harddrivin1le

Pretty surprised to hear you make the "muscle car" comment, since I thought you were an "old school" guy.

You are absolutely right on that count.

Try telling that to some of the muscle car fanatics.

Many of them think those cars were but a set of "modern radials" away from running in the twelves.

Of course, many of the test cars during that era were "Ringers" and were often times fitted with slicks (and even open pipes an Pro drivers like Ronnie Sox) to get the "big" numbers that we see thrown around today...But they ignore those realities and blame the tires (even though G-70 wide ovals were around before it was over).

Take a look at this (vintage) article page:



Today's 4.2 liter inline 6 TRAILBLAZER engine makes more power than that (275 SAE NET with cats, mufflers and pipes in place).

Norse396

I am, but I'm honest too. Although the average was in the 14's it was very easy to get many of them into the 12's and some into the 11's and 10's. The Cammer was an awesome engine, in my mind better than the Hemi, too bad it didn't make it into regular production.

Norse396

I'm not going to debate how easy or hard it is to build a 5.0, the LS1 isn't a magic engine. I've owned about 30 302's in my time, each one was easy to get power out of and very easy to make enough to suck the valves out of an LS1, any gear head knows this. Conversly the same goes for the 350, to each his own.

Since I don't have it I don't know, but I do know this, no car will go from 13 seconds to 10 seconds with just a cam and no fuel or intake work, engines are nothing but air pumps and no idiot would put a wild cam into an engine without modifying other aspects like fuel injection mods etc.. I know they added headers and such but headers, gear and slicks and cam do not 3 seconds make. When I read the article I'm sure the facts will present themselves.

mspence3

These I think are less biased, more scientific comparitive tests. It's a lot of reading but they offer a rational, objective review of automotive HID headlights.


http://www.tsei.org/pdf/083002tsei.pdf

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/tran...01-01-0298.pdf

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/tran...02-01-0259.pdf

http://www.umich.edu/~industry/PDF/2002-03-Abstract.pdf

brahtw8

You seem to have quite a fixation for the NSX and an overwhelming desire to convince us of the superiority of your Camaro. Why is that?

I also think it is strange to rip on the TL, a FWD four-door sedan, because of the performance superiority of your Camaro. Not really a fair comparison, IMHO.

As for your MPG/RWHP challenge, an equally valid performance barometer would be specific output, in which case I think you may have a hard time finding a GM engine to match the 120+ hp/liter of the S2k engine.

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about HIDs? :p

I like my HIDs, BTW.

mspence3

Oh, and I like my HID's as well!!

jrock65

Very good find, mspence3.

The thread starter comes in with a couple lines from a site that only sells non-HID bulbs and professes that HID's are over-rated. LOL.

Of course, the same guy says that the numerous people on this forum who have said that they have bought a base TL for $31,000 or less are all liars. He KNOWS that one cannot buy a TL for less than $2500 over invoice.

harddrivin1le

10.9 isn't 10.0

And some LS1s have run very high 12s/low 13s right out of the box.

One therefore doesn't have to knock off 3 full seconds to get an LS1 into the high tens.

I've personally witnessed lots of dyno runs over in Warren, RI. It's essentially a "Mustang shop." 3 years ago I watched BONE STOCK LS1s making more than 300 RWHP while 302s fitted heads, cam, revised EFI/intake and headers were struggling to make 250.

"Fuel injection mods" isn't an INTERNAL engine mod. They used the OEM plastic intake manifold.

mspence3

I found them easily with a simple search on Yahoo. This fact makes two things fairly evident.

1) I humbly suggest that there is no way for Harddrivin to have searched for his links without finding those that I posted. He found them and left them out purposely.

2) He was not intending to start an objective thread about the qualities of HID's. He was merely picking a fight!

I feel even more strongly about the second when I re read his other comments in the past. Things like, and I am paraphrasing here:

You think your cars are perfect and theyr'e not.
You think HID's are so great and they have issues.

Apparently, all this is an attempt to teach us a lesson. Lessons not well taught because, in my view at least, they so obviuosly lack any objectivity.

harddrivin1le

Nothing in those links disputes what I wrote.

Both of my links state that HID is generally superior for peripheral lighting.

But that's not the only variable in the lighting equation.

Your links don't discuss the effectiveness over longitudinal distance (e.g. 600 feet down the road) or color ratio indices:

"Disadvantages of HID

There are physiological disadvantages to HID auto headlamps that do not exist with glowing-filament lamps.

