NSX vs STI vs Evo ???

[leonphelpss11]

37 posts, you don't own a NSX (I don't own a X) this is a NSX forum, not hating on the STI, I have a Subie, been thinking of trading in the Outback and getting a STI to drive daily for fun, but it sure as hell isn't a NSX and ask me which one I'd keep, not even a question. After you've owned/driven extensively a NSX, maybe you'd answer the question a little bit differently.

First of all I lurked for a few yrs before I actually decided to post. I was young back then and I'm still young that was why I was kind of hesitant in joining/posting. I can see I was right in not joining until I'm into mid-twenties or even older. This forum is not very welcoming to ppl in teens.

I don't think post count matters very much, ppl have even lower post count then me and know more about cars then probably both of us combined.

I have ridden n driven a NSX before. I don't get what you're trying to say about me answering the question diff? I didn't say the X was a bad car, I just simply said why is everyone bashing on the Evo n STI when they're great cars too.. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about..

 

[N Spec]

Why is everyone bashing on the Evo n STI? Did everyone forget that these are based (tuned down version) on world class rally cars? There is just as much R&D into these car as the X if not more.. They have semi-built 4 bangers capable of handling a lot of HP reliably.. I personally don't think they are ugly, everything is functional and put on there for a purpose...

Not sayin the X isn't a great car, but these cars are great too..

Unfortunately, function /= form or atleast great function does not always equal beautiful form. Many struggle to reach both, but when that harmony is reached, it is indeed a wonderful thing. I believe the NSX is one of few that reached this balance and harmony. Too many cars today are unbalanced on function and sacrifice too much form.

 

[ChopsJazz]

Yes, I hate that. Do you know how many vehicles have an X in their names? TSX, RDX, MDX, WRX, SVX, 300ZX, etc. If anything, calling it the "N" is more appropiate. Not many Ns there are... Sounds quite elusive too, like "the END" haha. IDK, me and my buddies refer to my car as the N for short, much easier and cooler sounding.

Behold, the Nissan NX. :wink:

 

[SCS2k]

My post was not intended to insult the NSX, it is a fantastic car. I sold mine to my brother and will likely buy it back from him some day. The new EVO is quite a nice car, take one for a ride.

Here's mine:

 

[N Spec]

Behold, the Nissan NX. :wink:

Yea, but no one cares for those haha. How many have you seen around? I bet you can't find many others that start with N tho lol. The NX series are ugly as sin. Nissan has made some gorgeous cars but they have their share of weird looking cars.

 

[leonphelpss11]

Unfortunately, function /= form or atleast great function does not always equal beautiful form. Many struggle to reach both, but when that harmony is reached, it is indeed a wonderful thing. I believe the NSX is one of few that reached this balance and harmony. Too many cars today are unbalanced on function and sacrifice too much form.

When i meant everything on there has function, I was kinda referring to everyone calling it a rice box. The huge wing has a purpose and so does the hoodscoop on sti/vent on evo. I don't really think it is ricer at all, its just the F&F fanboys that make it ricer.

 

[ChopsJazz]

I bet you can't find many others that start with N tho lol. The NX series are ugly as sin. Nissan has made some gorgeous cars but they have their share of weird looking cars.

There's always the Pulsar NX. Just look at this happy owner, "Livin' the Dream!" :wink:

 

[N Spec]

When i meant everything on there has function, I was kinda referring to everyone calling it a rice box. The huge wing has a purpose and so does the hoodscoop on sti/vent on evo. I don't really think it is ricer at all, its just the F&F fanboys that make it ricer.

Yea, well I'm sure the huge wing and hoodscoop provides function, but that is part of the reason that the car is unattractive. LIKE I said, function does not always justify form. First, there are several ways to affect aerodynamic. Underbody, overall shape, etc. Second, OMG, I didn't realize this car to be driven on the streets 90% of the time needs THAT much downforce, lol. Function eh? right... I gotta love function that is pretty much useless to me on the streets and then it looks like pooh. It's a lose/lose situation.

