When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
The R on the P ZERO™ TROFEO R is just a nomenclature that it's a higher performance version of their TROFEO line that as Srika pointed out is a NSX OEM tire from Acura. .
None the less, the NSX was ~6 seconds quicker than the R8 at VIR which is substantial amount of time. I still have to read the C&D article and their notes/tech sheet.
The Trofeo R is a streetable competition tire (which supersceeds the Trofeo). Its a 60 treadware tire that is designed as a track-focused, dual-purpose tire that is best suited to the track but can be driven on the street. Good luck getting 1 or 2 thousand street miles out of it.
What's interesting from the MT historic VIR tracks tests is that the 2012 458 was just 0.3 sec faster than the NSX, however the 2016 488 is 5.1 sec faster.
So yeah, I also have to wonder why the Honda engineers in Ohio and Japan were not going for a higher level as most of the time when you introduce a car you compare to other current cars but also be aware that you're in the start of the car's lifecycle so there should be a capacity available to evol.
Again the big take away I see is the C7 Z06 is faster than the 488 and 650, for a front engine supercharged single cam pushrod V8 2 valve/cyl that costs a fraction of those mid-engine 650 and 488 with their twin turbo, quad cam, 4 valve/cyl V8's. Honda should have tried to poach Tadge Juechter from GM.
Like i said, they should have aimed much higher knowing that the competition was about to send out new models.
And its not the ZO6, its the Grand Sport that was that much faster. Its NOT the supercharged motor, Its the 6.2 460hp version that laid to waste cars in the LIghtning lap.
The Trofeo R is a streetable competition tire (which supersceeds the Trofeo). Its a 60 treadware tire that is designed as a track-focused, dual-purpose tire that is best suited to the track but can be driven on the street. Good luck getting 1 or 2 thousand street miles out of it.
That's also true for the Michellin PILOT SPORT CUP 2 that were on most of this years's MT VIR compeition including the C7 GS and R10.
Both are streetable track tires, the Cup 2 are OEM on the 918.
FYI, IIRC treadwear rating is not necessarily compatible between manufacturers. The DOT states that in their tire rating rules.
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Like i said, they should have aimed much higher knowing that the competition was about to send out new models.
And its not the ZO6, its the Grand Sport that was that much faster. Its NOT the supercharged motor, Its the 6.2 460hp version that laid to waste cars in the LIghtning lap.
I realize a Honda marketing manger said that at some PR event, so I don't know if that's what the Honda engineers were aiming for.
I woulda thought Honda engineers and managers would know that the 458 was toward the end of it's product lifecycle at that point. So they would have aimed higher than that.
I was looking at the C&D's historical times (bottom of the webpage linked below) from prior years at VIR, the C7 Z06 was faster than the 488 and 650S.
There are most probably some statistical variation with track condition and environmental conditions, but I noticed C&D hold the event at similar times every year.
That's also true for the Michellin PILOT SPORT CUP 2 that were on most of this years's MT VIR compeition including the C7 GS and R10.
Both are streetable track tires, the Cup 2 are OEM on the 918.
Car and Driver hat the lightning lap at VIR. The NSX wore Trofeo Rs, The R8 had the P Zeros. and yes the vette had cup 2 tires on and still blew the doors off the NSX (which is the point) both had track tires on, NSX has awd and more power yet lost that bad to the vette.
MT had the Best drivers car at Laguna Seca. where the Vette wasnt invited and the NSX came in 8th, (6 places behing the Mustang 350r)
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
FYI, IIRC treadwear rating is not necessarily compatible between manufacturers. The DOT states that in their tire rating rules.
Yes, BUT when you get down to those ratings, they are the best of the best the manufacturer has this side of a track only tire and do not last long. They are designed to be dot leagle to be driven on the street to get to the track for track days and to get every ounce of performance out of the tire possible.
What's interesting from the MT historic VIR tracks tests is that the 2012 458 was just 0.3 sec faster than the NSX, however the 2016 488 is 5.1 sec faster.
So yeah, I also have to wonder why the Honda engineers in Ohio and Japan were not going for a higher level as most of the time when you introduce a car you compare to other current cars but also be aware that you're in the start of the car's lifecycle so there should be a capacity available to evol.
Again the big take away I see is the C7 Z06 is faster than the 488 and 650, for a front engine supercharged single cam pushrod V8 2 valve/cyl that costs a fraction of those mid-engine 650 and 488 with their twin turbo, quad cam, 4 valve/cyl V8's. Honda should have tried to poach Tadge Juechter from GM.
i don't give much weight to that lightning lap test. Multiple drivers, and not race drivers. You need one race driver like MT and Pobst doing the testing to get accurate and conclusive results.
