The S2000 the best honda in ten years? uuumm..they still make NSXs. a matter of fact the revised version is even better than the last.
why do you own an acura/honda if you think they are so shitty?
and as far as them becoming a figment of imaginations, I'm sure you'd be hard pressed to find a car co. that holds value better than an acura/honda. could this be cuz people know they are "efficient"/reliable?

 

I never did like you much

BTW-got mine for 26G's for a new 05'. Tell me a new car that is a better buy than that for the price....please. Yeah lets buy a 10 year old car instead that someone beat the shit out of and has 100K miles with no warantee.

 

The NSX is 90K. For 90K there are plenty of cars that will lap it horribly. If it was $40K, it would be entirely different. It's not a great car if it is priced out of it's league. The only reason to buy it is for the reason Baka T wants one - it's rare.

Why do I own one? I honestly didn't know any better. I'll be getting a new car soon, and while I have my eye on the 350Z, a ride in an S2000 has me wanting to take a look at it. I think the current run of Honda/Acuras isn't playing to the market they want, that is all. The new RL is a joke compared to the other cars the class Honda wants to put it in.

Hold their value? They steadily drop to $4-5K and hold there. How is that holding their value? Or was that a joke?

As far as effiencent, that is great for the Civic, but hardly what the car enthusiest is wanting. I'm not saying they shouldn't have an economical model at all, nor should they totally throw it out the door - but if they want to compete like they say they do - they need to step it up. I as well as most car enthusiests I know would easily give up 2-3mpg for 50hp.

 

i think soodark is secretly yoda and no one knows it

 

When I said efficient, I meant that there's the least amount of HP lost through the powertrain.

I dont want to start a war or anything and I see your point of view, but I'd like to throw some things out there. You say those things like Honda is getting it all wrong and has poor marketing. That is not true. Nor are the ignoring what the consumer is most interested in. Look at Toyota. The only sporty car they have is the MR2 and the Celica, both of which aren't very fast and have crappy interiors. The Camry and the Carolla are as plain as they can get. I think the Camry and the Carolla are their highest selling cars because they appeal to MOST people and NOT the enthusiast. Get some balls and stop trying to be safe. They do well with their Lexus lineup, but those cars are for old people with the exception of the IS300, but that car is so played out. Every rich kid out there has one. Nissan. I liked Nissan because they were always the underdog, but they need to come out with sporty small cars and not sedans. The SER SpecV was a joke. Yeah, it's got a decent engine and 6sp, but it's not that great looking. THEN they redesign it to look even more plain. I think Honda's marketing and design stragety is better than Nissan's and Toyota's. Toyota has the right idea by having SO many cars in their lineup including all the Scions. They have a car for every segment of the market. Honda needs more cars. Nissan needs something other than sedans and trucks.

I'm not saying Honda is the best car maker out there, so don't get mad. I like all sorts of cars. I WANT the R32 Golf .

 

I'm not saying that it's a bad investment, The base models around here run 31k+. I never did like you much also . It's a good car for the $$$, but I don't like how people on this forum hype it up so much. For what it's worth, I rather have a 10yr old nsx over a new 350z anyday. Handles better, more stable, faster ect. But then again, It wouldn't be a daily driver, thats what the cl is for.

 

Obviously, you never drove, or even ridden in one. If you did, you would retract this statement. My guess is you read alot and compare specs from different cars, instead of trying it out for yourself. I've driven a track 350z and an nsx, and the nsx blew the doors off the 350. I think you need to get your head out of caranddriver, and actually get behind the wheel.

 

How do you think a 10 year old NSX would be against a new, track model, 350? HP hasn't changed too much, right? I'm sure they have improved on the car since.

An NSX "should" out perform the 350z. It was built to compete with supercars basically. If it had more HP, it would be right up there.