Please try to comprehend with me. Function does not justify form. We are in year 2009. We have proven that we can engineer function. We have proven that we can make things go fast, and for a really cheap price. We must rise to the occassion and make the refined decisions to prove that we can engineer function while satisfying eyes and progress ideas of form harmonized with function. This is the next step, or was the next step. I don't really know whats going on as of recently tho, I guess those engineers (safety engineers) are winning their battles... which is hindering aesthestics, performance and efficiency... Bastards... haha. I mean there are fiberglass vettes out there selling by the tens of thousands per year. Why cant some of the other company grow some balls?

 

[Osiris_x11]

finallyyy!!!

... please don't call it an "X". :wink:

2x

"X" ->




(thank you, thank-you... THANK-YOU my friend, for addressing perhaps my one of my single biggest pet'peeves! I'm glad I'm not the only one egregiously & painfully bothered by such a designation...

)


Nota Bena: I used 'X' once & only once when I first came on the forum. Seeing that post now & the inability to edit it makes me wanna hurl my gastro'-contents as projectiles & hurt baby-bunnies w/ dull butter-knives!

 

[leonphelpss11]

Yea, well I'm sure the huge wing and hoodscoop provides function, but that is part of the reason that the car is unattractive. LIKE I said, function does not always justify form. First, there are several ways to affect aerodynamic. Underbody, overall shape, etc. Second, OMG, I didn't realize this car to be driven on the streets 90% of the time needs THAT much downforce, lol. Function eh? right... I gotta love function that is pretty much useless to me on the streets and then it looks like pooh. It's a lose/lose situation.

Please try to comprehend with me. Function does not justify form. We are in year 2009. We have proven that we can engineer function. We have proven that we can make things go fast, and for a really cheap price. We must rise to the occassion and make the refined decisions to prove that we can engineer function while satisfying eyes and progress ideas of form harmonized with function. This is the next step, or was the next step. I don't really know whats going on as of recently tho, I guess those engineers (safety engineers) are winning their battles... which is hindering aesthestics, performance and efficiency... Bastards... haha. I mean there are fiberglass vettes out there selling by the tens of thousands per year. Why cant some of the other company grow some balls?

Lol well there are the people that do track their cars quite often and still DD their car. I do realize it is kinda being marketed for the younger generation. The only thing on the car taht is really ricer is the wing.. Hoodscoop bc its a boxer engine. Vent bc that turbo gets super hot.

I mean look at the gumbert Apollo. Enough down force to drive upside down in a tunnel and yet it can still be driven on the street. I mean just because ppl drive it on the st doesn't mean they don't brg it to the track. It just happens to be a reliable DD while being a great track worthy car.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, but you still gotta respect the Evo and STI. It isn't a rice box, but it comes down to opinion I guess.

 

[N Spec]

There's always the Pulsar NX. Just look at this happy owner, "Livin' the Dream!" :wink:

Man you know what I meant when I said the NX series. The 90s NX were supposed evolutions/the next model of the Pulsar NX from the 80s. That's a hilarious pic tho. Gotta post that next time someone is looking for a sub $20K NSX. Point them in the right direction, minus the $ gets you one of these, haha.

 

[FR500GT]

I think some folks have missed the point, the way I read it anyway.

The OP did not say "I'm trying to decide between and NSX, and an STI/EVO".

He said (I'm paraphrasing) "I think I want an NSX, but I do not know everything about them, how does it compare to my friends' STI/EVO, which I am more familiar with".

OP, feel free to correct me if I have misinterpreted.

You summed it up PERFECTLY!!! Haha some people just need to actually read and digest what i wrote before they attempt to answer it.

Throw on some 215/17 265/17 (or 265/18) and you'll have more grip to work with and will greatly increase the capabilities of the NSX.

Yup, thats the plan.

But when you get one, please don't call it an "X". :wink:

I think ya got me mixed with someone else, I never called it an "X" nor never will. Haha no worries though.

First of all I lurked for a few yrs before I actually decided to post. I was young back then and I'm still young that was why I was kind of hesitant in joining/posting. I can see I was right in not joining until I'm into mid-twenties or even older. This forum is not very welcoming to ppl in teens.

