BEAR-AvHistory

One last time then I'm out. The GS is a street car with a stock base engine. No increase in HP period. The NSX was putting down 116 MORE hp. The GS suspension is not a Z06 suspension its the optional mag suspension you can get on any Corvette.with a Z07 tune. The GS does not have the downforce stage 3 aero package it. The stage 3 downforce package in the big Z06 go around the track fast item. At LL they ran the optional $8K package in the GS most of which is the carbon brakes.& Cup tires the rest is gray paint on the calipers & the Z07 suspension tuning. No engine upgrades 455 stock horsepower so you are talking about a motor that will knock down 25mpg over the road & is the same motor that is in the Camaro SS.

The one I will buy, GS/2LT, if I don't get the Jaguar F Type would list for a MSRP of $78K. Would leave off the tire & brake package.

BTW since the Z06 is important to you can pick a nice one up for $82K MSRP or about $120K less than the NSX in LL..

The NSX is being sold as a super car with supercar pricing. HONDA took a $156K car & added $30K in pure performance enhancements get it to the point of being 3 seconds behind the Stingray. The tires it ran on were Pirelli P Zero Trofeo R neo-slicks.

So given the NSX's $30K in performance preparation for LL please explain how this was not a track car & the StingRay GS is a track prepared car?

BEAR-AvHistory

One last time & I am out. The NSX started at $156K then they added $30K in performance related items including P Zero Neo-Slicks on the wheels. So basically they had the GTLM series car but with a full interior & no roll cage at LL. The StingRay GS had $8K in performance related options including Cup tires.

There is no rational way to say the GS was 'prepared' & the NSX was jut a nice car with no pretentions for numbers. & was not 'prepared'. You can make excuses for the car but it would it would be nice if they were logical,.since the NSX that showed up was in full track day trim..

CheeseyPoofs McNut

Chevy is leaving money on the table with that car.

Regarding the NSX - 17th all-time best LL time is nothing to be embarrassed about and it did beat the times of other famous Italian and German "supercars" - so it's not an epic fail by any means. I found it interesting that the article referenced that it took three days to get the lap time down to 2:50.2 - at which point the Honda engineers were satisfied. Does every car company send engineers to the C&D LL??

saturno_v

I do not agree that with the new Accord Honda "got their act together"....it is still a very good midsize sedan, among the best we can still say but it is not longer the all-star champion in the segment that once was....before nobody could come close to the Accord, it was truly the 3 Series of the FWD, a sport sedan in family midsize clothing compared to the others.....that is no longer the case, there are other alternatives that are as good if not better in some regards.

I would say that the new Civic is fairly impressive in its segment.

BEAR-AvHistory

I would not take too many bows over finishing 17th with a brand new super car. The series started 10 years ago so there are a lot of old super cars in the mix. In this years testing it was behind all the super cars tested and 2 mass market performance cars, Viper & StingRay. It did finish ahead of 1 exotic the Audi R8 but a bread & butter $40K Camaro SS also beat the Audi. But to lay on the standard excuse the R8 had standard street tires not the NSX Pirelli P-Zero Neo slicks or StingRays Sport Cups.

Now off too the track. LL is a fun to read what the cars you can buy at the dealer will do in the hands of a pro or semi-pro driver. The GTLM is a serious racing league populated by full on factory teams with some of the best drivers in the world. The NSX did so poorly it has canned the hybrid package in an attempt to improve its fortunes. IIRC the TLX factory cars have also pulled the electrics in their division.

It was mentioned as sort of a positive above that the drivers found it hard to work up to speed & the HONDA techs were happy. maybe they were just happy the pain stopped.

My own humble experience suggests a car that is hard to learn for a pro or semi pro driver is just a car that needs more sorting out before it can be considered a good car. The removing of the electrics & their additional horsepower in the race cars to improve overall performance says volumes about where the technology actually is..

