R succeeded. I hope the NSX will as well.

- - - Updated - - -

seat-of-the-pants impressions, and every video and real life comparison I've ever seen between the Porsche and Nissan, the 911 always rips the GTR a new one, always. . . . but there's a reason, actually many reasons why the 458 is considered the best car on the planet . . . around a proper racetrack. the Ferrari turns, stops, and accelerates more quickly than either once on the move. it has almost no perceivable body roll, whereas the GTR moves around like a cruise ship on rough seas any time the weight transitions front to back, or side to side. the 911 splits the difference more or less, but it isn't as thrilling of a ride as the 458 either, not even close. the 458 is like a big go kart with 560 horsepower. and the 488 takes that notch up another 100 ponies, which I cannot wait to see.

As previously stated, I am not track driver. That said, I found this link interesting: https://nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times-top-100/

The following are lap times around the Nurburgring and, while you may not consider this an appropriate benchmark track, the Nurburgring is indisputably the benchmark track for manufacturers and much of the auto enthusiast community:

Nissan GT-R Nismo: 7:08.68
Nissan GT-R: 7:19.10
Ferrari 458: 7:28 (20 seconds slower than the Nismo GT-R and 9 seconds slower than the normal GT-R).
Porsche 911 Turbo S: 7:32

While I'm sure that the 458 fairs better on other tracks, including those with tighter turns, it appears that the "cruise ship" holds its own on the king of tracks.

 

[fastaussie]

I would absolutely agree with most of what you just said.

the Porsche is definitely more refined for normal driving than the GTR, like you said.

most people do buy Ferrari's purely for the prestige, but believe it or not, there is a good amount of individuals with way too much money who track or race the hell out of their cars. as it's been said, "there are two types of people who buy Ferrari's. there are those that want to be seen in a Ferrari, and those that want to drive a Ferrari". that statement sums it up pretty well.

the new NSX does have its legendary namesake for a good head start. now it just needs to run with the rest of the established big dogs, which we'll find out soon enough, err...hopefully. the GTR has been a long running success in other parts of the world for decades. there's heaps of them all over Australia and Asia, and some in Europe as well. and even the previous iterations had a cult following here in America. so I don't necessarily feel it had much of a hurdle when it debuted. if anything the mystique may have actually helped it? and it was pretty cheap to start off with, so that didn't hurt either. however I can't see a $150,000 to $200,000 GTR doing as well on the sales floor, I really can't. I'd wager they wouldn't sell half as many, if that. most people would not pay that for a Nissan. and that might be the biggest problem with the new NSX. how many people will pay $150,000 to $200,000 for a Honda? we know people will shell that out all day for an Audi, Porsche or Ferrari.

some of the prestige will undoubtedly come from the numbers the new NSX can produce. we know how it's going to produce it's power, now we just have to wait and see how much?



p.s. Nurburgring times? yeah, I dunno about those numbers? I just don't see how that's even possible for a GTR to be that much quicker than a 458, I really don't, or even a 911 Turbo S? considering the Porsche 918 did the ring in 6:57, arguably the fastest actual street car, that's 11 seconds quicker than a Nismo GTR. and we all know the 911 Turbo S is considerably quicker in acceleration, and 400+ lighter than a Nismo GTR, but it did the ring 24 seconds slower? that doesn't add up to me at all? hard to say how controlled all those numbers are? different drivers, different tires, different states of tune, different grip levels/weather/air temperature, etc.

the video below shows when Chris Harris on Cars tested a Porsche 918 and Ferrari 458 Speciale at Portimao in Portugal, the Speciale was 2 seconds a lap off the mighty 918 on a roughly 2 minute lap. that is sensational for a car with 2/3's the power. below is that video, which includes some other amazing cars and reviews also:

https://youtu.be/vm4ajQxImhE

 

[seaeyes]

You can't imagine GTR Nismo is faster than 911 Turbo S? You can watch this video (Z06 and GTR Nismo head to head): https://youtu.be/vm4ajQxImhE. Z06 is 50 hp higher in output, 170 lbft more in torque, and 354 lb lighter in weight than GTR Nismo (spec-wise, Z06 is even 'better' than 911 turbo s, isn't it?), but the result is that Z06 was 1.4 sec slower in a 90 sec track. Driver was the same, temperature and weather were all the same. They even drove Z06 for more laps, and tried removing the spoiler, managing very hard in Z06 for a better score. But the result tells everything. AWD is the king here. So if GTR Nismo is faster than 911 Turbo S, I'm totally not surprised. 'curb weight' and 'higher HP' doesn't mean much in real track driving.

