When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
.Think you missed my point. I said the as tested price of the NSX is $200k because it's fully loaded with a bunch of CF pieces which don't do anything to performance. The only performance option is the carbon ceramic brake options for $10k...for a total of $167,700. What this means is that, the fully loaded $200k NSX does not perform any better than a $168k NSX with carbon ceramic brakes.
Instead of repeating the same thing over & over explain how you know more about what performance enhancements were on the car & how much they cost than the guys who drove it in the test who said.
"starts at $156,940 and surpasses 200 grand with our $46,160 suite of options (about $30K of which makes it go faster), meaning that it’s expensive and powerful and its lap time should be down there with the expensive and powerful cars. "
In the most simple of terms which part of this statement don't you understand? (about $30K of which makes it go faster) Mathematically $30K is $20K more than $10K.
Instead of repeating the same thing over & over explain how you know more about what performance enhancements were on the car & how much they cost than the guys who drove it in the test who said.
Once again, it's hard to argue with someone who's deeply devoted to the company. Not just particular cars, as he puts it, but the brand as a whole. I'm not trying to be an a$$... just saying it how I see it.
Instead of repeating the same thing over & over explain how you know more about what performance enhancements were on the car & how much they cost than the guys who drove it in the test who said.
"starts at $156,940 and surpasses 200 grand with our $46,160 suite of options (about $30K of which makes it go faster), meaning that it’s expensive and powerful and its lap time should be down there with the expensive and powerful cars. "
In the most simple of terms which part of this statement don't you understand? (about $30K of which makes it go faster) Mathematically $30K is $20K more than $10K.
Yes I know what they wrote. Thank you for your kind explanation though.
With all due respect, my point is, when building the NSX using the configurator, the only option that really improves performance would be the carbon ceramic brakes (bold part in red below) :
1. Paint: $0 to $6000
2. Seats: $0 to $2500
3. Wheels; $0 to $1500 4. Brakes: $0 to $10,600 ($9900 with black calipers)
5. Exterior Pkg: $9000 for CF pkg
6. Spoiler: $3000 for CF
7. Engine Cover: $3600 for CF
8. Headliner: $1300 for Alcantara
9. Interior Pkg: $2900 for CF
10. Audio and Tech: $3300 for best pkg
11. Roof: $6k for CF
Did I make myself clear here? The other items are either for aesthetics, or negligible. The only other item that MAY count as performance upgrade is perhaps the CF roof, even though it's only replacing an aluminum roof, as opposed to a steel roof. In other words, the weight saving is minimal at best.
Oh, and of course, the $2k tire option. My bad, my math was wrong. I am so sorry. Oh gee. How could I? It's roughly $10k + $2k. I'm so sorry for that mistake.
C&D said "$21,600 will buy you just enough carbon fiber to reskin the roof, engine cover, splitter*, sills*, diffuser* & spoiler* as seen on our $202,960 test car" The roof on CF is lighter than stock. Not a big deal but it still cuts high up weight & improves the COG location.
Example The M4 comes with a CF roof & engine cover while the 440 does not.
*high speed enhancement items
Example The CF spoiler sits on top of the standard spoiler making it taller = more effective.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-09-2016 at 12:45 AM.
Yup, hence I said, "The only other item that MAY count as performance upgrade is perhaps the CF roof, even though it's only replacing an aluminum roof, as opposed to a steel roof. In other words, the weight saving is minimal at best."
For instance, in my S2000, the stock aluminum hood is 20lb. The Amuse S2000's hood is about 10lb. So that's 10lb of saving by replacing the S2000's AL hood with dry CF. The NSX's roof is about 50-70% smaller than the S2000's hood (the s2000's hood is very long as Honda tried to achieve 50/50 weight distribution). We are talking may be 4lb weight saving here. If the stock NSX roof is made of steel like most other cars, then the saving would be more more noticeable.
The curb weight of the NSX without options on Acura.com is 3803lb. The NSX with all the options (all the CF stuff, audio, carbon brakes, etc) in the C/D test is 3863lb. Carbon Ceramic brakes are generally lighter than regular brakes. If a stock NSX without options is 3803lb, one equipped with JUST the carbon ceramic brakes should be around 37xx lb. But with all the other options added, like power seats, audio, etc, it actually adds more weight than the CF saving.
