You were JUST comparing the GTR looks to the 488... :tomato:

IDK, but my guess was it's a hybrid powertrain technology exercise for Honda.

Did it achieve it's goal?

No known yet, I woulda though that the torque vectoring woulda brought more razor sharp neutral handling.

However there's ALOT of technology here that's trying to manage ALOT of energy and forces so I would guess right now in Ohio there are dozens of mechanical engineers and S/W engineers reading the early press reviews and wondering where they can tweak the various vehicle electronic parameters they can easily change the shocks, steering, electric/gas motors, brakes,.... and hoping the base chassis has all the right geometries that will require no changes for final production (ie suspension control arm pickup points). This one area that I'm fascinated by, the ability of S/W to fine tune a vehicle through various system inputs (gyro's, accelerometers,...) and control various vehicle systems (powertrain, brakes, suspension, steering,...). Something that Ferrari has mastered really well integrating a supurb chassis with great electronics that don't over-nanny the car, something GM still working on the C7, even the McLaren with the 650.

So I would not be too quick to judge the car until the final production comes out. I would bet a years salary there are many Honda engineers in Ohio, Cailfornia, and Japan working late nights now and maybe looking for a better standard tire:2cents:

and R8 and NSX :tongue:

They aren't changing anything now, based on reviews. You think parts haven't already been approved and in manufacturing already?

I think that was already done with the RLX.

and i think what we saw is the final production version since they are giving all the major magazine to review.
If the production version is somehow different, then i would expect another delay because it will require brand new testing, approval process, parts/logistics all over again.

I think that was already done with the 1G Insight...

I would bet there still are some S/W changes going on, and will continue even after sales start. There may be chassis changes but probably not. Typically S/W does not affect production schedule as long as the poor verification and validation team get enough time to do regression testing of the new build.

Not for S/W as long as V&V gets redone before production start and does not affect certification. And it's not brand new testing, it's mostly change and regression testing.

If the rumors are true about the next GTR, then NSX is pretty much done before it is released.

Car and Driver also took a P1 and 918 to Laguna Seca. Despite the P1 having more power and being a few hundred pounds lighter, the 918 is still faster on that track.

LaFerrari was also present on the track, but Ferrari didn't allow testing to be done (too chicken?? :tongue:)

Right now it's 36+36 in front plus 47 in the rear. If we simply add it up, that's 119hp. 119hp out of 573hp = 20.8% power from electric motors.

Here's a quick comparo for electric power %:
NSX: 20.8%
918: 31.7%
P1: 19.5%
LaFerrari: 16.9%

Proportionally, only the 918 is better.

As for the general specs, I understand why people would feel underwhelmed. But the way Honda calculates the power seems to be different than others:

918: 608hp engine + 285hp electric = 893hp (Rated at 887hp)
P1: 727hp engine + 177hp electric = 904hp (Rated at 904hp)
LaFerrari: 789hp engine + 161hp electric = 950hp (Rated at 950hp)
NSX: 500hp engine + 119hp electric = 619hp (Rated at 573hp)

It's pretty clear that rated combined power output of the others are calculated by just simply adding the engine output and motor output together.

But for the NSX, Honda is using a different way to calculate. I'm not sure why that's the case, but if we follow the way as the 918/P1/LaFerrari, then the NSX would be rated at 619hp. Would that be better?

As I said before, looking at the engine specs alone, it would seem Honda has left a lot on the table. There's no VTEC, and the peak boost is only at 15.6psi. The new Civic 1.5T has a peak boost of 16.5psi, M3/M4 at 18.9psi, and CLA45 AMG at 26psi for comparison.

lol i don't get what you mean by that 4-seats vs 2 seats point....

The GTR is about performance at all costs. And one of that "costs" is very stiff ride (poor ride comfort, even in regular non-Nismo GTR). That's been repeated in many tests already. The NSX on the other hand, is about being a "everyday" super car. The journalists already went at length to describe how comfortable the NSX is in certain modes, so there's no point of me repeating.

