TacoBello

And none of this would have been such a big deal, if Acura/Honda kept their mouths shut about the NSX development.

Instead of announcing the car 3 years in advance, talk about other cars it is bench marking, etc., they should've just stayed quiet for as long as possible.

TacoBello

You should take a read through every Acura model page here on AZ and see how many issues are still occurring with the lineup. The RLX is just over 2 years old and it is showing a plethora of problems. This is completely unacceptable for a flagship sedan.

Back in the day, you could drive a fully optioned out Acura Legend for 6 years before you showed any first signs of problems. Give your head a shake.

Last I heard, Audi has been improving in the long term reliability department. The same cannot be said about Acura, as they continue to slide. Troll.

ttribe

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The Trofeo R is one of the NSX OEM tire choices (3 choices total IIRC). With that said, this tire model isn't as good as the one's from Chevy - which has the Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP.

Lol, tell you something, the 1g NSX has been my dream car since I was 10. I'm still deeply in love with this car, but I'm not blind enough to say it's a handling monster. When people say it's got good handling, what they meant is that, compared to the exotics at that time, the NSX's handling was much more predictable and user-friendly. It can corner very quickly too, without compromising the ride comfort. It has nothing to do with having the fastest cornering speeds. The GT-R, is just as fast, if not faster.

Check this best motoring video of the NSX vs R32 GTR. Note that the NSX got a head start:

It is the NSX Type R that would outcornering almost anything, and can keep up with many cars with way more power.

GT350R: 2:51.8
Car and Driver

NSX: 2:50.2
​Car and Driver

Think people who can afford a $200k car can spend more than the average joe on car parts...if they really want to get into the modding scene?

The problem here is that, you are comparing a everyday supercar, to a car more prepped for the track. Guess what, the Mustang GT350R is also faster than the even more expensive R8 V10 Plus (2:56 at VIR). An even bigger gap. Even the Camaro SS 1LE is faster. So the new R8 must suck right?
Car and Driver

While I'm at it, the $180k Jaguar F-Type Project 7 is also slower.

The problem is, years ago, Honda had absolutely to show for (yup, their fault). That was the time with the 9G Civic, 8G Accord, no S2000, etc. That was their new low pretty much and was desperate to come up with something exciting.

With that said, the likes of GT-R and LFA, they were announced well before the production versions came out too.

Legend2TL

I won't say they chose electronic technology over performance, they choose various technology components over more traditional components. To think a Honda/Acura engineer in Ohio said, "I'm going with the non-performance solution for this problem" is kinda silly to say the least. The NSX was Honda's technology showcase vehicle, everything was the nifty brake by wire, hot metal tube forming of the A-pillars, hybrid torque steer, carbon floor pans, to the sole purpose Cosworth built motor block and heads just to name a few. There's alot going on with 2G NSX, and the hybrid drive tech is similar technology that the very high end exotics share (918, P1, LaFerrari).

Although alot of folks on this forum claim it's a failure, to me it's a "B" overall rating I was expecting better performance. From reading both C&D and MT, it sounds like the front end suspension design/engineering is still giving handling problems which I think is the main reason for the mid-tier track times. The fact that it lacks confidence in feedback and road communication as well as vehical dynamics/kinematics . Although it's heavy, it's not much heavier than a C7 Grand Sport and these tests were run with very similar street rated track tires on the various vehicles. It's performance and luxury are similar to the R8, it's just dumbfounding to think these two high-tech AWD mid-engine $200k exotic cars are out-performed by two American front-engine RWD V8 sports cars, and one with a pushrod NA V8 at that. The real winner to me is the C7 and GT350R, which shows just how far Detroit has come in the past decade.

In the past GM and Ford could build nice looking fast cars but didn't take the time and money to refine them. Lotus showed GM what could be done with the C4 (when GM owned Lotus), with minor tweaks to the chassis and suspension but GM wasn't interested. Pretty impressive what Tadge Juechter and his team came up with on the C7, all on their own. Sometimes it pays to track test, refine, and retest various concepts and designs before setting out for production. Something Porsche, Ferrari, BMW, and Lotus have know for decades that it sometimes takes alot of empirical trail and error at the track to get things right in vehicle design and engineering. i.e. BMW typically developed over 20 different suspension bushings to find the optimal solution of compliance, feedback, friction, and isolation. So while alot of the NSX tech looked good on a PowerPoint and modeling, it doesn't always translate to results at the track. Honda built alot of 2G NSX prototypes so I'm wondering how much variation testing was done on key components?