Just a side note for anyone not familiar with LL. All the cars show up at the same time & the drivers switch cars during the testing. So all the cars get the same amount of time as all the others. So well sorthed acrs that can be learned quickly will have an advantage. Some cars have techs with them others just come off the car carrier.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

The GS (with the Z07 pkg) is a track oriented version of the Corvette. Sure, it keeps the standard car's 460hp V8, which is a shame, but make no mistake. Work was concentrated on aero, suspension, brakes, and tires. The Corvette line is already served with a large pool of performance options. Grand Sport makes use of them to improve its handling. These include the standard fitment of electronic LSD, magnetic ride adaptive dampers, larger Brembo brakes and a set of wider tires coming from the mighty Z06, i.e. 285/30ZR19 up front and 335/25ZR20 at the rear. These rubbers look oversized for the power they have to handle, but they do enable the car to corner at 1.05g. To accommodate them, the Grand Sport needs the flared wheel arches of Z06, (looks pretty darn aggressive too!). The Z07 pkg adds ceramic brakes and PS Cup 2 tires (even better than the Trofeo R's on the NSX).

If you don't like that to be called a track prepped car. Sure. It's just term, no big deal. But the idea still holds true - that the GS with the Z07 pkg isn't your regular Corvette. Think of it like the NA2 NSX-R. That NSX didn't get any power upgrade. But would you consider that to be a track-oriented car?



I guess for you, a track car is one with stripped out interior. In that sense, that sure, the GS is not a track car.

But like you mentioned, with the Z07 pkg, it's got Z06 stage 2 aero, optional mag suspension, carbon ceramic brakes, Z06 sized PS Cup 2 tires (these are even more grippy than the Trofeo R's in the NSX), and LSD.

Yes it doesn't have power upgrade. But you know what all these remind me of? The NA2 NSX-R. Yup, the NA2 NSX-R also didn't get any power increase. But it got some nicer tires, different suspension, more aero. It didn't get carbon ceramic brakes though. The result? The NA2 NSX-R runs the same 7:56 on the Nurburgring as a C5 Z06 with 400hp. In other words, way faster than a regular NSX.

Hard to resist the F-Type. IMO it's the best looking car for the price.

To be fair, the only real performance upgrade in the NSX option list is the carbon ceramic brakes for $10k. All those carbon stuff is more for cosmetic.Put it this way, if you go to Porsche website, you can add like $50k of stuff to a 911 Turbo too. Does that mean it's a track prepped car?

The Vette GS is faster than a lot of cars, including the even more expensive McLaren 570S. Does that mean it's no good too? And the GS is only 2 seconds behind the brand new Ferrari 488. By your logic, a Z06 would be faster than that. Does that mean the Ferrari 488 is not worth it?

A proper NSX track day car would be a GT3 or Type R version.

The NSX isn't designed for purists. Let's make it clear. It's designed so that the average Joe can drive it fast with confidence, without feeling artificial.

What some of you are looking for, is a NSX GT3/Type R.



Haha well the Accord is now getting old though.

BEAR-AvHistory

Nice list of stuff on the GS. You do realize except for the bodywork its all part of the base cars Z51 option package.

teh CL

iTrader: (1)

TacoBello

Mr Hyde

Please stay on topic to the TLX please.

BEAR-AvHistory

OK

rockstar143

iTrader: (6)

Every time I see the thread title I'm like... pics or gtfo!

Saw all the cool newest lineup of Acuras this Saturday...a lot on wheels and lowered. They look so freaking good...I really wish there was more of a following for them and support but overall it's pretty bland.
I will say the ILX aspec lip though is very aggressive looking and I LOVE how it looks...if that were coupled with a 6MT and some serious power...

TacoBello

Yes, and if pigs could fly...

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Lol sorry mods for getting off topic.

But going back on topic regarding how the NSX "is very much like the TLX in automobile limbo, " just thought that's not really accurate.

Without wasting too much time with a response, I think this article sums it up well:
2017 Best Performance Car of the Year - 2017 Acura NSX Named Road & Track's PCOTY

If that sort of engineering and design aspects from the NSX can be somehow trickled down to the TLX (and other Acura models), then Acura will have a fairly strong product line up.

