Technical Writeup NSX
08-20-2003, 07:10 PM
#41
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Communist, NY
Posts: 9,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by mattg
milage on each?
milage on each?
Problems tend to occur much quicker in cars like Vipers, Lambos, and Ferraris.
Viper has 8,500 miles, Acura has 30k I believe.
08-20-2003, 07:20 PM
#43
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Communist, NY
Posts: 9,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by chris3240929
Hey, you like the Viper, I don't...
Anybody can jam a 500hp motor into a sled & make impressive numbers. Dodge just has never been my cup o tea.
Doesn't make me a moron.
Hey, you like the Viper, I don't...
Anybody can jam a 500hp motor into a sled & make impressive numbers. Dodge just has never been my cup o tea.
Doesn't make me a moron.
I'm not a big fan of the NSX and I think its overpriced, but its not a POS.
Yes, anybody can jam a 500+hp motor in their car and make great numbers......here are a few that come to mind.
Lambo Murcielago- $280k
Lambo Gallardo- $160k
Ford GT- $140-150k (good luck getting one for that though).
Dodge Viper SRT10- $83k
The Dodge will run with the best of them, at half the price.
The Viper is a reality supercar, the others are dream cars.
08-20-2003, 09:08 PM
#44
Cost Drivers!!!!
Thread Starter
Originally posted by greenmonster
That's exactly my point too. It's a little outdated AND it's holding back the other cars in the Acura lineup. If the NSX has only 290hp, they can't let the TL have anymore HP then 290 at 1/3 the price of the NSX. Maybe that's why the TLS isn't going to be available this fall (Acura is waiting to refresh the NSX before releasing a TLS w/ 290 or so hp?????).
That's exactly my point too. It's a little outdated AND it's holding back the other cars in the Acura lineup. If the NSX has only 290hp, they can't let the TL have anymore HP then 290 at 1/3 the price of the NSX. Maybe that's why the TLS isn't going to be available this fall (Acura is waiting to refresh the NSX before releasing a TLS w/ 290 or so hp?????).
It's the difference between a TIMEX and ROLEX. Both do the same and one has quality craftsmanship that some people just can't see. They miss the boat while they are waiting for rolex to do something fancy....
OH and BTW, the S variant of the Acura cars have always been released after the standard/premium versions.....so please stop with the pinning of all of acura's supposed failures on the NSX. Some of the crap that comes outta peoples mouths..............
08-20-2003, 09:29 PM
#45
The hair says it all
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Manhattan, NYC
Age: 37
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Scrib
What was that? A C4 Vette? I'd rather see a Z06 vs. NSX run...
What was that? A C4 Vette? I'd rather see a Z06 vs. NSX run...
08-21-2003, 06:07 AM
#47
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: bethesda, maryland
Age: 48
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great write up. I from this thead I guess a lot people don't like the NSX. What a shame. If I had 90K to spend on a car I'll still purchase the NSX no matter what. That car is so sweet. Everytime I see one I just drool. It's kind like a sexy lady you will never understand until you have one.
08-21-2003, 07:42 AM
#48
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NSX-R IMO is worth every penny its asked for. The car performs like a dream (from what I've read in Mags), and although it only has 290HP, the lightweight offsets that. As this article states, a lot of time, care, research, and effort was put into the NSX-R...so I can see where the money goes when buying it.
However the regular NSX IMO has 90K worth of LOOKS, Craftmanship, and Reliability(for supercars). It does not have 90K worth of Horsepower nor Performance(Track or Dragstrip). For the price though I think the NSX is #1 when it comes to offering the
Total Package (ie Looks, Performance, Craftmanship, Comfort...etc).
However the regular NSX IMO has 90K worth of LOOKS, Craftmanship, and Reliability(for supercars). It does not have 90K worth of Horsepower nor Performance(Track or Dragstrip). For the price though I think the NSX is #1 when it comes to offering the
Total Package (ie Looks, Performance, Craftmanship, Comfort...etc).
