NetViper said:
NetViper said:
BioBanker said:
2slow2speed said:FYI, The particular article that I am referring to was in the January 2001 issue of Road and Track, the title of the article is "Battle of the Brands".
The "hired shoe" was Steve Millen (yes that Steve Millen of IMSA/Le Mans fame) so lack of driving skills was not an issue.
The cars tested were:
Ferrari 550 vs 360
Porsche Turbo vs Boxster S
Acura/Honda NSX vs S2000
BMW Z8 vs M Roadster
Mercedes Benz SL500 vs SLK320
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 vs Camaro SS
Laptimes
Ferrari 360 2001 Modena 2:07.65
Corvette Z06 2001 2:08.39
Ferrar 550 2001 Maranello 2:09.25
Porsche 2001 911 Turbo 2:10.73
BMW Z8 2001 2:13.30
Acura 2001 NSX-T 2:14.15
Mercedes Benz 2001 SL500 2:16.05
Chevrolet Camaro SS 2001 2:16.46
BMW M Roadster 2001 2:17.28
Porsche 2001 Boxster S 2:17.46
Honda 2001 S2000 2:17.66
Mercedes Benz 2001 SLK320 2:20.87
0-60:
Ferrari 360 2001 Modena 4.3
Corvette Z06 2001 4.6
Ferrar 550 2001 Maranello 4.7
Porsche 2001 911 Turbo 4.0
BMW Z8 2001 4.5
Acura 2001 NSX-T 4.9
Mercedes Benz 2001 SL500 6.2
Chevrolet Camaro SS 2001 5.5
BMW M Roadster 2001 5.4
Porsche 2001 Boxster S 5.6
Honda 2001 S2000 4.9
Mercedes Benz 2001 SLK320 6.7
Slalom:
Ferrari 360 2001 Modena 67.4mph
Corvette Z06 2001 67.1mph
Ferrar 550 2001 Maranello 62.8mph
Porsche 2001 911 Turbo 4.0 67.8mph
BMW Z8 2001 62.3mph
Acura 2001 NSX-T 62.1mph
Mercedes Benz 2001 SL500 60.0mph
Chevrolet Camaro SS 2001 60.0mph
BMW M Roadster 2001 63.0mph
Porsche 2001 Boxster S 65.6mph
Honda 2001 S2000 65.9mph
Mercedes Benz 2001 SLK320 63.6mph
The NSX laptimes are very consistent with what I have seen at Thunderhill.
You can ask any of the many NorCal NSX owners who have ever driven their cars wether or not he/she has been anywhere close to 2:14 on their stock NSX at Thunderhill.
I've been to Thill more than 40 times with my heavily modified NSX, with R-compounds, a Big Ass wing, Vented Hood, NSX-R suspension, swaybars, intake, header, exhaust and putting down 270rwhp the best that I can manage is a 2:06~2:07's so knowing that a bone stock 360 Modena can do 2:07's is very humbling to say the least. Other race prepped NSX's with significant weight loss, engine mods and street tires, can barely get into the 2:05's (look at the NASA Open Track challenge laptimes for reference)
I roll my eyes everytime that I read these kind of posts because there are folks who simply refuse to accept reality.
Any NSX owner who is honest and has been on the track with a F360 with a good driver would know that the F360 handles better out of the box than a NA2 NSX and probably even better than the NSX-R.
If you believe that a 2002+ NA2 will make up 7 seconds because of a slightly wider rear tire and a "so called" stronger engine that many folks are referring to, then you are really drinking the cool-aid
And to everyone who keeps quoting BMI stuff, get a life, you guys are total fanatics who take everything that BMI writes/produces as gospel without even thinking (visualize some zombies..)
Learn to drive the NSX at the limit on the track and then you should honestly asses the capabilities of the NSX against other cars instead of just bench racing all the time
Paghmani said:
enigma said:
WingZ said:
even faster than a Lotus Elise that can do the slalom at 72.6mph and the Enzo that can do the slalom at 73mph,), it's sad but true, the newer suspensions are livable on the street as well as being great for the track.
2slow2speed said:No I have not driven a NSX-R, but my 97 NSX-T had the NSX-R suspension, sway bars, Comptech non-compliance bushing/toe links, Comptech front non-compliance clamps, a Stoptech BBK, a vented NSX-R style hood as well as a big ass wing, running with R-compounds tires and track oriented alignment settings, I/H/E putting down 270rwhp and a 150lbs weight reduction and I could barely match the laptimes of a stock F360 Modena.
After being many times on the same track that the 2:07's was posted I can honestly say that a 2:07 on a stock F360 is an indication of how good of a car the F360 is. I have no problems admitting that, it's understandable given that it's a newer and more modern car.
Aftern been on track with F355/F355Challenge/F360/F360CS/F430/F550/F575 (ignoring the earlier models because they were not close to the NSX in regards to performance), from all of those cars the F355 Challenge/F360/F360CS/F430 are superior cars to the NSX when it comes down to handling. The F550 and F575 make up for their lack of handling by raw power.
BTW: I wasn't really directing the flame about bench racing towards you, I was directing the flame to all the folks who keep quoting BMI videos as proof that the NSX/NSX-R being superior to all the other cars tested. In other words I don't enjoy interacting with people who are "fanatics" and are not objective about things, in other words "idiot zombies" who can't really tell what a car is doing. Kind of reminds me of the people that I see driving on the street who think that they can drive because they drive a car that is brand "X" and can drive fast in a straight line, they relate their ability to drive to their car, instead of taking/making the time to become better drivers themselves.
To all of those folks I say again, get a life, and stop living vicariously by watching videos or playing Gran Turismo games and taking that as gospel, if you actually become a resonable driver and know the handling dynamics of a stock NSX you will realize that there are many other cars that are capable of outhandling the NSX in stock form, and possibly even the NSX-R, because there are other cars that can generate more lateral g's and have better traction and can put the power down better.
I had the NA2 NSX-R suspension on my NSX-T for close to 20K miles, the suspension was one of the best ones available for the NSX, but it pales in comparison to the suspension that is available on other modern sport cars, my MKII 996GT3 had a better suspension and even my lowly 987S with PASM has a better suspension (it can do the slalom at 73.9+mph, that is crazy
Again, I'm being honest and not trying to diss the NSX.
As a platform to be improved on it is a great starting point, but stock vs stock it pales in comparison with what the F360 offers out of the box in regards to handling.
And to clarify I don't own a F-car nor do I plan to own one anytime soon, I'm basing my views solely on the handling and performance of the cars as I've seen on the track and not on some 2nd hand information from someone else.
BTW: Since you asked about the NSX-R numbers, I dug some up for you, from the April 2004 issue of EVO's article "The Greatest Drivers Cars" 0-60mph 4.4 sec, Max Speed: 168mph, Weight 1270kg (2794lbs), no lateral g numbers nor slalom (slalom depends on the spacing of the cones too so it's pretty much useless unless it's from magazines that use the same spacing)
Getting back on topic
I would personally not take a F348 over any NSX, it's simply not worth it in regards to cost nor the performance benefit, the only benefit that I see is being able to say "I own a Ferrari", yeah right..
Crazy! Hey if you don't mind I'm going to pm you as you have some track mods I'm considering and I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about them.
2slow2speed said:FYI, Doug Hayashi (Pulp Story Teller) used to do 2:12's with his stock S2000 at Thunderhill running with R-compounds or slicks (don't remember which) and high performance pads
The S2K lacks bottom end torque, regardless of HP, it has problems comming out of slow turns, it can carry momentum through the twisties because of the great handling, but once you kill the momentum the NSX accelarates faster than the S2K.
It all depends on the track too, so maybe your experience is on a different track
This is a bit out of topic, but a couple of years back Road and Track did another comparo test at Buttonwillow and the AP2 S2K's laptimes lagged quite a bit of other cars in the field, same thing, the lack of low end torque had a big impact on laptimes
BioBanker said:
Just kidding nice driving. Was the M3 supercharged as well!
BioBanker said:
Pulp Story Teller said:
Pulp Story Teller said:
Keep dreaming...most 3x8s love the car for the cars sake and not just because it has a Ferrari badge.NSXGMS said:Because, as a previous poster stated, many, many of the owners of 308/328/348/355 are "wannabe" Ferrari owners. They are barely able to afford and probably can't afford a 360/550/575 and they get very defensive when questioned about the status of their cars. They just have the little horsey, a great exhaust note and some ancient heritage to cling to...BTW, where was Ferrari racing between Lauda and Schumacher? In the crapper.