Probably the biggest issue is HID headlamps' significantly worse color rendering index (CRI), which is in the high-60s to low-70s range. Halogen headlamps' CRI tends to be around 90 to 97 or so. In English, this means that the human eye's color perception and differentiation is much, much better under halogen light than under the light produced by automotive HID headlamps. "

harddrivin1le

The Camaro still kicked the S2000's arse, didn't it?

And it was damn close to the NSX (even WITHOUT the benefit of RPO 1LE), wasn't it?

The Camaro gets BETTER MILEAGE than EITHER of the Hondas, too (19 city/28 highway).

So I don't care about how much HP/Liter it's engine makes. No racing sanctioning body limits engine size on the street. The visible results (performance and mileage) are what matter there.

The Camaro is FASTER than the S2000 on a drag strip, FASTER around the typical road racing circuit and gets better mileage per the EPA.

I paid $21,300 for mine. How much do those NSXs cost again? That's right - $85K.

So why in 2004 can't Honda/Acura, with their "high tech," multi-cam, multi-valve, variable valbe timing engines beat the 2 valve/cylinder, pushrod V8 that Chevy had on the drawing boards in 1995 (LS1) in terms of MPG/DRIVE WHEEL HP?

mspence3

That wasn't the point. I posted those threads because they were tests from an independent, unbiased reference. Those tests were most certainly conducted scientifically. When you reach the end of each, they draw conclusions. All made it clear that neither lighting source was without faults and that HID's were of value as a headlight technology.

harddrivin1le

Consumer Reports isn't "independent and unbiased?"

A good HID system is very expensive to build (and buy). I remain totally UNCONVINCED that HID offers better lighting per $$$.

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1057508800888

"We compared 31 cars and trucks with halogen lights and 10 with HIDs, measuring their ability to light the road ahead and along the sides as well as checking them for glare (see Headlight testing).

Six out of 10 vehicles with HIDs and 9 out of 31 with halogens reached the 400-foot marker on our test course with low beams, compared with an average of 335 feet for all models tested.

The farthest so far: the inexpensive, halogen-equipped Mazda Protegé5. Its low beams illuminated our 600-foot marker without creating a glare problem."

mspence3

I believe that they are. But the tests that they conducted were limited in scope. Add that to the fact that C/R does not like the technology because of the glare issue, and you have an incomplete picture.

harddrivin1le

But your links are limited in scope as well.

I pointed out why that is so above (and again here):

Your links don't discuss the effectiveness over longitudinal distance (e.g. 600 feet down the road) or color ratio indices:

"Disadvantages of HID

There are physiological disadvantages to HID auto headlamps that do not exist with glowing-filament lamps.

Probably the biggest issue is HID headlamps' significantly worse color rendering index (CRI), which is in the high-60s to low-70s range. Halogen headlamps' CRI tends to be around 90 to 97 or so. In English, this means that the human eye's color perception and differentiation is much, much better under halogen light than under the light produced by automotive HID headlamps. "

And here's a bonus. You posted 2 links from RPI.

This is lifted directly from the CONSUMER REPORTS article:

"Side light has its benefits. "You’re more likely to see objects on the right side of the road," says Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

But neither HID nor halogen lights may provide enough light down the road on their low beams, says Michael Flannagan, senior associate research scientist at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. "Each year, some 2,300 pedestrians are killed at night in the road, not on the shoulder," says Flannagan, who analyzed 11 years of nationwide crash data to calculate the effect of darkness on pedestrian fatalities. His 2001 study found that pedestrians are killed at four times the rate in darkness as in daylight.

"The farther drivers can see straight ahead on low beams, the better," says Flannagan. We agree. Unfortunately, while many HID lights we tested were among the better performers, even the best didn’t outdistance the best halogens."

mspence3

Bull. Now your just baiting to continue the argument.

The point of this thread was never to convince you of anything becuase you will not yeild. It's your thread and the point was to make the fine members of this forum feel as though the things that they think make their cars great are inferior.