08-21-2003, 08:23 AM
#51
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: bethesda, maryland
Age: 48
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dude that's a insult you comparing a 350z to a NSX.
I can't compare the two cars so I suggestion you go www.nsxprime.com. You probaly think Britney look just as good as Halle B. b/c she's a woman/skinney.
I can't compare the two cars so I suggestion you go www.nsxprime.com. You probaly think Britney look just as good as Halle B. b/c she's a woman/skinney.
08-21-2003, 08:35 AM
#53
Cost Drivers!!!!
Thread Starter
Originally posted by jimcol711
and the 350z puts out more torque and only 3 less HP for less than 1/2 the price.
and the 350z puts out more torque and only 3 less HP for less than 1/2 the price.
08-21-2003, 08:40 AM
#54
Homeless
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern DEL-A-Where?
Age: 51
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Beltfed
The Dodge will run with the best of them, at half the price.
The Viper is a reality supercar, the others are dream cars.
The Dodge will run with the best of them, at half the price.
The Viper is a reality supercar, the others are dream cars.
Price seems to be the big issue with the NSX, namely exotic price tag & slighty less than exotic performance. I have to agree there are much better choices out there for the money.
08-21-2003, 08:56 AM
#55
I love my CL-S
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: canada
Age: 42
Posts: 1,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by jimcol711
and the 350z puts out more torque and only 3 less HP for less than 1/2 the price.
and the 350z puts out more torque and only 3 less HP for less than 1/2 the price.
08-21-2003, 09:08 AM
#56
Burn some dust here
Here's some interesting articles:
NSX VS. S2000
Also heres the Corvette Vs. Camaro test.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3
On this particular test the Vette won hands down on everything, nothing really close. The shocker is that the S2000 only lost by a total of 1 category to the NSX.
NSX VS. S2000
Also heres the Corvette Vs. Camaro test.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=3
On this particular test the Vette won hands down on everything, nothing really close. The shocker is that the S2000 only lost by a total of 1 category to the NSX.
08-21-2003, 09:12 AM
#57
Instructor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to this site
NSX-R Stats
NSX-R = 2799.9 lbs
When I said lightweight, I was referring to the NSX-R not the regular NSX.
NSX-R Stats
NSX-R = 2799.9 lbs
When I said lightweight, I was referring to the NSX-R not the regular NSX.
08-21-2003, 09:15 AM
#58
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Age: 44
Posts: 6,227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by WiLd~CL~TYPS-@SS
and how come the 350z cant run high 12's in the 1/4 ??
and how come the 350z cant run high 12's in the 1/4 ??
puuuh-leeeeeze the only NSX running 12s are DEFINATELY not stock.
08-21-2003, 09:16 AM
#59
Burn some dust here
Originally posted by Habiib
According to this site
NSX-R Stats
NSX-R = 2799.9 lbs
When I said lightweight, I was referring to the NSX-R not the regular NSX.
According to this site
NSX-R Stats
NSX-R = 2799.9 lbs
When I said lightweight, I was referring to the NSX-R not the regular NSX.
08-21-2003, 09:19 AM
#61
Burn some dust here
Originally posted by chris3240929
Now that's freakin light...
Where'd the other 3100 lb number come from then...?
Big difference.
Now that's freakin light...
Where'd the other 3100 lb number come from then...?
Big difference.
The STOCK NSX weighs 3153 lbs. according the Acura site and the Edmunds site.
08-21-2003, 09:20 AM
#62
Administrator Alumnus
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
Acura NSX
More refined than ever, but will refinement alone be enough to keep it afloat?
BY TONY SWAN
February 2002
"Most underrated" is an expression usually employed by sportscasters, as in, "He's one of the most underrated fullbacks in the league." Who's in charge of underratings? That's not clear. But it is clear that this description applies to the Acura NSX.
It's svelte, it's sleek, it's far from slow, it offers a higher comfort quotient than anything else in its class, and yet its sales pace is, to be kind, glacial—about 15 per month in this country. And this in a record sales year for Acura.
What's up with that? We think it's a blend of problems that may not be cured by the face lift we're looking at here. But let's address the big picture a little later.
