qingcong

I get what you're saying man. I don't disagree. For whatever reason, Honda's chosen this route. It's not like Honda's trying to chase the world record 0-60 or top speed record with their NSX anyways, I think they are chasing technological ideals. I can understand that. If they're not going to compete with Bugatti, might as well do what they do best.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Like qingcong, I get what you mean.

However, for Honda, it's not about creating the fastest car with the highest hp in $100k supercar market.

We need to go back and look at the original NSX. That car wasn't the fastest in a straight line in its price range back then. It was about creating a reliable, comfortable, user-friendly supercar that can embarrass a 911 or 348tb. The R32 GT-R was faster than the NSX while being significantly cheaper. That didn't make the NSX a failure.

We need to remember NSX stands for "New Sportscar eXperimental." It's about putting the newest and latest Honda technologies into the car. That's why the NSX had things like all-aluminum body and chassis, titanium conrods, VTEC, etc. For the new generation of NSX, it seems like efficiency is a design factor. No one has really done it yet in the $100k market. So that's something "eXperimental."

You seem to focus mostly on specs and objective numbers. There's nothing wrong with that. I mean, for most people their dream cars are usually powerful supercars. I don't think the NSX is designed to be everyone's dream car in that sense. That is true for the 1st gen NSX too. You could've bought a GT-R or Corvette for less money while having higher performance. But then there are the subjective factors too - handling feel, steering feel, how engaging is the drive, etc. The NSX succeeded in those aspects. It seems like the new NSX will have those qualities too.

I think it's good that Honda is offering something unique.

I'm not aware of any delay with e-AWD for the RLX. As far as I know, it's been always the case that the e-AWD RLX will debut later this year. Test mule has been tested by different journalists last year with very positive feedback.

+1. It's simply a choice chosen by Honda. There's no right or wrong really. Different companies and different cars have different philosophies and goals. This is not a bread and butter Civic or Accord where Honda has to please every single person. I'm just glad there are different choices out there for people to choose from.

Edward'TLS

I too agree with you and Qingcong on the new NSX part.

Honda isn't building the fastest car with the highest hp in $100k supercar market. Honda is simply attempting to build a high-tech supercar with Honda's "me first" technologies, which is not to be on top of, but at least capable to be on par with the others. 400+hp is definitely no lame duck.

The point I want to make is that excellent fuel economy is never a valid selling point for supercars. So boosting class-leading fuel economy for a $100+K 400+hp supercar will mean nothing to these potential supercar buyers.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Definitely. It seems like other than fuel economy, the other main focus is on handling. It seems like this car with its mid-engine layout and advanced AWD system would make this car a beast on the track.

400hp is still too little even if the handling is the best in class. But I'm thinking 500hp would make this car very competitive when we talk about all-round performance.

In summary, this is what I think the NSX will have:

- Good straight line performance
- Nearly the best, if not the best handling in class
- Best in-class fuel economy

Fibonacci

At the risk of accusing you of drinking too much kool-aide, why would Honda delay the RLX w/ e-AWD and not debut it at the same time as the new gen to reach maximum marketing punch.

Let's get real here please.



BTW, I rolled through an Acura dealer just to see if a new MDX was on the backlot yet. Holy cow, total power plenum overload batman! It was as if all the ILX, RDX's plenums were staring at me like angry bird pigs.

AZP-TL

Performance and efficiency are not mutually exclusive. If Honda wanted to make it really fast they could simply stick a turbo charger on the engine. Let's be real here, it's going to be a fast car no matter what, those of you expecting super car performance for the price are setting your expectations too high.

I'm simply giving examples where a hybrid system doesn't limit performance, quite the opposite actually since those electric motors provide torque that no engine can match.

Again, look at the Tesla Model S, the performance model is a $90k car that can do sub 4s acceleration. The BMW i8 is a $122k diesel/electric hybrid that can do it in 4.7s and gets 75 mpg.

biker

For the same reasons that other makers stagger the intro of derivative models/drivetrains. Why does BMW not intro the diesel or hybrid at the same time as the gas drivetrains? Why does it delay the coupe vs. the sedan? Marketing, development not finished, supply issues, etc.

Fibonacci

I suppose you might have a valid point if Acura was a global brand with a complete line up of cars which would explain a slow roll.

Acura diesels? Nope.
Acura coupes? Nope.
Acura convertibles? Nope.
Acura sports cars? Nope.
Acura RWD V8's? Nope.

The RL has been getting stale on the shelf for nine years. No excuse to not get maximum bang for the buck with the RLX.

NSX has to be a grand slam home run.

Legend2TL

Legend2TL

+1 Exactly, anyone who has ever designed and developed anything knows this. There are limited number of resources at any given time.

dom

Yep, but lets be realistic. Its needs a certain amount of HP to reach all those targets. There's no way this will weigh anywhere close to 2500 lbs. So these pipe dreams of a 2500lbs 400HP car are a fantasy.

Legend2TL

Agree but if there were two cars with the same HP/weight I'd rather have a lighter vehicle all else being equal.
That said I would like to see a 2800-3000lb 2G NSX, not sure how that can be done with the hybrid drivetrain thought.

Edward'TLS

^^^^^

Especially that the high-storage-density battery packs, for the hybrid drive, are heavy like hell.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

I'd agree with you if Acura had announced that both the RLX FWD and RLX AWD would come at the same time at the beginning. But that's not the case. Acura made it clear that RLX FWD would come out first in mid 2013, and the AWD version would come out later in 2013. I don't see that as a delay, since it's been mentioned long before. That's the marketing plan of Acura. That's not to say that's the right plan. If I were the one making the decision, I would launch the RLX AWD first for maximum impact, then the FWD model will follow. Doesn't matter if the manufacturer is big or small, if it's a global company or not, if it has many models or not, launching different trims of the same model allows longer market exposure. Magazines will talk about your first trim now, and then half a year they will talk about your other trim.

Since the plan has always been do launch the RLX AWD later in 2013, if Acura fails to launch that car before 2014, then that's a delay, and then I'd say yes, there could be some hiccups with the eSH-AWD system.

qingcong

I agree. The HP wars come across as childish to me considering there's so much more to consider in a car than HP. People keep saying the Civic Si is "falling behind" because it doesn't have 250hp like a Speed3 or Focus ST. Well, with a 0-60 that's no slower than those two cars, better real world MPGs, limited slip diff, and a proven reliable NA powertrain - I'd take the overall package of the Si over its turbocharged friends. The same goes for a lot of other Honda/Acura products. Others may have more flash, but Hondas and Acuras just have that overall balance.

ttribe

Ummm, really?

Legend2TL

Of course the ZDX and 4G TL have been pinnacles in styling and balance

I know it's been 3 decades but the original NSX was a big inspiration to Gordon Murray and his McLaren F1 design.

http://translate.google.com/translat...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

• He put 75K kms during the time he owned his NSX
• In designing the McLaren F1 he drove a Porsche 959, Bugatti EB110, Ferrari F40, Jaguar XJ220 and others. But none satisfied their desire for a usability benchmark -- Offset pedals, high dashboards, unreliable A/C, and too-low roofs were all unacceptable. But the NSX satisfied these conditions for us.
• He felt that the NSX had a chassis that would have easily accepted a larger engine and more horsepower.
• "I copied the drive-by-wire throttle idea for the F1. I can admit to this now. (Laughs.)"
• He set the "full auto" A/C setting when he took ownership of the car, and never touched the button again.
• "Journalists focus on the aluminum body, but for me the use of aluminum for the suspension was far more significant. It's a perfect match for the not-too-large 17-inch wheels."
• "Honda philosophy at the time seemed against higher cylinder counts, and maybe that's why the NSX never got a larger engine. Which it should've had. Maybe it had something to do with the self-imposed restraint on horsepower output."
• "I so loved Honda engines that I personally visited the Tochigi labs twice, and asked them to build a 4.5L V10 or V12 for the F1. But they couldn't be convinced to do it, so the F1 ultimately got a BMW engine."

fsttyms1

put down the bong.. Both are mid 5sec 0-60. The civic si at best is a 7.3. Both out handle it as well, with Focus ST being called one of the best-handling front-wheel-drive cars ever built.

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz2WJBLJnIq

qingcong

Motor trend's Carlos Lago tested the 2013 Civic Si at 6.1s and Focus ST at 5.9s. Focus ST is getting rave reviews, no doubt. That car's great. Lets review it in 10 years to see how the direct injection and turbocharger hold up on the Focus ST and then we can see which one was worth the money. For reliability, I'm going with the 2.4L in the Civic Si. For me, reliability is a key aspect, maybe not for other folks who switch cars every 3 years. That's what I'm saying, different priorities for different folks. Those who want max power for their money and are willing to take a risk on reliability, get a Speed3 or Focus ST. Those who want proven reliability and real world MPGs, Civic Si represents a better choice.

Edward'TLS

^^^^^

To sum it up,

Performance : Speed3/Focus-ST > Civic-SI
Reliability in 10 years : Civic-SI > Focus-ST.

Costco

"Proven reliability" lol

That is a flawed viewpoint... just because it's a Honda or a certain brand doesn't mean it will be proven to be reliable or unreliable. I'm not saying there isn't anyone here that does, but how many of us keep the same car for up to 10 years?

Forget about all the synchro issues in the 8G Civic. And the issues with the hybrid's battery. Never mind the class action lawsuit regarding the premature brake wear, as well as the premature tire wear (due to struts). One of Honda's main bread and butter models and they can't get it perfect.

It really isn't a Honda unless it has a cheap paint job, crappy brakes, transmission issues (automatic or manual) and excessive wind noise. I'm sure the NSX replacement won't have any of these issues though.

Fibonacci

The brakes in my TL are excellent. No problems with the manual transmission either.

We should certainly hope so after such a long wait and ample development time. If you've seen the Chris Harris pre-production test drive of the 918, it certainly appears that Acura has quite a challenge on its hands to make the powertrain work seamlessly.

Fibonacci

Three decades of w a i t i n g for the sequel.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Here's the link for that Motor Trend's test:
http://wot.motortrend.com/2013-honda...#axzz2WUYj0P7F

C/D got the same time too:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...ed-test-review

No need to mention about 1/4 mile time since qingcong was only referring to 0-60mph.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

lol me.

Joneill44

Just saw this on MT

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...acura_nsx.html

biker

...$140K and 0-60 in 3.2s. We'll see.

biker

If Toyota is losing money on the $400K LFA, imagine how much money Honda will be losing on each one of these.

Joneill44

The suspense keeps building

Legend2TL

+1, yeah 3 decades is wayyyyyyy tooooooo long no doubt

Fibonacci

At this point, perhaps not really suspense so much as it is cognitive dissonance.

Fibonacci

Bumped into the sales manager at my local Acura dealer today while checking out the new MDX.


Me: Hey, what do I need to do to get on the wait list for an NSX.

Mgr: We've been told dealers will be allocated ONE per year for the first three years and we're not taking deposits yet.

Me: Wow, I'm guessing their will be hefty markups.

Mgr:

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

^^^ Just like the GTR...

I was at the Nissan dealership inquiring and even thought the online price was listed as 75-85K, the dealer wanted 120K since "do you know how rare the car is going to be"....

I smiled, shook hands and walked out LOL

Fibonacci

I would take a victory lap for accurately predicting this, but then it's not really a victory is it?

Also, I'm pretty sure this puppy is going to be priced at the higher end of our plebeian estimates. My guess: $150,000 smackeroos.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

150K is a lot....thats Maserati GT and stuff....

am guessing 118-120K....a smudge above the GTR

Myxomatosis

lol
Back when worked for Nissan, I almost sold a GTR, but my managers wanted me to back off since they said it would cost too much if they had to service it.. Anyway, could have gotten a 2012 black edition(in 2011) at the time for 95k, but it had over 10k in mark up.

Legend2TL

I'm guessing around $100K for the NSX, with the C7 starting at $52K it would be wise to limit the NSX MSRP.

biker

The $140K guesstimate from Motortrend seems reasonable. In that article they compare the NSX to other cars with the same technology (LaFerrari, McLaren P1 and Porsche 918) - all of which have MSRPs 7-10 times that of the NSX. I can see the marketing now - get your NSX with LaFerrari technology at 1/10 the price.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Yea..depending on how you see it, the NSX can be seen as overpriced, or a bargain...which is like the 1st gen NSX.

swoosh

iTrader: (5)

100K would be a bargain....I dont think they will price with with C7 in mind...hell a 2002 NSX low miles is 35-40K ...a new C7 is what 55-60?....

It will be priced closer to SRT Viper and Zr1 (and C7 version of it) which will be ~120K