Anticipated Performance / Modability

[Superfluous]

I just locked up the first NSX 2.0 at my local dealership (the owner is a client and friend).

Many here have expressed their hope that the NSX will pull a sub 3 second 0-60. Perhaps I am missing something, but I cannot even imagine the NSX not achieving this necessary performance benchmark. The NSX will have greater than 550hp. The AWD competitors in this HP range -- GT-R and 991 Turbo S -- both pull sub 3 second 0-60 times. The NSX will have the added benefit of electric motors and instant torque. Therefore, IMHO, the NSX must pull a sub 3 second 0-60, and a 0-60 in the 3 second range will be a huge fail for the car.

Will the presence of electric motors affect the modability of the car? Absent the electric motors, an ECU tune and other mods would be easy and widely available. I would love to bump the HP and thereby improve the car's top end. Do you think the presence of the electric motors will hinder or impair after-market mods? I see that a couple of companies have modded the 918, so it can be done. I just wonder whether there are integration issues with the electric motors.

I am not a fan of the chrome piece at the front of the car, just below the hood. I have seen photos where that piece is black -- it looks much better. Do you think Acura will offer the piece in black? If not, I reckon I can black out the existing piece.

Acura says "550hp+" One would think that, if it will be over 600hp, they would have said that upfront and thereby created even more anticipation. So, what do you thing "550+" will end up being?

 

[effer]

Many here have expressed their hope that the NSX will pull a sub 3 second 0-60. Perhaps I am missing something, but I cannot even imagine the NSX not achieving this necessary performance benchmark. The NSX will have greater than 550hp. The AWD competitors in this HP range -- GT-R and 991 Turbo S -- both pull sub 3 second 0-60 times. The NSX will have the added benefit of electric motors and instant torque. Therefore, IMHO, the NSX must pull a sub 3 second 0-60, and a 0-60 in the 3 second range will be a huge fail for the car.

I agree with you! The new NSX cannot be slower or underperforming in regard of the actual GTR and even its next generation. Huge fail aren't the words, I would rather say: DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

Will the presence of electric motors affect the modability of the car? Absent the electric motors, an ECU tune and other mods would be easy and widely available. I would love to bump the HP and thereby improve the car's top end. Do you think the presence of the electric motors will hinder or impair after-market mods? I see that a couple of companies have modded the 918, so it can be done. I just wonder whether there are integration issues with the electric motors.

Not at all. You already answered your question by mentioning companies who modded the 918 ...

I am not a fan of the chrome piece at the front of the car, just below the hood. I have seen photos where that piece is black -- it looks much better. Do you think Acura will offer the piece in black? If not, I reckon I can black out the existing piece.

Another potential fail for Honda: to ditch the beak design and introduce a design ''renouveau'' at the same time of the new NSX arrival ...

Acura says "550hp+" One would think that, if it will be over 600hp, they would have said that upfront and thereby created even more anticipation. So, what do you thing "550+" will end up being?

Considering how Honda is conservative, I would believe in a 550,1 total hp package!


Our only chance resides in the fact that this new NSX is developed in USA.


Here is my point of view:

From a 3,5 to 3,8 L V6 turbo engine designed for a halo car, ( with direct fuel injection and ... ) a 160 to 175 hp/L output should be decent thus implying extracting from:

3,5L : 560 hp to 595 hp
3,8L : 608 hp to 665 hp

and I expect Honda to come with stronger and more powerful electric engines than initially stated ...

...

 

[liftcontrol]

Superfluous, you say, " IMHO, the NSX must pull a sub 3 second 0-60, and a 0-60 in the 3 second range will be a huge fail for the car"... and you are convinced that it will do so....
and then you talk about the "modability" of the same car to increase the performance further???

Superfluous, don't you think?

 

[JD Cross]

I find it interesting that the specs on the new NSX aren't out and already we're talking mods.

My take on the new NSX is that it isn't about 0-60 times or total power.
If that's how you'll decide if the NSX is a failure I'd suggest you buy a P1 or 918.