Another thing is Ferrari sometimes is overrated. A famous journalist recently disclosed that for a super car head to head, Ferrari refused to provide a LF (while Porsche provided 918 and Maclaren provided P1), and even prevented a private owner from providing his own LF for the contest. Besides, Ferrari typically use two different cars (tuned differently), one specifically for straight line acceleration and another for lap time. Therefore, 'quicker in acceleration' also doesn't mean anything.

As a result, if you judge a car by adding up 'curb weight', 'HP & torque' and '0-60 acceleration', the result can be very misleading. Real world lap time tested by the third party is much more meaningful.

p.s. Nurburgring times? yeah, I dunno about those numbers? I just don't see how that's even possible for a GTR to be that much quicker than a 458, I really don't, or even a 911 Turbo S? considering the Porsche 918 did the ring in 6:57, arguably the fastest actual street car, that's 11 seconds quicker than a Nismo GTR. and we all know the 911 Turbo S is considerably quicker in acceleration, and 400+ lighter than a Nismo GTR, but it did the ring 24 seconds slower? that doesn't add up to me at all? hard to say how controlled all those numbers are? different drivers, different tires, different states of tune, different grip levels/weather/air temperature, etc.

 

[fastaussie]

you're not telling me anything i don't know here. of course AWD cars put the power down better, they have twice as many contact patches to spread out the horsepower and torque. keep in mind, Corvettes are notoriously hard to hook up under power, they're pretty tail happy everywhere, even more so than the average rear drive car.

i get what you're saying, i'm only giving you my opinion from driving both the GTR and 911 Turbo S on the same track, on the same day, same tires, back to back. with me as the same driver.

i also know all about the trifecta Hypercar face-off that has yet to happen. Ferrari has their own reasons, whatever they are. just so you know, McLaren wasn't keen on the idea for a while either. but i'd happily bet you the LaFerrari would be the faster car of the three...

 

[N Spec]

I can't see Honda's and Nissan's design briefs being at all similar...

This is one of those rare occasions I agree FA. The GTR and NSX are two very different types of cars, design-wise, prestige perception, and price-wise. Very much like the LFA from Toyota being thrown in mix also. Now if Toyota and Nissan were to make a mid-engine in the future at the same price range, it would be a different story.

I also agree that the comparisons are inevitable because that's what humans do. Compare and contrast. This is especially true when the supercar selection is truly not that vast as some would have you believe by saying "O, another mid-engine sports car or twin turbo supercar." There's really not that many supercars to choose from. There's many high horsepower cars to choose from, but not "supercars." It would not hurt to have more options...

 

[Adamantium]

While I have been a GT-R owner and have a deposit down and money aside for the NSX I agree that I'm not a typical owner. The GT-R is an aspirational purchase for those wanting super car performance without the price tag. The NSX has the price tag.

i liked the GTR because it was a technical powerhouse and that appeals to me far more than brand image or even aesthetics. The NSX will steal that crown hence why it has my attention. Much as I could buy a 458 or 488 the latter appealing to me on looks alone already, when I look at the spec sheet I consider the drivetrain to be archaic.

If the NSX also happens to deliver a great drive for me it's the perfect car. It's also been a while since I've had a low slung mid engine car which always has the feel of exotica in a way no Gtr will ever be able to.

 

[fastaussie]

While I have been a GT-R owner and have a deposit down and money aside for the NSX I agree that I'm not a typical owner.