So ya, if anything, a fully loaded NSX is actually heavier than a NSX with just the carbon ceramic brakes option....
All that "stuff" is aero that helps road course performance.
Look at the Stingray Z06. To make it a Z07 you add Brembo brakes, Sport Cup Tires, Suspension option, Carbon Fiber Ground Effects package unique to the Z06. This package includes visiable carbon fiber splitter, rockers & a more aggressive spoiler.
On 0-60 the Drag Strip & Top speed the Z06 eats the Z07 options lunch because of the heavy down force of the ground effects package. One a road course its just the opposite because the down force aids the Z06 option getting around corner at a higher speed than the Z06.
No difference with the NSX the ground effects package (sport Package) is its best shot on a road course but it was not good enough against the GS.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-09-2016 at 04:54 PM.
Not sure if you looked on Acura website, but that "stuff," the CF aero parts, are of the same shape and design as the regular plastic pieces. They aren't something more aggressive/bigger aero trims that increase downforce compared to the stock aero pieces.
The Corvette has a large pool of upgrades, including different stages of aero parts. They get more aggressive as you move to the next stage. This is not the same as the NSX. I'm not sure if you see the difference here.
Yes, you are absolutely correct that the Corvette has better aero options than the NSX. That's what I've been saying. Which is one reason it dominates on the track. It's not just the NSX that it is faster, it's also faster than many other exotics, like 911 Turbo S, R8, 570S. The NSX does not have a "stage 2 and/or stage 3 aero package like the Vette or some other cars. Traditionally, this is where the Type R version comes in. Perhaps, Honda can consider making the NSX GT3 aero pkg available for the NSX. At that time, then we can call that an aero upgrade.
Not sure if you looked on Acura website, but that "stuff," the CF aero parts, are of the same shape and design as the regular plastic pieces. They aren't something more aggressive/bigger aero trims that increase downforce compared to the stock aero pieces..
stock spoiler
Carbon Fiber Spoiler
The CF sits on top of the stock unit & extends its height. It also adds side fences extending forward to keep air on the spoiler. Basically its just more aggressive than pure stock.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-10-2016 at 02:32 AM.
How about the side sills, rear diffuser, and front spoilers?
How about for Lightning Laps all the manufactures were told to show up with their best shot at winning & Honda showed up a NSX that had an as-tested price: $203,100 with all the carbon filer parts in place not the plastic versions. Unfortunately it was not good enough after all the game changer hype
One would think they did everything possible to make the car as quick as the could knowing the competition. If the plastic part were better they would have been there instead. Maybe they learned something since they have pulled the electric motors from their go fast versions for international competition but not the carbon fiber parts which are still on the factory as go fast parts, not the plastic versions...
Based on what Jeff (from TOV) was saying, many of the tests were conducted on pre-production NSX's. He doesn't think there were that many varieties.
Going by your logic, the "best" 911 Turbo S would have been one with all those CF pieces and what not for $240k. But obviously, for the Porsche, those CF pieces don't actually do much, if anything, to performance. They are there to make the car more unique, and may be make the owner feels better about himself for having so many CF trims.
For the NSX, I think it's pretty obvious that the best performance options would be the Carbon Ceramic brakes and Trofeo R tires. The rear spoiler also helps, but probably to a lesser degree. In this form, the car would be lighter than a base NSX (thanks to replacing steel brakes with carbon ceramic). The side sills, rear diffuser, and front spoiler are made out of some sort of plastic material. I think you mod your cars too, so I'm sure you have an idea how light those parts are already, and that using CF for them may only shed a few pounds. Heck, if the driver loses some weight (talking about myself....haha), that may be a better investment than paying $20k for the CF exterior and interior pieces.
And obviously, having the $2.5k power seats and $3.3k tech pkg will add extra weight. These items are in that $203k price tag you are talking about.
This is why I don't agree the $203k NSX is the quickest one. And that if price is an issue, just go with the base NSX for $156k, add the carbon ceramic brakes for $9.9k, rear CF spoiler for $3k, and Trofeo R for $2k, for a total of about $173k.