Just seen the test results from the MT test. The 570S runs 10.7 @ 132 in the 1/4. The GS does 11.8 @ 118. Not even remotely close.
I think he's talking about the Lightning Lap test.
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Yes it is an oem tire option, but its an R compound. Evidence of how big a diffetence iy makes is compare the difference in results against the R8 between the c&d and motor trend. On street tires the R8 walks it.
Even had it had the michelin it wouldn't have touched the vette.
I'm not sure if the R8 would walk it on street tires since C/D didn't test that.
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
What's interesting from the MT historic VIR tracks tests is that the 2012 458 was just 0.3 sec faster than the NSX, however the 2016 488 is 5.1 sec faster.
So yeah, I also have to wonder why the Honda engineers in Ohio and Japan were not going for a higher level as most of the time when you introduce a car you compare to other current cars but also be aware that you're in the start of the car's lifecycle so there should be a capacity available to evol.
Again the big take away I see is the C7 Z06 is faster than the 488 and 650, for a front engine supercharged single cam pushrod V8 2 valve/cyl that costs a fraction of those mid-engine 650 and 488 with their twin turbo, quad cam, 4 valve/cyl V8's. Honda should have tried to poach Tadge Juechter from GM.
lol, when Honda launched the original NSX, similar thing happened too, they were targeting the Ferrari 328, by the time the NSX came out, Ferrari already launched the 348!
I think there IS capacity to evolve the NSX though. Its peak turbo boost is even lower than the Honda Civic 1.5T sedan at 15.2psi. For comparison, the 488GTB's peak boost is 21.7psi.
Also, the NSX right now does not have VTEC. Perhaps that's something that can be implemented.
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
Car and Driver hat the lightning lap at VIR. The NSX wore Trofeo Rs, The R8 had the P Zeros. and yes the vette had cup 2 tires on and still blew the doors off the NSX (which is the point) both had track tires on, NSX has awd and more power yet lost that bad to the vette.
MT had the Best drivers car at Laguna Seca. where the Vette wasnt invited and the NSX came in 8th, (6 places behing the Mustang 350r)
Yes, BUT when you get down to those ratings, they are the best of the best the manufacturer has this side of a track only tire and do not last long. They are designed to be dot leagle to be driven on the street to get to the track for track days and to get every ounce of performance out of the tire possible.
This goes back to Jeff's statement that the NSX in the MT's test was in some sort of drift mode. When you look at the video, you can see the car's tail end sliding all over and Pobst trying his hardest to not slide. Also, Pobst is a pro driver that is so used to driving race cars and other sports cars. Car and Driver, Jeff, and other mags have mentioned how one would need to learn how to drive the NSX to extract the best performance out of it. My feeling is that, if you are a pro race car driver with years of experience, many racing skills are embedded in you, and everything is natural. That would make driving the NSX more difficult as a pro driver would need to re-adjust. Even in the C/D lighting lap, the article mentioned how they had to re-adjust their driving style in order to get the time down. The time keeps getting faster, but they only have 3 days.
The Vette blew the doors off MANY cars, including the McLaren 570S. The Vette has always been a performance bargain since the C5 as far as I can remember...nothing new really.
Another note, even the NSX was not known to be all that fast on a track, especially given its price tag. It's the NSX-R that is dominate on a track.
It seems like a lot of people seem to think the NSX is supposed to be beating lap time records. I'm not sure why that is, as the original NSX also wasn't breaking lap time records.
Jesus Christ. Any and every imaginable excuse is being used for the NSX. You would think a major magazine company that has decades of experience trying to extract the utmost performance out of hundreds, if not thousands of different vehicles would know how to optimize the vehicle setup. And didn't Acura send somebody to help prep the vehicle for testing?
Don't get me started on doubting Randy Pobst's abilities. The man has experience racing Mazdas and Volvos, to Porsches and even ran the Pikes Peak Hill Climb in a highly modified GTR.
I will say that the sport cup 2 ZP on the Corvette (optional?) is basically a shaved down competition tire. However, it is a run flat tire
Any experienced racer will tell you that a loose car is faster. Within reason, of course.
Or are we gonna go back to the old excuse that the other manufacturers paid the publication more money than Acura did?