WheelMcCoy

Nice to see the NSX was chosen as PCOTY. But there was a footnote that R&T crashed a favorite to win:
How I Crashed the McLaren 570S - Car Crash During Performance Car of the Year Testing

Nevertheless, coming in first or second doesn't matter. I have no doubt Honda/Acura has the resources and talent to reinvigorate the rest of the line-up. It just seems that Acura has an identity crisis.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

or they just dont want too

WheelMcCoy

You might be right. They make a good enough product that sells just enough.

I'm hoping, however, they developed the NSX to remind the world (and themselves) what they are capable of.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

I think going against the grain with the 4G TL scared and scarred them.
I think it was a vehicle beyond its time, as it's design was angular and sharp and look at all the other manufactures copy the sharp lines, today!
however, the sales #'s werent great and Honda went back conservative

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

With the new precision concept, I think we will see more clearly where Acura is heading in the next 3 years or so. They had plans for RWD and V8 and all that prior to 2010, but then they cancelled many things and pursued this smart luxury business for the past several years. And it didn't work out very well for them.

The new CEO seems to know what he's doing now so we will see what Acura can deliver.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

it took 10 years to get into this mess we are currently in.
Hopefully it doesnt take another 10 years to fix it.

BEAR-AvHistory

TacoBello

The BEST performance car of the year has... (At best) mediocre performance

I'm waiting for iforyou to come in and say "oh, but the NSX isn't for that. It's for making you feel special"

oh you'll feel special alright, after dropping 200 large...

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Haha yes TacoBello, but it's true. Was the original NSX the fastest in all objective measures? Not really. ZR-1, 911 Carrera 2, Espirit Turbo, etc, were all faster. Yet, it's seen as a revolutionary exotic car.

As for the price, $200k is the fully loaded one with a bunch of CF pieces for show only. Those parts don't do anything to performance. The only performance option is the carbon ceramic brake options for $10k...for a total of $167700.

You can option out a 911 Turbo S to $240k too if you want.

With that said, R&T stated quite clearly how they chose their PCOTY,

If numbers are the only important factor, then the NSX, gen 1, or gen 2, is definitely not for you.

TacoBello

Yes, and what was the price point of those other cars vs. The nsx in 1991?

You seem deeply in love with not only the brand, but the car itself. Arguing seems futile at best. And while the original NSX may not have been the fastest, it was touted as being a handling and braking phenom. Whether you choose to accept that or not is your prerogative. Ask anyone who currently owns one and I'm willing to bet the first thing they say is "Yeah, I know it's not very fast... but the handling... oh my God, the handling!"

BEAR-AvHistory

Agree the original NSX could handle. Ran with the big dogs even though it was not as fast. It also killed them on price. Current one is purely a very expensive enthusiasm suppository.

BTW 4 keeps up the incorrect banter about $10K for performance enhancements. The same car ran lightning laps @ $200+K where it came in 7th in the 2016 test & 17th overall. This was posted in the article:

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 other words it underachieves for its price & is still think its in limbo as for it being a true supercar. Be interesting to see where he got the only $10k from.

WheelMcCoy

It's probably a safe bet that the NSX won the fuel economy measurement.

Ack! I find myself rooting for Acura and at the same time, making fun of them.

Saintor

At 150-200 large I want something with a pedigree. R8, McLaren 570, Aston Martin.

The NSX should have been aligned on the GT-R @ 100-125.

rockstar143

iTrader: (6)

I was at the dealership the other day near an NSX...this other guy walks up and is talking to the sales guy...
he's like, for that much I'd get a lambo...
I said, shit, for that much buy 2 used ones.
Then he tells the sales guy, V12? Nawww...V6 his jaw dropped.
The conversation continued but I walked away.

BEAR-AvHistory

Nope, did not cut it there either
EPA
NSX 21/22 - StingRay GS 16/25.

Real World
NSX 21MPG for 1 car - StingRay 21.6 for 16 cars.

