Acura NSX Details Emerge - in Today's Autoweek

[WingZ]

At 3200 lbs. and, say 475 hp, it would have 6.7 lbs. per hp about the same as a GT3.
So a GT3 competitor?

QUOTE=WingZ;1723295]Uh the 2014 911 GT3 has turned that period into a question mark

458 is 5.8 lbs. per hp
GT3 is 6.6 lbs. per hp
The 458 has a 13 % advantage on lb. per hp so will perhaps keep the period.[/QUOTE]

911S at 400hp has been clocked at 3.6 0-60 and 12 flat 1/4 vs 458 3.0-3.3 0-60 and 11.0 1/4. Take into account that's 160hp down at similar weight to the 458. Now add the additional 75 hp of the GT3 and it should be dogfight at the track so still a question mark.

 

[simplife]

There were talks of Lotus going bankrupt and that is not good press, especially if you are going to invest a large sum of money into a sports car and wonder about manufacturer support later on. It's not a bad looking car, and it looks like it would beat out even the LFA at a quarter of the price. This is ironic considering the parent engine provider. However, the future is looking sketchy for Lotus and they have never been able bring the clout that McLaren can.

Well there is now renewed hope for the marque
http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/...s-more-exciting-products-hires-engineers.html

- - - Updated - - -

another competitor no one really mentions is the upcoming Lotus cars, specifically the new Esprit:

http://www.caranddriver.com/news/lotus-esprit-news-2014-lotus-esprit-debut

3200 lbs., turbo charged 5.0 V8, 7-speed dual clutch tranny, 612hp, and a KERS system. $110,000

that's a tough target if ever there was one...

- - - Updated - - -

This is news from 3 years ago before Dany Bahar was canned and Lotus went into "survival mode". No announcement has been made as far that I am aware of stating the Esprit program has been resurrected.

 

[Osiris_x11]

Any idea about the construction/fabrication materials on the NSX-Concept/NSX-v2 (ie. aluminum? magnesium? titanium? carbon-fiber? plastic-composite? unobtanium)?

Re: LF-A segue...

It's quite a bit of disservice to peg it against the 458 Italia & the like (mid/rear engine V8 exotics). The LF-A was conceived & executed to be a front-engine V12 Ferrari alternative, as a more visceral & sportable GT while offering more tech & materials advancement. And arguably, it delivered in such aspects. With all that said, it was far from a sales success in terms of units allocated & ease of moving them. Though, over time it'll gain appreciation & added respect for what it was in-essence.

 

[JD Cross]

as for Lotus, only time will tell. but they're kicking McLaren's arse in Formula 1 lately and they know a thing or two about racing and making iconic sportscars...

The Lotus F1 team has no connection to Lotus Cars other than an arrangement for the F1 team to use the name.
Lotus cars is owned by DRB Hicom of Malaysia while the F1 team is owned by Gerard Lopez and other investors.

 

[BD]

How do you explain GTR? The car weights 3800 lbs.

Some publications have recorded 2.5 sec nil to 60.

The new NSX is 4WD, with three electric motor with instant torque, if it is with turbo chargers, this car will kill anything double it's price.

 

[JD Cross]

How do you explain GTR? The car weights 3800 lbs. Some publications have recorded 2.5 sec nil to 60.

This is a really good question!
I've always wondered how a 3800 lb. car can be so fast.
Is it torque multiplication in the transmission?

Is there anyone out there with a with a physics/mechanical engineering background who can calculate how much power is needed to accelerate a 3800 lb. car to 60 mph in 2.5 secs.

 

[Olyar15]

This is a really good question!
I've always wondered how a 3800 lb. car can be so fast.
Is it torque multiplication in the transmission?

Is there anyone out there with a with a physics/mechanical engineering background who can calculate how much power is needed to accelerate a 3800 lb. car to 60 mph in 2.5 secs.

In a word: traction.
In two words: traction and DCT.
In three words: traction, DCT, and electronics.

It doesn't matter how much power the car has, if there is not enough traction. I remember reading an article in Road & Track several years ago, about a modified Corvette that had an insane amount of hp. But the 1/4 mile times were not impressive at all. They explained it as simply not enough traction. They couldn't floor the throttle, otherwise all they got was wheelspin. AWD with new tire technology allows getting more of the power to the ground.

