I was just reading this in another post and I've always wondered why? Anyone? Size, tranny linkage?

 

yeah! which means we get3.5 in the cl-s6 speed

 

Punishment. Honda didn't want to encourage such behavior as driving a sports car with an auto.

 

Good question -- so here is your answer.

(Just a note -- the early 3.0 engine had different cams. One set for the automatic, another for the manual. There are other goodies that the auto versions DO NOT get!)

Excerpt:

But the big news for 1997 is in the NSX's mid-engine compartment: 3.2 liters and 20 more horsepower for a total of 290 - up from the previous 3.0 liter's 270 - coupled to a new six=speed manual transmission. Performance? Try zero to 60 in five seconds flat, with a top speed of 168 mph. (Automatic-transmission NSXs retain the earlier 252hp 3.0-liter, both because there isn't an automatic gearbox available that will take the 290 horses and 7,100 rpm, and because Acura feels that buyers of automatics are more interested in tractability than ultimate performance.)


Link:
http://www.nsx.net/ref/ad.9701.intro.html


Don't be surprised to see the same stuff happening to the CL-S if the manual sales really take off. I would hazard a guess that in the case of the NSX, there are more manuals than autos in them (my guess -- prove me wrong). I would NOT buy a NSX with an automatic (but then I wouldn't be using the car as a daily commuter either)!

 

Go Eric!

 

"...because there isn't an automatic gearbox available that will take the 290 horses and 7,100 rpm" Uh, i hope that was just in 1997 and not now otherwise people on this board will not be happy.

 

Automatic and NSX's don't go together

 

I knew a guy in high school whose mom bought an automatic Miata. They had to hunt for weeks to find one. We got some good laughs out of that.