If the NSX also happens to deliver a great drive for me it's the perfect car. It's also been a while since I've had a low slung mid engine car which always the feel of exotica in a way no Gtr will ever be able to.

there are many parameters by which most people judge what is an exotic vehicle and what is not. some by performance alone, some by gawk/wow factor, some by an astronomical price tag, some by the unobtanium and absurdly expensive materials used in its construction, and some by the literal definition of a far away country of origin. but however one defines it, i would absolutely agree, the GTR is not it.

This is one of those rare occasions I agree FA. The GTR and NSX are two very different types of cars, design-wise, prestige perception, and price-wise. Very much like the LFA from Toyota being thrown in mix also. Now if Toyota and Nissan were to make a mid-engine in the future at the same price range, it would be a different story.

I also agree that the comparisons are inevitable because that's what humans do. Compare and contrast. This is especially true when the supercar selection is truly not that vast as some would have you believe by saying "O, another mid-engine sports car or twin turbo supercar." There's really not that many supercars to choose from. There's many high horsepower cars to choose from, but not "supercars." It would not hurt to have more options...

i don't know what the hell is going on here to be quite honest, but i'm a little concerned. we have unprecedented and accelerated climate change and natural disasters like never before, rapidly escalating tensions and unrest in the middle east, and now above all, N Spec is consistently agreeing with me! is this the end of the world?!

p.s. the LFA is still exotic and bad arse... :biggrin:

 

[seaeyes]

You drive both GTR nismo and 911 Turbo S, and in the same track? By how much 911 Turbo S is faster than Gtr Nismo? Just wanna know the number

you're not telling me anything i don't know here. of course AWD cars put the power down better, they have twice as many contact patches to spread out the horsepower and torque. keep in mind, Corvettes are notoriously hard to hook up under power, they're pretty tail happy everywhere, even more so than the average rear drive car.

i get what you're saying, i'm only giving you my opinion from driving both the GTR and 911 Turbo S on the same track, on the same day, same tires, back to back. with me as the same driver.

i also know all about the trifecta Hypercar face-off that has yet to happen. Ferrari has their own reasons, whatever they are. just so you know, McLaren wasn't keen on the idea for a while either. but i'd happily bet you the LaFerrari would be the faster car of the three...

 

[fastaussie]

i think we're getting really far off course here, as this thread isn't about those two cars. PM me if you have any further inquiries.

to answer your question, it's a consistent 1.5+ seconds for me. the Porsche accelerates harder (as youtube and any magazine will attest), weighs 400+ lbs. less, and seems more controlled in the suspension dept. the heft of the GTR is felt everywhere at the racetrack. under braking, turning, and acceleration, and especially when combining any of those. the GTR feels like it's geared lower, which makes it quick of the line from a dead stop, but the Turbo S is still quicker in a drag race. the Nismo GTR i have not personally driven, i'm talking only about the Track Edition GTR. i don't like the look or the sound, or the fact that it runs through oil by a quart or more each day under hard abuse, but for me it's the excess weight that's the problem.

lighter is better in every facet of performance. a car turns, stops, corners and accelerates better with less weight to control. that is the battle with the new "battery cars", getting the weight down. a 3700 lbs. NSX is a good bit heavier than the original, almost 25%. but it seems comparable to the Porsche hybrid of the moment.

according to the numbers given, the LaFerrari should weigh 2766 lbs., with 950 combined horsepower
the P1 roughly 3200 lbs., with 903 combined horsepower
the 918, 3615 lbs. with 887 combined horsepower

while the new NSX and 918 aren't super light, they're still a good bit lighter than a GTR. but a major difference is that they probably carry that weight a lot lower and closer to the ground.

the Lamborghini Huracan is said to weigh about 3400 lbs., which is great for an AWD car, and it gets to 60 mph in 2.5 seconds flat, like the Porsche 911 Turbo S. so you definitely need about 600 horsepower and AWD to achieve under 3.0 second 0-to-60 times, that's the formula. i would reckon the new NSX is good for that number based on what we know so far. as with the GTR and Aventador, or the Veyron, 0-to-60 is all about max thrust and grip. lap times factor in many other variables.

the GTR is undoubtedly quick around race tracks, no question. it cannot be disputed. i dunno how, but the Japanese code programmers sure do...

 

[stuntman]

NSX has Ohio code programmers.