Also, dual-clutch transmissions, no matter how much people moan about them, are simply faster than shifting manually. Plus they allow computer control and launch control which allows acceleration that is simply not achievable on a consistent basis by shifting manually. Which is why just about all the major performance cars are going with DCTs.

 

[fastaussie]

In a word: traction.
In two words: traction and DCT.
In three words: traction, DCT, and electronics.

It doesn't matter how much power the car has, if there is not enough traction.

absolutely correct. traction is the most important part of the equation. which is why AWD cars are so bloody fast from a dead stop, twice as much rubber to put the torque to the road. adding more power will simply add more smoke if you can't put it to the ground.

the electronics and launch control systems then keep the tires from breaking loose. and DCT's then allow much-faster-than human gear shifts to keep the car accelerating forward.

and the 4th component, gearing...

 

[jwmelvin]

In a word: traction.

Here's my estimate of power.

Velocity, v. The car is going 60 mph (26.82 m/s).
Mass, m. It weighs 3800 lb (1723.65 kg).
Time, t. It took 2.5 sec.
Energy of the car, E = (1/2)*m*v^2. Kinetic energy is one-half of mass times velocity squared.
E = 619921 Joules.

Power = E/t = 247969 Watts = 332 hp. Power is energy over time, or the rate of energy transfer.

Ignoring losses to friction (e.g., rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag), it requires that 332 hp be applied to a 3,800 lb car (tires) for 2.5 sec. to reach 60 mph. Seems small, but I suppose that the initial ramp up is significant, such that the first half-second is much less than the average so the remainder must be more. I don't know enough about various losses in a car to say how much more power an engine must produce in order to deliver 330 hp to the road. With the levels of power available in today's cars, it seems like traction would always be the dominant limiting factor for low-speed sprints.

-jason

 

[JD Cross]

Here's my estimate of power.

Velocity, v. The car is going 60 mph (26.82 m/s).
Mass, m. It weighs 3800 lb (1723.65 kg).
Time, t. It took 2.5 sec.
Energy of the car, E = (1/2)*m*v^2. Kinetic energy is one-half of mass times velocity squared.
E = 619921 Joules.

Power = E/t = 247969 Watts = 332 hp. Power is energy over time, or the rate of energy transfer.

Ignoring losses to friction (e.g., rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag), it requires that 332 hp be applied to a 3,800 lb car (tires) for 2.5 sec. to reach 60 mph. Seems small, but I suppose that the initial ramp up is significant, such that the first half-second is much less than the average so the remainder must be more. I don't know enough about various losses in a car to say how much more power an engine must produce in order to deliver 330 hp to the road. With the levels of power available in today's cars, it seems like traction would always be the dominant limiting factor for low-speed sprints.

-jason

Could you elaborate on the effect of gearing?
I understand torque is multiplied by the transmission and final drive ratios (and possibly decreased by the wheel diameter)
Is hp affected by this multiplication factor or is it a measure of work so not multiplied?

 

[fastaussie]

Could you elaborate on the effect of gearing?

simply put, shorter/lower gearing is much easier for the engine to pull than higher/taller gearing. a shorter gear is much easier for an engine to accelerate through, and it can do it much faster.

think of it like riding your bicycle; when you start in a lower gear it's very easy to pedal, and you can reach the end of the gear very quickly. if you try to start out in a much higher gear, it's a lot harder to pedal, and it takes much longer for you to reach the maximum speed of that gear.

that's the basic way of thinking about it, and probably the easiest way to explain it.

this is why some NSX owners install the Japanese gears in their car. the first 3 gears (i think?) are lower than in the stock transmission, and with the same weight, horsepower, driver, etc., the cars accelerate much quicker in the lower gears.