To that point, your failing!!!

harddrivin1le

The Consumer Report link I posted actually REFERENCES the RPI studies you posted!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is lifted directly from the CONSUMER REPORTS article I posted:

"Side light has its benefits. "You’re more likely to see objects on the right side of the road," says Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

But neither HID nor halogen lights may provide enough light down the road on their low beams, says Michael Flannagan, senior associate research scientist at the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. "Each year, some 2,300 pedestrians are killed at night in the road, not on the shoulder," says Flannagan, who analyzed 11 years of nationwide crash data to calculate the effect of darkness on pedestrian fatalities. His 2001 study found that pedestrians are killed at four times the rate in darkness as in daylight.

"The farther drivers can see straight ahead on low beams, the better," says Flannagan. We agree. Unfortunately, while many HID lights we tested were among the better performers, even the best didn’t outdistance the best halogens."

TLs aren't "inferior." They're nice cars. My point is that HIDs don't necessarily equate to BETTER lighting when ALL of the variables are considered.

NBP04TL4ME

When does this thread end???

Different strokes for different folks.

Oh and by the way, I love my HIDs and they ARE the best headlamps I've ever owned.

Another point not discussed. You can have 1,000 HP in a rear wheel drive car, but in the NE or anywhere else with snow/bad weather, FWD is going to win every time. RWD = sideways. FWD = forward.

My $.02 and please let this thread die!!

harddrivin1le

Good point on the weather.

That's a main reason that I decided to lease the Accord V6 with traction control (and leave the Camaro in the garage).

DARK6mt

iTrader: (1)

man! i dont care how fast your camaro is, its one of the most ugliest cars out there.

I really don't know how old you are, but accord and carmaro, they are not really "Pimp'in" ride.

..................shoulda gotten the TL.........aspec or not.................

brahtw8

Again, you have not answered my question.

Instead, you have simply repeated yourself, so I will ask again?

Why do you feel the need to 'prove' the superiority of your Camaro?

And while I am at it, have you ever driven an S2k or an NSX?

harddrivin1le

I've raced several S2000s ans 2 NSXs...

And they are LAUGHABLE for thje $$$ they get for them.

Have YOU ever driven a 1LE/LS1 Z28?

harddrivin1le

CAM ONLY in terms of INTERNAL engine mods plus other EXTERNAL MODS (though normally aspirated and no bottle) - just as I said:

Skeedatl

It's not a cam only swap as you lead everyone to believe. It's EASILY got $10,000 is engine, trans, readend and chassis mods. There are certainly CHEAPER ways into the $10,000's. It would have been WAY cheaper to junkyard turbo it and it would run 10's on radials.

Look at it, drag race suspension and the cam..... .600 lift, spool, ELECTRIC water pump, oh yeah, that's streetable and 11.5" slicks?!? Give it another 20 runs and you can say BYE to that output shaft. More engine mods, 80MM TB, aftermarket MAF and intake. Even the driveshaft is aftermarket. At least with turbos can drive to the track, dial up the boost, run 10's, dial down the boost and drive home. You aren't going to daily drive that Slomero.

It better run 10's...but not for long. That crap bottom end won't hold together. With $1,000's in major race only mods it squeaks into the 10's...but it won't do it long with that bottom end.

And while they say in the first paragram that all you need is a cam, TB and other cheap assorted parts...that is a COMPLETE LIE.

Without the new control arms, headers, valve springs & retainers, giant 1-3/4 headers, spool, driveshaft, aftermarket trans parts, better clutch or the $1,000's in other parts, that plastic POS isn't running anywhere except the rearend shop.

You should read the WHOLE article lameass about how that motor isn't what's getting it in the 10's, it's the suspension that gets it in the 10's. Hell, they even had to gut the interior and replace the carpet. That's pretty sad.

brahtw8

I have not driven a 1LE/LS1 Z28, nor do I go around ripping on them. Since you have not answered my question directly, I will rely on the implication of your statement, which is that you have driven neither car.

I could care less what you drive. It does not make me regret what is in my garage.

I am trying to get to the root of why you have a need to justify your choice in automobiles by attempting to convince others that they have made the wrong choice.

Now, lets hear more about your racing experience against S2ks and NSXs. Sounds like stoplight racing, but perhaps you mean at the drag strip or an a road course. I am just happy that you have moved on from magazine racing, as that was getting a little old.

I have tracked my NSX on many occasions, in the company of a variety of cars. I have nothing to prove about its performance or its value. I didn't pay $90k for my NSX (nor does anyone else in this country). I paid $10k more than your Camaro, and got a reliable exotic that has stopped depreciating.