 

[fastaussie]

is that better or worse?

 

[Adamantium]

Fastaussie, i think you have had very limited experience of gtrs based in what you are saying. I've had five and not one has ever needed a drop of oil between services.

The weight has been a talking point since it was released and to this day i don't understand the argument for more weight but as you've touched upon there's some magic in the make up of the car. If you plot power to weight ratio against ring lap time its pretty much a straight line except for the gtr which is way out on its own.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

we have unprecedented and accelerated climate change and natural disasters like never before

 

[fastaussie]

Fastaussie, i think you have had very limited experience of gtrs based in what you are saying. I've had five and not one has ever needed a drop of oil between services.

I have years of race track experience with GTR's. do you run your cars at the race track? the ones we have run hard all day long use a minimum of a quart of oil, some as much as two over the course of a day. the rears of the cars were covered in it, they burned it up at an alarming rate, which was quite unexpected for a Japanese automobile...

 

[hunchback]

The NSX better be competing with the GT-R, because the GT-R defines reasonably priced supercar performance, and that is, to some degree, what Acura is going for with the NSX. Yes, certain people will buy a Ferrari for 3x the price of a GT-R, regardless of performance. The Ferrari name and prestige engenders such loyalty and spending and, frankly, the NSX will have a very difficult time stealing customers loyal to the Ferrari/Lambo brands, who require the prestige that comes with driving these cars -- people who value prestige over performance, and are willing to pay more for the prestige. If Acura is relying upon Ferrari owners to jump ship en masse, it may be sadly disappointed. Therefore, if the NSX is going to prevail, it must steal customers who want reasonably priced supercar performance AND are willing to drive a car that does not carry the Ferrari/Lambo prestige. The GT-R is exactly this type of car. It equals or exceeds Ferrari and Lambo performance, at 1/3 the price, but without the prestige. Ironically, albeit to a lessor degree, the 911 TT is also this type of car. The 911 TT's performance equals or exceeds the Ferrari, but for 1/2 the price. Because the 911 TT lacks the prestige of the Ferrari, people are still willing to spend more for the Ferrari.

If the NSX is going to succeed, it must steal customers who seek reasonably priced supercar performance AND do not demand the prestige associated with owning a Ferrari type car. In other words, Acura must target owners of GT-Rs, 911 TTs, ZO6s (I said it), R8s, and the like.

Going a step further, Acura should carefully study the success of the GT-R. Respectfully, the GT-R does not have classically beautiful looks. As much as I love my GT-R, the 458 is much better looking. Likewise, as much as I love my 911 TTs, the 458 is better looking. Why then do I own these two cars in particular? Insane performance at a reasonable price. Porsche admittedly has a history and prestige factor that helps to sell cars. The GT-R has exactly the opposite -- the Nissan branding has always been a drawback and obstacle for the GT-R -- hence the reason why many GT-R owners remove the Nissan badges. The prior GT-R iterations were obscure anomalies that few outside of Japan and street racers knew about. The GT-R overcame the considerable obstacles and exploded on the market with no history or prestige to speak of, and with the undesirable Nissan branding. The GT-R quickly became a benchmark for sports cars. How did the GT-R do it? Notwithstanding its rather odd appearance, lack of history and undesirable Nissan branding, the GT-R simply outperformed the competition. Thus, people like me -- long time sports car owners previously loyal to Porsche (I owned several) suddenly took notice and entertained the prospect of spending over $100,000 to purchase an odd, relatively unknown car from Nissan in lieu of a tried, tested and safe Porsche.

Acura must overcome similar obstacles if the NSX is to be successful. The NSX -- like the GT-R -- is being offered by a consumer oriented brand that, with one rare exception, is not know for high performance sports cars. Do not under estimate this obstacle. Many people will have a very hard time shelling out over $150,000 for a sports car produced by Acura/Honda (I guarantee you that many NSX 2.0 owners will remove the Acura badges). In the beginning, there will be very little recognition or prestige associated with the car -- just like the GT-R. It took a long time for the GT-R to transcend Nissan -- the NSX must do the same. If the NSX is going to steel customers from Porsche, Audi, Nissan and others, it MUST achieve the same benchmark as the GT-R: insane performance. The NSX must not only do what the GT-R did, but the NSX must do it better in order to steal people who are presently loyal to the GT-R (like me). The NSX must do it better than the 911 TT in order to steal some 911 owners. Fortunately, Acura does not have the looks drawback -- the NSX is much better looking than either the GT-R or the 911 TT.