As for the NSX? Dunno, but if I was chief engineer on the NSX I'd have the chassis team focused on refining/revising/redesigning the suspension design (especially the front end feel/feedback) through mechanical and electronic means.
The rest of the car seems pretty solid, perhaps next year it'll get closer to the 488 and 570.

oonowindoo

after over a decade of R&D and a B overall rating is a failure, especially if you consider what the original NSX had accomplished.

It does not have the best interior
It does not have the fastest laptime among competitors
It is not the fastest in straight
It does not have the best exterior
It is not the cheapest
It does not out handle its competitors
It is not the lightest
It is not purposely built, unless the purpose was being average.

It is not great at anything but good at everything, so pretty much the same as any other Acura in its lineup.

I remember when the R35 GTR first came out, it was so fast in straight and in the corners that many could not believe it. It destroyed almost all the supercars at 1/3 of the price. It might not be the most rewarding car to drive but it was really great at something.

Legend2TL

Those are your opinion, not facts.
You and everyone else know those are highly subjective and not factual.

Never driven one, but have read alot on the 1G NSX and it's design/development and history.
Pretty interesting car to say the least, but that was then this is now so's it's also irrelevant in many ways.

The big issue I see with the 2G NSX is that I don't see any reviews saying how well balanced it is.
That's very important to work out overall performance, inspires confidence and driving fun to me.
It's also something that's incredible hard to engineer unless you have ALOT of prior experience in particular field.
Hence the reason I commend GM and Ford, they make both Audi and Honda look bad with their cars especially the C7 which is not only very high in performance but also is very good in overall quality and has a very nice interior.

And it's not a decade of R&D for this particular car it was a decade of R&D for multiple prototype development which is a important distinction.
It's more like 4 years for this design and development for this particular NSX which got kinda redesigned when the chassis and such had to be redesigned to go from transverse V6 to longitudinal turbo V6.

There's ALOT going on with the 2G NSX in terms of technology and a wealth of system integration.
Some of it works (everyone liked the DBW brakes which surprised me), some needs some work (handling and steering feel/feedback).
Perhaps Honda Ohio should build a Weissach or Fiorano like track in their backyard so they can go out everyday and test.

oonowindoo

Ok let's be factual

Fact - based on the order chart, all NSX are around $200k. Not the cheapest. Even at base MSRP that no one will have for many years, $150k+, still not the cheapest.
Fact - based on the laptime and published 1/4 time, it is not the fastest in straight or in the corner
Fact - it took over a decade in the R&D
Fact - 1G NSX is still relevant because the new one is called NSX! You think all previous gens of iconic cars like Corvette, M3, 911 have no influence or relevance to the new ones?
Fact - in order for it to be called purposely built sports car, it has to outshine its competitors at something... MPG? Ok, if that was the purpose of NSX.

what is the distinction? just because Honda scratched the RWD V10 and went back to the drawing board many times does not mean the clock starts over again.

nist7

Indeed. Acura chose to take this car in a different direction. And as Legend2TL said, I think it is true that they chose the 2G NSX as a tech showcase vehicle that basically is "good" at everything...but not "great" in one particular regard (track times, acceleration, weight, interior/luxury, technologies, etc.) It does hit the styling/looks out of the park so that is one area where I think most people will agree on.

While I too share the sentiment that I wished they had done more into the performance sector. It's a jack of all trades and a master of none.

What is interesting again is how many % of prospective buyers are diehard car enthusiasts (in the performance sense that will go to forums like AZine or regularly read/watch car reviews from CD, MT, the myriad youtube/video reviewers, or read online car blogs. Because from the more hard enthusiast circles, the NSX is not having its praise sung.

We also know that we are a very small minority of the car buying public.

Hehe, pretty much most of the Acura lineup is for the soccer moms.

And the NSX is for the select few soccer moms who have husbands who can afford a 200k car.

Agree with these thoughts. This really shows the incredible performance value of Ford/GM. They are hanging in with cars costing way more.