As for your 10.9 second Camaro, perhaps the 5-600 pound diet, drag radials at low pressure and "serious drag racer" driver were a factor?

harddrivin1le

"Stoplight racing?"

No - highway stuff...well into triple digits.

The S2000 is SLOW...and it doesn't get any mileage, either, for such a small 4-banger.

You bought an NSX for just $10K more than $21,300 (which is what I paid for a NEW 1LE)? What dealership sells NSXs for that? I'll buy one today for $31,300...

And a bone stock LS1 C5 will take an NSX on any road course (assuming equal drivers) while the Z06 would flat out TROUNCE it.

The 10.9 sec LS1 is EXACTLY what I orginally claimed. I mentioned there were EXTERNAL mods right from the start, but that the only INTERNAL engine mod was a cam. That's 100% true.

My original statement:

Skeedatl

And springs And titantium retainers....

AGAIN...the INTERNAL engine mod isn't what makes that Slomero run 10's.

It's obvious you have ZERO clue about drag racing and you think your Slomero is fast.

You're what is called a benchtop racer. You read some B.S. in magazines and regergitate it everywhere you go but have ZERO involvement in the sport and ZERO experience in anything you CUT AND PASTE from other sites.

When you actually know what a spool is or how any of those other parts on that Slomero contribute to its quickness, you will realize how stupid you've sounded.

You should actually GO to a track and race your Slomero...then you would realize how slow it really is. Hell with your inexperience, I would be VERY surprised if you could get it in the 13's. I thought my GN was fast when it ran mid-12's after only a $80 wastegate mod. Hell I thought my 12.90 stock bottom end stock suspension 5.0 was fast because I could smoke Honda's on the street. Fact is they're both slow. REALLY slow. My 10.90 GN is still slow compared to what others are doing. Even in my 12's 5-0...I would still occasionally get my ass handed to me...more than on occasion by fast imports like modded early 90's eclipses, RX-7 turbos who did the same relatively cheap wastegate mods that I later did to my GN. Even with my V-8 power...I, just like that Slomero, couldn't put it to the street without slicks or N60 McCrearys and 90-10's. I'd get my ass handed to me by a car making 50HP less.

But I'm at least in the sport. I've broken all the stock parts in my 5.0 (including 4 T-5's) and GN and understand completely why that Slomero owner in the article REPLACED ALL of those suspension components.

You pull your head out of your ass from EXPERIENCE, not CUTTING AND PASTING other's ideas.

Now skip the Stop Light Grand Prix, go race at a REAL track with other people in the sport and learn something.

kadams64

I click on a thread about HID lamps and end up reading about old style heavy metal domestic hotrodding. Next thing I know I'll be seeing bikini clad babes draped over a set of Hooker headers or something.

The last time I thought much about quarter mile speeds, high performance radical lobe cam shafts, headers, and bench horsepower, I was 15 and my brother was 21 and we were racing a superstock 550 hp Chevelle SS. Well, I was sitting in the passenger seat going "Wheeeeeee!", but I pretended I was racing.

Thanks for the walk down memory lane back to my youth. Now I think I'll go looking for some threads germaine to what I came here for. In the same vein, maybe Harddrivin1le can go looking for a forum more suitable to his tastes too?

brahtw8

My NSX is a 1993. Most of the NSXs on the road are 91s and 92s. (4000 of the 8500-9000 in the country). You can find a nice NA1 NSX for $30-35k all day, dealer or private party.

A normal C5 is about equal to an NA1 NSX (3.0 liter/5spd) on a road course and slower than an NA2 NSX (3.2/6spd). I don't think you will find very many people with a STOCK LS1 C5 that can show objective track superiority over a STOCK NSX.

The current NSX-R lapped the Nurburgring in 7min56sec. That is nothing to laugh at.

The early NSXs are 5.3/13.6 cars in a straight line. Later 3.2s are 4.9/13.2 (T) or 4.6/12.9 if you can find a coupe (damn near impossible).

Why would you spend the extra 10k for an NSX? You seem to be convinced that the Camaro is superior. Why not save that money and buy another Camaro?

And again, why do you feel the need to rip the NSX? I have yet to rip the Camaro. That is not because the Camaro is immune from criticism.

harddrivin1le

I have no desire to spend $31K on a used, 11 year old car. The NSX is a very nice car in many ways, but it pales in terms of all around performance/dollar when compared to a a 1LE/LS1 F-body and even the LS1 and LS6 Corvettes...