 

It's about multiple things. FWD has a few less rotational parts (RWD has that extra driveshaft going to the rear and that 90deg turn), yet RWD gets more traction and has less overall joints (FWD has 4 CV joints, the source of many problems). FWD is generally lighter - and somewhate more fuel efficent b/c of so, and has more interior space b/c there is no worry of a tranny and driveshaft tunnel. Traction on slippery surfaces has always been a selling point but on dry pavement FWD just spins tires. FWD is for the novice driver. RWD is more balanced, better braking b/c of so, better handling, better cornering, and no torque steer. For the average car, FWD is just fine and in most cases better for the average consumer. My whole point was not that Honda stunk in general but that they have not competed well enough in the market they attemped to - the enthusiest. Of course they and Toyota sell tons of cars to Joe consumer, that wasn't the target of my posts. I was only talking about performace vehicles and luxury sedans. Owners of both expect good power, good handling at the least.

As I said above, normal cars were not my target, only sports cars and luxury sedans. Toyota has mosty moved that name badge in the US to be only simple cars and a few little sports coupes. Lexus however isn't for old people as you say. The GS sedans are quite good and sporty. The LS is a great large sedan.

Not sure what the balls comment was about?


I think Honda is MISSING the performace segment of the market. The Civic, Accord still sell like hotcakes, etc but the S2000 is the only true sporty car they make IMO. The CL/TL needs a RWD or AWD replacement. The RL is a big step, but not good enough. It's ugly and overpriced. I suspect most would be buyers will end up with a Lexus or Merc.

 

I have not driven an NSX, but I have ridden in one. Like he said above, it SHOULD beat the 350z - you can almost buy 3 track Zs for the price of one NSX. Your 10 year old NSX is only .2 sec faster in the straight line than the Z, so I highly doubt it would blow the doors off of it, even at the track. The fastest is only .6 sec faster than the Z. The NSX can def outhandle the Z, but not by the great margin you would have us to believe. Honestly, an S2000 can probably run just as fast lap times as an NSX, for 1/3 the price.

Even so, my statement didn't even compare the Z to the NSX, so I don't know where any of that came from. I said for $90 I can buy quite a few cars that would lap (IE beat) the NSX. THE NSX IS A GREAT CAR, but it outpriced itself. For $90K you can buy a better car.

Looking at used NSXs, you can buy an equvilent car with ZERO miles with a warranty for about the same price. It's not as unique, but def worth more in the years to come. A 10yo+ NSX is a hard sell, esp in a smaller city.

 

All I was saying is that honda is not a performance company. it's more about environment than performance. trying to say they aren't up to the standards of enthusiasts would probably be a true statement if that's what they were going after. I think people turned there hondas into "racers". not vice versa. the only performeance cars they have are "sufficient" performers, not the best. like it says on the site, honda is for peopl that want to try something different, and inovative. not blow your mind with performance.
http://world.honda.com/message/

 

Again, you are still comparing what you have read. I have driven a track z, and a nsx, and both cars have their high and low points. The nsx handles way better than the track z, and on the freeway can take it. A stock s2000 would no way produce the same track times as an nsx, read on. What would you sugguest for 90k mr book reader?

 

My friend pulled on a track z by 3 cars on the freeway. All he has is a filter and taitec test pipes. Driver skill is almost the same. The track model 350z is good for what it is, but wouldn't be a car I would consider buying, 2 seater impractial car, this is why I would choose an used nsx if I was gonna go with a 2 seater. The g35 sedan, on the other hand, I seriously considered trading in my cl for that car, I fell in love with everything about that car.

 

Yes, I get my numbers from the magazines. I doubt you have personal track times on all these cars either. As far as the handling, etc - I have ridden in an NSX and even with just a ride I can tell it handles better than the Z, which I have driven. I agree with you, they both have highs and lows - but the NSX is NOT overly faster than the Z, esp not an older one. You said in the next post the NSX put 3 cars on the Z on the freeway - do you know how much time in the 1/4 that equates to? Less than half a second.

As far as the S2000 - a lightly modded S2000 can hang with a 360 Modena on the track, and there is a video showing one chasing a 360. The 360 takes off on the straightaways, but the S2000 reels it in easily in the corners as it can wait till almost the last second to hit the brakes. I have no doubt that the S2K can run as fast on a track as the NSX.

What would I do for $90k? For $10K less a Carrera S would be a fine choice, with many options for soft/hardtop convertibles around $90K. However, if I was spending $90K, I'd sure fork over 10 more and get a GT3 for $100K - which the NSX can't begin to touch.