Some of the other car in the test might have been better but knew the GS number so did not look.

nist7

+
Agreed with both posts above. The C/D LL 2016 shows that the C7 GS is an amazing car more so than how terrible the new NSX is. Because if we are only using numbers to judge these cars....there are ALOT of cars with great pedigree/engineering that got spanked by the GS or is barely keeping up:

Selected historical LL lap times: (source here: Lightning Lap 2016: Results, Historical Lap Times, and More ? Feature ? Car and Driver)

1. 488 GTB - 2:45.1
2. GT3 RS - 2:47.0
3. C7 GS - 2:47.1
4. 570S - 2:47.4
5. Huracan LP610-4 2:47.5
6. GT-R NISMO - 2:49.4
7. 2014 SRT Viper 2:49.9
8. 2012 458 - 2:49.9
9. NSX - 2:50.2
10. 991 GT3 - 2:50.4
11. C6 ZR1 - 2:50.7
12. Camaro Z/28 - 2:50.9
13. AMG GT S - 2:51.0
14. (2014) 911 Turbo S - 2:51.2
15. GT350R - 2:51.8
16. R8 V10 Plus - 2:56.1

This is an amazing feat by Chevy/GM.

And if we are ragging on the 17th place historical finish of the NSX... look at the two other major rear/mid-engined cars that are in its competitive segment and are often touted as a more desirable buy by some:

The 991 Turbo S at 23rd place historically.
The R8 V10 Plus is at a whopping 39th place historically. A whopping 6-seconds slower than the NSX at more hp and quite a bit lighter as well.....poor showing.

Now AFAIK, the only thing is that the 991 Turbo S they tested is 2014....and from a quick glance at wiki it seems that there doesn't seem to be a huge change in the 991.2 model year (20hp bump from 560 to 580) so far for say a 2016/2017 Turbo S (I may be wrong, so Porsche knowledgeable people should comment to correct this if needed) and so not sure how a 16/17 Turbo S would do that much better than a '14 Turbo S.

Yes, the NSX is not an amazing performance feat like the C7 GS clearly is. But in my opinion it is wrong to also characterize it as some super slow car relative to its price-similar competitors (ie, the 991 Turbo S and the MUCH slower R8 V10 Plus).

TacoBello

this doesn't really make sense. The NSX has about the same amount of "pedigree" as the R8. Both are on their second generation.

the GT-R... That car has a long standing pedigree from several decades ago.

TacoBello

I did some browsing through nsxprime yesterday to see what the consensus on the car is. Simply put, we are all paper racing and we're just a bunch of poor bums, lol. Most people on that site, including several owners, love the car. They don't care how fast it is. They all seem to say that it's stupid fast, and that's generally only in sport+ mode. There's still track mode after that.

people have some minor complaints but overall they say it's very comfortable, more than fast enough for them (most owners have other cars like Porsche turbos, etc) and they seem to absolutely love EV mode. There is one or two haters (non owners), but everyone else seems to love it.

I guess it makes sense. No, the NSX isn't the fastest in any category.. But we are pushing cars to such a limit these days, that for 99% of us, the car is stupid fast on the road. And fast enough in general. Like with most super cars, most NSXs will never see a track. And nobody cares about paper stats.

nist7

LOL. Looks like the guy is only buying for status/bragging rights and not much of an actual enthusiast.

Don't tell him the 200k 991 Turbo S is also a 6 cylinder. Or that the new 400k Ford GT is also a V6.

TacoBello

A lambo for under 200k? Maybe a used one.

nist7

Indeed. Everyone enjoys their own car in their own way. Just because it's not the best numbers doesn't mean it's an epic failure. (And if you want to actually compare CD LL numbers...the 991 Turbo S and the R8 V10 Plus were slower than the new NSX and placing far lower on the historical LL standings....heh)

And if you only go buy the best performance car...then everyone should just get the latest Viper ACR and be done with it. And you're right...no one really cares about paper numbers. Your neighbor is not gonna laugh at you for buying a NSX instead of the C7 GS and now you're ashamed for life. Both cars can be enjoyed in their own way and as I posted already...NSX is actually not slow relatively speaking with its competition. Not to mention 99% of us will never own these 200k cars at the time of release/new...and 98% of us will never own it at all (accounting for few of us who can afford a future 10-15yr old NSX/570S/991 Turbo S/etc.)

Honestly, car enthusiasm is about all aspects of the car and how each person feels when they own/drive it. Sure there are gripes and disappoinments with the new NSX and I'm not saying those opinions are worthless.