I think the NSX is about total handling and performance including ease of driving the car to it's limits.
How does it corner, brake, is the handling neutral, can you drive it across the US without breakdowns, will the driveline last 100 k miles.
Owners of the current NSX cherish them for the above reasons.
To me these are the important issues not 0-60 times.

 

[Superfluous]

Superfluous, you say, " IMHO, the NSX must pull a sub 3 second 0-60, and a 0-60 in the 3 second range will be a huge fail for the car"... and you are convinced that it will do so....
and then you talk about the "modability" of the same car to increase the performance further???

Superfluous, don't you think?

Not at all. An ECU tune and/or other simple bolt on mods are not intended to increase 0-60 performance, although a .1 second improvement is possible. Rather, these types of mods have a far more significant impact on the mid and top end performance. I have a GT-R and a 997TTs. Both were rocket fast off the line in stock form, but the 997TTs pulled harder in the mid and top end. By adding bolt-on mods to my GT-R, I meaningfully improved the mid and top end performance.

Therefore, I am counting on Acura to get me below 3 seconds 0-60, but I am willing to tweak the mid and top end performance as necessary (hopefully the NSX will pull as hard as my 997TTs in the mid and top end and mods will be superfluous).

 

[Ponyboy]

Car & Driver, April 2015, projects NSX 2.0s 0-60 at 2.7, 0-100 at 6.4, and 1/4 mile at 10.8 sec. Again, that's "projected."

They also list a curb weight of 3700lbs (hope they're way off on that one).

 

[Superfluous]

My take on the new NSX is that it isn't about 0-60 times or total power.
If that's how you'll decide if the NSX is a failure I'd suggest you buy a P1 or 918.

I doubt there are very many people who would select the NSX over the P1 or 918 if the latter were priced the same as the NSX. Given the price disparity, your suggestion is not helpful.

I think the NSX is about total handling and performance including ease of driving the car to it's limits.
How does it corner, brake, is the handling neutral, can you drive it across the US without breakdowns, will the driveline last 100 k miles.
Owners of the current NSX cherish them for the above reasons. To me these are the important issues not 0-60 times.

I agree and disagree. All of the factors/benchmarks that you identified are indisputably important. However, that does not mean 0-60 times are irrelevant. These factors are not mutually exclusive. I want a car that achieves all of your stated goals, and also pulls a sub 3 second 0-60. Acura is endeavoring to build a world class performance car on a par with Ferrari and Porsche. In order to accomplish this goal, the NSX must meet or exceed the competition's performance specs. Conversely, if the NSX achieves all of your stated benchmarks, but is meaningfully slower than the competition, no one will buy it. Thus, while your stated benchmarks are important, Acura must also achieve the necessary performance benchmarks. This includes a sub 3 second 0-60 time. Yes, people would still buy the car with a 3.1-3.4 0-60 time, but there would undeniably be disappointment associated with the 0-60 time.

- - - Updated - - -

Car & Driver, April 2015, projects NSX 2.0s 0-60 at 2.7, 0-100 at 6.4, and 1/4 mile at 10.8 sec. Again, that's "projected."

That works for me!

They also list a curb weight of 3700lbs (hope they're way off on that one).

The electric motors are a double edged sword. Instant torque, but extra weight.

 

[Ponyboy]

I'm hoping it's closer to 3300lbs and drives similar or better than the Huracán.

That car is an absolute monster.

 

[JD Cross]

I doubt there are very many people who would select the NSX over the P1 or 918 if the latter were priced the same as the NSX. Given the price disparity, your suggestion is not helpful.I agree and disagree. All of the factors/benchmarks that you identified are indisputably important. However, that does not mean 0-60 times are irrelevant. These factors are not mutually exclusive. I want a car that achieves all of your stated goals, and also pulls a sub 3 second 0-60. Acura is endeavoring to build a world class performance car on a par with Ferrari and Porsche. In order to accomplish this goal, the NSX must meet or exceed the competition's performance specs. Conversely, if the NSX achieves all of your stated benchmarks, but is meaningfully slower than the competition, no one will buy it. Thus, while your stated benchmarks are important, Acura must also achieve the necessary performance benchmarks. This includes a sub 3 second 0-60 time. Yes, people would still buy the car with a 3.1-3.4 0-60 time, but there would undeniably be disappointment associated with the 0-60 time.

