$50K for a new NSX? No way! Let's see, an M3 is already $50-60K, and it offers the same straight-line performance as an NSX. However, an NSX definitely handles better, looks better and more exotic, is most likely more reliable, etc. So I don't understand how an NSX should be the same price as an M3, which to me looks very ordinary, like another coupe. But everyone's entitled to their own opinions, I guess. For me, I'd take an NSX over an M3 anyday.

 

That's not saying much for the NSX then.

The NSX probably does handle better, but the M3 doesn't exactly handle like crap. Looks are subjective, but I will agree with you that the nsx looks more exotic.

info to back this up? (And don't give the engines blowing up bit. We all know what's up with that)

Looks are not what make a cars msrp.



I think the NSX is still an awsome car. I'd still love to own one. Is it a dated design? probably. Does it still look good? To me it does. Is the interior dated? yes. Does it still look good? To me it does. Does the car command the price? Not anymore. So it's made mostly of aluminum. That's cool and all, but doesn't really have the ohhh ahhh factor it once did. Is the car "light" because of the materials used? It's not bad, but there are plenty of other cars in this performance segment that weigh around the same and aren't made of such "exotic" metal. So I'm not quite sure why this is such an awsome thing, that keeps being brought up.


*edit* since I know I'll get called on this "but there are plenty of other cars in this performance segment that weigh around the same and aren't made of such "exotic" metal. " I'll provide some car weights. Source is KBB.com

2005 NSX 3.2 6spd 3197lbs

2005 M3 3415lbs 218lbs difference (not exactly a mammoth gap)

2005 C6 3179 18lbs LESS (and this "took them 15 years" argument is retarded, because it's meaningless)

2005 EVO MR 3285 88lbs more (i said performance, not asthetics or interior quality)

2005 STi 3298 101lbs more (same as above)

Porsche GT3 3043 154lbs less (only threw this in since it's roughly as much as a new nsx, but it's a special race model so it'd be better suited against an nsx-r)

2004 996 Carrera base rwd model 2959-3080lbs (315hp, 27x tq, not bad)

 

^^ I don't disgree with you, but I think it's just not right to price the NSX at M3's price. That's just wrong, imo. Maybe it shouldn't be $90K, but it shouldn't be at M3's price either. I think it should be at least $10K above an M3.

 

or you can argue that the M3 is ridiculously overpriced and only morons would buy them since you can get a similiarly performing car for significiant less....

lessons learned....M3 buyers...morons...NSX buyers..morons....

paying an extra 40k for a 911 turbo bc of 2 small, useless seats...smart...

 

I don't know why I continually read these NSX threads, as they are all the same.

If you are buying a car purely for performance (straight line, laptime, top speed, however you want to measure it) per dollar value, new or used , modified or unmodified, then apply your formula and go on about your merry way.

HOWEVER, the ultimate goal of a sports car is not just in quantifiable terms for a lot of people. How do you put a number to 'road feel', nostalgia, looks, ergonomics, convertibles, muscle car sound or any other one of many things that give people joy? You can't. Most people don't, which is WHY the classic car market exists. Pull this into a symantic (sp?) argument about the NSX being a classic if you want, but I don't see the relevance.

Different people buy different cars for different reasons.

Would you take a '67 427/435 convertible vette or a Viper Comp Coupe? (not to sell, to own) "Collectors" might go for option 1, "track rats" for option 2. Status oriented people for option 2, weekend cruisers for option 1. Who knows (or cares). There are all manner of these types of people, with plenty of grey area in between. The point is, sometimes it is just not a numbers game.

I do own an NSX. It is the car I most want to own for what mine is worth. Is that true of a new one? Nope. Is it true for some people? Absolutely, and the fact that it doesn't win the numbers game is fine with them and me.

Just a few points to keep the discussion lively:

1. Depreciation only an abstract concept until you sell or return the leased car, then it is money out of your pocket. I consider this particularly noteworthy, as whatever dollars you spend won't be around to fund the next toy.

2. The NSX could be lighter if some more parts were made of fiberglass or plastic. I still wouldn't pick it.

3. SteveC seems remarkably dispassionate about the NSX, but spends ENTIRELY too much time in discussion surrounding it. Did you get hit by one? Old lady abscondend with some other guy in one? Inquiring minds want to know. The fact that this is Honda site, and it is a Honda product might mean some poeple like it here. WOOSAHHH...

Back to the chaos, you guys have fun.

 

I've answered some of your questions, including an equivalent (if not a better alternative) to the NSX that's a mid engine. The fact that you've all gone right past me only shows how hopeless it is discussing such a topic.

And RX7 sucks!

 

Only problem with this logic is that the M3 is a far more practical car than the NSX. I'd take 2 extra seats than no seats.

 

 

Steve C,

I am still looking for your list of cars that have Titanium CR. The only ones I can think of are the 2003 GT3, and C6 Z06. Ironic that 15 year old technology finally shows up in a P car or a C6.

Also, in one of previous infamous discussions. We discussed the weight issue. New NSX-T weighs 3164 lbs(with tools, spare). With removal of tools/spare/floor mats/ engine cover and it can get down to 3080lbs. How much does a 996 C2 weigh again?

 

who really cares what the connecting rods are made from? They could be made out of butter, as long as the engine holds together. Again, something 15 years old is no longer innovation - it is old news.