No kiddiing. I could give a $hit what the conrods are made of. What I care about is what the car does given what it has, for the money.

Another thing some of you are doing is equating applied materials and/or engineering with greatness. While this certainly can be possible, it is not a rule sent from God.

Like when Vette bashers complain about its leaf springs. As I have stated before, if Chevy can make a bunch of old technology perform just as well as, or in some cases strikingly better than, hot "new" technology, to me that says good engineering just as much as another team of engineers putting together a rigid car frame and bolting up all kinds of exotic materials.

It depends on how you look at it. Good engineering does not automatically confine itself to use of titanium, carbon fiber and aluminum.

 

I agree - but I dont buy a car for innovation - I buy it for the end result. So the fact that the NSX uses the same technology today as it did way yonder, does not concern me.

The fact that the car as it sits performs well enough, for me, at a price that is *reasonably* close to the other cars within its segment that *I* would consider owning, IS.

 

I don't think the conecting rods are going to hold if they are made out of butter with all that heat....

 

Interesting points... but you now have me wondering why the new Z06 will have a aluminum frame rails, an IRS and ti connecting rods. Could it be that they saw the value in these exotic materials? *gasp*


Let's cut the , the only real problem with the NSX is that it's UNDERPOWERED compared with much cheaper competition. If Acura gave the NSX another 100hp this year, this whole arguement would be turned upside down. It still has the moves, it still has the looks, it still has the build quality. It just hasn't kept up with the 485hp supercharged-Benz horsepower war.

15 years later this car is still up to par, except for one glarring weakness, and shame on Honda for letting that happen.

 

Since Vettes have been mentioned several times. Here's an interesting piece by
Dan Neil, The Los Angeles Times. The maestro of automotive journalism was at again with his review of the new Corvette, entitled "Starship Corvette." The opening and closing of his column are worth sharing, but please go to the latimes.com to read the full review.

"After 52 years in production, the Chevrolet Corvette is a legend, an institution, an American icon, which is reason enough to be suspicious of it. The fact is, until recently (1997), the Corvette wasn't a particularly good car. Those of early 1990s vintage handled like the thin end of a 10-pound ax and had the 'that's-close-enough' build quality of a Monday-morning British Lister. The cars shivered like wet Chihuahuas over rough asphalt, and its unyielding suspension thrashed more backsides than Helga, she-wolf of the SS." Dan closes his piece with the following assessment, "The new Corvette is an Ivy League education in driving at state college tuition: The test car priced out at $52,795, which puts it in a class of exactly one. Nothing can touch it at anywhere near that price. For another 20 grand or so you can own a Viper; should you feel such a masochistic impulse, seek professional attention. The Vette is venerated in song and film. It's the only sports car nameplate I know of that has its own museum, the National Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, Ky. There are scores of fan clubs worldwide and dozens of annual Corvette shows, including the Lollapalooza-like Bloomington Gold in Bloomington, Ind. All of which bores me silly. I don't want the commemorative hat. I don't need to know the secret Corvette handshake. I don't want to watch your DVD collection of "Route 66" episodes. But the car...I'll take the car."

 

The new Z06 may have all those fancy materials, but look at the difference in performance between the NSX (which has had all these wonderful things for 15 years) and the 2006 Z06 with some of the same (though not as plentiful) exotic materials.

Maybe that's a bad comparison, putting up a 15yr-old against something that *will* be out soon, but once a car design is older than 10-12 years, you kinda have to assume the maker of that car thinks what they have is still "good enough" for the market. On the other hand, as many of you have argued for the NSX having exotic materials, maybe that's not a bad comparison, as then you'd probably argue that the NSX is/was ahead of its time and is only now being challenged on its engineering by others. I don't buy that myself, but...

Also, the C5 Z06 was no slouch by any means, and the same can be said for the new C6 Z51, neither of which use overly exotic metals in the same capacity as the NSX.

But enough of why a Vette is better on the numbers than an NSX. Can we maybe try NSX vs. something else?

 

u gave me links to anglefire and fast auto net. do these car manufacturers ever have a real website? get real.

 

You make statements but don't back them up.

Take each thing I listed and prove that it's common.

Tell me how many six (or eight) cylinder motors can rev past 8000 rpm (remember, you said $15K-20K economy cars, but I'll take any type for most of these).

Tell me how many cars have titanium connecting rods.

Tell me how many cars have an aluminum chassis.

Tell me how many cars have aluminum suspension subframes.

Tell me how many cars have 4 channel ABS.

Tell me how many cars have aluminum control arms.

Tell me how many cars in this category weigh under 3000 lbs.

Tell me how many cars make 90 hp/L while normally aspirated (especially economy cars).

Aluminum fatigues? Wow - amazing. So does every material on the face of the earth (eventually). They all have fatigue lives. Way to be obvious! You're a genius!

One thing you may not realize is that the fatigue life of a properly designed part is typically years ahead of how long the vehicle is expected to last. But, you probably wouldn't know that, would you? When cyclic loading is kept below a certain level, the part can be expected to last (in practical terms) forever. It's called good engineering.

Sorry, but you'd best quit while you're behind.

The Vette is NOT necessarily lighter than the NSX. The earlier NSXs are lighter than ANY modern production vette. An aluminum chassis is a technological innovation - it's not as easy to put together as good ol' steel and requires a considerably higher amount of work. Aluminum is far more difficult to work with than steel, in general.

 

Again, horsepower. This is not an excuse for Honda, their bad for falling behind the curve.

Seperate issue, since we keep mentioning the Vette's curb weight, keep in mind it's fiberglass body. I know not everyone minds that, but it's something *I* would have trouble excepting.

 

Off-hand, Lambo uses Ti-rods. I am fairly certain Honda did with the ITR. You are a fool if you think Ti-rods are only 15 years old.

So true, but you must realize posts like this always contain a few fanbois who desperatly try to hang onto some manner of superiority for the horribly outdated NSX. It is to be expected, and in my view laughed at.

Not really the *only* problem as I would argue the car still looks like a 1980's vehicle, but certainly one of the bigger problems.

Less, try reading the thread before posting. It will end these pointless posts.


The onus here is on you, the one making these fantastic and innacurate claims to provide evidence, otherwise you are as you state, making claims and not backing them up.

And you clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Yes, it is. That is a fact. My 87 GTI was lighter than any production NSX, what value does this fact provide? About as much as all of your posts combigned.

You may continue your attempts to redirect attention away from the reality that you have no idea what you are talking about and are in fact just making this shit up as you go along, for reasons unknown.