Nobody is making excuses for the other manufacturers, really. This thread is reaching ssftsx levels of absurdity
Jesus Christ. Any and every imaginable excuse is being used for the NSX. You would think a major magazine company that has decades of experience trying to extract the utmost performance out of hundreds, if not thousands of different vehicles would know how to optimize the vehicle setup. And didn't Acura send somebody to help prep the vehicle for testing?
Don't get me started on doubting Randy Pobst's abilities. The man has experience racing Mazdas and Volvos, to Porsches and even ran the Pikes Peak Hill Climb in a highly modified GTR.
I will say that the sport cup 2 ZP on the Corvette (optional?) is basically a shaved down competition tire. However, it is a run flat tire
Any experienced racer will tell you that a loose car is faster. Within reason, of course.
Or are we gonna go back to the old excuse that the other manufacturers paid the publication more money than Acura did?
Nobody is making excuses for the other manufacturers, really. This thread is reaching ssftsx levels of absurdity
Acura sent people for the Lightning Lap for C&D, but not for the Laguna Seca one unfortunately.
You are absolutely correct that a mag like Motor Trend would know better regarding setting up a car. But then, the NSX is loaded with a lot of tech that can only be found in a handful of cars.
Nobody's doubting Randy Pobst's abilities man. We all know he's a brilliant pro race car driver. But if the car is in some sort of "drift mode," then obviously the back end would be more incline to slide around. The NSX is setup to be understeer, not oversteer as shown in the video.
Here's Jeff comment regarding the so called Drift mode:
For our track portion of the drive, all of the NSX's were equipped with the optional Pirelli tires. Grip was fantastic, especially in the earlier sessions (before folks had figured out how to disable the VSA and engage "drift mode"). One of the NSXs I drove was subject to this treatment prior to me getting my hands on it, and let's just say the rear end was quite a bit more lively than the car I had driven immediately prior.
For reference, another pro driver, Graham Rahal, did a 1:21.9 in the NSX at Thermal Raceway.
TOP 5 cars:
1 Porsche 918 Spyder James Sofronas 1:17.18
2 Ferrari LaFerrari James Sofronas 1:18.46
3 McLaren P1 James Sofronas 1:18.82
4 Dodge Viper ACR (Mk V) James Sofronas 1:21.86
5 Veyron 16.4 Super Sport James Sofronas 1:23.01
lol, when Honda launched the original NSX, similar thing happened too, they were targeting the Ferrari 328, by the time the NSX came out, Ferrari already launched the 348!
If that's the case, you'd think they would have learned their lesson, or caught onto the fact that Ferrari substantially upped its game since the 328 and 348. Apparently, Acura didn't figure either of those two things out.
While the original NSX was not the fastest in straight or in corner, but it shined at its engineering, aluminum body, driving characteristics. You can arguably say it was a car ahead of its time that caught attention from all the exotic brands. Like i said, it does not have to be great at everything but NSX should be "superior" at something.
I just don't find that something in the 2nd Gen based on what is published. you can argue its technology, but it is really nothing new, rather than a cheaper version of the big boys. Even at the lower price point, i8 has already done something similar (minus 3 cylinders).
Then you add the anticipation, delay after delay and you would arrive where we are now.
Last edited by oonowindoo; 09-26-2016 at 08:13 PM.
If that's the case, you'd think they would have learned their lesson, or caught onto the fact that Ferrari substantially upped its game since the 328 and 348. Apparently, Acura didn't figure either of those two things out.
Acura does not learn lessons. Just take a look at their lineups since 2008
i don't give much weight to that lightning lap test. Multiple drivers, and not race drivers. You need one race driver like MT and Pobst doing the testing to get accurate and conclusive results.
So you have to be a professional race driver to be good? It sounded like they took the best time of the drivers that drove the car. If anything it shows more Real world vehicle abilities
So you have to be a professional race driver to be good? It sounded like they took the best time of the drivers that drove the car. If anything it shows more Real world vehicle abilities
No, you have to have the cars driven by the same driver to have accurate and reliable results. This is Research Methods 101.
A similar thing happened with the LFA. Developed for over 10 years, when it came out it was sufficiently fast but not the fastest by any stretch, it was running the 1/4 in 11.6 @ 125 mph and it came out in late 2010 - damn - but still it had older technology such as single clutch auto (this was a big one) and was being beaten by the GTR and other cars on racetracks. It would run with a 458 though. It stickered for around $375K, and looking right now sells on the used market for $364K-$488K.
Ok, Excuse time. These cars have different priorities and scopes. They are not supposed to be the fastest cars out there. They are designed to be more cult-like in nature, collectibles, legends in Japanese automotive culture.
