Are you trying to tell us that the NSX, a Honda, is up there with the Testarossas, Contach, 308, GT40 etc as classic cars?

What would you rate the GTR, a far more successful car, compared to the NSX in terms of "most desirable Japanese classic cars"?

S2000? Now that really made me laugh.

 

Nope, the GTR is an ugly box of crap metal.

 

Complain all you want about how the new 997 is a way better car, and how for less money the C6 destroys NSXs from a performance perspective, I do not disagree with either. But dont suggest that the STi or the EVO are in the same overall class as an NSX.

At the end of the day I bought my NSX because I got base C5 Vette performance in a Fcar style package for a 996 C4 price. It was the only car that I could find that offered the performance and style that I wanted at less than a Ferrari price.

 

the nsx sure stills up a lot of feelings

 

Goes back to my point, since most people aren't racers, speed (in the real world) is usually about the same. Can you drive a GT2 faster than a NSX on a backroad? Um, I guess you can, but what are we talking about? Will anyone (any sane person) drive 100+mph on a back road b/c that's what a GT2 could do and maybe the NSX could do 99mph (or whatever). Point is, you can't go that fast in the real world. You have sight lines, other cars, police, etc...

So all people who say how slow the NSX is vs a C6, I hope they are talking about track driving.

Which brings us to the point someone else made:

In the US, unless you're on a track/road course/SOLO or such,you can't drive as fast as todays performance cars will go. Some people try, but that's how come we see all these wrecked EVOs etc...

EXCEPT when you put the hammer down. Either at the stop light, or on the highway. I suppose a third place is out of a corner, but (I think) with our roads and our speed limits, we really don't have to slow down for most corners so we really don't have to accelerate that much.

I don't really see the appeal of some people that say they're doing 80mph on the highway and they step on the gas and in 2 sec they're doing 100mph. I suppose it's nice, but so what. (I think) at high speeds, to me, acceleration is over-rated. However one place I'd like this kind of power is to pass a slow poke on a 2-lane road. Just think about the passs and 2 seconds later you're gone.

So the real place that we in the US need or want power is at the stoplight. Not even saying to race anyone. But you can feel the difference between a low 5's (S2000, 350Z, Mustang) vs 5-flat (EVO, NSX, M3) vs mid-low 4's (911 tt, Z06) vs high 3's (Ford GT, new Z06).

I don't agree with the post that said the NSX is slower than a Mustang GT. Probably you could get a Mustang faster, but stock it's 5.3s and the NSX is 5.0s (or better) I think.

So IMO the NSX is fine for most driving, but it misses the power for acceleration. Honda obviously doesn't want to spend any money on it. The RL doesn't have titanium CR but it's more powerful. You don't think Honda could cam it up and get 350hp from 3.5L? I know they can do it, or SC the existing engine for very cheap. But they don't feel the need.

The NSX is a nice car, but heck the Boxster is getting right there with it. When the Boxster first came out with 218 hp (or whatever it had) did you even think of it any way in the same terms as the NSX? NO WAY. But now it's a coin toss which is faster. And it's a subjective choice which one you like better b/c now the Boxster has steped up to the plate and the NSX has done nothing to defend its position.

 

100%

Who said the EVO was in the same class as the NSX?

At one time I was thinking about getting an EVO MR. But for the price $36K, you're in 330i price range, add $4K for pp and you're at $40K for the bimmer. Yes the bimmer is slower, but IMO it's put together better, has better looks, is safer, better interior etc... In other words you pay more for an overall nicer car. Sure the EVO is faster but there's more to it than just "what'll it do? or how many hp des it have?"

 

My point about the NSX only gaining <20>hp in 14 years. Is it seems like that'd be a cheap easy and thing to upgrade every 5 years or so. HP isn't hard to get.

The Boxster has gained more than 60 hp in just 7 years. All it takes is a little effort.

When the NSX was out the Integra had maybe 110hp, now 200 hp in the TSX and RSX has had up to 180 hp. Acura could have done the hp thing with the NSX. That's all I'm saying.

 

balls...




It's been ...um...interesting; to each his own. I appreciate the guys who bought the car knowing that it isn't the fastest thing on 4 wheels, but still love it. I don't appreciate the conjecture and glad-handing by some of the fan-bois though. Blanket statements with no proof are tiresome. If you don't have the proof or don't want to find it (), then don't bring up those points. They are meaningless. That's it ....I'm done. Good luck.

 

That is actually a pretty good analogy. I'll confess to being a fan of and owning both (94 / T40 ).

 

I'm really curious which consumer cars and race cars they picked. Ten years ago we had race cars like the Porsche 962LM and McLaren F1 GTR, after all.