But if you've made it a point in your life that you CAN afford a 200k car? Good for you and enjoy your choice....whether it be a NSX, a 991 Turbo S, a R8 V10 Plus, a 570S, or a C7 GS and a GT-R, GT350R + Cayman....etc. etc.

TacoBello

This should be in the NSX discussion thread, but, I'm willing to bet very very little members on here have had the pleasure of driving any car with 500+ hp. Even less of us have driven a car with that power plus instant electric assisted torque, in a fairly lightweight chassis (yeah, I'm looking at you, CTS-V owners )

By the end of the day, all of us have no idea wtf we are talking about, LOL.

nist7

Yeah, maybe a moderator can move posts around between threads? (not sure if that's possible).

But yes we car enthusiasts are alraedy in a tiny minority...and then out of this fraction a tiny amount will actually DRIVE a 500hp+ car for any time...and then out of that only a small amount of us will actually OWN a car of that price-tag/hp.

I'm not a super regular AZine member, but from my brief history here I can only honestly say maybe a handful of regular posters I know can realistically afford a new ~200k car (neuronbob, and another poster I forget name of but who did post in a serious manner that he could afford the new NSX, and possibly BEAR-AvHistory....given his age and breadth of knowledge which may point towards a high net-worth status and may be able to afford a 200k car, and I think another poster who used to regularly post a collection of quite expensive cars).

BEAR-AvHistory

OK just to kick things off will use the NSX as a base (have zero seat time)
Will use pounds per horsepower as it has more meaning than the raw test sheet numbers

NSX - 573 hp • 3854 lb • 6.7 lb/hp C&D numbers

COBRA Replica - 526 hp* - 2250 lb - 4.3 lb/hp Daily Driver - Instant power & no nannies

Corvette GS - 460 hp - 3428 lb - 7.4 lb/hp Dealer test drive

Jaguar V8 F Type 550 hp - 3814 lb - 6.9 lb/hp Dealer test drive.

Lamborghini Gallardo - 552 hp - 3400 lb - 6.2 lb/hp Swapped rides with neighbor. Back road rat run.

*BHP is a guestimate
Chassis Dyno 470WHP
Took the middle wheel to chassis conversion factor . Some choices based on frictional losses 517 - 526 - 540.

Saintor

Still splitting hair hey? If you want to play that game, the Audi pedigree goes back to THIS.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yes, I realized when the NSX came out in 1990/1991, it was relatively cheap. This applies to the likes of RX-7, Supra, Z32 300ZX, and a few other Japanese sports cars. That was the time when the Japanese economy was at its peak with favorable currency exchange. But in the early 90's, the recession hit Japan hard. The pricing on many JDM imports skyrocketed in just a few years (way more than inflation). The NSX for instance went from about $60k in 1991 to $73k in 1994, and $80k by 1996.

You are correct, I'm deeply in love with the first gen NSX. It's been my dream car for decades. That said, even if I'm a huge fan of the original NSX, I know and admit what its shortcomings are. Likewise, I also really like the new NSX, but I also know about its flaws (i.e. not exactly the fastest for acceleration and on a track).

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.

Which brought me to the 911 Turbo S. You can get one with the carbon ceramic brakes for little below $200k, and it will perform just as a well as a fully optioned out 911 Turbo S at $240k. You can add a lot of CF pieces, nice stereo, headliner, different paint, wheels, aluminium trims, paint schemes, etc to the 911 Turbo S and bring that price to almost a $250k, and it won't lap a track faster than the $200k 911 Turbo S. Give it a try on their build site.

Yup. But to be fair, the R8 V10+ in the L/L test was with max performance summer tires as opposed to streetable track tires. I'd imagine with a proper set of tires, the R8 can shave a few seconds off its lap time too. But ya, I'd say most of these cars are pretty much about as fast as each other, and more than enough for any average Joe.

And yup, the C7 GS owned them all pretty much. I can't go on and say the 570S and the Huracan are a POS.......because they are't...

Yea, it's always good to read comments from actual owners, and even better from people that have multiple super cars.