I totally understand that for some people, super cars should be raw, fast at all costs, and ride comfort is not important. But clearly, that's not the point of the NSX. If all you care about is 0-60mph and lap times, and don't care about other things, then the GT-R is for you, not the NSX.

Based on the chief engineer and the journalists, the hybrid system is for the zero lag experience and fine tuning the handling. By zero lag, what that means is undetectable turbo lag (yes there's a difference between minimal to undetectable) and torque at 0 rpm. As for handling, the motors allow for full-time torque vectoring up to 124mph to correct under and oversteer constantly. That along with the magnetorheological shocks means that the ride doesn't have to be very stiff to have excellent handling.

Now, whether you feel the above is important or not, is personal preference. For the NSX, that's what the NSX team wanted to achieve, and to them, that's important.

I agree. Hard to draw any conclusion until there are comparison tests with some test numbers.

I remember when the GT-R came out, 480hp and 3900lb were underwhelming too. At that time, Z06 was making over 500hp at 3200lb; Viper was at 600hp at 3400lb, and 911 Turbo was also over 500hp at 3600lb or so. Yet, the GT-R was comfortably faster than these cars.

Not saying the NSX will do the same, but at this moment, drawing any conclusion based on the specs might not be the best thing to do.

There are many reasons. Remember, NSX stands for New Sports car eXperimental. What's the point of doing what others have done already in this price range?

If you want fast 0-60mph and lap times, you get the GT-R.
If you want American muscle power with a capable FR chassis, there's the Corvette.
If you want a rear engined car that can do ultra quick 0-60 runs while being reasonably comfortable, there's the 911 Turbo.

However, none of this is the same as the new NSX. The experimental part is about bringing similar technologies found in hypercars like the P1, 918, and LaFerrari into a $150-$200k car. That's what the NSX is about, in one way.

Considering the NSX was benchmarked to the older model 458 rather than the 488, I'm guessing it's already done before it even goes into production.

Who said that!? You or Honda.

have you looked at terriable fuel economic and maintiance cost of GTR. you cannot compare it with rock solid build quality of NSX. GTR will simply depreciate more.
2015 GTR with 6.5k miles only $$80k.
2015 NISSAN GTR-35

and who said NSX has same performance? put them with same tire setup and in same driving condition. NSX will smoke it above 100mph with superior handling and aerodynamics. NSX is much wider and implanted with lower ride height. it is luxury and exotic sports car in same. No one has done this before. its ground breaking.

IF NSX can match 0-60 time of 911 than it can easily beat it in 0-150mph sprint.


Porsche 911 Turbo 0-60 is 2.6sec.
0-150mph is 16.5sec
2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S Tested ? Review ? Car and Driver

Revolutionary! Not to mention the class-leading ground clearance and aerodynamic mirrors along with a/c vent locations and hybrid vaporcar fuel economic. NSX will smoke everything - P1, 918, GT-R, ILX 2.Slow... everything except RLX-SHSHAWD-PAWS with upgraded ultra-performance summer tires.

Close, but your post needs more pictures.

Nobody has clocked 2.9.. even the engineers are pushing back on sub-3 second claim. I'm not saying it's not possible.. all things are possible (except for the physics rule breaking posts of certain dipshit here), but it's speculation at best.

:spit:

To be fair..
* > said physicist

:O

Add R8 to that list.. anddddd it goes right to the back of the line. :smirk:
boy racer sorta car.. that did the ring in 7:08... :rolleyes:


:nod:


Sure professor.. :precious:

:bow:

I'm so proud of you. :cry:

haha I added that part myself :P

Orly? I sure hope that Acura's slump in reliability doesn't translate into the NSX. Maybe you missed the memo, but Acura IS NOT ANY MORE RELIABLE THAN ANYONE ELSE THESE DAYS.

And how can you talk about depreciation for a car that hasn't even come out yet? :rofl: You better believe NSX prices will plummet. Those who can afford it, will buy new. Same goes for any car that costs 100k+.