I believe the cars the NSX was benchmarked against were the:
458 0-60 3.3 secs
R8 V10 0-60 3.8 secs
Porsche 911 GT3 (not turbo) 3.3 secs

If the NSX has 0-60 times in the 3.0-3.3 sec range Honda will have delivered their stated targets.
They've never stated the NSX would have the fastest 0-60 times.
Rather the focus has been stated many times as being the real world driving experience.

To get into the sub 3 sec bracket you need to move to another tier of car such as the 918, P1, 911 turbo etc.
The NSX is not positioned against these cars nor is it priced at their levels.

Looking at Car and Driver's estimate of 2.7 sec 0 - 60 times on a 3700 lb. car rough acceleration calculations would suggest you'll need at least another 100-150 hp over the stated 550 hp to achieve that time.

I wouldn't expect NSX to have industry leading 0-60 time for several reasons:

The NSX was neither built nor positioned nor priced against sub 3 second competitors.
The often stated goals were competitive times against the benchmarked cars mentioned above, with priority on the total driving experience.
Honda's NSX philosophy has been to offer a balanced reliable package.

I believe the NSX will achieve the stated goals but if you want 2.5-2.9 sec 0-60 times you may be disappointed.

 

[Ponyboy]

Looking at Car and Driver's estimate of 2.7 sec 0 - 60 times on a 3700 lb. car rough acceleration calculations would suggest you'll need at least another 100-150 hp over the stated 550 hp to achieve that time.

Acura has never said what the exact hp number is - only that it'll have over 550.

 

[Superfluous]

I believe the cars the NSX was benchmarked against were the:
458 0-60 3.3 secs
R8 V10 0-60 3.8 secs
Porsche 911 GT3 (not turbo) 3.3 secs

Yes, but that is not a complete list of the relevant competition. The relevant competition most certainly also includes the GT-R and 991TT, both of which pull 0-60 in under 3 seconds. Moreover, the 458 and GT3 are RWD and, therefore, necessarily slower 0-60. The R8 is inferior and under-performing for several reasons. Therefore, the AWD GT-R and 991TT are arguably the more relevant competition, and more relevant that the 458 and GT3.

If the NSX has 0-60 times in the 3.0-3.3 sec range Honda will have delivered their stated targets.

I don’t recall reading any stated 0-60 target for the NSX.

They've never stated the NSX would have the fastest 0-60 times. Rather the focus has been stated many times as being the real world driving experience.

True, and I am not suggesting that they must achieve “the fastest 0-60 times.” On the other hand, one of the primary purposes of supplemental electric motors is instant torque for quicker initial acceleration. I recognize that there are other benefits to electric motors, but instant torque/acceleration is undeniably part of the equation. Therefore, while Acura clearly wants a “real world driving experience,” they also want instant torque and the concomitant improved acceleration.

To get into the sub 3 sec bracket you need to move to another tier of car such as the 918, P1, 911 turbo etc.

Disagree. First, the GT-R is in the sub 3 second bracket. Moreover, the 991TT is only $30,000 more expensive than the NSX and, therefore, also in the relevant tier of competition. In fact, given that German cars typically cost approximately 20%+ more than their Japanese counterparts, I suspect that the 20% more expensive 991TT was Acura’s intended target.

Looking at Car and Driver's estimate of 2.7 sec 0 - 60 times on a 3700 lb. car rough acceleration calculations would suggest you'll need at least another 100-150 hp over the stated 550 hp to achieve that time.