there's other variables of course. if the gears are too short you'll have to shift more often (each gear will have a reduced maximum speed). and shifting takes up a lot of time in a manual car versus not shifting at all. shortening the gearing too much will also induce more wheelspin, which also eats up time quickly. aerodynamics aren't much a factor in 0-to-60 times, but soon after that it will come into play. putting bigger (diameter) rims/wheels on your car will also affect gearing and slow it down in a straight line. larger wheels are effectively making your final drive gearing taller, and may also be heavier, requiring more power to turn them from a standstill. that will require more time, slowing your acceleration, especially from a stop. Honda, Ferrari, Porsche, Ford, Volkswagon, Nissan, Fiat, everybody puts a lot of effort into finding the perfect balance of acceleration, top speed, fuel mileage, handling, etc. with their choices of gearing and wheel sizes for every vehicle they make.

another thing to think about. torque is what accelerates a vehicle from a stop, or off corners. not horsepower. horsepower generates top speed (per gear). torque accelerates a vehicle from the bottom of the RPM range, horsepower takes over at the top. high horsepower will generate a good trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile or in outright top speed. high torque will give you a faster ET time..

everything is of course relative, but those are the basics...

 

[JD Cross]

another thing to think about. torque is what accelerates a vehicle from a stop, or off corners. not horsepower. horsepower generates top speed (per gear). torque accelerates a vehicle from the bottom of the RPM range, horsepower takes over at the top. high horsepower will generate a good trap speed at the end of the 1/4 mile or in outright top speed. high torque will give you a faster ET time.

If first gear is, say 3 to 1 and the final drive is 4 to 1 then torque is multiplied by 12 at all rpm.
The higher the combined number the greater the torque multiplication.
And the higher the multiplication the quicker the engine reaches its rpm limit.
I get this part.

My question was centered on understanding whether horsepower is also multiplied by the gear ratios.
Moving a 3000 lb. car a 100 yards in 4 seconds takes a certain amount of horsepower.
If the same work is done in 3 seconds that should mean more horsepower is used.
If gearing is the way the time was reduced does that mean gearing multiplied the horsepower?

 

[jwmelvin]

If the same work is done in 3 seconds that should mean more horsepower is used.
If gearing is the way the time was reduced does that mean gearing multiplied the horsepower?

Let's be somewhat careful not to think about distance rather than speed. It is easy to estimate the work required to bring a car up to a certain speed because we know the kinetic energy of the car at that speed. Of course, you could use distance instead (1/4-mile times) but the equation becomes x = (1/2)*a*(t)^2, where x is the distance, a is acceleration, and t is time (assuming the car is stationary when it starts).

But, to answer your question, the gearing does not affect the power, other than allowing the engine to make more power for a given speed of the car. By keeping the engine in its ideal range, you allow it to make more power. In your example, if car B does the same thing as car A (traveling a distance or accelerating to a velocity) but does so in less time, then the average power applied to car B was higher than the power applied to car A. Let's say that the two vehicles are identical but car B was quicker because car A was in third gear the whole time but car B used first, second, and third. Then car B was able to apply more power to its wheels because of the gearing. Thinking about it from a torque perspective, car B was able to apply more torque to its wheels because of the gearing. So while the engine's power depends only on its speed (and throttle position), that depends on the gearing for any given vehicle speed.

torque is what accelerates a vehicle from a stop, or off corners. not horsepower.

Remember that power equals torque times angular velocity, so an engine's horsepower is directly related to its torque curve. It just weights torque at higher rpm.

Please let me know if I've botched something.

-jason

 

[fastaussie]

this is all quite true, but probably more overly complicated than it has to be. since i'm pretty bored, and since all of the cars competing with the new NSX follow almost exactly the same formula. engine producing said amount of horsepower, four wheels, throttle, electronics, etc. perhaps the easiest way to figure out how much horsepower is required to move a 3200 lbs. car to 60 mph from a standstill in roughly 3 seconds would be to just see how the other cars do it. all of the cars below weight between 3200 and 3800 lbs. roughly speaking, with the exception of the mighty McLaren F1, which i threw in for the sake of seeing how far technology has come since the early '90s. i don't think the F1 had any form of traction control and i think came only with a manual transmission, but i could be wrong? it also has small old school tires compared to the modern machines.

i think without question, the GTR has the best electronics package of any car on the road...