I don't think post count matters very much, ppl have even lower post count then me and know more about cars then probably both of us combined.

I have ridden n driven a NSX before. I don't get what you're trying to say about me answering the question diff? I didn't say the X was a bad car, I just simply said why is everyone bashing on the Evo n STI when they're great cars too.. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about..

I know exactly where your coming from man..And yes i hate how young age is always discriminated against. Its also hard to be taken seriously as a "newb" or have a low post count on a forum. But you gotta start somewhere right. I myself and im guessing you do too, I read and search more than posting, especially since id rather collect info than build my post count by posting stuff like "I like your car" or something like that. I think post count only means something if you been on the forum for a long long time and people know you. I havent been a Newb on a forum in a while haha it sux but again, you gotta start somewhere.

But i can say that ive heard alot of positive things in this thread and those are the things that will stick with me. As for the others who cant seem to read and understand the OP...well good luck in life!:biggrin: haha

Oh and heres the car thats being replaced:

 

[N Spec]

Lol well there are the people that do track their cars quite often and still DD their car. I do realize it is kinda being marketed for the younger generation. The only thing on the car taht is really ricer is the wing.. Hoodscoop bc its a boxer engine. Vent bc that turbo gets super hot.

I mean look at the gumbert Apollo. Enough down force to drive upside down in a tunnel and yet it can still be driven on the street. I mean just because ppl drive it on the st doesn't mean they don't brg it to the track. It just happens to be a reliable DD while being a great track worthy car.

I do understand what you're trying to get at, but you still gotta respect the Evo and STI. It isn't a rice box, but it comes down to opinion I guess.

I do respect the cars for their dollar per performance. But they are still rice boxes. You want fast for easy pocket money, you sacrafice sophistication. But don't sit there and say, I have a beautiful or good looking car, sure it looks perhaps better than average, but not beautiful. Sorry I am strict and disciplined with these ideas of beauty, but the general consensus can agree with me that these car are not meant to be good looking or attractive. So don't be like one of those fat chicks that can perform well in the sack and think they look good.

There are much more refined and sophistacated ways to battle heat issues or aerodynamics. If hoodscoops are someone's answer to cooling a turbo, then there goes the R&D, haha. Ask Lamborghini how a small car (45 in tall car) with a big V10 AWD can keep at operating temp and stable at high speeds without the uses of big wings and look sleek, blanaced, clean and organized. I guess that's part of the reason why they quite cost a bit more than an EVO or STi.

LIKE I said, 90% of the time, these cars are spent on the street. Those few hours of track time you spend do not justify these "functioning" tidbits.

 

[leonphelpss11]

I do respect the cars for their dollar per performance. But they are still rice boxes. You want fast for easy pocket money, you sacrafice sophistication. But don't sit there and say, I have a beautiful or good looking car, sure it looks perhaps better than average, but not beautiful. Sorry I am strict and disciplined with these ideas of beauty, but the general consensus can agree with me that these car are not meant to be good looking or attractive. So don't be like one of those fat chicks that can perform well in the sack and think they look good.

There are much more refined and sophistacated ways to battle heat issues or aerodynamics. If hoodscoops are someone's answer to cooling a turbo, then there goes the R&D, haha. Ask Lamborghini how a small car (45 in tall car) with a big V10 AWD can keep at operating temp and stable at high speeds without the uses of big wings and look sleek, blanaced, clean and organized. I guess that's part of the reason why they quite cost a bit more than an EVO or STi.

LIKE I said, 90% of the time, these cars are spent on the street. Those few hours of track time you spend do not justify these "functioning" tidbits.

At least it isn't part of the cars that spend time in the garage instead of on the street/track. The reason why these cars are spent on the street is because they are reliable enough to be on the street..

Well that is part of the reason why a Lambo or Ferrari is wayy more expensive. You are paying ALOT for the R&D into these cars. I don't have a prob paying something that is ten times less that has a vent and a big wing that is functional. It gets the job done the same as a Ferrari/Lambo, its just a little more showy then they are. Plus the Euro Evo (I forgot what its called) beat that Lambo that has all this R&D so it doesn't need a huge wing/vent..