This is not to say the plastic pieces are better than the CF pieces. It's just that, if price is such an issue, then the question becomes, does it make sense to spend $25k on those CF exterior pkg, interior pkg, and engine cover?
As for what Porsche sent they were promoting their civilian track day car. The car was not a FI but NA. The 2016 Porsche 911 GT3 RS under structure is made mostly from lightweight steel. The body shell is aluminum as are the doors. The roof is Magnesium but rest of the exterior panels are carbon fiber which includes the entire front end skin, rear engine lid & the wing. Most of the CF is body colored but the aero parts they left in natural CF as shown in the pictures.
CF Splitter & CF Fender
CF Extractor & Fender
CF Side Sill
CF Diffuser & Engine lid.
The car was 4th (NSX 7th) fastest tested this year & 8th (NSX 17th) fastest in the last 10 years of LL competition.
Price as tested $195,020 including all the CF.
Sure the LL NSX could have been made lighter. A base NSX is listed about 3803 & the tested car at 3854. So they packed in an extra 51lbs with the tested car.
Expect it would have been heavier still with all plastic parts & less efficient in the turn without the big spoiler.
So on to the 2018 NSX-TypeR. This will be their Z-06 but its extremely stripped compared to the StingRay which carries a full normal interior.
Current speculation based on leaks & the original Type R is:
“This time the climate control may actually be kept though, with other non-essential features being instead deleted from the regular model.
With that being said, the track-ready NSX version will likely sport a pair of slimmer bucket seats made from carbon fiber and little to no carpeting at all. Future NSX-R owners may also have to live without sat nav, an audio system and a reasonable amount of sound deadening. Since all those missing features will likely translate into an enormous loss of weight, they shouldn’t argue too much.”
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-11-2016 at 01:34 PM.
Yea, the 911 GT3 RS is a beast on a track. And ya, the NSX-R will probably lose quite a bit of features, the front two motors, and even more CF parts (where it counts, not replacing plastic parts with CF that doesn't do much...). I heard that this version will be quite a bit more $$ than a regular NSX though - like quite a bit more than GT3 RS.
Haha TacoBello sorry man...but really those side sills, rear diffusers, and front spoilers are the same shape, size, and design. Acura is taking a page out of Porsche's book (and other makers...) and charges ridiculous amount of money for some of their options. I guess that's one of their ways to make profit from the NSX as the base price probably means they aren't making any money. In some way, it reminds me of the term "ricers" back in high school and some kids would slap CF parts all over their civics along with a big fart can....
Yea, the 911 GT3 RS is a beast on a track.. Acura is taking a page out of Porsche's book (and other makers...) and charges ridiculous amount of money for some of their options. I guess that's one of their ways to make profit from the NSX as the base price probably means they aren't making any money. In some way, it reminds me of the term "ricers" back in high school and some kids would slap CF parts all over their civics along with a big fart can....
Agree, the GT3 RS, expensive CF & all is a beast that cost less than the NXS it thoroughly beat at LL. As for the obscene prices Porsche, BMW, MB, Audi & on up through the supercars like Ferrari & Lamborghini charge.
The stuff as options are very expensive but 99% of the people would buy the cars at an included one price only vehicle. The use of options for bucks up cars is a way of backing down the price from the full boat not adding to it. My daughters 911 Carrera S4 had a list price of about $145K. She had no real problem with the price or options on the car as she is in a position to buy it without having to barf up her lungs to pay for it.
That's really the key, to those who can afford these cars the total price is not outrageous as a percent of their income or car budget. The same thing at the TLX level pricing. To move from a 2WD to a 4WD (tech) costs the buyer about $6000. Then of course you can if your budget will allow chuck another $4000 on top of that if you add the Advance Package which was not available on the 4 cylinder. Not IMHO a trivial amount of money for most people shopping a TLX as their only car.
