600hp and cylinder deactivation?

[sadlerau]

Uh the only F16 inspiration on the NSX was the visibility from the cockpit. It's nice to remember something fondly but realistically the NSX design again was known as derivative back when it first came out.

Back then the Japanese car that was known for it lines/good looks was the 300ZX.

It was called derivative by journalists who found it difficult to accept that the NSX could reset the parameters of what a supercar could be.

In fact, the NSX is only derivative of having a mid-rear chassis and four wheels! It was actually quite unique in style, that is why it has aged so well. You only need to see the NSX next to a 328 Ferrari [the current model when the NSX was being developed] and even the 348 to appreciate just how refined our car was/is. It has a homogenous form that looks as fresh now as it did all those years ago. Just a pitty that you Americans asked for a boot that would hold 2 golf bags [which meant extending the tail 6 inches before it went into production]. If not for that, it would have been one of the most complete and inherently beautiful cars of all time.

 

[nsxtacey]

"aerodynamic tricks lifted from its experience in Formula 1"

oh no :redface:

anyway 150k is too high even if its faster than the GT-R, LA-F and Ferrari 599. I would rather get a Maser GT-S for 135k.

 

[WingZ]

Yes a very good looking car. But you got what you paid for..... $40,000 and worth it.

NSX when it first came out ...$80,000 and worth it.

My concern is with this new NSX ..... worth $150,000? if you get the performance of a super-car but the looks of a Lexus IS/F, BMW 3 Series, or some MB SL-Class AMG

You spend about 10% of your time at 9/10th or 10/10th in a 500hp car... But you spend 80% of your time at maybe 5/10th if you're driving on the street. The fun part about the old NSX is that it looked like it was going 150mph even when it was sitting still, and it didn't blend in with 95% of the cars on the road...so it was fun to drive, even if you were just driving to the store for a pizza :biggrin:

Why do we buy these cars? (Unless you are a race car driver).... to have fun!

Well for starters the NSX was $60k when it first came out although some sold for $100K ( rich people who wanted to be first ). Seriously man for someone who complains a lot on the new car your references about the old one are usually wrong. As far as worth that's totally in the eyes of the buyer. People argued that the old NSX wasn't worth it's price tag and I guess that's true as it rarely sold for it's sticker.

The problem here is that everyone including it's schizophrenic so called fans of the NSX complained about power and out doing everyone else. Honda never made the NSX to do that. They made it to be a comparable mid engine sports car w/o the all the negatives that went with having an exotic back then. It succeeded in this area and changed the market.

Now just about 20 years later Honda actually wants to beat EVERYONE and most of you are to busy with the semantics to realize the importance of this.

Since the NSX was conceived to be comparable and it became an overachiever How many of you realize that now that Honda wants to build an OVERACHIEVER what kind of a monster that will be in all areas (except maybe looks although I like it ) ?????

I don't care that it's not mid engine this will be Hondas MASTERPIECE of performance! This is from a guy that wasn't a Honda fan up until a few years ago!

What's just beyond funny is that you guys sound exactly like all the guys back in the late 80's early 90's saying "Honda can't do that" , "It won't be able to match the greats" and "no ones gonna pay that for a Honda" Yep all the old NSX quotes ..LOL

QUOTE=sadlerau;1040291]It was called derivative by journalists who found it difficult to accept that the NSX could reset the parameters of what a supercar could be.

In fact, the NSX is only derivative of having a mid-rear chassis and four wheels! It was actually quite unique in style, that is why it has aged so well. You only need to see the NSX next to a 328 Ferrari [the current model when the NSX was being developed] and even the 348 to appreciate just how refined our car was/is. It has a homogenous form that looks as fresh now as it did all those years ago. Just a pitty that you Americans asked for a boot that would hold 2 golf bags [which meant extending the tail 6 inches before it went into production]. If not for that, it would have been one of the most complete and inherently beautiful cars of all time.[/QUOTE]

Actually if you look at compared to it's contemporaries which were all pretty much attractive cars. 328s still look good as do 348s , Lotus Esprits and old 911s. The NSX is just rarer than those.

Hmm six inches kept it from being one of the most inherently beautiful cars of all time??? Uh okay.

 

[N Spec]

Since the NSX was conceived to be comparable and it became an overachiever How many of you realize that now that Honda wants to build an OVERACHIEVER what kind of a monster that will be in all areas (except maybe looks although I like it ) ?????

I don't care that it's not mid engine this will be Hondas MASTERPIECE of performance! This is from a guy that wasn't a Honda fan up until a few years ago!

What's just beyond funny is that you guys sound exactly like all the guys back in the late 80's early 90's saying "Honda can't do that" , "It won't be able to match the greats" and "no ones gonna pay that for a Honda" Yep all the old NSX quotes ..LOL

------

Hmm six inches kept it from being one of the most inherently beautiful cars of all time??? Uh okay.

No, what everyone is saying is that the new GT is not favorable in the looks department. The car is un-inspiring in design, but no one doubts that it will will compete if not outdo the other competitors in the performance category. Right now the new GT is like a really smart, somewhat obese and ugly girl that goods in bed. She's got all the function a man could ever ask for, except she doesn't make him horny when he looks at her. But hey, some fellas like big and ugly girls, nothing wrong with that! They are a minority however.

To say the new GT is an overacheiver is definately an overstatement. For them to overacheive is to deliver a car that outperforms the market AND 75% of people who see it like it on their first reaction!

For everyone saying that you have to see it in real life to know if it looks good or not is just wrong. I never saw an NSX (and many other cars) in real life, but I always thought it badass looking as hell and this was confirmed when I saw one in person. Yea, sometimes there are bad angles of cars, but we have seen enough shots and angles of the new GT is know where it stands. The only thing that is not condemning it now is that the final production version is still a few years away and it still has a chance to look better. I doubt they will change the shape of the vehicle, more on just the details, which is probably not enough to sway the majority of the current haters of this design. We shall see...

Now, six inches shorter and it would have been a masterpiece? Stop smoking crack please! Most people would not be able to tell the 6 inches difference in perspective upon first glance. I daily drive mine and I could not imagine if there was 6 inches less in length to compromise the trunk space. It has come in handy many of times already. It is a masterpiece already:

*it shuts down traffic at every major intersection
*still faster than and out-handles many cars with more hp and more advanced technology of today
*reliable and comfortable enough to be driven everyday.
*still gets excellent gas mileage (I average 30 mpg on the interstate)
*you don't see one for many miles away in range, unless you live in area with a concentrated number, *cough*SoCal*cough*

 

[WingZ]

Come on Nspec if it actually comes out to be only about a hundred pounds heavier than an NSX then it's not a fat chick. It's a girl with some meat on her bones sportin some double D's and nice butt:biggrin:

I have to disagree with the seeing it in person thing because most new cars look better in person than they do in pics. I don't know why exactly.

Oh and Sadlerau was the six inches guy not me ..LOL

 

[BluryNSX]

wow is all I have to say, this is gonna take a while

100K+ car and worried about fuel economy? Gotta be kidding me. Who cares!
Besides, for whatever reason, Mercedes and Honda (I think) have done it on other cars and it doesn't save as much as one would anticipate.
I don't expect 10 cylinders -? 5 cylinders to double the gas mileage, but who knows.

On the other hand, I can see gas mileage being important 7 years from now when teh car is.. maybe 50K and a 2002 is 14K (goodbye good resale value to our NSXs in a few years..) so... we'lll see.

Still, if you are buying a 100K+ car, don't tell me you're concerned about gas mileage

this is so wrong in so many ways, as much money as some people have being wasteful is just plain dumb, if it is flawless in transitions why wouldn't you want better gas mileage when cruising?

to say the value of the previos models will decrease because of a new project is pretty dumb too, most (not all) ferraris don't loose value just because a new one is released (not solely anyways)

The V-10 M6 has a very small range because the tank is too small, 70 litres, for a big engine.
The Honda should have a good range if the engineers want it. I don't like cylinder deactivation. I paid for 10 and I want 10.

honestly people have you never driven a vcm vehicle? you can't even tell the cylinders turned off, the second your foot is back in it you won't even feel the transition.

The Prius is strange how it shuts off at stoplights and then starts again. It's also kind of dangerous if you cross the road illegally on foot and don't see it or hear it in electric mode.

different technology you are reffering to IMA which transfers power from the gas motor to charge the electrical one and when the power is unneeded the vehicle cruises with just the electrical on... VCM means the motor continues running but shuts down half its cylinders, our odyssey, accord, pilot, and I believe soon to be on the ridgelines as well.. not sure which acura's use this but I am sure most v6's no use this really sweet technology!

I think Honda came to this car with an "engine" and told the designers to put a car body around it (as if it was an afterthought) and this seems like a weak-spot for something they expect to bring top dollar.

ding ding ding, I think they had an Idea of what they wanted just started inside and moved out, I think the shape is fine just the lighting needs some attention to make if flow better..

Come on Nspec if it actually comes out to be only about a hundred pounds heavier than an NSX then it's not a fat chick. It's a girl with some meat on her bones sportin some double D's and nice butt

thats fantastic! nothing wrong with some meat on her bones and can still break you off something...


I think everyone needs to give this a bit of a chane with some refinement this could be a good concept, is it an NSX? absolutely not! GT-X maybe..
AWD, 500 whp, comfy, competitive, reliable wtf is everyone complaining about??? I like the 599 and 612 F-cars but couldn't/wouldn't wanna pay those maint. costs even when I am able to buy the car just seems wasteful!! this is a great alternative and the fact they are aiming past the GT-R, ZR1, california, LF-A makes me very hopeful to be able to put a hurting on them off and on the track

 

[N Spec]

Come on Nspec if it actually comes out to be only about a hundred pounds heavier than an NSX then it's not a fat chick. It's a girl with some meat on her bones sportin some double D's and nice butt:biggrin:

I have to disagree with the seeing it in person thing because most new cars look better in person than they do in pics. I don't know why exactly.

Oh and Sadlerau was the six inches guy not me ..LOL

Yea, ok, I mean some extra meat on the bones ain't bad. I still prefer mine like super model, as slim as you can get it while still looking good. Haha. We'll see how this new GT shapes up in the end. It just that Honda should really treat the negative reactions that are still coming effectively. People don't like it for a reason.

I still have to disagree about the thought of cars looking better in real life. Look at enough car photos at different angles and you should have a good idea of what it looks like. Any car will technically look better in person as it's the real deal not some 2D image. The presence gives something to grasp, it makes you believe it looks better in real life. I think new cars have gotten better with the smaller details and worse with the overall shape and size. So when you see it in person, you get to see all of the small details and in way it makes up for the shape or size. Not me though, I won't be fooled. If it can't be photographed well from a distance or upclose, then it's not universal beauty.

My opinion hasn't changed much usually when I made a conclusion through photos and then see them in person. 350z, GTR, TL, IS350, they all are nice cars but they are not drop dead gorgeous. See them in person and the only thing that went off was that they are even bigger than the pictures have you believe, especially the GTR. The interior is a lot better looking in person though.

About the 6 inches thing, I knew it wasn't you. I should have referred to Sadlerau, sorry.