Nissan GTR (545hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.7 seconds (AWD car) - heaviest car here at 3800 lbs.
Lamborghini Aventador (700hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds (AWD car)
Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera (570hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds (AWD car)
Porsche 911 Turbo (560hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds (AWD car)
McLaren MP4 (616hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds
Ferrari 458 (562hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.0 seconds
(1994) McLaren F1 (627 hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds - lightest car here at 2500 lbs.
SRT Viper GTS ( 640hp) 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds
Audi R8 GT PLUS (550hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds (AWD car)
Chevy Corvette ZR1 (640hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds
Lexus LFA (552hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds
Audi R8 (420hp) = 0 to 60 in 4.1 seconds (AWD car)

Tesla Roadster (300hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds - battery powered, 2700 lbs.

Bugatti Veyron Supersport (1200hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.4 seconds (AWD car) 4200 to 4700 lbs. pig

the All Wheel Drive cars have an obvious jump off the line due to their superior traction, but it looks like the magic number for getting a 3200+ lbs. car to 60mph from a stop in about 3 seconds is at least 550hp. these are of course gasoline-only powered vehicles. the battery powered Tesla Roadster weighs only 2700 lbs. and makes do with 300 horsepower. it's a fraction off the pace, but pretty damn quick for the lesser amount of power. so the next question to answer is how much combined horsepower would a hybrid fuel/battery powered car need to reach 60 mph from a stop? and if you added 500 lbs. to a Tesla what would the 0 to 60 time be? i imagine it would be on the other side of the 4 second mark for sure.

and then there's the Veyron, but who really cares?

 

[WingZ]

this is all quite true, but probably more overly complicated than it has to be. since i'm pretty bored, and since all of the cars competing with the new NSX follow almost exactly the same formula. engine producing said amount of horsepower, four wheels, throttle, electronics, etc. perhaps the easiest way to figure out how much horsepower is required to move a 3200 lbs. car to 60 mph from a standstill in roughly 3 seconds would be to just see how the other cars do it. all of the cars below weight between 3200 and 3800 lbs. roughly speaking, with the exception of the mighty McLaren F1, which i threw in for the sake of seeing how far technology has come since the early '90s. i don't think the F1 had any form of traction control and i think came only with a manual transmission, but i could be wrong? it also has small old school tires compared to the modern machines.

i think without question, the GTR has the best electronics package of any car on the road...

Nissan GTR (545hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.7 seconds (AWD car) - heaviest car here at 3800 lbs.
Lamborghini Aventador (700hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds (AWD car)
Lamborghini Gallardo Superleggera (570hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.8 seconds (AWD car)
Porsche 911 Turbo (560hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds (AWD car)
McLaren MP4 (616hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.9 seconds
Ferrari 458 (562hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.0 seconds
(1994) McLaren F1 (627 hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds - lightest car here at 2500 lbs.
SRT Viper GTS ( 640hp) 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds
Audi R8 GT PLUS (550hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds (AWD car)
Chevy Corvette ZR1 (640hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds
Lexus LFA (552hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.6 seconds
Audi R8 (420hp) = 0 to 60 in 4.1 seconds (AWD car)

Tesla Roadster (300hp) = 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds - battery powered, 2700 lbs.

Bugatti Veyron Supersport (1200hp) = 0 to 60 in 2.4 seconds (AWD car) 4200 to 4700 lbs. pig

the All Wheel Drive cars have an obvious jump off the line due to their superior traction, but it looks like the magic number for getting a 3200+ lbs. car to 60mph from a stop in about 3 seconds is at least 550hp. these are of course gasoline-only powered vehicles. the battery powered Tesla Roadster weighs only 2700 lbs. and makes do with 300 horsepower. it's a fraction off the pace, but pretty damn quick for the lesser amount of power. so the next question to answer is how much combined horsepower would a hybrid fuel/battery powered car need to reach 60 mph from a stop? and if you added 500 lbs. to a Tesla what would the 0 to 60 time be? i imagine it would be on the other side of the 4 second mark for sure.

and then there's the Veyron, but who really cares?