Again, incorrect. The standard GT-R weights over 3900 lbs, makes 545 hp, and pulls sub 3 second 0-60 times. The Trak Pack GT-R weighs approximately 3800 lbs, makes 570 hp, and pulls 2.7 0-60 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1307_2014_audi_r8_v10_plus_vs_nissan_gt_r_track_pack/ ). The GT-R produces these times without the instant torque and improved acceleration from electric motors. Therefore, the NSX has more than sufficient hp to pull a 2.7 0-60 time with 3700 lbs. 2.8 seconds would be fine by me.

 

[Ponyboy]

As another reference point, the Huracán does 0-60 in 2.5.

 

[JD Cross]

Yes, but that is not a complete list of the relevant competition. The relevant competition most certainly also includes the GT-R and 991TT, both of which pull 0-60 in under 3 seconds. Moreover, the 458 and GT3 are RWD and, therefore, necessarily slower 0-60. The R8 is inferior and under-performing for several reasons. Therefore, the AWD GT-R and 991TT are arguably the more relevant competition, and more relevant that the 458 and GT3. I don’t recall reading any stated 0-60 target for the NSX. True, and I am not suggesting that they must achieve “the fastest 0-60 times.” On the other hand, one of the primary purposes of supplemental electric motors is instant torque for quicker initial acceleration. I recognize that there are other benefits to electric motors, but instant torque/acceleration is undeniably part of the equation. Therefore, while Acura clearly wants a “real world driving experience,” they also want instant torque and the concomitant improved acceleration. Disagree. First, the GT-R is in the sub 3 second bracket. Moreover, the 991TT is only $30,000 more expensive than the NSX and, therefore, also in the relevant tier of competition. In fact, given that German cars typically cost approximately 20%+ more than their Japanese counterparts, I suspect that the 20% more expensive 991TT was Acura’s intended target.



Again, incorrect. The standard GT-R weights over 3900 lbs, makes 545 hp, and pulls sub 3 second 0-60 times. The Trak Pack GT-R weighs approximately 3800 lbs, makes 570 hp, and pulls 2.7 0-60 (http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/1307_2014_audi_r8_v10_plus_vs_nissan_gt_r_track_pack/ ). The GT-R produces these times without the instant torque and improved acceleration from electric motors. Therefore, the NSX has more than sufficient hp to pull a 2.7 0-60 time with 3700 lbs. 2.8 seconds would be fine by me.

I agree there are certainly more cars that are competitors to the NSX but you're missing my point.
The three I stated were the ones Honda, not me, said they were benchmarking against.
When Ted Klaus spoke to us at NSXPO he was clear on this.

And the NSX 0-60 times, while not stated by Honda, would need to be comparable to those achieved by the benchmarked cars.
So while you can put any car up against the NSX including a P1 keep in mind what Honda set their sights on not what you or I might choose to compare to.

Now as far as acceleration times are concerned consider the McLaren 675LT.
It has 666 hp and weighs 2927 lbs. or 4.4 lbs. per hp.
McLaren states the 0-60 time is 2.9 secs.
The P1 with considerably more power does 0-60 in 2.8 secs.

The Porsche 911 turbo has 560 hp weighs 3530 lbs. or 6.3 lbs. per hp
Porsche states the 0-60 time as 2.9 secs

The GTR has 545 hp and weighs 3920 lbs. or 7.2 lbs. per hp
Nissan makes no statement on 0-60 times but using your number 0-60 is 2.7 secs.

Let's look at the Porsche 911 GTS and 4 GTS
911 GTS 430 hp 3186 lbs. 7.4 lbs. per hp 0-60 3.8 secs
911 4 GTS 430 hp 3285 lbs. 7.6 lbs. per hp 0-60 3.8 secs
The traction in the AWD GTS 4 overcomes the 3% extra weight from the AWD system making them equal.
Perhaps we can conclude AWD can overcome a 3% weight disadvantage due to superior traction off the line.
If we gave the GTS 4 a 545 hp engine like the GTR it's 0-60 would be 3 secs

The GTR however at 2.7 secs is not only faster than an AWD Porsche with equivalent horsepower it's faster than a P1.
All this math suggests that the actual power in the GTR is quite a bit higher than Nissan states.