Some here will observe that Acura offers history and prestige arising from the prior NSX 1.0. Respectfully, the gap between the NSX 1.0 and the NSX 2.0 renders the 1.0 largely irrelevant for purposes of the 2.0's success. The vast majority of people long ago forgot the NSX 1.0. Acura cannot rely on the 1.0 to provide the 2.0 with instant credibility (in the same manner that prior iterations of the 911 create instant credibility for subsequent models). Rather, the NSX 2.0 must make it on its own, just as the GT-R did.

The NSX must follow a very similar path as the GT-R. Thus, Acura better be paying attention to the GT-R . . . close attention

Finally, early reports regarding the R36 GT-R suggest that it may compete with the P1 and 918, again for a small fraction of the price. Therefore, Acura should not only be looking back at what the R35 GT-R did, but also forward at the next GT-R which may set all new standards for "reasonably priced super car performance."



Its gotta be. I am counting on it!

Very well stated. I agree.

 

[Adamantium]

I have years of race track experience with GTR's. do you run your cars at the race track? the ones we have run hard all day long use a minimum of a quart of oil, some as much as two over the course of a day. the rears of the cars were covered in it, they burned it up at an alarming rate, which was quite unexpected for a Japanese automobile...

Were these early GT-Rs? I've had five, three of which have been on track though not extensively. The gentleman who bought my fifth took his previous on track for possibly 35,000 of its 45,000 mile life and has never complained about oil consumption.

One of my good friends is Iain Litchfield who is one of the most respected GT-R tuners in the world and in discussions with him, he does not consider the GT-R to be a notable oil drinker. It's actually the first time I've heard of it.

 

[fastaussie]

I have personally seen several (stock) GTR's drink quite a bit of oil when driven hard at the race track, a minimum of a quart throughout the day. maybe it's an American model GTR thing, I dunno? they also seem to need a lot of computer work as well, a little reprogramming throughout the day. I'm no GTR expert, but this is what I have seen with my own eyes. your cars sound extremely modified, maybe it's more a problem with stock GTR's and stock components?

i was as surprised as anyone to hear the Nissan burns so much oil, that any new, high performance Japanese engine would. one thing I can say for sure, I certainly wouldn't expect the new NSX to have that problem...

- - - Updated - - -

Were these early GT-Rs? I've had five, three of which have been on track though not extensively. The gentleman who bought my fifth took his previous on track for possibly 35,000 of its 45,000 mile life and has never complained about oil consumption.

One of my good friends is Iain Litchfield who is one of the most respected GT-R tuners in the world and in discussions with him, he does not consider the GT-R to be a notable oil drinker. It's actually the first time I've heard of it.

your bewilderment with my statements had me wondering if I was imagining this memory, so I did a Google search for giggles. this picture is from the first page of the results. evidently it is a known problem, one kept under wraps however.

looks like an earlier car issue, 2009 to 2012 posts? some in the UK, which is where you are no?

 

[Adamantium]

Don't get me wrong, I've seen it on rare occasions, it's just very much the exception rather than the norm. My cars ranged from close to standard to heavily modded, but regardless, Gtr is my past, am looking to the future.

Only realised today that the P1 and 918s are plug ins. I think the i8 is too. Any thoughts as to why the NSX isn't? I think it's a shame as I'd like to do the school run using household electricity bills.

 

[fastaussie]

I thought you said you hadn't heard of it before?

Only realised today that the P1 and 918s are plug ins. I think the i8 is too. Any thoughts as to why the NSX isn't? I think it's a shame as I'd like to do the school run using household electricity bills.

that is a really great question actually? wondering why it isn't myself, of any manufacturer you would expect Honda more than McLaren or Porsche to have an electrical plug...