As you can see, the 2002 NSX has swapped its pop-up headlights in favor of fixed high-intensity-discharge units with integrated parking lamps. Acura says the HIDs throw out twice the lumens of halogens. Whether they improve the car's appearance, however, is debatable.
Other changes: The front air dam is a little deeper, the taillight housings have been revised, there's a lip spoiler atop the trunklid, and the exhaust tips are new.
Inside, Acura has made several subtle revisions, including new sew patterns for the seats, and the option of interior color schemes coordinated with exterior hues is offered.
Aside from the headlights, all these updates take a practiced eye to spot. There are, however, some functional benefits to the subtle resculpting. The coefficient of drag drops a couple of points, to 0.30, which improves the NSX's 0-to-125-mph time by 0.2 second, according to Acura, and its top speed from 168 to 175 mph.
That's all very well, but what's going on under the car is easier to translate into everyday benefits. Acura has increased the front spring rates, beefed up the rear anti-roll bar (from 17.5mm to 19.1), and added more authority to the wheel-and-tire package. The front wheels (forged aluminum alloy all-around) go from 7.0-by-16 inches to 7.0-by-17s, the rears from 8.5-by-17 to 9.0-by-17s. Tire specs change from 215/45-16 to 215/40-17 in front and 245/40-17 to 255/40-17 in the rear.
Based on a half-day of terrorizing back roads in California's Santa Cruz Mountains, that extra 10mm of rear contact patch, along with the benefits of the retuned suspension, seem to reduce oversteer and increase driver certainty in a world of varying radii.
This brings us to the question of how the NSX's performance compares with that of the other big-name players in this general price realm. At 290 horsepower, its all-aluminum 3.2-liter (automatic versions get a 252-hp 3.0-liter) DOHC 24-valve VTEC V-6 is on the light side of the power ledger compared with its competition. The Porsche 911 Carrera flat-six is up to 3.6 liters and 315 hp (from 3.4 and 300) for 2002, the '02 Corvette Z06 V-8 serves up 405 hp (up from 385 in '01), and the Dodge Viper V-10 brings 450 ponies to the party, with 500 due next year.
The last NSX we tested (July 1999) was an Alex Zanardi limited-edition model, which scaled in much lighter (2970 pounds versus 3153) than the curb weight Acura lists for the 2002 model. It sprinted to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, covered the quarter-mile in 13.2 at 106 mph, stopped from 70 mph in 164 feet, and pulled 0.93 g on the skidpad.
Respectable numbers, but not extraordinary. Our long-term 1999 Carrera (May 2001) was about the same in its wrap-up runs (0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds; 13.4 seconds at 105 mph in the quarter-mile), with 19 fewer ponies than the '02 version.
Our most recent Viper test numbers are a year old (February '01). That Viper, a 460-hp GTS ACR model, hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and ran the quarter in a robust 12.6 seconds at 114 mph. The Z06 from that same test recorded 4.0 seconds and 12.4 at 116.
These look like small distinctions, and a rational person might say, "So what?" But the world of high-performance sports cars isn't a purely rational one. It doesn't matter whether you can really exploit all that potential. It's the mere possession that counts.
And when you can possess more potential for less money than an NSX, Acura's sexy supersport, for all its sophistication, rings up as a tough sell. The numbers: a 2001 NSX, with the removable roof (standard for '02), carried a base price of $90,879. A 2001 Carrera C4 (all-wheel drive) was $74,156, a 2002 Viper GTS is $74,071, and a 2002 Corvette Z06 is $50,721.
We continue to love this car. But we think these modest updates on an aging (introduced in 1990), pricey exotic are similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Will they be enough to keep the NSX afloat?
Acura NSX
More refined than ever, but will refinement alone be enough to keep it afloat?
BY TONY SWAN
February 2002
"Most underrated" is an expression usually employed by sportscasters, as in, "He's one of the most underrated fullbacks in the league." Who's in charge of underratings? That's not clear. But it is clear that this description applies to the Acura NSX.