When we have to go to this level of detail/factors to argue a car's performance...I dunno...maybe, just maybe, it's not as fast?
And FWIW, that's fine. We kinda knew that. I hated on this NSX because it was delayed since the birth of Jesus. But, since it's landed, I like it just fine...would I buy it if I had the $$$...? Given the alternatives for that pricepoint (i.e. McLaren and Porsche)...I doubt it. But, doesn't detract from the fact Acura has a higher-performance vehicle FINALLY. Baby steps?
No, you have to have the cars driven by the same driver to have accurate and reliable results. This is Research Methods 101.
I read the article and i dont remembering it saying the drivers all didnt get a chance to hot lap each car. From the previous year
This year, four editors divvied up a group of 18 cars. We ran through our assignments, methodically trying to extract the best lap time out of each machine. We check each other’s times, too, and usually find that we’re within a half-second of one another.
What it is is excuses being made up. I could come back with, Should every car be tested by multiple race drivers to find out which one is fastest in the car or just one? Unless you take multiple drivers and average out the times between them to get the lap time, there will never be accurate reliable times like you are suggesting just by one driver. What if pobst isnt the best driver of the said specific model but somone else is much faster? Should that driver be used in testing instead of pobst even thoug he may not be the fastest in the other cars? If you dont use the fastest it isnt the most accurate or reliable time. Any good driver should only need a few laps to get used to the vehicle and its limits, some will always be better than others. Sure as more and more laps pile on they may start to ring out a tenth here and there but at what point do you need to say ok, enough is enough, we only have a few days to do all this testing, on to the next car.
I read the article and i dont remembering it saying the drivers all didnt get a chance to hot lap each car. From the previous year
What it is is excuses being made up. I could come back with, Should every car be tested by multiple race drivers to find out which one is fastest in the car or just one? Unless you take multiple drivers and average out the times between them to get the lap time, there will never be accurate reliable times like you are suggesting just by one driver. What if pobst isnt the best driver of the said specific model but somone else is much faster? Should that driver be used in testing instead of pobst even thoug he may not be the fastest in the other cars? If you dont use the fastest it isnt the most accurate or reliable time. Any good driver should only need a few laps to get used to the vehicle and its limits, some will always be better than others. Sure as more and more laps pile on they may start to ring out a tenth here and there but at what point do you need to say ok, enough is enough, we only have a few days to do all this testing, on to the next car.
point is, Lightning Lap is not intended to be an instrumented and scientific test from which conclusions can be accurately drawn. It's more of a "magazine event" where the editors get together and run the cars on the track and see what kind of times they can come up with. At this juncture Randy Pobst and MT have the most quantifiable and reliable platform for race track testing. I would say the Stig and Top Gear had something going too, for the most part, but that came to an end. And, it rains too much in the UK.
im just gonna get a car that doesnt care about lap times.....
like the V12 vantage or the 911R
Agreed, you gotta think about it, what's the role of "lap times" in your own personal experience of that car? Bragging rights? So you can tell your friend "my car is faster than yours"? "Oh yeah well I only paid $40k for my car and it's faster than your $200k car!!" Is this the meaning of owning a car? Pointless. Shit, I drove a friend's 730hp 2013 M5 last weekend in Chicago, and the roads are so bad and crowded that I couldn't even open it up anywhere. It was so annoying. You gotta take that shit to the race track or to wide open suburban and rural highways.
If that's the case, you'd think they would have learned their lesson, or caught onto the fact that Ferrari substantially upped its game since the 328 and 348. Apparently, Acura didn't figure either of those two things out.
In the case of 328 to 348, Ferrari actually didn't do too well with the 348tb. It was fast and beautiful, but it had a lot of weaknesses too (harsh ride, nervous handling, not-so-perfect build quality). As such, the NSX, even though it was designed to go up against the 328, also did fine against the 348tb. Luckily Ferrari, restored its reputation with the F355.
Fast forward to 2016, I wouldn't think Honda didn't think about the potential for others to be renewed. Ted Klaus mentioned that in one of his interviews (if you care to read, of course). With that said, it's also difficult to speculate how much further other manufacturers will go. If we are just talking about engine output, the good thing is that, the NSX's engine is currently over-engineered for its output. There's a lot of headroom for future growth. My concern is whether Honda will increase power. Knowing Honda, that may not happen even if there's room to do so.
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
While the original NSX was not the fastest in straight or in corner, but it shined at its engineering, aluminum body, driving characteristics. You can arguably say it was a car ahead of its time that caught attention from all the exotic brands. Like i said, it does not have to be great at everything but NSX should be "superior" at something.