The 911 Turbo S with 530hp usually clocks at 2.5 as does the 911 turbo. I've never seen the GTR beat the newer 911 TT

 

[ozone]

The amazing thing to consider other than that the GTR is a relative heavyweight, is its cost. For $90ish K new, it's beating supercars much, much faster. You may not be getting the supercar experience but you're definitely getting the performance.

I think the GTR's ridiculous performance has cemented it as one of the most iconic Japanese cars of all-time; along with the NSX, which is iconic for entirely different reasons.

 

[jwmelvin]

I think this would be more interesting with hp/lb but here is a scatter of the above data, showing the general benefit in 0-60 times from AWD:

 

[fastaussie]

The 911 Turbo S with 530hp usually clocks at 2.5 as does the 911 turbo. I've never seen the GTR beat the newer 911 TT

2.9 seconds 0 to 60mph was the fastest time i could find for any 911 Turbo, including the 2014 S model. but someone could have gone faster?

The amazing thing to consider other than that the GTR is a relative heavyweight, is its cost. For $90ish K new, it's beating supercars much, much faster. You may not be getting the supercar experience but you're definitely getting the performance.

I think the GTR's ridiculous performance has cemented it as one of the most iconic Japanese cars of all-time; along with the NSX, which is iconic for entirely different reasons.

no doubt, the GTR is an absolute monster. as per Nissan's website, the base model is $99,600. the "Black Edition" is $109, 300. and the "Track Edition" is $115,700. no one is offering that kind of performance for that amount of money. and while i wholeheartedly appreciate what Nissan has done with it, i have zero interest in that car.

the criticism i generally hear leveled at the GTR from the automotive press and ordinary enthusiasts alike, is that the GTR is so good it basically drives itself, and makes anyone look like a much better driver than they are. i'd completely agree with that. i think the superior electronics have diminished the driver from the driver/car equation...

- - - Updated - - -

I think this would be more interesting with hp/lb but here is a scatter of the above data, showing the general benefit in 0-60 times from AWD

there's no arguing that AWD isn't the quickest way off the line for a given amount of (high) horsepower...

 

[N Spec]

One could say the same about the NSX even though it is much more spartan, it can make a driver appear more experienced as it's easy to drive also.

 

[fastaussie]

One could say the same about the NSX even though it is much more spartan, it is can make a driver appear more experienced as it's easy to drive also.

there's a difference between the car being easy to drive, and the car driving itself. the NSX is an easy car for most to drive close to its limit on the street, something you couldn't necessarily say of the Ferrari's and Porsches of old. but it still requires a skilled driver to get to the limit, or drive it at the limit. you can still get it wrong in an NSX once at the limit. the GTR, and to a lesser extent, the McLaren MP4 are quite adept at saving your arse whence the driver exceeds their ability (which is not necessarily a bad thing by any means for insurance premiums and human preservation alike). now i've never driven either, just heard that the driving experience is in no way comparible to a 458, Gallardo Superleggera or anything else i've driven. you lose that sense of rawness, that you are driving the car, not the other way around. my NSX still feels this way. like an older, softer, less powerful 458, but still every bit as precise. and that sensation is much more rewarding than outlandish computer controlled power in my opinion. this is why we all love our dear old NSX's so i believe...

 

[N Spec]

there's a difference between the car being easy to drive, and the car driving itself. the NSX is an easy car for most to drive close to its limit on the street, something you couldn't necessarily say of the Ferrari's and Porsches of old. but it still requires a skilled driver to get to the limit, or drive it at the limit. you can still get it wrong in an NSX once at the limit. the GTR, and to a lesser extent, the McLaren MP4 are quite adept at saving your arse whence the driver exceeds their ability (which is not necessarily a bad thing by any means for insurance premiums and human preservation alike). now i've never driven either, just heard that the driving experience is in no way comparible to a 458, Gallardo Superleggera or anything else i've driven. you lose that sense of rawness, that you are driving the car, not the other way around. my NSX still feels this way. like an older, softer, less powerful 458, but still every bit as precise. and that sensation is much more rewarding than outlandish computer controlled power in my opinion. this is why we all love our dear old NSX's so i believe...

I've driven the GTR and it's pretty RAW, especially when it comes to power. You can still get yourself in trouble with that car just like the NSX.

