with Dr. WOT here.


So, what do you guys think of the NSX?

 

Dead issue because you're wrong. Proper design overcomes (or compensates for)the (perceived) weaknesses of a material. If it's so "poor", why are some of the luxury cars now using it almost exclusively? I guess you're saying they're dumb for using it in the first place? Jaguar, Honda/Acura, and Audi are all using it in their flagship models. Boy, those boys are idiots. Why didn't they think of corrosion?

I also notice you said you don't know what aluminum alloy Honda uses. Based on that, why are you even discussing it? You have no information, yet presume to think you can point out it's (supposed) weakness. Whatever. At least get a few bare facts before you start trying to dismiss a design...

Let's not forget you pointed out FATIGUE, not corrosion, as your basis for not liking aluminum. At least stick to the argument at hand.

 

I know I am a little late (o.k., a lot late) for this debate, but I have to disagree. I think the NSX has a classic beauty that will never look 'dated.' Yes, it has fallen behind in the horsepower department (it has ALWAYS been under powered for a super car), but so is the S. Both cars represent the TOTAL driving experience. They both do EVERYTHING well, not great, well. There are cars that are faster (911 and Mustang Cobra), quicker (Viper and EVO), corner better (Elise and G35 Sport Coupe), but can each of those do all of those things as well as the NSX and S2000 repsectively? Maybe, maybe not.

JMO


P.S. I would pay between $30 and $45K for a used NSX depending on year and condition. $60K for a new one. The present asking price is WAY too high relatively speaking.

 

The point was that those design features are a part of high dollar, exotic, or groundbreaking technology.

An 8000 rpm redline is still lofty by todays standards and is certainly not something that a $20K economy car typically has, especially in a six- or eight-cylinder motor.

The point is exactly that they are not used in a lot of vehicles (if any at all). All are for a purpose and some can definitely be replaced with other technology. However, stevie boy thinks that the NSX had nothing technologically impressive that isn't used commonly today. The point was to show him that he's wrong. Extensive use of aluminum, high revving motor, titanium conn rods, etc, etc are all things that are still relatively rare.

Earlier, people were referencing the C4 and C5 and C6, which is why I included the C5 in my argument. You might've missed that part as this thread balloons far past its intended borders. :

My point is not to make the NSX out to be a featherweight but to show that it is no heavier (or lighter, for that matter) than most cars out there. Stevie boy was saying how it was heavy and that other cars are lighter using common materials (which isn't nearly as true as he seemed to imply). That is all.

Just for reference, though, as I pointed out, there were a number of NSXs under 3000 lbs, which is featherweight for this class. Even the GT3 isn't under 3000 lbs. A Boxster is, I believe, which really puts in perspective what size of a car is typically that light.

Thanks for a highly POLITE response.

 

A properly designed steel frame will typically only fail from corrosion. That takes a long time, so yes, infinity is basically the practical life of the frame. Also notice that you have to keep stresses below 50% of yield. Beyond that, the steel can fatigue catostrophically as well.

As you pointed out, though, "proper" design takes into account the weakness of the material. A properly designed aluminum frame isn't going to fail or fatigue to the point where it breaks. Everything fatigues. What is important is that the fatigue cyclic loading never forces the frame beyond that "point of no return". I do believe that bonding the aluminum (instead of joining it with a sort of welding procedure) reduces the tendency to fail locally as well. I'm not actually sure if they bond the NSX chassis that way or not. I think not, but could be wrong.

As I said, have any NSXs had chassis/suspension components break under common use? I highly doubt it - I've heard of none and I follow the car (and forums) fairly closely. We've had two in my family thus far, with no issues (including getting air in the first one numerous times at a certain intersection).

Steve's blanket statement about aluminum fatiguing merely had to be challenged. He made it sound like only aluminum fatigues. I was in the Formula SAE competitions and we had steel fatigue a number of times, despite havings safety factors of 40 in the design of some of the suspension parts. I've also had aluminum fail, though not in the recent past.

Your example is valid, though aircraft are oft-times subjected to loads way beyond their design (or service) intent. Cars are too, though I would say not nearly as severely or often. That's my personal opinion only on that one (as long as we're talking about anything below balls-to-the-wall racing, which is a whole different ballgame).

 

THE C5 Z06 IS NOT LIGHTER THAN THE HARDTOP 91-94 NSX. FACT.

Please don't compare the luxury version of the NSX to the barebones vette. It's not the same.

 

Please don't imply that the E46 M3 engine is as reliable or well built as either the 3.0L or 3.2L NSX engine.

If you want info nsxprime.com has all you need. Go find an E46 with 200k+ miles on the stock engine. You won't.

 

Of all those cars, the Viper (ultimately) can beat the NSX in every performance category. An Evo would come close to beating in every way if it didn't win them all. The 911 would win some and lose some, but win overall. The Elise would handle better but acceleration might be a toss up - definitely win in braking and grip and handling. Very focused car, that Elise. The G35 is nowhere close except possibly brakes and I doubt the G35's brakes would last as long on a track. The Cobra is only quicker - it's still relatively heavy and nowhere near in handling.

Not flaming, just saying that of those cars, three either beat the NSX totally or by a decent margin. One other is less of an obvious winner and the other two aren't even close overall.

 

You don't need any tech. The NSX frame is superior, note I didn't say far, to the C5 frame.

 

Add the 987 Boxster S to the list. Curb weight comes in at under 3,000lb with power up to 280hp for the new model. This Boxster S should deliver at least similar performance to the NSX. The 987 model looks gorgeous, interior quality is much improved over the outgoing Boxster, and IMHO far better than the NSX. Perhaps the biggest advantage is price. It starts at $53k for the Porsche.

Read my test drive impressions:
https://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=263588