as far as the Japanese domestic market "gentleman's agreement" of a 276 HP limit, i'm well aware of it. all of the other cars mentioned in earlier posts, the Nissan 300ZX TT, Toyota Supra TT, Skyline, Mitsubishi 3000GT VR4, etc., all broke that agreement in the same era as the first model NSX, so why did Honda so vigorously adhere to it when building a flagship model to complete globally with the world’s other manufacturers who were clearly not? surely they sell many more cars outside of Japan than in it? but since Honda also broke the agreement themselves with the '97 NSX with 290hp, why stop there? am i the only person who was a little disappointed to hear that the NA2 model only had 20 more horsepower? would a 350hp ’97 NSX not have been more desirable (to ourselves and the non-NSX faithful)? would the NSX not have sold in much greater numbers? would Comptech not have sold as many supercharger kits?
It's a little too late to be upset with the "290" rated hp of the eventual 6 year upgrade that came out nearly 16 years ago. Even though it's rated at 290 hp, on the dyno it was putting down more whp than the stock "300-320 hp" twin turbo cars. WHP is where is at along with your unified stance of a well built/light weight chassis. This is the winning formula for the NSX. Like Wingz pointed out, it was still good enough to hang if not beat the 360 or C6 Vette with 400 hp in a driver's race. The NSX apparently is much easier to launch compared to the Corvette or 360.
I think people worry TOO MUCH about hp figures alone and forget the equation is much more complicated than that. The HP determines the class or range, but not where the vehicle ultimate falls on the target.
Also the other Japanese manufacturers were able to rubber-band the 280 PS rule with turbos. We all know FI is very inconsistent with power delivery. Air temps/density, sea level, and many other factors can affect actual whp dramatically whereas an NA car is generally more consistent. The turbo car can be detuned to do a certain psi to safeguard the 280 HP rule but leave enough room for play to net 20-40 more horsepower due to rudimentary boost control/ECU maps.
the NSX is and has always been my favourite automobile. when this next iteration comes out i hope it will be the best sportscar on the road once again. not ‘as good as’ the best sportscar, or ‘almost as fast as’ the best sports car, or ‘more technological’ or ‘better fuel economy’ than the best sportscar. just THE BEST SPORTSCAR ON THE ROAD. that’s all I am saying…
I agree with you that after owning more than one NSX, it is hard to imagine life without an NSX. I have driven extensively and owned many other sports cars. There are a few that may beat it in some or many categories, but overall the NSX still somehow wins IMO. I could say "BEST OVERALL SPORTSCAR on the ROAD" but not "THE BEST" as that is so subjective.
I think we all want the Impossible for the next NSX, where it will beat almost everyone in performance, sound so wickedly unique while still be reliable and maintain an excellent value/price point with an exotically low production to maintain resale value and exclusivity. This is probably why we are so critical of the concept/prototype, because we believe it is possible since Honda was so close to the mark for the original. However we all have different takes on the equation...
p.s. regarding the status of the 300ZX, 3000GT, Corvette, etc. as Supercars? very few automotive enthusiasts, or at least those who own legitimate undisputed “Supercars” would consider those significantly cheaper, mass produced, non-hand built and un-exotic models to be so. just my opinion boys and girls. None of us compare our cars to a 300ZX do we? i’ve owned one, a truly fantastic car, but not a legitimate “Supercar” in my opinion. again, just my own personal opinion.
Super car, exotic car, hyper car, uber car - they are all terms that are subjective and debatable to the end. Alone super, uber or hyper generally means something good, better, above or beyond. Together with the category of car, they set classifications, usually based on price. However with technology, numbers get better as time advances. Soon enough, I believe super car levels will have to be designated numerical values, very much like CPU or graphics card technology. Even in that arena, the designations are arbitrary and almost follow no set rules.
Anyways, during the 90s, when all of the US and European manufacturers were resting upon their laurels, the Japanese delivered sports cars to much higher levels that were "above" or beyond the norm. They could outperform the "super cars" of the 80s. This is why they are coined "Japanese super cars" which excluded the exotic manufacturing processes involved with the European counterparts, but offered similar if not better performance for much better Value.
While the 300ZX, Skyline GTR, 3000GT, Corvette, Supra and Rx7 could compete with the other supercars, they were never exotic in terms of projected sales, market demographic and design. The 300ZX was the only one that came even close to point of sacrificing engine bay space AND thus reliability/practicality to achieve a shorter nose for a front engine car to appear more exotic with the mid-engine look inspired by the MID4. The other issue with the 300ZX is that it sold too well and the typical demographic that bought it/now owns it would not classify it as exotic, even if the last model year was knocking at $60K MSRP.
Not trying to turn this in a exotic/super car debate, but super cars and hyper cars and even exotic cars are terms that are grounded to their times.
Mid-engine and exclusivity (low sales numbers dictated by the ultimate price value) seem to be the only undeniable factors that are synonymous with the term "exotic car". All other variables are subjective IMO.
></o