Perhaps another reader who is more knowledgeable in physics/engineering can look at these numbers but something doesn't seem to add up in the GTR.

 

[fastaussie]

The AWD competitors in this HP range -- GT-R and 991 Turbo S -- both pull sub 3 second 0-60 times. The NSX will have the added benefit of electric motors and instant torque. Therefore, IMHO, the NSX must pull a sub 3 second 0-60, and a 0-60 in the 3 second range will be a huge fail for the car.

I agree with you! The new NSX cannot be slower or underperforming in regard of the actual GTR and even its next generation. Huge fail aren't the words, I would rather say: DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

I have to agree with Superfluous and effer here JD. while the numbers may not be important to you and a lot of the other NSX faithful, they are massively important in terms of marketing and competitive bragging rights. Honda has to sell this car to everyone, not just previous NSX owners. there aren't that many of you who will buy this car. not very many people here even bought the NSX new the first go around. in fact after a few years it was pretty hard to give NSX's away in the dealerships. Honda has to sell this car to a lot of people, including Porsche and Audi owners, among others. the average Acura or Honda buyer isn't going to buy an NSX. an ILX or MDX owner doesn't necessarily have the desire or bank account to move up to a $150,000 2-seater. remember, the original NSX was constantly maligned for not having enough power, or enough flair, etc. in this market against the current crop of cars, which to a certain extent does include 458's and McLarens also, even at a higher price range. this new NSX will have to measure up, you're dreaming if you think the numbers don't matter.

The GTR however at 2.7 secs is not only faster than an AWD Porsche with equivalent horsepower it's faster than a P1.
All this math suggests that the actual power in the GTR is quite a bit higher than Nissan states.

the 911 Turbo S is faster than a GTR, both in the real world (where I have tested them both, in each car, from a dead stop) and on the numbers chart. and as the speeds increase, the 911 Turbo S continues to pull further away. any number of YouTube videos by professional car magazines testing both cars in controlled conditions at the same time on the same day will attest to this. I'd take the Porsche any day, but both are sub 3-second cars from 0-to-60 mph. seat of the pants impressions are that the GTR is rocket fast due to short ratios in the lower gears. it's a very heavy machine, and that can definitely be felt hustling it around a race track. but launching from a stop, it's hard to beat. the Porsche just launches like it got rear-ended by a fully loaded semi truck. there's nothing like it under the price of a 918. Porsche has been building that car a long time, and they've just fine tuned it to launch harder than anything else save Hypercars. I don't know how they do it, but God bless 'em...

 

[JD Cross]

I have to agree with Superfluous and effer here JD. while the numbers may not be important to you and a lot of the other NSX faithful, they are massively important in terms of marketing and competitive bragging rights. Honda has to sell this car to everyone, not just previous NSX owners. there aren't that many of you who will buy this car. not very many people here even bought the NSX new the first go around. in fact after a few years it was pretty hard to give NSX's away in the dealerships. Honda has to sell this car to a lot of people, including Porsche and Audi owners, among others. the average Acura or Honda buyer isn't going to buy an NSX. an ILX or MDX owner doesn't necessarily have the desire or bank account to move up to a $150,000 2-seater. remember, the original NSX was constantly maligned for not having enough power, or enough flair, etc. in this market against the current crop of cars, which to a certain extent does include 458's and McLarens also, even at a higher price range. this new NSX will have to measure up, you're dreaming if you think the numbers don't matter.



the 911 Turbo S is faster than a GTR, both in the real world (where I have tested them both, in each car, from a dead stop) and on the numbers chart. and as the speeds increase, the 911 Turbo S continues to pull further away. any number of YouTube videos by professional car magazines testing both cars in controlled conditions at the same time on the same day will attest to this. I'd take the Porsche any day, but both are sub 3-second cars from 0-to-60 mph. seat of the pants impressions are that the GTR is rocket fast due to short ratios in the lower gears. it's a very heavy machine, and that can definitely be felt hustling it around a race track. but launching from a stop, it's hard to beat. the Porsche just launches like it got rear-ended by a fully loaded semi truck. there's nothing like it under the price of a 918. Porsche has been building that car a long time, and they've just fine tuned it to launch harder than anything else save Hypercars. I don't know how they do it, but God bless 'em...