It's svelte, it's sleek, it's far from slow, it offers a higher comfort quotient than anything else in its class, and yet its sales pace is, to be kind, glacial—about 15 per month in this country. And this in a record sales year for Acura.
What's up with that? We think it's a blend of problems that may not be cured by the face lift we're looking at here. But let's address the big picture a little later.
As you can see, the 2002 NSX has swapped its pop-up headlights in favor of fixed high-intensity-discharge units with integrated parking lamps. Acura says the HIDs throw out twice the lumens of halogens. Whether they improve the car's appearance, however, is debatable.
Other changes: The front air dam is a little deeper, the taillight housings have been revised, there's a lip spoiler atop the trunklid, and the exhaust tips are new.
Inside, Acura has made several subtle revisions, including new sew patterns for the seats, and the option of interior color schemes coordinated with exterior hues is offered.
Aside from the headlights, all these updates take a practiced eye to spot. There are, however, some functional benefits to the subtle resculpting. The coefficient of drag drops a couple of points, to 0.30, which improves the NSX's 0-to-125-mph time by 0.2 second, according to Acura, and its top speed from 168 to 175 mph.
That's all very well, but what's going on under the car is easier to translate into everyday benefits. Acura has increased the front spring rates, beefed up the rear anti-roll bar (from 17.5mm to 19.1), and added more authority to the wheel-and-tire package. The front wheels (forged aluminum alloy all-around) go from 7.0-by-16 inches to 7.0-by-17s, the rears from 8.5-by-17 to 9.0-by-17s. Tire specs change from 215/45-16 to 215/40-17 in front and 245/40-17 to 255/40-17 in the rear.
Based on a half-day of terrorizing back roads in California's Santa Cruz Mountains, that extra 10mm of rear contact patch, along with the benefits of the retuned suspension, seem to reduce oversteer and increase driver certainty in a world of varying radii.
This brings us to the question of how the NSX's performance compares with that of the other big-name players in this general price realm. At 290 horsepower, its all-aluminum 3.2-liter (automatic versions get a 252-hp 3.0-liter) DOHC 24-valve VTEC V-6 is on the light side of the power ledger compared with its competition. The Porsche 911 Carrera flat-six is up to 3.6 liters and 315 hp (from 3.4 and 300) for 2002, the '02 Corvette Z06 V-8 serves up 405 hp (up from 385 in '01), and the Dodge Viper V-10 brings 450 ponies to the party, with 500 due next year.
The last NSX we tested (July 1999) was an Alex Zanardi limited-edition model, which scaled in much lighter (2970 pounds versus 3153) than the curb weight Acura lists for the 2002 model. It sprinted to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, covered the quarter-mile in 13.2 at 106 mph, stopped from 70 mph in 164 feet, and pulled 0.93 g on the skidpad.
Respectable numbers, but not extraordinary. Our long-term 1999 Carrera (May 2001) was about the same in its wrap-up runs (0 to 60 in 4.8 seconds; 13.4 seconds at 105 mph in the quarter-mile), with 19 fewer ponies than the '02 version.
Our most recent Viper test numbers are a year old (February '01). That Viper, a 460-hp GTS ACR model, hit 60 mph in 4.3 seconds and ran the quarter in a robust 12.6 seconds at 114 mph. The Z06 from that same test recorded 4.0 seconds and 12.4 at 116.
These look like small distinctions, and a rational person might say, "So what?" But the world of high-performance sports cars isn't a purely rational one. It doesn't matter whether you can really exploit all that potential. It's the mere possession that counts.
And when you can possess more potential for less money than an NSX, Acura's sexy supersport, for all its sophistication, rings up as a tough sell. The numbers: a 2001 NSX, with the removable roof (standard for '02), carried a base price of $90,879. A 2001 Carrera C4 (all-wheel drive) was $74,156, a 2002 Viper GTS is $74,071, and a 2002 Corvette Z06 is $50,721.
We continue to love this car. But we think these modest updates on an aging (introduced in 1990), pricey exotic are similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Will they be enough to keep the NSX afloat?
08-21-2003, 10:43 AM
#64
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 46
Posts: 12,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is good stuff but ALL cars now go through that enginering process. I love the NSX but for 90k RELIABLE ain't what people want in a sports car. They want
looks
Panache
Brand
Speed
Big engines
Viper, Vette, 911, SL, XK-8, Ferrari, Lambo, people know wha these are. To this day, when I say "I would love a NSX" to the average person, they have no clue what car I am talking about. Then I say Acura NSX and they are really lost.
Only die-hard car fans, Honda Fans and the motoring press know what a NSX is which kills the cars credibilty for 90k.
On top of that, you can't make the NSX really any faster. That Road and Track super-tuner comparo is a prime example. The Comptech NSX finished like 12th or so.
It is not a go fast beat all others car, it is damn near a PERFECT BALANCED SPORTS CAR which for some reason, fucks it up.
It needs a fault it seems? Weird.
looks
Panache
Brand
Speed
Big engines
Viper, Vette, 911, SL, XK-8, Ferrari, Lambo, people know wha these are. To this day, when I say "I would love a NSX" to the average person, they have no clue what car I am talking about. Then I say Acura NSX and they are really lost.
Only die-hard car fans, Honda Fans and the motoring press know what a NSX is which kills the cars credibilty for 90k.
On top of that, you can't make the NSX really any faster. That Road and Track super-tuner comparo is a prime example. The Comptech NSX finished like 12th or so.
It is not a go fast beat all others car, it is damn near a PERFECT BALANCED SPORTS CAR which for some reason, fucks it up.
It needs a fault it seems? Weird.
08-21-2003, 10:48 AM
#65
Homeless
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern DEL-A-Where?
Age: 51
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Scrib
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
And when you can possess more potential for less money than an NSX, Acura's sexy supersport, for all its sophistication, rings up as a tough sell. The numbers: a 2001 NSX, with the removable roof (standard for '02), carried a base price of $90,879. A 2001 Carrera C4 (all-wheel drive) was $74,156, a 2002 Viper GTS is $74,071, and a 2002 Corvette Z06 is $50,721.
We continue to love this car. But we think these modest updates on an aging (introduced in 1990), pricey exotic are similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Will they be enough to keep the NSX afloat? [/B]
http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=1
And when you can possess more potential for less money than an NSX, Acura's sexy supersport, for all its sophistication, rings up as a tough sell. The numbers: a 2001 NSX, with the removable roof (standard for '02), carried a base price of $90,879. A 2001 Carrera C4 (all-wheel drive) was $74,156, a 2002 Viper GTS is $74,071, and a 2002 Corvette Z06 is $50,721.
We continue to love this car. But we think these modest updates on an aging (introduced in 1990), pricey exotic are similar to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Will they be enough to keep the NSX afloat? [/B]
08-21-2003, 12:29 PM
#66
Safety Car
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: philly
Posts: 4,426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why can't people just accept that the nsx needs more and leave it at that instead of trying over and over to defend an old car. its hondas fault for letting the car sit on the shelf for so long, no reason to get all hurt about it.
being hand built by one person etc are intangible things/not worth a second look imo, i'm interested in the end results. show me two performance cars, one built by robotic arms/crew of workers specialized at different jobs on an assembly line and one hand built by a limited number of workers, and then try to convince me the better performing one isn't better than the other because it wasn't hand built is ludacris.
its made out of aluminum, but it isn't lighter than cars without use of extensive aluminum yet its better because of the fact it uses aluminum? please. etcetc.
being hand built by one person etc are intangible things/not worth a second look imo, i'm interested in the end results. show me two performance cars, one built by robotic arms/crew of workers specialized at different jobs on an assembly line and one hand built by a limited number of workers, and then try to convince me the better performing one isn't better than the other because it wasn't hand built is ludacris.
its made out of aluminum, but it isn't lighter than cars without use of extensive aluminum yet its better because of the fact it uses aluminum? please. etcetc.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