Sure the GM cars have crappy interiors and sub-par fit and finish...But that's not what I'm discussing here.

I haven't "ripped" the NSX. In fact, if you read EARLIER posts you'll see that I never even mentioned the car until several people "ripped" the Camaro.

It was then that I brought up the Acura NSX.

And I still can't understand why Acura/Honda in 2004 aren't able to make more peak HP from a gallon of gasoline than GM made way back in 1997 with just 1 cam, pushrods and 2 valves/cylinder(the first LS1 C5 Corvette).:wow:

brahtw8

I have read all of your posts in this thread, and many of your posts in others.

You have ripped the NSX, calling it overpriced and its performance laughable. Before I got involved, you repeatedly brought up the NSX for no reason other than to insult it and argue the superiority of your car.

I find that sad and very small.

If you truly believed in the superiority of your Camaro, you wouldn't have 280+ posts on this site, many of which have been responding to arguments you have started. Yes, there are some other hard-headed folks on this site (G35 debate?), but you are adding to the problem, not solving it. The legitimate aspects of your post have been lost as a result.

Notice that I still have not insulted your car. When you can say the same, and display even a modicum of tact, let me know.

harddrivin1le

Yep...I called it laughable - AFTER the Acura people laughed @ the Camaro.

So what?

I know the NSX has a lot of redeeming qualities, but performance/$$ isn't among them.

I start no "arguments." Rather, I post facts with many sources to back them up.

The NSX, M3 and a host of other exotic/semi-exotic cars would be faster, more fuel efficient and less expensive if their manufacturers used GM sourced LS1, LS6 (or new LS2) Corvette engines.

Saying that is sacrilegious, of course.

And GM could stand to learn quite a bit about quality - particularly so with their car's interiors. But "everyone" already knows that.

There is no perfect car (other than the TL, of course).

'92 LT1 Corvettes were typically beating NSXs in "showroom stock" road racing when those cars were new. I believe there was some kind of "ESCORT" sponsored series where those regularly squared off...They ended up mandating that weight be added to the 'Vette to "even things out." The base 'Vette (now C5 with LS1, soon to be C6 with LS2) is hotter still...

Here's Steve Millen running several cars we've discussed around a road racing circuit for ROAD AND TRACK. The NSX was a LOT closer in lap times to the SS Camaro (not even equipped with the 1LE package, which would have cut weight and improved the suspension) than it was to the 1st year Z06 (385 HP back then).

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=1&preview=

Skeedatl

Now you want to argue engine technology of the LS6 (and its disappointing performance according to C&D and the application of it in the CTS-V) versus MPower, AMG and the pioneering NSX? It's not as simple as dropping a pushrod motor into any chassis which is why GM has yet to make a decent US sport sedan, even their CTS-V is nothing compared to competitors like the M5.

Dude, give the trolling a rest.

The M3 is about as perfect as cars get.

As for engines...the future of performance is in hybrids. Especially with the smog laws we have in Cali. Imagine a 300HP V6 powered ultralightweight car like an S2000, but with another 50-80HP on demand. You would get nearly 400HP (excellent power/weight) when you need it, but then the car gets 40-60MPH when you don't.

We'll see this on the next Acura RL which will feature a 300HP hybrid getting 40MPH. Lexus is doing the same as is Ford.

If you get DiscoveryHD Theater, they've been showing cars from the Tokyo Auto Show and they're amazing. Once I decide to ditch my RL I think it's going to get traded in on a Dodge Magnum.

brahtw8

How many times have you posted this article in this thread?

Five? More?

And why do you see this article as evidence of the NSX's inferiority?

Here is the final paragraph in the NSX section:

"As for the others in this test; sure, there were faster and quieter examples, but none provided the overall diversity of the NSX: outstanding performance, optimal comfort, good fuel economy and a less-than-exotic price tag. With a more powerful V-8 engine (which is rumored to be coming in a few years) — not to mention a dramatic face lift and lower price — it won't be just the S2000 the NSX bullies around in tests like these. It'll be others ...most likely those shown in the surrounding pages. — Sam Mitani"

Note that the NSX they tested was not in very good shape:

"Also, our test NSX seemed to have an alignment problem, resulting in numb steering feel and heavy understeer. Test driver Steve Millen agreed, "This car feels worse than the last NSX I drove," he commented. Still, the mid-engine Acura was able to click off faster lap times around Thunderhill than the S: a testament to the NSX's exceptional handling balance."