TLX 2.4 8-DCT P-AWS$31,695TLX 2.4 8-DCT P-AWS with Technology Package$35,750TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT P-AWS$35,320TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT P-AWS with Technology Package$39,375TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT P-AWS with Advance Package$42,600TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT SH-AWD with Technology Package$41,575TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT SH-AWD with Advance Package $44,800
Lastly to me ground effects & aero are a big deal. The COBRA gets very light in the mid 140's & stupid scary in the 150's. I can with my engine reach these speeds at VIR but its not a very good plan for longevity.. With splitters, wing & diffuser they are manageable. Fastest FFR was 180mph with full aero aids that a professional driver said:
"While I have been over 180 in several roadsters including FFR and Dick's original. It is not something I recommend for everyone. There are those of us that have the training to drive that fast. At that speed, any miscue can be fatal. Always drive within your comfort zone. For most, anything around 140 is plenty fast, if you are sucking up 6 inches of seat you are driving to fast.
Remember, it is all about the fun."
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-12-2016 at 09:01 AM.
And I think in the end we can all agree on this. And this is such a great statement. After reading through all these back forth on the NSX....it comes down to personal fun/enjoyment. Cars shouldn't have to be reduced to just a series of numbers (price tag, lap times, horsepower, weight, etc. etc.)
No matter how amazing or terrible the lap times or magazine reviews are of the C7 GS/GT3 RS/NSX/Viper ACR/570S/488/GT-R/R8/Hellcat/etc./etc...if you are in a position in life fortunate enough to own ANY of these cars and the one you chose gives you a huge smile every time you drive it....then that's all that matters!
I think Keith nailed it. The Accord/Civic/CR-V are the cash cows for Honda and they have to keep them competitive with Kia/Hyundai/Toyota/Nissan etc. So they get the best tech available at the time - they can't afford to hold much back to save for the Acura brand.
Frankly I think they could focus more on luxury and powertrain to make a difference. Simply give the TLX a better performance package with some nicer amenities (granted they do that to some degree) - something to make you go "wow" when you pull out for your test drive. Give the Accord owners who progress in their career an upgrade path without having to look at Lexus.
That said - the trend these days are for SUV's and CUV's - so I suspect the ILX/TLX/RLX will take a back seat to the MDX/RDX as that's the hot segment right now. It will be interesting to see what the next gen RDX is like.
You are correct. SUV/CUV sales are killing it here in the US. I think Acura is about to come out with the Acura version of Honda HR-V since they're losing quite a bit of sales in the sub compact CUV market right now.
I just had a 2017 RDX AWD as a loaner for a few days and the tech/infotainment in that thing is ANCIENT. Its the same as my 07-08 TL's were and its a decade newer. Granted the RDX loaner i had was the base model, it just baffles me how behind Acura is sometimes. I used to get all worked up and frustrated with the decisions Acura has made(post 2008 TL models) but nowadays I just dont care anymore. This 15' TLX may be my last Acura as well. The new Audi A4 is a remarkable vehicle. The base model performance wise would smoke our V6 TLX's now that they updated the turbo 2.0L with more power. Acura is in such a bad position right now because everyone else embraced i4 turbo's years ago and are not getting into their 2nd generations in powertrain technology. Acura is playing catchup trying to figure out how to get competitive again.
The base model performance wise would smoke our V6 TLX's now that they updated the turbo 2.0L with more power. Acura is in such a bad position right now because everyone else embraced i4 turbo's years ago and are not getting into their 2nd generations in powertrain technology. Acura is playing catchup trying to figure out how to get competitive again.
There is virtually nothing that Infiniti Q50 2.0T and Lexus IS 2.0T do better than a TSX 2.4. The V6 gets only 1 mpg worse for 50HP more.
The Infiniti Q50 2.0T and Lexus IS 2.0T are 1st gen powertrains to their respective model lines and I don't think qualify under my statement. Sorry for not clarifying sooner. Example, the performance of the 2.0T in the IS is abysmal with 0-60 over 7.0 sec's. Even the 2.4L with 8DCT as you mentioned bests this(barely) at 6.8s. The 2.0T in the Mercedes CLA/C(excluding AMG) is similar to that Lexus however.