Fastaussie I agree completely that the NSX needs big numbers to attract a market.
I'm thinking that since Honda started on this latest iteration of the NSX and targeted 458 level performance the bar has been raised by the GTR and 991 turbo amongst others.
Delivering low 3 sec 0-60 times would be in line with the original targets but not up there with today's best.
I'm sure some of the delays on the new NSX have been due to Honda having to continually rethink performance mid-stream.
This certainly shows the relative ease that manufacturers with an existing car can refine the product and deliver ever increasing performance while Honda with an all new car can't easily do this.

The new McLaren 570 being offered at $180Kish in line with the 911 turbo would seem to be further complicating things for Honda.

Let's hope with the 9 speed transmission Honda can use gearing to produce sub 3 sec times like the GTR.

 

[Valkyrie Pilot]

I just locked up the first NSX 2.0 at my local dealership (the owner is a client and friend).

Many here have expressed their hope that the NSX will pull a sub 3 second 0-60. Perhaps I am missing something, but I cannot even imagine the NSX not achieving this necessary performance benchmark. The NSX will have greater than 550hp. The AWD competitors in this HP range -- GT-R and 991 Turbo S -- both pull sub 3 second 0-60 times. The NSX will have the added benefit of electric motors and instant torque. Therefore, IMHO, the NSX must pull a sub 3 second 0-60, and a 0-60 in the 3 second range will be a huge fail for the car.

Will the presence of electric motors affect the modability of the car? Absent the electric motors, an ECU tune and other mods would be easy and widely available. I would love to bump the HP and thereby improve the car's top end. Do you think the presence of the electric motors will hinder or impair after-market mods? I see that a couple of companies have modded the 918, so it can be done. I just wonder whether there are integration issues with the electric motors.

I am not a fan of the chrome piece at the front of the car, just below the hood. I have seen photos where that piece is black -- it looks much better. Do you think Acura will offer the piece in black? If not, I reckon I can black out the existing piece.

Acura says "550hp+" One would think that, if it will be over 600hp, they would have said that upfront and thereby created even more anticipation. So, what do you thing "550+" will end up being?

First of all Congratulations!!!

Secondly, I absolutely agree with you on the requirement for sub 3 second to 60 times.

Honda is the underdog, upstart in this class and for a base price of $155,000 there cannot be any area of weakness or compromise. They must be like Steve Martin said, "So good they can't ignore you." IMO, this would include objective performance. If AWD and the instant torque of electric motors does not allow for bragging rights in acceleration, then what's the point? Honda is not just building a green machine here and I don't think the handling benefits will be enough. ("Yeah but my car has no understeer when I take corners, so top that!" Ridiculous. LOL

I think Honda knows this and will deliver. Their engine change mid-development is evidence of this. They figured out that they needed to go "all in" on the engine despite the extra cost and delayed production timeline.

Regarding JD's reference to Honda targeting the 458, I would expect this to be a moving target that also now includes the 488 GTB. This is a lot like what happened with the first NSX when they first targeted the 308, then 328 then 348. Beating the performance of car that is no longer in production is nothing they will put in the marketing brochures, I can assure you.

And make no mistake, the 911 Turbo S is right in the cross hairs. I would be surprised if comparably equipped (i.e. loaded up) they are not within $5,000 of each other.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm thinking that since Honda started on this latest iteration of the NSX and targeted 458 level performance the bar has been raised by the GTR and 991 turbo amongst others.
Delivering low 3 sec 0-60 times would be in line with the original targets but not up there with today's best.
I'm sure some of the delays on the new NSX have been due to Honda having to continually rethink performance mid-stream.
This certainly shows the relative ease that manufacturers with an existing car can refine the product and deliver ever increasing performance while Honda with an all new car can't easily do this.

The new McLaren 570 being offered at $180Kish in line with the 911 turbo would seem to be further complicating things for Honda.