This may have already been posted (since its July news) but Acura did buy a GT3 as another benchmark vehicle during NSX development and when Acura took it in to get a recall service, Porsche apparently was able to deduce that the car actually belonged to the NSX Development Team and left a little note under the hood for Honda....

http://www.autonews.com/article/2016...out-by-porsche

Legend2TL

The underlining of your posting quoted in my previous post are not factual.

As for these, #1 and #2 are factual.
#3 is highly subjective since officially the current concept of the NSX was released in January 2012. Prior work was R&D but for different high performance project (V10 Front engine/Rear Drive) never released.
#4 and # 5 are your opinion.

You should read up Ford CEO Mulally and 500/Taurus naming sometimes it's just a car name as simple as that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_T...on_and_revival

Costco

Hyperbole, I'm sure... but slow your roll there. A previous gen, shitty Mustang GT (2011 with the Coyote 5.0) was neck and neck with an E92 M3 with almost every measurable performance metric. And when it came to the Boss 302 vs. the M3... let's not go there. It was faster than an R8.

And yes I'm talking laptimes too

oonowindoo

you are saying NSX only took 3 years of R&D before it was road tested?? What does the R stand for in R&D?

Name is more than just name in ANY consumer product business, it has everything to do with the history, prestige, reputation and perception. Those will have impact on its value, expectations, how well it sells, and more realistically the asking price.

No one would give a shit about the new NSX if not because of the old NSX. This thread will not have 191 pages if it is not because of the 1G NSX. The main reason why Honda can sell as many Civics and Accord today is because those names represent something.

As for the 500/Taurus name - they are pretty much the same POS car. they could call it whatever they wanted, it would not have made any difference since no one really cared about the FWD Taurus anyways,

oonowindoo

i did read it, i dont see how it is relevant. Taurus that had no significance at all vs. iconic names like NSX, 911, Corvette, M3, Mustangs and etc...

For example, Acura can rename its RLX to whatever they want. Does not matter. Vs. Chevy renames Corvette to ________

Costco

There's a common saying directed towards those who make excuses for losing in a race.

Run what you brung

Chalk it up to a fail on Acura's R&D department. And regardless of what anyone thinks, Acura will likely have no problem selling most, if not all examples produced, at least in the first few years. People laughed at the thought of a $400k Lexus, but most were accounted for quickly. Then again production was only in the hundreds.

oonowindoo

yah i dont think anyone here had ever doubted that Acura will sell every single NSX they produce, at least for the first few years.

There is a sucker for everything.

Legend2TL

^ you're contradicting yourself in your sentences by saying the car names are important then unimportant.

And no it's not factual but marketing perception in overall car naming.
Sometimes there's a clean start, sometimes there's a revival of the old name.
Been that way for decades, whether it's a Porsche Cayman/911 or a Ford Focus/150.

Legend2TL

FWIW, once a auto manufacturer has decided to produce a new vehicle once they have all their fancy marketing studies and business cases all together, the first engineering step in the process is design and development.
In the auto industry (and other area's) R&D is typically used for researching a particular technology or component and further advancing it's technology readiness level (TRL).
So while R&D worked on stability control, autonomous vehicles technology, radar based active safety systems, electric drivetrains,...they are not developing a car.
So if you wanna blame someone for the 2G NSX or whatever vehicle you wish, you blame design and development engineering assuming they got all the right requirements.

Costco

I actually put marketing in my post as well, after realizing it was more than just R&D, but I was on my phone... not sure what happened there.

But, semantics. k

nist7

Hey. I wouldn't mind being being able to choose between a 2G NSX, a R8, a 911 Turbo S and a 570S when shopping for my next toy and somehow got suckered into the NSX.

Personally the NSX won't likely be on top of my list either if I were hypothetically able to afford a 200k car....but again different buyers prioritize different things and 99% of us who talk about all these cars will never in our life drive one nevertheless be in a situation to own one. The 1%-2% who are the target demographic for these cars are likely not majority car enthusiasts (as the general public are not car enthusiasts) and may not take in to account the same things we do as we discuss things here.

oonowindoo

Ok let me put it in a way that you can understand.

SOME names which i have indicated with the word "iconic" with my previous replies have significant value, prestige, perception which have a direct impact on all future models. (NSX)

SOME names that no one gives a shit about could be gone without people noticing. (Ford Taurus/500) Revival or discontinue would not make any difference.

oonowindoo

Correct. I would not mind owning any one of them because i can't afford it
But if we all had $200k to spend on a toy, NSX and i8 will be on the bottom of my list.