The updated BMW and Audi 2.0T are pretty sick. 0-60 5.4s or lower with latest 2017 A4 & BMW 328/330 tests. I thought perhaps our V6 would outperform those engines once you get the ball rolling after 60s, but after looking at Car & Driver tests, those 4 cylinders have a huge amount of torque grunt 1200RPM and up. Then can pretty much hang to almost past 70mph or so. Which needless to say anytime someone is gunning it from a red light, on ramp, etc. 95% of that performance falls under those speeds.
The looking at Car & Driver tests, those 4 cylinders have a huge amount of torque grunt 1200RPM and up. Then can pretty much hang to almost past 70mph or so. Which needless to say anytime someone is gunning it from a red light, on ramp, etc. 95% of that performance falls under those speeds.
Its called pick the races you can win on the street without loosing your car & license. Most Traffic Light Grand Prix runs are over by 60 unless someone wants to do a ricer flyby. On ramp speeds can tend to be faster. That said I still like a car that is strong up into the triple digits for interstate passing. When you have flow of traffic speeds of 85mph (not unusual here) & someone is blocking at 75 the ability to quickly get around them is very useful without having to make a long possibly dangerous run to get up to passing speed.
I think it will take at least one more mid cycle refresh or possibly generation for the Germans to get their acts together with the 4 cylinder entry level versions. A pure stock 328 with a JB4 in one of BMS's beta cars has run consistent 13.0 quarter miles. With the 340/440 dipping into the high 12's it would seem to be a good bet that the 3/4 4 cylinder versions will get a bit more boost from the factory. MB has already done this with one of their cars but have premium pricing on it.
Key is more power in the bottom end cars without hurting the next level ups sales.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 11-13-2016 at 10:42 AM.
Interesting thing considering the recent subject matter in the thread. Saw my first NSX outside of a showroom today. Was all black & heading north on Six Forks Rd. just south of the Bay Leaf Fire Station. Was driving the 135is going the other way.
What makes it especially interesting to me is so far I have only seen a handful of TLX models since they have been out & the first NSX siting came a lot sooner than the first TLX one.
Agree, the GT3 RS, expensive CF & all is a beast that cost less than the NXS it thoroughly beat at LL. As for the obscene prices Porsche, BMW, MB, Audi & on up through the supercars like Ferrari & Lamborghini charge.
The stuff as options are very expensive but 99% of the people would buy the cars at an included one price only vehicle. The use of options for bucks up cars is a way of backing down the price from the full boat not adding to it. My daughters 911 Carrera S4 had a list price of about $145K. She had no real problem with the price or options on the car as she is in a position to buy it without having to barf up her lungs to pay for it.
That's really the key, to those who can afford these cars the total price is not outrageous as a percent of their income or car budget. The same thing at the TLX level pricing. To move from a 2WD to a 4WD (tech) costs the buyer about $6000. Then of course you can if your budget will allow chuck another $4000 on top of that if you add the Advance Package which was not available on the 4 cylinder. Not IMHO a trivial amount of money for most people shopping a TLX as their only car.
TLX 2.4 8-DCT P-AWS$31,695TLX 2.4 8-DCT P-AWS with Technology Package$35,750TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT P-AWS$35,320TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT P-AWS with Technology Package$39,375TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT P-AWS with Advance Package$42,600TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT SH-AWD with Technology Package$41,575TLX 3.5 V-6 9-AT SH-AWD with Advance Package $44,800
Lastly to me ground effects & aero are a big deal. The COBRA gets very light in the mid 140's & stupid scary in the 150's. I can with my engine reach these speeds at VIR but its not a very good plan for longevity.. With splitters, wing & diffuser they are manageable. Fastest FFR was 180mph with full aero aids that a professional driver said:
"While I have been over 180 in several roadsters including FFR and Dick's original. It is not something I recommend for everyone. There are those of us that have the training to drive that fast. At that speed, any miscue can be fatal. Always drive within your comfort zone. For most, anything around 140 is plenty fast, if you are sucking up 6 inches of seat you are driving to fast.
Remember, it is all about the fun."
I think a TLX V6 FWD Tech is $39.4km and the TLX V6 AWD tech is $41.6k. The $6k difference you mentioned is between a FWD I4 Tech at $36k vs the $41.6k V6 AWD tech.
The advance pkg is $3200.
