|
Originally Posted by iforyou
(Post 15594120)
My take is that Honda is leaving a LOT of room for additional power in the future. 1.) 1.05 bar, 15.2psi is nothing for this calibre of cars. My 1st gen RDX already makes 14psi from the factory. The new Civic 1.5T has a peak boost pressure of 16.5psi, and the BMW M3/M4 has a peak boost pressure at just 18.9psi. All of these are pretty darn low. For comparison, the CLA45 AMG has a max pressure of 26.1psi. 2.) VTEC not implemented at all. Not sure if it's not needed or what. 3.) With battery technologies advancing rapidly, I wouldn't be surprised if these motors will be made more powerful in coming years, just like how Tesla went from P85D to P90D. Higher battery capacities allow for more powerful motors to be used. |
No one is saying this NSX is NOT good.
But if i had 200k, Acura NSX will not even be on the list. Now that is the problem, why isnt it on the list, other than i am a hatter. |
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
(Post 15594198)
No one is saying this NSX is NOT good.
But if i had 200k, Acura NSX will not even be on the list. Now that is the problem, why isnt it on the list, other than i am a hatter. |
Originally Posted by Yumcha
(Post 15594142)
ZIPIT...! Who told you that you can turn around from the corner we banished you to...?!!?? :spanky:
|
Originally Posted by Yumcha
(Post 15594202)
You shut-up, you armchair Stig.
|
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
(Post 15594322)
Armchair Stig is still Stig right?
Suite! I'm a Stig! :woot: |
|
I didn't even realize the thread title was changed. :O
|
Originally Posted by Joneill44
(Post 15594196)
My question is more for a company like AMS. If you gave them $25k for full bolt on, intercooler, fuel system, tune, upgraded turbos, corn juice and all that other fun shit, would there be a market for it? 700+hp with a "luxury interior" for $200k is not a bad deal
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
(Post 15594198)
No one is saying this NSX is NOT good.
But if i had 200k, Acura NSX will not even be on the list. Now that is the problem, why isnt it on the list, other than i am a hatter. |
They don't have to. based on the allocations they are providing to each dealer, you will be lucky if you get to see one on the street.
|
Who wants to bet on this Mazda RX-Vision coming to your dealership before NSX does? :rofl:
http://s3.caradvice.com.au/wp-conten...t_tokyo_11.jpg |
That looks like the Infiniti Concept, which looks like the Hyundai Concept, which looks like the original Infiniti concept.
|
You just MEATZYed yourself!
Mazda will release this in 3 years they said. |
Originally Posted by iforyou
(Post 15594120)
Considering the $900k 918 Spyder with similar powertrain configuration with all the exotic materials is still at 3724lb....I highly doubt the NSX at $150k would be lighter than that......
|
Originally Posted by skd2k1
(Post 15594520)
exactly, when you consider the 918's weight I think the nsx, at 1/5th of the cost, is competitive. 918 is still in top 3 times on nurburgring despite it's weight.
|
Originally Posted by JS + BRZ
(Post 15594497)
You just MEATZYed yourself!
Mazda will release this in 3 years they said. |
AutoMobileMag
When Acura scheduled the 1st drive of the long-awaited 2017 Acura NSX, our list of questions ran off a notebook page. We know pretty much exactly what to expect when a new generation Porsche Cayman or Ferrari mid-engine coupe arrives, but the same cannot be said of Acura. Honda Motor Company hasn’t taken a stab at a mid-engine sports car since it 1st released the NSX 25 years ago, and the 2017 version has no direct connection to that model — which ended production in 2005 — other than its legendary name. The original rocked. Fast, inspirational, and economical, it opened up the world of mid-engine sports cars to many car lovers who could never afford or even care about a Ferrari. We’ve heard continual whispers of an NSX successor ever since — getting so far along as a Japanese-led team using a naturally aspirated engine before finally morphing into a turbo-charged hybrid run largely by an American team. It will now arrive as a 2017 model. No wonder fans have been left with a giant, hovering question mark. What can we expect from the new NSX? Will it be worthy of the name? We finally have an answer, as we were part of a tiny group worldwide who got a very early drive on both racetrack and open roads. In a nutshell: The new NSX is as contrarian and occasionally conservative as the parent company itself. And it absolutely earns the NSX moniker. 1st, some basics. It is a hybrid. Like the Porsche 918, McLaren P1, and BMW i8, the 2017 Acura NSX uses electric motors — 3 of them — to lend instantaneous torque off the line. The 3.5-liter gasoline engine is mounted longitudinally behind the cockpit. It is an all-new, twin-turbo V-6 making 500 hp and 406 lb-ft of torque. Peak power, utilizing the electric motors, is 573 hp 476 lb-ft of torque. A direct-drive electric motor is attached to the engine’s crankshaft. Both work in concert with an all-new, wet-clutch 9-speed dual clutch transmission. The rear electric motor adds power, functions as a generator to help recharge the lithium battery pack, and serves as the starter motor. (Note: The NSX is not a plug-in.) A twin-motor unit is housed up front. These 2 electric motors each separately drive a front wheel, and are otherwise mechanically independent from the rest of the powertrain. Upon demand, they add extra torque together or independently, aiding acceleration or cornering. In the latter case, they send extra power to the outside wheel, while the other inside wheel is slowed. Voila: Genuine torque vectoring. This makes the NSX an all-wheel-drive coupe, but when operated in “Quiet” mode it can operate for short periods as an electrically powered front-wheel driver. Weight is the complexity’s downside: 3,803 lb, with 58 percent distributed to the rear. Acura didn’t pursue a full-on carbon-fiber monocoque, using instead a more traditional mix of aluminum, high-strength steel, and carbon floor. Acura claims it is far more rigid than the Ferrari 458 — 1 of the cars it benchmarked along with the latest Porsche 911 Turbo and Audi R8 V10 Plus. Indeed, Acura had to take the new NSX’s development very seriously. “We needed to make a real jump in technology,” says Ted Klaus, the NSX global development leader. “And we were sent packing by management more than once, quite frankly, but it was the kind of challenge they wanted us to absorb.” The hybrid powertrain was developed in Tochigi, Japan. But nearly everything else, from the chassis, powertrain integration, interior, and final styling was a product of the American team in Raymond, Ohio, and the Acura Design Studio in Los Angeles. The car will be built in a new plant in Marysville, Ohio. But Klaus says discussions were often ones of philosophy rather than individual technologies: What did they want the new NSX to be? What should the NSX represent as a company halo? “We think we’re going to unsettle the sports-car world,” he says. “This is a different kind of sports car than currently exists. A new segment. And it’s going to disturb some people.” It took me those full 2 days of driving to begin to understand what he was getting at. Because the NSX does rock. But it head-bangs quietly. Think of it as a new class of sports car: The stealth supercar. That’s a concept that takes some time to wrap your head around. This stealth nature was very much the engineers’ goal. The NSX adheres to the classic “smooth is fast” racing mantra. The quicksilver transmission, magnetic shocks, and sweetly-tuned chassis work overtime so as to never unsettle the car or its pilot. That extends to details like the driver’s seat, which offers the best meld of comfort and rock-solid bolstering I’ve ever experienced. The steering wheel, too, feels like an ideally weighted tool in your palms — with accuracy that’s nearly dead-on perfect. The engineers pained over the length and pressure of the brake-pedal stroke, so it feels consistent in both parking lot and on racetrack. In fact, those brakes are some of the best all-around stoppers I’ve found in both arenas. The result of all this finesse is that there are certain descriptors you’re unlikely to associate with the NSX: “White knuckles,” “nervous passengers,” and “skittish.” But so too are you unlikely to exit the car and pair it with “roar,” “scream,” or “wail.” Inside, the engine notes are muted, even in sport-plus and track mode. In fact, it is possible to forget that you’re even in a mid-engine car, owing to the stability and the relative lack of rear sound. That will bum out some enthusiasts. On my first day with the car, at Sonoma Raceway in northern California, I tried out launch control. It’s dead simple: Engage “track” mode, left-foot brake, put gas to floor, release brake. A respectable blip of seconds later, the NSX cleaved through the air at 60 mph on its way to 100. (As is Honda’s wont, it plays very coy with 0-60 mph numbers. My best ass-feel guess is 3.4 seconds.) But it left me cold. It was fast, but didn’t feel fast-fast. It didn’t grab me by the scruff and whip me around. Didn’t sucker punch me in the solar plexus as I stomped the gas nor chuff me in the chin each time it snap-crackle-popped to the next gear. Fast forward to the end of my 2nd day with the car, after I’d already gobbled several hundred miles of Golden State twisty roads. My expectations were better tuned with the car’s capabilities. I was in sync with the kind of speed it delivers. A typical moment went like this: A Prius up ahead plodded its way over a sinuous path through the foothills. I shoved down the gas pedal and the blue NSX performed 2 near-instantaneous downshifts. I didn’t feel the change in the car’s spine, none of the chassis tremor that comes in the Lamborghini Huracan when it drops down twice. The 9-speed dual-clutch transmission is in many ways as good as Porsche’s PDK, but it is as polite as a Japanese businessman. Closing speeds are incredible, and the time the 2 Japanese cars existed side by side was infinitesimal. I was back into the right-hand lane in a lightning second, carrying huge speed into an uphill sweeping turn. The Prius existed somewhere behind me as a thought, a blip in time and space. My passenger was reading an e-mail on his cell at the time. He never even looked up. So yes, the NSX is exceptionally fast. But you need the context of a good winding road to truly realize it. You’ve got to pass car after car after car in a blinding rush and see telephone poles flick by like toothpicks. Because neither the engine note behind you nor a shriek of tires nor squeal of brakes will announce it for you. Acura has been using an active torque-transfer technology since 1996. The NSX employs what the company terms the “next generation Sport Hybrid Super-Handling All Wheel drive.” The issue with active torque vectoring is that a car doesn’t always respond as you expect it to. On the racetrack, I briefly tried treating the NSX like a last-gen Audi R8 or current Huracan: Turn early, induce a bit of yaw so the nose is pointed to the exit, and allow the AWD to power me out. But the NSX’s torque vectoring is best when you slow the car through a corner using trail braking. Follow a traditional line, managing both brake pressure and then throttle carefully, and you will be well rewarded. You can carry great speed into corners. Get back on the gas too early though, and the car understeers like mad. The stability and traction controls are too conservative for my taste, and can only be turned off completely in track mode. Even then they’ll step in if the car senses an impending spin. (The rear wheels are braked individually if the systems think the car is seriously out of shape.) And yes, the exterior is conservative. I hoped I would love it in the flesh. We got plenty of happy cat-calls and “Hell yeah!” fists shakes as we drove around. But in light of cars like the Huracan and McLaren 570S, and certainly the new Ford GT, the NSX may look all too dated, all too soon. A few final notes. When it comes to the original NSX’s delights, the new 1 mostly delivers. The dashboard is low and the sight lines marvelously unobstructed. The A pillars are thin. You sit low in the cockpit, yet it’s easy to get in and out. The front is high enough to negotiate most normal curbs and inclines. Everyday practicality achieved. As for cost: Expect the new car to run north of $150,000 for the base model. That’s well cheaper than any Ferrari or Lamborghini, but puts it within sparring distance of upper-end Porsche 911s and the new McLaren 570S, and makes the Jaguar F-Type R a bargain. And this: The engineers acknowledge it’s a starting point. A very good 1. But as battery technology gets better and lighter, so too will their car. The NSX’s approach is a surprising 1, and some will knock its philosophy. But the 2017 Acura NSX isn’t soft rock. More like a power ballad. PHP Code:
|
Is anyone else underwhelmed by the low Hp/Tq numbers of the 3 electric motors? By comparison porsche 918 has 127 front and 154 mid, Laferrari 161, McLaren 177. I like the NSX but feel somewhat underwhelmed by the specs. I think they could have/should have done better. Hopefully with it being turbo they left plenty of headroom for a type-s or something to up the boost and hp/tq
|
This is Honda horsepower and torque numbers. just like Honda fuel economic numbers. understated and realistic.
FWD TLX with all season crap and huge side walls 0-130mph in 24 seconds. http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...lx-35l-fwd.pdf NSX has double the bhp and torque with much wider band rpm and much more aerodynamics. with proper setup tires. it should produce nearly double the performance of TLX. I am expecting 0-150mph under 14 second. |
Let's compare:
2015 Nissan GTR: Curb Weight: 3851lbs (base) - 3831lbs (black edition) Horsepower: 545hp @ 6400rpm Torque: 463lbft @ 3200-5800rpm 0-60: 3.0s (base) - 2.9s (black edition) Top speed: 196 mph Price: $102,000 (base) - $112,000 (black edition) 2017 Acura NSX: Curb Weight: 3804 lbs Horsepower: 573hp @ ????rpm Torque: 476lbft @ ????rpm 0-60: ???? sec Top speed: 191 mph Price: $150,000 (base) :whistle: |
Also, let's attribute the extra weight of the GTR to it having 4 seats, vs 2 seats in the NSX.
The NSX is already behind the times, and it's not even coming out until next year, while the GTR is going out... lulz. Major lulz. |
Originally Posted by SSFTSX
(Post 15595074)
This is Honda horsepower and torque numbers. just like Honda fuel economic numbers. understated and realistic.
FWD TLX with all season crap and huge side walls 0-130mph in 24 seconds. http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...lx-35l-fwd.pdf NSX has double the bhp and torque with much wider band rpm and much more aerodynamics. with proper setup tires. it should produce nearly double the performance of TLX. I am expecting 0-150mph under 14 second. oh yah i forgot that we already talked about this. Honda has Horsepower and everyone else has Donkey power. By your logic Bugatti Veyron should be able to get to 150 in 5 secs. Physics > you |
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 15595109)
Let's compare:
2015 Nissan GTR: Curb Weight: 3851lbs (base) - 3831lbs (black edition) Horsepower: 545hp @ 6400rpm Torque: 463lbft @ 3200-5800rpm 0-60: 3.0s (base) - 2.9s (black edition) Top speed: 196 mph Price: $102,000 (base) - $112,000 (black edition) 2017 Acura NSX: Curb Weight: 3804 lbs Horsepower: 573hp @ ????rpm Torque: 476lbft @ ????rpm 0-60: ???? sec Top speed: 191 mph Price: $150,000 (base) :whistle: |
because honda wanted to add 400 pounds of extra unnecessary weight to the car, along with the extra electric motors, batteries, radiators...
|
GTR is 3922lb, also the weight distribution is 54/46 compared to 42/58 (NSX) which is pretty important from vehicle handling and dynamics. None the less the GTR works very well for a front engine sports coupe.
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 15595109)
Let's compare:
2015 Nissan GTR: Curb Weight: 3851lbs (base) - 3831lbs (black edition) Horsepower: 545hp @ 6400rpm Torque: 463lbft @ 3200-5800rpm 0-60: 3.0s (base) - 2.9s (black edition) Top speed: 196 mph Price: $102,000 (base) - $112,000 (black edition) 2017 Acura NSX: Curb Weight: 3804 lbs Horsepower: 573hp @ ????rpm Torque: 476lbft @ ????rpm 0-60: ???? sec Top speed: 191 mph Price: $150,000 (base) :whistle: |
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
(Post 15595135)
GTR is 3922lb, also the weight distribution is 54/46 compared to 42/58 (NSX) which is pretty important from vehicle handling and dynamics. None the less the GTR works very well for a front engine sports coupe.
edit: interesting... there seems to be a big discrepancy between the US and Canadian sites, for curb weight... Canadian site also shows a weight distribution of 53/47... Canadian GTRs are better :D |
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
(Post 15595122)
Both have V6 and twin turbo and assume that NSX will have similar performance #s as the GTR... so what is the point of the superduper battery pack if it can be done without it?