And, do not forget the NSX was running the fairly conservative factory rubber, with 215s on the front and 245s on the rear.

Do you think the NSX might have been a bit faster if it was shod in a little wider rubber, like the 265/295 setup of the Z06 or the 275s all around on the Camaro SS? (Not that you can fit such wide tires on the front, but you could run 225s and 285s on the rear)

What about the fact that the heavy (4125 lb), last generation MB SL 500 lapped quicker than your Camaro in that same test?

Don't you see how pointless these carefully selected comparisons are?

harddrivin1le

How much do the MB and the Acura cost again?

Each 1 second advantage the NSX pulled out over the SS translated into roughly $25K in terms of additional MSRP.

I think fatter rubber might slow the Acura down because it's light on torque and bigger rubber means more rolling and wind resistance (which could impact it a tad on the straights).

The NSX was ~ $80K back when I paid $21,300 for my 1LE...That's nearly a factor of 4X, yet in those two cars are very close in terms of raw performance. THAT is the main point here. The 2nd point is that the "old tech" Camaro also gets more MPGs - despite the fact that it produces MORE rear wheel HP and is ~ 350 pounds HEAVIER!!

The SS that was tested was not a 1LE car and was therefore heavier and marginally damped. The 1LE package included ~ $1,300 worth of Koni "Yellows" (double adjustable) that were missing in the SS.

Skeedatl

Yeah, but again, the Slomaro is a rattlebox P.O.S. that's so horrible and had such bad sales numbers that GM canceled not only the Slomero but the Firechicken as well. You're compare track numbers only, not fit/finish, reliability or anything else that contributed to the F-body's timely demise.

If all you care about is numbers, you can do it WAY cheaper than what you wasted on that rattlebox of yours. If you wanted a POS that would puke up WAY better numbers than your Slomaro you should have kept your '86 and stopped by Vortech and Saleen (but that would require you to actually KNOWING about suspension, brakes and building HP...my bad).

You of anyone...seeing as you don't even know what a track looks like, nevertheless ever been on one should put value in reliability, refinement, road feel and build quality...none of which exist in the Slomaro.

If you want to see what the Slomaro should have been, you need not look any further than the 2005 Mustang. Value HP, excellent styling, superior motor and suspension without the pitiful build quality of GM. Ford already makes America's best sports car and this is the next step for Ford dominance of domestic performance.

jrock65

Why even bother guys?

The thread starter thinks that the Accord and Camaro are the holy grails of automobiles, and that people who purchased other cars overpaid and got "overrated" and useless features.

He seems to live in a fantasy world where his word on cars is "objectivity" and calls people liars when they buy cars for less than he did or would have gotten.

Classic case of jealousy, pettiness, and delusions of grandeur if I ever saw it.

svtmike

I think he's really lonely. Can't find friends so he goes out looking for enemies on the internet. Pretty sad, really.

Mike

brahtw8

This will be my last post in this thread.

If that was the main point you were trying to get across, I think you would have had more success if you would approached it differently.

I don't think anybody is claiming a new NSX offers the most performance for the least amount of cash. If performance is all you are looking for, there are better choices. Some people appreciate what the NSX has to offer beyond bare performance, some don't.

The NSX is certainly overdue for a redesign. When it was new, it changed the world. Modern Ferraris, Porsches, and even Corvettes owe the NSX for raising the bar and proving a supercar could be driven every day by anyone. Honda neglected it, particularly in the US market. If we had the NSX-R over here, which is a peer of the 911 GT3 and M3 CSL for similar coin, perhaps the NSX would get more respect than it does at present (which is not to say that it is not appreciated, but it is certainly a frequent target, which probably speaks more of its virtues than its faults.)

I still think the new ones are a decent value as an exotic, but the recent surge in performance capability of formerly pedestrian models has really changed the debate.

I think the the old ones are the best value in a used exotic car, period. You can get something faster, without question, but the overall package has no competitor at that price range.

I implore you to drive one someday.

harddrivin1le

I agree with everything you said.

You haven't mentioned MPGs/Drive Wheel HP, though...

Insteresting how an "old fashioned" 2 valve/cylinder pushrod V8 more or less rules in that category, isn't it?