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.
whether it was with standard tires or optional Michellen cup tires?. this test does not say anything about high speed performance like 100 to 200mph timings. I can bet NSX will beat GTR. Honda has superior aerodynamics.
never in history of Edmunds long term tests a car has beaten its EPA highway mile per gallon by 10mpg and using airconditioning. Ground breaking aerodynamics.
https://www.edmunds.com/honda/civic/...100-miles.html
After driving our long-term 2016 Honda Civic 1,100 miles over a long weekend, I've got a few distinct impressions. As Dan Edmunds noted, the car deserved a good road trip, and a lazy cruise up and down California was perfect for that.
1. It's easily capable of 50 mpg. The Civic is one of the fastest cars in the class and it can still get hybrid-worthy numbers.
just to clarify GTR is under 3 second car in most US tests.
Maybe the Stig was afraid of time travelling and ended up leaving the car I granny mode.
That's entirely possible too. Even in granny mode, its "hp are much more than other company hp" and it can still "easily compete with cars having 1000bhp."
I sincerely doubt they drove the car in ECO mode, with the worst available tires on it, while it's competitors were the exact opposite.
I'd like to believe they are credible enough to compare apples-to-apples.
So there's a Honda insider over at TOV saying that the TG test car was equipped with the Conti's. He said that the only reason Honda spec'ed those Conti's for the NSX is to avoid getting sued. Honda was sued when the first NSX came out because of the tire wear issue. These Conti's are supposed to be long lasting so that way people can't sue them.
And yup, only Honda does this kind of things...LOL
So there's a Honda insider over at TOV saying that the TG test car was equipped with the Conti's. He said that the only reason Honda spec'ed those Conti's for the NSX is to avoid getting sued. Honda was sued when the first NSX came out because of the tire wear issue. These Conti's are supposed to be long lasting so that way people can't sue them.
And yup, only Honda does this kind of things...LOL
LOL
thats nothing short of BS. People can still sue if they don't opt for the contis. so if you opt for the Michelins, you can no longer sue? Why not have the same disclaimer for all tires?
Honda maybe needs to figure out how to align their tires a bit better, rather than specing shit tires.
thats nothing short of BS. People can still sue if they don't opt for the contis. so if you opt for the Michelins, you can no longer sue? Why not have the same disclaimer for all tires?
Honda maybe needs to figure out how to align their tires a bit better, rather than specing shit tires.
It's not BS, the first ever NTSHA looked into any tire wear for a vehicle was the NSX.
The 1G NSX rear suspension geometry and alignment makes for heavy wear, pretty well known in the NSX community.
The idea is that, the new base NSX is more for street use. As such, using the Conti's is justified. This is not to say I agree with what Honda's doing about the tires. It's more about why they didn't spec the tires with the best grip right from the beginning.
For the Type R/GT3 version, it will come with the higher spec tires from the factory.
Every NSX being sold is for street use. I bet less than 5% will ever see a track, in their life span. Plus there is nothing different between the "base" and "loaded" models. It's all cosmetic changes. Your argument is invalid.
The idea is that, the new base NSX is more for street use. As such, using the Conti's is justified. This is not to say I agree with what Honda's doing about the tires. It's more about why they didn't spec the tires with the best grip right from the beginning.
For the Type R/GT3 version, it will come with the higher spec tires from the factory.
Really, you don't need to defend every bad decision Honda/Acura makes. It's okay to let one go every now and then.
Every NSX being sold is for street use. I bet less than 5% will ever see a track, in their life span. Plus there is nothing different between the "base" and "loaded" models. It's all cosmetic changes. Your argument is invalid.
Originally Posted by ttribe
Really, you don't need to defend every bad decision Honda/Acura makes. It's okay to let one go every now and then.
Lol, like I said, I don't agree with their decision...so I don't know how that's defending?
Yup, I specifically said this in my previous post,
"This is not to say I agree with what Honda's doing about the tires."
Acura's NSX To Be A Complete Platform NOT Just A 1 A One Trick Pony
The Honda NSX is considered by its maker to be a platform rather than a single model, meaning that a whole host of different versions are likely to be launched over the model’s life cycle.
According to NSX project boss Ted Klaus, Honda is contemplating convertible, lightweight, non-hybrid and all-electric versions, one of which is set to wear the Type R badge. The NSX, which will reach the UK in right-hand drive form this autumn, will initially have a hybrid powertrain, with a twinturbo 3.5-litre V6 combining with 3 electric motors for a total 573bhp output. The car is currently in production in the US, in a new factory in Ohio called the Performance Manufacturing Centre.