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 15595123)
because honda wanted to add 400 pounds of extra unnecessary weight to the car, along with the extra electric motors, batteries, radiators...
|
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 15595139)
I took the curb weight right off Nissan's website...
BASE TOTAL (LBS.) Total 3,922 3,922 Weight distribution 54/46 54/46 |
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
(Post 15595135)
GTR is 3922lb, also the weight distribution is 54/46 compared to 42/58 (NSX) which is pretty important from vehicle handling and dynamics. None the less the GTR works very well for a front engine sports coupe.
It should not corner that fast and it should not accelerate that fast but it does. Regardless what the weight distribution #s are, I would be VERY VERY surprised if NSX can lap faster than GTR. Actually very few has. |
Originally Posted by fsttyms1
(Post 15594899)
Is anyone else underwhelmed by the low Hp/Tq numbers of the 3 electric motors? By comparison porsche 918 has 127 front and 154 mid, Laferrari 161, McLaren 177. I like the NSX but feel somewhat underwhelmed by the specs. I think they could have/should have done better. Hopefully with it being turbo they left plenty of headroom for a type-s or something to up the boost and hp/tq
|
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
(Post 15595143)
Why did McLaren P1, Ferrari LaFDerrari and Porsche 918 do the same as well? More than likely as a technology exercise in powertrain, which lends itself to better handling with vehicle dynamics through a heck of alot of motors/batteries/electronics and importantly alot of S/W.
|
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
(Post 15595143)
:shrug: you won't know if it has similar performance until someone does a comparison test.
Why did McLaren P1, Ferrari LaFDerrari and Porsche 918 do the same as well? More than likely as a technology exercise in powertrain, which lends itself to better handling with vehicle dynamics through a heck of alot of motors/batteries/electronics and importantly alot of S/W. So yah It was a technology exercise and a showcase of what they can do when $$ is not a problem. NSX's objective on the other hand is completely different. |
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
(Post 15595147)
Yah but GTR's performance #s is not even logical anymore.
It should not corner that fast and it should not accelerate that fast but it does. Regardless what the weight distribution #s are, I would be VERY VERY surprised if NSX can lap faster than GTR. Actually very few has. Many people still view the GTR as a boy racer sorta car, yeah it's fast but it looks bulky and has a video arcade as a instrument panel. |
yes, and the NSX is an exemplary example of beauty...
|
Originally Posted by oonowindoo
(Post 15595151)
yah they also used the best material and best technology and going for the best performance with no MSRP constrain.
So yah It was a technology exercise and a showcase of what they can do when $$ is not a problem. NSX's objective on the other hand is completely different. Only a fool would think the NSX were completely different, i.e. Honda used brake by wire technology. Something that was probably not cheap to develope and produce. I can only imagine how expensive that stepper motor is to actuate the master cylinder. Something that has to be extremely reliable (not like a electric motor for the drivetrain), it stops the car so it better always work which generally adds costs for reliability. So here was a area that Honda/Acura choose to spend some serious money. Even the McLaren F1 had cost constraints, some were pretty painful to the program manager toward the end. |
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 15595157)
yes, and the NSX is an exemplary example of beauty...
|
it also costs 3 times less. :2cents:
|
Originally Posted by Legend2TL
(Post 15595153)
It's also a different vehicle, in terms of customer market. The NSX is going for the 911 Turbo, Hurracan, 488 market. All mid or rear engined.
Many people still view the GTR as a boy racer sorta car, yeah it's fast but it looks bulky and has a video arcade as a instrument panel. when compare to 911, GTR and whatnot... that is why we said, why does it need the battery pack when it can be without it. and NSX will be hundred of pounds lighter = even better performance |
If the battery can provide the OMFG performance then yah sure.
But it is really just about the same as its competitors. |
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 15595167)
it also costs 3 times less. :2cents:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:49 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands