gtr said:
I don't know about you but I actually have track experience and I auto X for 2 years. Please don't sterotype me and assume all Evo drivers as 1/4 people. It does have a boy racer look but please drive one first and tell me what you think before you comment. Go take one on to auto X or road track and i guarntee you'd b impressed.
I like PRIME because of the mature crowd and your post doesn't live up to the car. Lets be civil and stop the name calling.
You have a 97. I'm comparing my 96 targa to my evo on street rubber. Perhaps with slicks the RWD will have some advantage but please dont' insult me as a magazine racer just because I don't feel my NSX is up to par in terms of performance (Stock for Stock) against my evo. As for potential the NSX is a great platform having good weight distrubtion and double wishbone suspention but it's very costly and then again you get what you paid. I know it's reliable and a great car and that is why I bought one.
Cars today are fast (ZO6, C6 vette, GT3, Ford GT, Ferrari F430) since these are all supercars. I still consider NSX as a supercar but we have to admit it has aged but alway will be a legend.
I'll encourage you to re-read my post.
For the record, I'm very impressed with the EVO and the WRX (in all guises) as I think they offer a stupendous amount of performance for the money. I would never buy one because I don't like the way they look, I don't think they're screwed together all that well, and even though I know a EVO would blow me into the weeds, I'd rather drive a lightweight, RWD sportscar like an S2000 or an NSX than a very capable but sedan based car. That's just me.
And if you re-read what I said, I never called you names. Instead, I suggested that your premise (which is that an NSX isn't competititve with today's cars) is crap. Just because you can get around an autocross course faster in your AWD Evo doesn't make the NSX a bad sports car.
A lot depends on the driver, and a lot depends on the track but I honestly believe that a good driver on any given track would find the NSX a worthy car. Even nearly 15-years after it's release. Yes, there are cars that are lighter, with shorter wheelbases that will do better in shorter courses. And yes, there are cars with a lot more power that would do much better in courses with longer straightaways. But as they say... on any given Sunday.
You seem to imply above that AWD equates to better handling than RWD. For example you say "Perhaps with slicks the RWD will have some advantage" which reads to me as if you believe that AWD offers superior handling to RWD. Again, I disagree and question your premise. There are exceptions to every rule but I think most would agree that AWD is more foolproof and easier to drive but not better handling. There's a reason Porsche chose to make the GT3 and GT2 RWD when they have a very capable AWD system in the Turbo.
Yes, today's cars are fast but your statement above only strenghtens my point. Yes, the Ford GT and the Ferrari F430 will be demonstratably faster around any given race track than an NSX. They should be. They're brand new designs and they're a lot more expensive. And yes, the C6 will also probably put the NSX on the trailer in most conditions. But (and keep in mind the C6 is the first new 'Vette since 1967 that I can honestly say I like and I'd consider owning) ask yourself which car is better built and more reliable. In fact, ask yourself which car 10 years from now do you think would be a better car to own, maintain and drive. A new C6 or a new NSX? There's no denying the C6 is one hell of a performance bargain and it will put the beat down on many, many higher end cars at much fatter price tags but as I hoped to make my point when comparing a $30K Subaru with a $90K Acura... no matter how fast the car is there are somethings that the $60K delta buys you.
And for the record, I have a 1998. Not that there's any real differences between a 1997 and a 1998 but let's keep things straight :wink:
Finally, yes the NSX has aged. And I, for one, think that Honda should kill it and either replace it with another world beater or let the old gal die peacefully. But I also feel that the car still stands up today, nearly 15-years into the product cycle (which is an eternity in the automotive world) and that's one hell of a testiment to the car itself.
. II bought my 95 for 38.5k with 60k miles just last year. At the time I couldn't justify the 47k to 51k for 97+ for a good condition car. To me it the differences weren't worth quite the 11k that was being asked last year. 5k to 6k difference for equal cars then I would have gone for the later version.