I just don't find that something in the 2nd Gen based on what is published. you can argue its technology, but it is really nothing new, rather than a cheaper version of the big boys. Even at the lower price point, i8 has already done something similar (minus 3 cylinders).
Then you add the anticipation, delay after delay and you would arrive where we are now.
Yes, the original NSX was ahead of its time in terms of engineering as you mentioned.
As far as I know, I don't think there's any vehicle in the market that has mid engine, with a 3-motor setup, plus active torque vectoring by electric motors. i8 does not have torque vectoring. I'm not sure 918 spyder has true torque vectoring, my understanding is that it uses one electric motor for front axle. From what I've read, it actually uses brake based torque vectoring (nothing wrong with that as long as it's fast).
But then, the 918 is close to $1mil, and the i8 starts at $141k. That's around 10% cheaper than the NSX. It seems like the NSX offers quite a bit more for 10% more money?
I understand your concern - that the 1g NSX has that special something about it. I think that would be a tough task to have the same impact as the 1G NSX. Back in the days, many exotics were flawed. Nowadays, I really can't name one exotic from a major brand that is flawed.
Perhaps, my bar is set lower. From my point of view, what I see is that Honda is offering a "mini 918" for a fraction of the price - 80% of 918's performance at 20% of 918 price. It's a car that has many characters and can truly be used as an everyday super car. Are there faster cars for less money? Yup. Are there more fun to drive car for the same money? Probably. If those are the things that you chase after, then the NSX is probably not for you.
In the case of 328 to 348, Ferrari actually didn't do too well with the 348tb. It was fast and beautiful, but it had a lot of weaknesses too (harsh ride, nervous handling, not-so-perfect build quality). As such, the NSX, even though it was designed to go up against the 328, also did fine against the 348tb. Luckily Ferrari, restored its reputation with the F355.
Fast forward to 2016, I wouldn't think Honda didn't think about the potential for others to be renewed. Ted Klaus mentioned that in one of his interviews (if you care to read, of course). With that said, it's also difficult to speculate how much further other manufacturers will go. If we are just talking about engine output, the good thing is that, the NSX's engine is currently over-engineered for its output. There's a lot of headroom for future growth. My concern is whether Honda will increase power. Knowing Honda, that may not happen even if there's room to do so.
Yes, the original NSX was ahead of its time in terms of engineering as you mentioned.
As far as I know, I don't think there's any vehicle in the market that has mid engine, with a 3-motor setup, plus active torque vectoring by electric motors. i8 does not have torque vectoring. I'm not sure 918 spyder has true torque vectoring, my understanding is that it uses one electric motor for front axle. From what I've read, it actually uses brake based torque vectoring (nothing wrong with that as long as it's fast).
But then, the 918 is close to $1mil, and the i8 starts at $141k. That's around 10% cheaper than the NSX. It seems like the NSX offers quite a bit more for 10% more money?
I understand your concern - that the 1g NSX has that special something about it. I think that would be a tough task to have the same impact as the 1G NSX. Back in the days, many exotics were flawed. Nowadays, I really can't name one exotic from a major brand that is flawed.
Perhaps, my bar is set lower. From my point of view, what I see is that Honda is offering a "mini 918" for a fraction of the price - 80% of 918's performance at 20% of 918 price. It's a car that has many characters and can truly be used as an everyday super car. Are there faster cars for less money? Yup. Are there more fun to drive car for the same money? Probably. If those are the things that you chase after, then the NSX is probably not for you.
The i8 is no where near the drive-train/motor tech than the NSX. It's a VERY nice plug-in hybrid...with great looks and typical german over-engineering, but that's about it. Someone a few pages back even posted a laundry list of 100-200k cars that they would rather have over the NSX...and it included an i8 and a S-Class......lol. It is 918-esque tech in a 200k car. The triple motors with torque vectoring is really only found in the hypercar segement and no where else.
To add to the example of Acura apologists post above....the amount of extreme disappointment/disdain towards the new NSX seems to be fairly equal on here. I think the Honda enthusiasts really wanted the NSX to blow almost everyone out of the water and it didn't....so even if it did "okay" and was middle of the pack performance...it equated to a failure in their eyes.
Originally Posted by srika
Agreed, you gotta think about it, what's the role of "lap times" in your own personal experience of that car? Bragging rights? So you can tell your friend "my car is faster than yours"? "Oh yeah well I only paid $40k for my car and it's faster than your $200k car!!" Is this the meaning of owning a car? Pointless. Shit, I drove a friend's 730hp 2013 M5 last weekend in Chicago, and the roads are so bad and crowded that I couldn't even open it up anywhere. It was so annoying. You gotta take that shit to the race track or to wide open suburban and rural highways.