But we are not talking about reality here, since the 99% of us all have very boring life compare to the top 1%.

SSFTSX

It just show you don't know anything about cars. NSX is the most refined and comfortable car in its class. It's gold standard in handling in all weather and all road conditions.

Legend2TL

I understood you the first time, I was merely pointing out your contradicted yourself and it was also your opinion.
And while almost all of us on this forum get the NSX, I doubt the NSX has no where near the name recognition that other high performance cars have.

Legend2TL

And I forgot to mention the C7 GS outperformed the McLaren 570, even despite the 570 having a carbon tub, weighting ~250lb less, and a 102HP more powerful twin turbo V8.
Imagine what a Z06 or Z07 could have done.

srika

there was something screwy with that result - the 570S should have smoked the C7 GS.

srika

Fairly accurate. None of you will admit it except maybe iforyou, but we should be grateful that Acura actually pulled through and PRODUCED this car. An Acura with 570 hp.

Costco

Dude totally. oonowindoo is a big dumb stupidhead. I would take the NSX over all of the competition in that test. I would even pay more for the optional super MPG all-season race slicks.

SSFTSX for site admin!

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The NSX name stands for New Car eXperimental. This pretty much rules out the NSX being a traditional supercar......at least for the base model. If you read about what Ted Klaus says about the NSX, it would be easy to understand what and why they chose to go with the current route for the NSX. Now, whether you agree with what they have done is a totally different topic.

In terms of bang for the buck, the 1g NSX was not known for that either. As proven in my previous post, the R32 GT-R was more than a match for the NSX in a straight line and on a track - all at a fraction of the price.
- The 1g NSX wasn't the cheapest
- The 1g NSX wasn't the fastest
- The 1g NSX didn't have the fastest lap

If you want a track-ready 1g NSX, you'll need the NSX-R. Honda took 120kg away, made the suspension 100% stiffer, and added a bit of power to it. I can see Honda doing similar things to the 2G NSX too.

oonowindoo

i still dont know how i contradicted myself. Because i said they will be sold out?

oonowindoo

Who will win? NSX with factory all season tires or RLX with upgraded tires.

ttribe

srika

Just seen the test results from the MT test. The 570S runs 10.7 @ 132 in the 1/4. The GS does 11.8 @ 118. Not even remotely close.

MSZ

Again from MT:

fsttyms1

Yes it is an oem tire option, but its an R compound. Evidence of how big a diffetence iy makes is compare the difference in results against the R8 between the c&d and motor trend. On street tires the R8 walks it.
Even had it had the michelin it wouldn't have touched the vette.

fsttyms1

Like I said, they were benchmarking it against outgoing models. Their bar should have been much higher knowing that.

VR1

More interested in the GT350 and upcoming Z/28 then I am the NSX lol.

ttribe

SSFTSX

Remember just changing the transmission on MDX from 6sp to 9sp cut half a second from 0-60mile. NSX is just beginning of its era.

Legend2TL

The R on the P ZERO™ TROFEO R is just a nomenclature that it's a higher performance version of their TROFEO line that as Srika pointed out is a NSX OEM tire from Acura. .
None the less, the NSX was ~6 seconds quicker than the R8 at VIR which is substantial amount of time. I still have to read the C&D article and their notes/tech sheet.

http://www.pirelli.com/tyre/ww/en/mo..._trofeo_r.html

Legend2TL

What's interesting from the MT historic VIR tracks tests is that the 2012 458 was just 0.3 sec faster than the NSX, however the 2016 488 is 5.1 sec faster.

So yeah, I also have to wonder why the Honda engineers in Ohio and Japan were not going for a higher level as most of the time when you introduce a car you compare to other current cars but also be aware that you're in the start of the car's lifecycle so there should be a capacity available to evol.

Again the big take away I see is the C7 Z06 is faster than the 488 and 650, for a front engine supercharged single cam pushrod V8 2 valve/cyl that costs a fraction of those mid-engine 650 and 488 with their twin turbo, quad cam, 4 valve/cyl V8's. Honda should have tried to poach Tadge Juechter from GM.

Lightning Lap 2016: Results, Historical Lap Times, and More ? Feature ? Car and Driver