Let's hope with the 9 speed transmission Honda can use gearing to produce sub 3 sec times like the GTR.

JD - I believe we are just about saying the same thing.

 

[Olyar15]

Well, I guess I must be a very atypical potential buyer of this car, since I don't care about its performance specs. In fact, I would probably be as happy if the car was priced closer to $100k and had a NA v6 with "only" 450hp.

 

[fastaussie]

buying a performance car but not caring about the (relative) performance is rather atypical...

 

[lucky]

I'd have to second Olayri on the 450 BHP note with a price that is more in line with a base 911... I care, but beyond 450 HP ish is really rather silly for street driving which, considering all things is what 99% of these cars will ever do... Tell me anywhere in North America where more that 450 BHP would not be enough to get you in jail everyday if you even explored 50% of it regularly... the bar is so ridiculous now that is really is comical.. there is no shame in having a few tiers so that you have a bit bigger audience and can re-gather your R&D investment. oh wait thats what porsche does...... they don't sell any cars or have any credibility at all....

 

[N Spec]

buying a performance car but not caring about the (relative) performance is rather atypical...

Some people put the human senses above quantifiable numbers. There's a reason it's called design/art and not just engineering/science/math. It's hard to make a 1 versus 0 approach on human qualities/senses.

The exclusivity, exotic/supercar looks, build qualities, handling and feel are important factors also.

I find the performance debates interesting because there are clear divides on expectation of performance and price. I truly think the choices for mid-engine sports cars are still so limited and that's the main issue at heart IMO. If there were more viable choices, then maybe so many people wouldn't have so much expectation for the new NSX or even as seen, the new R8. Aside from the R8 and NSX, how many other mid-engine cars offer what they intend to bring to the market? All of the other mid-engine cars are 2-3-4 times the price. Porches provides great options, but not everyone wants a 911.

 

[fastaussie]

I knew you'd chime in really quick N Spec. I was waiting.

you're absolutely right Lucky, the horsepower numbers are ridiculous. even my 300 horsepower NSX can get me in jail regularly if exercised in moderate amounts. N Spec will argue this all day long, and then the next day. but numbers sell fast cars and motorcycles. that is how you quantify what's fast, and how fast it is. even if 99% of the drivers/riders can't even get close to the performance numbers their vehicles possess, they still want theirs to be better than yours. if one car is minutely better than the next for a similar price, most people will go with that one (all other things being equal) if they're not brand loyal. you could even consider it value for money if you'd like. very few people are gonna go out and buy the lesser option for the same price.

Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, etc., all have very well established, mainstream publicised, and long and illustrious pedigrees of racing history, both past and present. Honda is lacking in that area in comparison. especially lately. Ferrari won the Formula 1 race last weekend, Honda couldn't even finish it. so you can cross that reason off the list. vastly superior reliability? this isn't 1990 anymore, you can also cross that one off the list.

you guys can argue all day long the numbers don't matter, but when a company is building performance vehicles, performance does matter. Supercars are all about performance, therefor they must perform in a super way, with the other Supercars. no one is going to buy the car that's almost as good as the Porsche or Audi. carry on with your rebuttals...

 

[Superfluous]

Style and comfort are paramount . . . for an F-Type-R or M6 genre sports car. However, when you are going heads up with many of the elite sports cars (excluding the hyper cars), stats and corresponding performance indisputably matter. Ferrari may emphasize its style and comfort, but not to the exclusion of its performance stats. To the contrary, both Ferrari, and the industry insiders that review Ferraris, also exalt performance. As history teaches, under-performing Ferraris are not well received, notwithstanding their boundless style and comfort. Thus, notwithstanding its impressive style and comfort, if the NSX is a whipping boy for similarly priced sports cars, it will fail.

Separately, when evaluating "similarly priced" competitors, one must remember that many consumers will pay more for an established European sports car with similar performance numbers, as compared to the unknown and obscure NSX. Therefore, if the NSX were to merely equal the performance of a NA 911, the NSX will fail. The NSX must surpass the performance of equally priced, established European sports cars, and compare favorably to established sports cars costing 25% more.