Please tell me, how often do you drive over 100mph? Never? That's what I thought. Who cares about performance numbers that high. And even so, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE NSX PERFORMANCE WILL BE, other than your wishful thinking.

GTR > NSX.

You can't just add the power outputs together :tomato: your argument is invalid.

p90d: 0-60 in 2.6 http://m.motortrend.com/roadtests/se...review/photos/

SSFTSX thinks that honda is the only company that tests it's cars in a wind tunnel, or does any engineering/testing at all on it's cars :rofl:

Poor SSFTSX...

The front looks like an R8, which I'm okay with because it looks so damn good but the back looks like an Accord for some reason :( Not stylish at all.

C&D NSX Quick review
 

Since some of you guys are obsessed with 0-60 sprint time, here's another car with 2.6: 2017 R8 V10 NA.

2017 Audi R8 V10 Plus First Test Review

0-60 ugh.. give me quarter mile time and trap speeds, 0-100, 0-150 times. give me nurburgring times

NSX's ring time:



https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/acurazi...3e67900a7c.jpg

Yeah because you will ever going to take your NSX to Nurburgring or go to Autobahn and drag race it to 150, right!? :tongue:

:rofl:

LOL not sure if you read my whole post...but that's what I was getting at. Honda didn't just add the numbers together...but McLaren, Porsche, and Ferrari did that with their hyper cars.......Why??? That's what I want to know.

Lol i dont know man. I was just at Nurburgring a couple weeks ago and there were lots of super cars like 911's and Ferrari's. There was even a Gumbert Apollo! Also saw a C6 Vette and a relatively new Mustang on it...along with some JDM representives such as S2000's, Type R's, FR-S, etc. There were also quite a lot of M3's and M4's. But gotta say, there were more Ferrari's and Porsches's than all the other cars....lol...so ya...

I wouldn't say definitely. Still haven't heard a peep from my dealer on how they will officially handle the spec sheet. If Acura thinks they will be getting a tidal wave of prospective buyers ordering a $170k car sight unseen without a test drive, they might be a bit surprised at the low take rate. Even supply restricted, its still not a prancing horse.

And the maintenance on this complicated piece of machinery, as they say, if you have to ask... :ugh:

Each dealer will get about 1 or 2, at most 3 in the first year. Depends on their performance history.

while the take rate is low but the supply is even lower. So getting them sold will not be a problem at all.

Regardless what we think of this car, there will be enough buyers for every car if the supply is low enough.

What I've heard is that not all dealers will even be able to sell it because of the requisite upfront investments in equipment to service them.

Initially yes, but after the buzz wears off (insert joke here), the line will thin quite considerably as peeps get bored waiting and eyeball the other options, especially if it truly does creep up to $170k and more with options.

Time will tell, Acura has lowered the bar for volume, but has also increased the cost of entry commensurately and there are many other good choices now than circa 1990.

Most car magazine tests car for only a year or two. they cannot judge 5+ year of reliability and quality. There is nothing like NSX at this price. Honda R&D is very efffective.
It very verstile .



http://cached.imagescaler.hbpl.co.uk...6_25_10_15.jpg

Love the sound!

GTR > NSX

Edit: Unless, of course, Honda raises the ride height of the NSX to have best in class ground clearance, that is.

Looking at NSXPrime, there are a handful of guys that are definite, first in line buyers. But there isn't many of them. I'd say 10-15, at the very most. That's still a far cry from the 1200 units per year Honda intends on selling.

Granted, not all people wanting one are on Prime, but what, that's maybe another 20-30 units on top of that? Acura better have one hell of a marketing campaign for this car once it launches. Otherwise it'll go the way of the RLX...

I think the Vapor car looks better than the GT-R :shrug: :hide:

i dont remember the last time i went 0-60 from a dead stop at wot. i did just a do 100 to 165 pull in my boosted 350z the other night. i do track my car on occasion too. :thumbsup: