You said "$15K-$20K economy cars today are using the technology that's in the NSX". That's your (paraphrased) statement. Thus, the onus is on YOU to prove it. You said it, not me.

I gave you the technology it uses. Now you show me what other cars use them.

I can tell you what isn't used - I listed them. I've proved my point. You haven't proved yours.

I clearly have no clue what I'm talking about? I'm a degreed mechanical engineer. I think I know a wee bit about fatigue - it's a part of my job in the kind of design I do. More importantly, I'm sure that Honda's engineers know a whole lot about it.

Ever heard of those control arms breaking in regular use? How about the chassis cracking? Perhaps the suspension subframes have broken? Nuh uh. Not happening.

Seriously, get over yourself. You've been talking up a storm and proving nothing. You're worse than a fanboi. You're flat out ignorant.

You have not shown me wrong on a single point. Furthermore, you haven't proved a single counter-point for yourself.

As for your GTI being lighter, it isn't a high performance sports car (I'm assuming you meant the VW GTI). It's an economy sports car and not in this league. Lots of cars out there are lighter than the NSX, just not serious sports cars with the same functionality (ie, the Elise, S1, etc, etc, aren't counted).

FACT - The modern Corvettes weigh over 3000 lbs (C4, C5, C6). FACT - The NSXs didn't necessarily - both the Zanardi and fixed roof versions are under 3000 lbs.

When all is said and done, you're left with two (potentially valid) arguments.

1. The NSX is underpowered compared to supposed competitors in its class today.
2. The NSX is (in your opinion) outdated in terms of its looks.

That's all. And I don't think any of us mind that. But you've not proven (at all, if conclusively) your comments about its technology being "common" now, nor have you listed weights of cars that are as light (or, more importantly, way lighter) than the NSX. Lists have been given by myself and others. Concede the point and move on.

I think you have a problem with admitting your mouth/fingers got ahead of your brain. Get over it - you were wrong. Happens to the best of us.

I just have to laugh at the "making things up as you go along" remark. I'm the one that's posted numbers and facts. You've just posted a bunch of opinions and remarks with nothing to back them up. What's more suspect, Einstein? You're a joke.

 

I think the point some people are trying to make is, what is all this technological innovation buy you *today*. It is cool that the NSX uses these materials. But the point is, There are other cars out there that perform and weigh roughly the same if not better and less without using these materials. And to be fair for the weight argument, you should use the weight of an NSX you can buy new today from the acura dealer to compare to the vette or whatever other car. Saying the old early 90's nsx, and the very limited editition zanardi models weigh less is true, but not a fair argument, since they aren't made anymore.

 

The NSX was and still is a cool car. However, it is a fact that cars costing much less, especially with inflation adjusted dollars, are blowing the doors off the NSX now for less money, irrelevant of the technology these competitors have/don't have compared to the NSX.

Cars with comparable/better performance for less money than NSX:
1. C5 Corvette
2. C6 Corvette
3. 996 911
4. 997 911
5. Dodge Viper
6. Subaru Sti
7. BMW E46 M3


I'm sure there's many more, but I'm running out of energy today..

 

What if your butter was made of connecting rods?

 

No, I wrote:

I'm pulling a blank here finding any aspect of the vehicle which is as you say -- "more technologically advanced" than your average 15-20 grand economy car.

You like to mispresent what others write, I suspect because you are again trying to direct attention away from your earlier statements which you are starting to realize were off the cuff and unsupportable hyperbole.

I have no need to, you are doing that by yourself.

FACT we don't have a time machine, the NSX weighs more than the Z06. End of story. You may of course continue to play with the numbers, versions, years and actual text of various posts to dig the hole of idiocy you started some time ago even deeper. Fine by me.

Nope. But ironic isn't it that on your crusade to prove me wrong you have proven yourself so over and over.

See above, you posted numbers and "facts" as they suited your attempted points, leaving out numbers which in fact prove you wrong.

Give it up JonBoy, you lost this one.

 

You drew a blank. I found facts that filled in those "blanks". You were wrong. Most economy cars (if not all) in that price range don't have 8000 rpm redlines (more like 8150 at cut-off, I believe), Ti conn rods, aluminum suspension components and chassis, 90 hp/L n/a motors, and 4 channel ABS. End of story. Heck, a lot of sports cars still don't have all of those features.

The 2004 NSX-T weighs 3155-3165 lbs, per the sources I've checked (one was nearly 100 lbs lighter, so I'm figuring that's an error).

The 2004 Z06 weighs 3118 lbs. You have a whopping 47 lb difference. You are right - the Z06 is lighter. However, the 2004 C5 weighed 3179+ lbs from what I can see. So, that car was heavier than the NSX.

I've already posted numbers for the C6, 997 (S), and others. They are as heavy or heavier, including the F360 and F430 Modenal, except for a very few cars (like the Z06 and GT3).

So, you've got one or two cars out of them all that are lighter. That makes you right? Not so. You gave the impression that all the cars were getting the same weight as the NSX. Obviously not true, again, as numbers were posted to prove.

I notice that you left the fatigue issue alone. Smart move. Let your ignorance fall behind and hope no one notices. You're learning!

Bottom line - you don't have numbers, you don't have facts, you don't have anything to back you up. Just opinions. If you'd just say "These are my opinions", I'd shut up. It's the fact that you keep presenting them as facts that is so hilarious (but ridiculous).

I've rarely met such a blowhard. Always right, always rude, never wrong. Or something.

 

Again, you are changing what I wrote to suit your argument. This does not make your point any more valid.

I left it alone because it is a dead issue and you obviously don't know what you are talking about. Again, Al has a finite fatigue life, depending on the application and alloy there are other issues, corrision being a large one. As I have no idea what Al Honda uses I can't comment on the resilliancy of their Al frame, but much like Lotus and their "glue" approach, I don't have a lot of faith in either company to always do everything in the neccessary fashion, hence my comment as to the drawbacks of the NSX's heavy use of Al.

I'm not presenting numbers, you are -- in a hodge podge fashion where it suits your argument.

Bottom line, you lose. Give it up. No matter of obsfucation will overcome this fact.

 

I guess I don't understand what makes these featues so special when there are cars that don't have these "features" available for me to buy that perform the same or better.

People were referencing the Z06, not the C5.

refer to my post on the previous page. I gave examples of several cars that while not lighter than an NSX are within ~100lbs of it. Done without the heavy use of aluminum, or Ti connecting rods. And some of those are AWD which isn't a weight concious drivetrain.


It seems to me there are those who are trying to make it sound like it's such a featherweight when put next to other cars, because of it's constructive materials. When in actuality it's not much lighter.

 

So a properly designed steel chassis will never fatigue, baring you doing something so outlandish with the car as to exceed half the yield strength. This is not so with aluminum:

Aluminum will always fatigue. But, I do agree that properly designed can outlive the life of other components on the car. This is why I have no problem buying a Z06 with an aluminum frame. I don't have any tech to decide if the Chevy or the NSX frame are better.