But ya, I agree, for those who can afford a $150-$200k car, it's probably not that much as a percentage to income.
Yes, I totally agree that aero is huge, especially for cars capable of 180+mph of top speed. Just look at how dominating that Brawn GP 001 F1 car was back in 2009 with its controversial rear diffuser.
Originally Posted by reddogTL
The Infiniti Q50 2.0T and Lexus IS 2.0T are 1st gen powertrains to their respective model lines and I don't think qualify under my statement. Sorry for not clarifying sooner. Example, the performance of the 2.0T in the IS is abysmal with 0-60 over 7.0 sec's. Even the 2.4L with 8DCT as you mentioned bests this(barely) at 6.8s. The 2.0T in the Mercedes CLA/C(excluding AMG) is similar to that Lexus however.
The updated BMW and Audi 2.0T are pretty sick. 0-60 5.4s or lower with latest 2017 A4 & BMW 328/330 tests. I thought perhaps our V6 would outperform those engines once you get the ball rolling after 60s, but after looking at Car & Driver tests, those 4 cylinders have a huge amount of torque grunt 1200RPM and up. Then can pretty much hang to almost past 70mph or so. Which needless to say anytime someone is gunning it from a red light, on ramp, etc. 95% of that performance falls under those speeds.
It's true, the 0-60mph is impressive. But, with 17psi of peak boost, that figure doesn't tell you about its turbo lag issue.
That brings us to the 5-60mph figure.
330i:
0-60mph: 5.4s
5-60mph: 6.7s
TLX:
0-60mph: 5.7s
5-60mph: 5.8s
Notice how much longer the 330i takes for the 5-60mph, while the TLX's 5-60mph only takes 0.1 second longer than its 0-60mph time.
For 0-60mph, car mags can do whatever they want to get the best possible time. This means brake torquing, short shifting (if beneficial), dumping clutch at high rpm, etc. Some of these techniques are brutal while some can eliminate turbo lag. Out on the street, you are probably not gonna do anything that may damage your car.
This is where 5-60mph comes in to play - "While rolling with the car in gear, we floor the accelerator at 5 mph and shift quickly at the optimal shift point."
Another thing to pay attention to is the top gear acceleration. The 330i has peak torque at 1250rpm, but its top gear acceleration numbers are far worse than the TLX. Why is that? It's probably because of turbo lag again.
These 5-60mph, 30-50mph, 50-70mph represent aggressive street start, on ramp merging, and highway passing situations in the real world. These are arguably more representative compared to the 0-60mph figure. You don't always have the chance to build up turbo boost before hand.
Tougher European car emissions tests being introduced in the wake of the Volkswagen (VOWG_p.DE) scandal are about to bring surprising consequences: bigger engines.
Carmakers that have spent a decade shrinking engine capacities to meet emissions goals are now being forced into a costly U-turn, industry sources said, as more realistic on-the-road testing exposes deep flaws in their smallest motors.
Renault (RENA.PA), General Motors (GM.N) and VW are preparing to enlarge or scrap some of their best-selling small car engines over the next three years, the people said. Other manufacturers are expected to follow, with both diesels and gasolines affected.
Basically, people are now starting to realize downsized turbocharged engines don't really deliver the promised fuel economy benefits in the real world.
This is probably the reason the Japanese car makers have been slow to adopt such technologies.
I think a TLX V6 FWD Tech is $39.4km and the TLX V6 AWD tech is $41.6k. The $6k difference you mentioned is between a FWD I4 Tech at $36k vs the $41.6k V6 AWD tech..
Which was the point as you go up in a product line there is a spread for basically the same body in white but with more features, 2X4-4X4 & power. The high end cars just make bigger jumps. The 911 Carrera series started about $89K for 2X4, 370HP-180MPH car to $121K for 4X4, 430HP-191mph car. The Turbo series ran from $150 (520Hp) to $188 (580HP).
Thing is any car is worth what someone is willing to pay for it not the sum of its parts. My 1967 StingRay 3X2 435HP Coupe cost me $4200. Similar cars are currently being auctioned at Mecum & Barret-Jackson for $200K+
11-07-2016, 05:27 PM
anyone?