The biggest joke IMO is that Ferrari simply doesn't care what happens to their cars after 2-3 years. If you can't afford to buy new then Ferrari isn't interested in you. Hello--this is a company that blackballs you if you go anywhere other than a dealer. Is is adding up yet?
Anyone who questions Ferrari or weighs the difference between an NSX and Ferrari shouldn't be buying a Ferrari--and Ferrari doesn't want you. The NSX is superior to the 348 in every possible way except for the exhaust note
I'm not saying I would not own a Ferrari. I wish I could own one. But the only F I'd own is the 599GTB or the F430 because thinking I could "afford" anything else would be delusional. Used Fs are not "deals". They're cheaper because they're older & crappier.
The only other alternative would be if I absolutely LOVED a particular model(s) and wanted to essentially "collect" it and put $ into it and keep it for a long time. I could see that with a F355 or a 512TR or something older.
But for anyone to think they can drive it all the time and save money by buying used and just get into the "club" is nonsense. Ferrari the company isn't standing behind you so why do it?
They didn't make a TR in 92, only a 512TR which is still in relative demand (prices have been pretty steady for a few years now at 90-100k, though as of late some have crept up).tumbler said:exactly, I don't hear of many guys who are considering 1991 to 1992 Testarossa's ?
But I sure more buyers scooping up '91 , 92 NSX's
and for every day driving, grocery shopping and then beating it to death on the track, is there any better car than the NSX, not in my book
512TR's fixed most of the issues with the original TR and put it in a package that was nearly as fast as a 355. The F512m fixed just about every thing...NetViper said:Personally I think the 512TR is one of the most beautiful cars ever made. I would take one in a heart beat. I still want to one day. Too bad they are not exactly reliable or easy to work on.
Incidently the 355 was the car that saved the company from going broke in the mid 90s.jimmycinla said:
Ironic. Most of the owners on FC actually have owned a larger variety of cars then you can imagine, if not still do.BioBanker said:
Though the NSX NA2 is about the same as a 355, a 360 is a bit faster, if not on paper, in real life. It feels more torquey.WingZ said:
Pininfarina is just a design studio. Not all Ferrari's are Pinin's, and not all Pinin's are Ferraris. What Pinin does is relatively independent of Ferrari and vice versa, though as of late Ferrari works very closely with Pinin on joint-projects to insure proper aero.jimmycinla said:
What has changed is that the 348 is considered a 'classic' ferrari, whereas the NSX STILL is considered a modern car by most.MCM said:This thread refuses to die on the F board, and is still going strong here!
I for one find it somewhat insulting comparing a 348 to an NSX.
There was no comparison in 1991? What has changed? Am I missing something? The only thing I can see that has changed is the price of the 348.
It has fallen to the point where you can own either one now and some
cant handle it. LOL LOL
...........
Just to keep the ball rolling........
http://www.sportscarmarket.com/profiles/2003/February/Ferrari/index.html
Ferrari has traditionally been a follower when it comes to technology. Enzo Ferrari was legendary for his resistance to disc brakes and mid-engined cars. The 348 finally featured up-to-date components, and its innovative use of manufacturing technology set it far ahead of the supercar competition. The 348 was designed to be built faster, cheaper and less labor-intensive than any previous Ferrari.
So was this 100-mile 348 coupe a good buy? It depends on if you want a 100-mile 348 coupe. Despite the significance the 348 may have played in Ferrari's manufacturing history, it was a dud in the marketplace. Its design was uninspiring and the impressive drivetrain performance was compromised by a far-less-impressive chassis. The electronics, perhaps in an unintended homage to the notoriously finicky Mondials, were plagued with gremlins that caused warning lights to illuminate erroneously, and control computers to fail prematurely. There weren't enough problems to call the 348 a bad car, but there were too many to call it a good one.
Further, the 355 and the 360 that followed were better cars in every way, including that all-important aspect of visual appeal. Without question, you'll get more attention showing up at a club meet in a Modena Spyder than you will in a 348 coupe.
At the right price a good 348 offers an enormous amount of performance for not much money, but you get no prancing horse swagger. Furthermore, it will never appreciate.