 

[latzke]

the criticism i generally hear leveled at the GTR from the automotive press and ordinary enthusiasts alike, is that the GTR is so good it basically drives itself, and makes anyone look like a much better driver than they are. i'd completely agree with that. i think the superior electronics have diminished the driver from the driver/car equation...

That criticism sounds familiar to what they said about the NSX...too easy to drive. They said the NSX was not an exotic because it doesn't scare the shit out of you like the Ferrari or rear-engine Porsche handling of the day.

My criticism of the GTR is different: Engine is in the wrong place, it is too big, too heavy, too ugly, interior layout is awful (even Corvette is better), etc. Who cares how fast it is. Frankly, one of the few things I find compelling about it is the combination of speed and a rear seat (I have kids). Did they buy Mitsubishi's concept plans for the next 3000GT VR4?

 

[ozone]

I think an argument can be made that all modern cars drive themselves as they're automatics. Paddle shifting is no true manual.

That's why I hope I can keep my manual cars for a long time. I am sure I will "sell out" to paddle shift but only as an adjunct to my sticks. Kind of sucks but the chase for performance is sucking out the driving experience. We all put too much importance into 0-60 times. I don't even recall the last time I launched a car.

 

[latzke]

I think an argument can be made that all modern cars drive themselves as they're automatics. Paddle shifting is no true manual.

That's why I hope I can keep my manual cars for a long time. I am sure I will "sell out" to paddle shift but only as an adjunct to my sticks. Kind of sucks but the chase for performance is sucking out the driving experience. We all put too much importance into 0-60 times. I don't even recall the last time I launched a car.

You should remove your synchros if you want the real shifting experience from before we sold out to all this sucky technology.

 

[N Spec]

I think an argument can be made that all modern cars drive themselves as they're automatics. Paddle shifting is no true manual.

That's why I hope I can keep my manual cars for a long time. I am sure I will "sell out" to paddle shift but only as an adjunct to my sticks. Kind of sucks but the chase for performance is sucking out the driving experience. We all put too much importance into 0-60 times. I don't even recall the last time I launched a car.

A really good DCT tranny with paddle shifters offers a similar experience when you shift in manual mode. There is just no left foot operation but you still use your hands. Then when you are feeling lazy or sitting in traffic, auto mode is nice. With that said. Having a manual car (NSX) and modern DCT car would be the best of both worlds.

That criticism sounds familiar to what they said about the NSX...too easy to drive. They said the NSX was not an exotic because it doesn't scare the shit out of you like the Ferrari or rear-engine Porsche handling of the day.

My criticism of the GTR is different: Engine is in the wrong place, it is too big, too heavy, too ugly, interior layout is awful (even Corvette is better), etc. Who cares how fast it is. Frankly, one of the few things I find compelling about it is the combination of speed and a rear seat (I have kids). Did they buy Mitsubishi's concept plans for the next 3000GT VR4?

This. The GTR offers everything performance by sacrifices form and aesthetics in the process to achieve a low and attractive cost. Very much like the Corvette.

fastaussie: Stop letting journalist snobs influence your "soul" interpretation of a sports car. They are the same ones that covet the LFA and Bugatti because they are essentially a fashion statement, but these cars definitely do not hold the same clout to enthusiast even if there lies some serious engineering marvels behind them. The Corvette, old and new can be scary to drive but they will still never considered "soulful" because it was made in America. Old Corvettes offer the same build quality as many old exotics IMO.

Old Ferraris sounds cool, but to sit in one and ride around in it was a not so cool experience. I test drove a F355 spider (auto) out of curiosity and it was priced similar to a used NSX around the same mileage. It sounded wicked, but it felt so primitive and dated. I was not at all impressed and this car came out as a reply (in essence) to the NSX. I'd keep my NSX any day. I could not imagine paying below market value for a used one still, let alone consider maintaining one. I'm sure this could be said the same of any old "exotic", even deep into the 90s or perhaps some early 2000s exotics. I think Ferrari began to get wind of this and it shows in the evolution of the F cars. You can seen the refinement and build quality get better with the 360, then 430 and finally 458. I think the verdict is still out on the 458's reliability, but 7 years maintenance included is a nice perk for new car buyers.