The typical 2G NSX owner (or any other car in similar price segment for that matter) will chuckle if someone was telling them how a 60k car got 3 seconds faster lap time at Laguna Seca and what a bad deal they got for their money. They may not even know what is "Laguna Seca" in the first place. It's likely a status symbol to be driven around the local gated golf neighborhood and the occasional trip out to C&C and very rarely to a track or the occasional stoplight drag races. Their fellow R8 / 570S / 911 Turbo S -owning neighbors will complement each other's rides. I doubt they will start sneering/lecturing at the NSX owner who apparently wasted his money on an inferior performance product.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. If someone here on Acurazine who can afford the 2G NSX and actually bought one and started a thread on the car....how much attention/likes would this thread receive? I bet it will be through the roof.
I went and watched the Best Driver's Car 2016 lap videos and looked at the analysis. Also went and looked more into this aforementioned "drift mode" that's getting thrown around. I can conclude with almost 100% certainty that the NSX was not in drift mode.
"There is a maintenance mode," says Robinson, who likened enabling it to enabling cheats on a PlayStation games console—press up up, down down, left two right two, etc—in which form ABS and all electric motor assistance is switched out. Robinson says the handling and steering are slightly odd, because the latter, particularly, is calibrated to work in conjunction with driven front wheels. But he concedes "it's a drift machine".
In the best driver's car shootout, right after the section where it shows you the track and notes, with tire pressure, etc. they listed how they drove the NSX around MRLS. Track mode, ESC off. Simple as that. In the so called drift mode, however, all electric motor assist and ABS are disabled. That's huge, I doubt even Randy would stay in the 1:3x:xx range with drift mode truly enabled. Finally, I put a lot of merit into testing done on the same day especially when by the same driver, which means at least the conditions are consistent between the different vehicles.
If you're going to comb over the details of a comparison, do so fairly, whether you're biased (admit it) for or against. Maybe surprising to hear, but I actually really like the new NSX. As nist7 and others mentioned though, there's a very high bar for the NSX, perhaps unfairly, though rightfully so.
I hope that there is an NSX-R. But it will have some stiff competition. You have all the cars in the current comparison, not to mention the 991 GT3 RS. Nevermind comparing the suspected or upcoming M2 GTS/CSL, 718-based Cayman GT4, AMG GT-R, R36 GT-R, 488 Speciale, and so on. Perhaps the NSX-R will incorporate carbon like the GT3 race car to some extent?
The i8 is no where near the drive-train/motor tech than the NSX. It's a VERY nice plug-in hybrid...with great looks and typical german over-engineering, but that's about it. Someone a few pages back even posted a laundry list of 100-200k cars that they would rather have over the NSX...and it included an i8 and a S-Class......lol. It is 918-esque tech in a 200k car. The triple motors with torque vectoring is really only found in the hypercar segement and no where else.
To add to the example of Acura apologists post above....the amount of extreme disappointment/disdain towards the new NSX seems to be fairly equal on here. I think the Honda enthusiasts really wanted the NSX to blow almost everyone out of the water and it didn't....so even if it did "okay" and was middle of the pack performance...it equated to a failure in their eyes.
The typical 2G NSX owner (or any other car in similar price segment for that matter) will chuckle if someone was telling them how a 60k car got 3 seconds faster lap time at Laguna Seca and what a bad deal they got for their money. They may not even know what is "Laguna Seca" in the first place. It's likely a status symbol to be driven around the local gated golf neighborhood and the occasional trip out to C&C and very rarely to a track or the occasional stoplight drag races. Their fellow R8 / 570S / 911 Turbo S -owning neighbors will complement each other's rides. I doubt they will start sneering/lecturing at the NSX owner who apparently wasted his money on an inferior performance product.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. If someone here on Acurazine who can afford the 2G NSX and actually bought one and started a thread on the car....how much attention/likes would this thread receive? I bet it will be through the roof.
+1. Good post, and ya. the main issue is that a lot of people who are disappointed (rightfully so) seem to think the NSX should be setting beating everyone else on a track since Honda hadn't had a super car for so long, along with a few delays since the announcement of the new NSX in 2012.
For me, given its short development time (can't think of a major system of the NSX that was developed well in advance - the 3-motor hybrid idea, at the very best?), I thought the end result is great.