 

[SD_Rusti]

Keep in mind that you're asking this question in a NSX forum so majority of answers will be biased. May not be completely biased towards the NSX but the judgment scale will have more favor for our cars.

I currently own both an Evo and a NSX. I agree both have their assets/downfalls, as well as the fact, they are on two completely different platforms.

Stock vs. Stock
The Evo has an advantage over the NSX from the line. Although as a previous poster stated the NSX will own the road above 100mph.

From my own experience of handling both cars, I can say that they equally handle turns quite well. Keep in mind that I'm not a professional so my standards may be wrong. The mid-engine helps balance out the void of AWD grip that the Evo has.

In my opinion, the people that said that the NSX has more R&D than the Evo may have their information incorrect. The Evo has been around as long as the NSX, minus one year(1992). The Evo has also had the same engine since it's first production, 2.0 inline 4 DOHC turbo (4g63). There have definitely been slight changes to internals and materials used but nonetheless, same.

In the end, I agree that they are completely different platforms of performance, being one is Exotic Supercar and the other a Supercar.

my .02

 

[SCS2k]

The Evo has also had the same engine since it's first production, 2.0 inline 4 DOHC turbo (4g63). There have definitely been slight changes to internals and materials used but nonetheless, same.


my .02

The EVO no longer uses the 4g63. The new engine is designated the 4B11T.

 

[leonphelpss11]

The EVO no longer uses the 4g63. The new engine is designated the 4B11T.

I think the OP was referring to the evo8-9. Not the X.

 

[SD_Rusti]

The EVO no longer uses the 4g63. The new engine is designated the 4B11T.

I was referring to Evolution 1-9 using 4g63. If you look at the years of the motors use it totals 16 years, which surpasses the years of production the NSX had.

Don't get me wrong i agree both cars are on different platforms of design and competition, but to all the biased posters, the truth is that both are legendary cars and will be the talk for years.

 

[tosugrad]

Neon SRT blows them all away.

 

[leonphelpss11]

I was referring to Evolution 1-9 using 4g63. If you look at the years of the motors use it totals 16 years, which surpasses the years of production the NSX had.

Don't get me wrong i agree both cars are on different platforms of design and competition, but to all the biased posters, the truth is that both are legendary cars and will be the talk for years.

Yeah I agree. The motor must be pretty darn good for it to not have changed much over the years. Which is almost the same for the c30/c32.. They hardly changed the motor bc its already a great motor..

 

[ANYTIME]

Keep in mind that you're asking this question in a NSX forum so majority of answers will be biased. May not be completely biased towards the NSX but the judgment scale will have more favor for our cars.

I currently own both an Evo and a NSX. I agree both have their assets/downfalls, as well as the fact, they are on two completely different platforms.

Stock vs. Stock
The Evo has an advantage over the NSX from the line. Although as a previous poster stated the NSX will own the road above 100mph.

From my own experience of handling both cars, I can say that they equally handle turns quite well. Keep in mind that I'm not a professional so my standards may be wrong. The mid-engine helps balance out the void of AWD grip that the Evo has.

In my opinion, the people that said that the NSX has more R&D than the Evo may have their information incorrect. The Evo has been around as long as the NSX, minus one year(1992). The Evo has also had the same engine since it's first production, 2.0 inline 4 DOHC turbo (4g63). There have definitely been slight changes to internals and materials used but nonetheless, same.

In the end, I agree that they are completely different platforms of performance, being one is Exotic Supercar and the other a Supercar.

my .02

Which cars were we talking about again???

 

[SD_Rusti]

Exotic supercar = NSX

Supercar = Evo, Sti

 

[ANYTIME]

Exotic supercar = NSX

Supercar = Evo, Sti

Now that's funny :tongue:

 

[leonphelpss11]

Now that's funny :tongue:

Maybe he's referring to it performance wise. Stock the fq400 is comparative to a lambo

 

[bfrank1972]

Just because it can go around a track as fast as a Lamborghini does *not* make it comparable to a Lamborghini.