Moreover, as others observed, merely matching the performance stats of the outgoing 458 is not terribly impressive. Conversely, matching the performance stats of the incoming 488, for half the price, will be very impressive. That will sell cars.

Additionally, the NSX implements a considerable amount of state-of-the-art "go fast" technology, including the electric motors. If the NSX merely matches the performance of similarly priced sports cars without similar advanced technology, many will consider the NSX's implementation of this technology a failure. Why design and implement state-of-the-art technology if the resulting performance is no better than cars without said technology?

As the new kid on the block, the NSX must rise above the pack and set itself apart. It cannot merely be equal to . . . it must be better than! That said, the NSX must be the total package. Performance stats will not sufficie without style and comfort, and vice versa. The challenge is immense.

 

[N Spec]

I knew you'd chime in really quick N Spec. I was waiting.

you're absolutely right Lucky, the horsepower numbers are ridiculous. even my 300 horsepower NSX can get me in jail regularly if exercised in moderate amounts. N Spec will argue this all day long, and then the next day. but numbers sell fast cars and motorcycles. that is how you quantify what's fast, and how fast it is. even if 99% of the drivers/riders can't even get close to the performance numbers their vehicles possess, they still want theirs to be better than yours. if one car is minutely better than the next for a similar price, most people will go with that one (all other things being equal) if they're not brand loyal. you could even consider it value for money if you'd like. very few people are gonna go out and buy the lesser option for the same price.

Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, etc., all have very well established, mainstream publicised, and long and illustrious pedigrees of racing history, both past and present. Honda is lacking in that area in comparison. especially lately. Ferrari won the Formula 1 race last weekend, Honda couldn't even finish it. so you can cross that reason off the list. vastly superior reliability? this isn't 1990 anymore, you can also cross that one off the list.

you guys can argue all day long the numbers don't matter, but when a company is building performance vehicles, performance does matter. Supercars are all about performance, therefor they must perform in a super way, with the other Supercars. no one is going to buy the car that's almost as good as the Porsche or Audi. carry on with your rebuttals...

No I agree numbers do matter, especially for supercar territory, but some people don't always see it that way. It takes a little bit more to motivate or sway their choice. Not everyone needs to be the fastest out there or even number two or number three... That's the point.

Who wouldn't want bragging rights to say, I can outaccelerate a 488/458 and outhandle it? Post faster track times? But it's not the number one reason for some people. Some people are just fine with, yes, I can compete with that car, and some days it might beat me and some days I might be able to edge it. A car isn't a failure because it can't beat another on a track. That's what race cars are for, and even then we've seen the competition to be heavily balanced/fair on the field thanks to regulations and tiers. So ultimately, it's the human quality behind the team that wins the race and not because Ferrari or etc. makes a purely faster race car.

 

[Valkyrie Pilot]

Additionally, the NSX implements a considerable amount of state-of-the-art "go fast" technology, including the electric motors. If the NSX merely matches the performance of similarly priced sports cars without similar advanced technology, many will consider the NSX's implementation of this technology a failure. Why design and implement state-of-the-art technology if the resulting performance is no better than cars without said technology?

As the new kid on the block, the NSX must rise above the pack and set itself apart. It cannot merely be equal to . . . it must be better than! That said, the NSX must be the total package. Performance stats will not sufficie without style and comfort, and vice versa. The challenge is immense.

Perfectly stated, Superfluous.

Its not that the NSX has to be the fastest accelerating car, but under 3.0 to 60 is the new standard for cars of this class. If the NSX is going to be seen as a tech masterpiece and true halo car for Honda, it must meet this new standard of performance as well as many others. No compromises. No Excuses.

Like you said, the challenge is immense.

 

[The King]

Well, I guess I must be a very atypical potential buyer of this car, since I don't care about its performance specs. In fact, I would probably be as happy if the car was priced closer to $100k and had a NA v6 with "only" 450hp.

Same here!

I might as well add that I want mine with a stick!