Originally Posted by Costco
I went and watched the Best Driver's Car 2016 lap videos and looked at the analysis. Also went and looked more into this aforementioned "drift mode" that's getting thrown around. I can conclude with almost 100% certainty that the NSX was not in drift mode.
In the best driver's car shootout, right after the section where it shows you the track and notes, with tire pressure, etc. they listed how they drove the NSX around MRLS. Track mode, ESC off. Simple as that. In the so called drift mode, however, all electric motor assist and ABS are disabled. That's huge, I doubt even Randy would stay in the 1:3x:xx range with drift mode truly enabled. Finally, I put a lot of merit into testing done on the same day especially when by the same driver, which means at least the conditions are consistent between the different vehicles.
If you're going to comb over the details of a comparison, do so fairly, whether you're biased (admit it) for or against. Maybe surprising to hear, but I actually really like the new NSX. As nist7 and others mentioned though, there's a very high bar for the NSX, perhaps unfairly, though rightfully so.
I hope that there is an NSX-R. But it will have some stiff competition. You have all the cars in the current comparison, not to mention the 991 GT3 RS. Nevermind comparing the suspected or upcoming M2 GTS/CSL, 718-based Cayman GT4, AMG GT-R, R36 GT-R, 488 Speciale, and so on. Perhaps the NSX-R will incorporate carbon like the GT3 race car to some extent?
I get what you mean, but this to me looks like drifting:
And here are two quotes in the article,
If I leave the weight forward, leave the weight on the nose a little too long on the way into the corner through trail braking, I get an entry oversteer that stays.
The car drifts like it was set up to do it: a slight flick, jump out of the throttle, then roll back on hard, but not to the floor.” But sideways is slow.
These two statements make me feel suspicious. It's as though we are talking about a car set up for drifting. The NSX's characteristic is to understeer, not oversteer. Just imagine NSX owners that are average drivers going to a track day, turning on the track mode with ESC off, and first turn they go in, the back end slides and crashes. I highly doubt Honda would want to see that happening.
It seems like they set the car into some drift mode for the above photo (also can see it in the 1hr video, at the 17:20 mark of the drift), but perhaps didn't turn it off properly after. This is something shared by Jeff at TOV (not me). He's driven the NSX on a track and on regular roads.
In Pobst's run, he's constantly fighting the oversteer, look at all the steering correction, all the counter steer..... I don't know man....that's very un-Honda like to be that aggressive with the rear end setup.
The typical 2G NSX owner (or any other car in similar price segment for that matter) will chuckle if someone was telling them how a 60k car got 3 seconds faster lap time at Laguna Seca and what a bad deal they got for their money. They may not even know what is "Laguna Seca" in the first place. It's likely a status symbol to be driven around the local gated golf neighborhood and the occasional trip out to C&C and very rarely to a track or the occasional stoplight drag races. Their fellow R8 / 570S / 911 Turbo S -owning neighbors will complement each other's rides. I doubt they will start sneering/lecturing at the NSX owner who apparently wasted his money on an inferior performance product.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. If someone here on Acurazine who can afford the 2G NSX and actually bought one and started a thread on the car....how much attention/likes would this thread receive? I bet it will be through the roof.
Agreed on the first part, that's what I was saying too (I think) - the lap times and other shit is not meaningful in real life.
2nd part doesn't tell me much. If someone bought a 2G NSX yes they would likely get a lot of "Likes" and attention for that. But I don't see the point there in relation to whatever we are talking about here. Which, I am not really sure what we are talking about at this juncture.
+1. Good post, and ya. the main issue is that a lot of people who are disappointed (rightfully so) seem to think the NSX should be setting beating everyone else on a track since Honda hadn't had a super car for so long, along with a few delays since the announcement of the new NSX in 2012.
For me, given its short development time (can't think of a major system of the NSX that was developed well in advance - the 3-motor hybrid idea, at the very best?), I thought the end result is great.
I get what you mean, but this to me looks like drifting:
And here are two quotes in the article,
These two statements make me feel suspicious. It's as though we are talking about a car set up for drifting. The NSX's characteristic is to understeer, not oversteer. Just imagine NSX owners that are average drivers going to a track day, turning on the track mode with ESC off, and first turn they go in, the back end slides and crashes. I highly doubt Honda would want to see that happening.
It seems like they set the car into some drift mode for the above photo (also can see it in the 1hr video, at the 17:20 mark of the drift), but perhaps didn't turn it off properly after. This is something shared by Jeff at TOV (not me). He's driven the NSX on a track and on regular roads.
In Pobst's run, he's constantly fighting the oversteer, look at all the steering correction, all the counter steer..... I don't know man....that's very un-Honda like to be that aggressive with the rear end setup.
It's a lot less drama and the car looks way more stable with no sign of the back end stepping out at all.
I can't really tell, since the video with Rahal driving isn't from a more useful perspective, like when Pobst is driving. Regardless, a few things stand out to me as being impossible, especially given how close the McLaren's lap time was to the NSX.
With drift mode on, the electric motors are also disabled. So you're losing out on roughly 70 hp and 70 lb/ft at the crank. That puts it at a notable power and torque disadvantage with the McLaren, coupled with 700 extra lbs. And the vehicle dynamics are not close to ideal in this drift mode. You mean to tell me that the NSX is only a second and a half slower than the 570S around MRLS, given all of this data?
Randy also complained about the McLaren's entry oversteer, and he had to make corrections during that hot lap as well. But the McLaren finished 1st instead of 8th
Acura is trying to pawn her off as being this wicked bombshell, but every time I look at her photo, I can't help but think she is ugly. And I'm not exactly sure why. She's not bad I guess... But she's not pretty either. There's something about her face that I find super unattractive, and yet I can't quite figure out what it is.
Acura is trying to pawn her off as being this wicked bombshell, but every time I look at her photo, I can't help but think she is ugly. And I'm not exactly sure why. She's not bad I guess... But she's not pretty either. There's something about her face that I find super unattractive, and yet I can't quite figure out what it is.
she's pretty, for being a car designer. is she a "supermodel"? well no. and neither is the NSX.
Acura is trying to pawn her off as being this wicked bombshell, but every time I look at her photo, I can't help but think she is ugly. And I'm not exactly sure why. She's not bad I guess... But she's not pretty either. There's something about her face that I find super unattractive, and yet I can't quite figure out what it is.
I can't really tell, since the video with Rahal driving isn't from a more useful perspective, like when Pobst is driving. Regardless, a few things stand out to me as being impossible, especially given how close the McLaren's lap time was to the NSX.
With drift mode on, the electric motors are also disabled. So you're losing out on roughly 70 hp and 70 lb/ft at the crank. That puts it at a notable power and torque disadvantage with the McLaren, coupled with 700 extra lbs. And the vehicle dynamics are not close to ideal in this drift mode. You mean to tell me that the NSX is only a second and a half slower than the 570S around MRLS, given all of this data?
Randy also complained about the McLaren's entry oversteer, and he had to make corrections during that hot lap as well. But the McLaren finished 1st instead of 8th
I totally understand where you are coming from - how can a 500hp, 3800lb RWD car just be 1.8 seconds behind the 570S that has 60 more hp and carrying 700lb less weight?
Well, it turns out in that very test, the MB AMG GT S with 500hp/3700lb is only 0.7s slower than the 570S. Looking at it this way, does it sound that impossible for a NSX with 500hp/3800lb to be 1.8 seconds slower? I'd imagine Pobst's skills make the results closer (i.e. with his skills and experience, he's able to get a "good" time for the NSX even if it's in the wrong mode.)
Some other examples:
The 918 Spyder with less power and more weight than the McLaren P1 was shown to be a second faster on MRLS by Motor Trend before. 1:29.5 vs 1:30.5.
The 280hp/2800lb NSX-R NA2 achieved the same 7:56 lap time as the 400hp/3000lb C5 Z06 at the Nurburgring.
My point is that, having more power at a track without many straightaways may not be all that useful.
I totally understand where you are coming from - how can a 500hp, 3800lb RWD car just be 1.8 seconds behind the 570S that has 60 more hp and carrying 700lb less weight?
Well, it turns out in that very test, the MB AMG GT S with 500hp/3700lb is only 0.7s slower than the 570S. Looking at it this way, does it sound that impossible for a NSX with 500hp/3800lb to be 1.8 seconds slower? I'd imagine Pobst's skills make the results closer (i.e. with his skills and experience, he's able to get a "good" time for the NSX even if it's in the wrong mode.)
Some other examples:
The 918 Spyder with less power and more weight than the McLaren P1 was shown to be a second faster on MRLS by Motor Trend before. 1:29.5 vs 1:30.5.
The 280hp/2800lb NSX-R NA2 achieved the same 7:56 lap time as the 400hp/3000lb C5 Z06 at the Nurburgring.
My point is that, having more power at a track without many straightaways may not be all that useful.
09-26-2016, 08:55 AM
