Debating between c6 z06 and NSX part 2

[mlambert890]

Trust me, she wasn't ugly. I saw her and even though she dissed him, he agreed that she was pretty dam hot.

And calling a woman small in just about any culture is better than calling a guy small. The inverse of that is true.

Vipers are not as technically advance as a Z06 (NAV, HUD with G-meter, magnesium, hydro-formed aluminum, titanium and Carbon Fiber are the exotic stuff that u will find on a Z06 and not a Viper. The Viper exhaust sounds like crap - regardless of what exhaust u install.

Viper interior is cheaper feeling than a Z06.

Z06 has much more aftermarket support which also helps keep the prices down.

And finally, the Z06 gets the same MPG on the freeway as a NSX. Vipers don't.

And...

1) The Viper is faster

2) The Viper draws crowds whereas the Z06 looks like a run of the mill Corvette

I thought your point is about "street cred"? Nothing has more street cred, torque or HP than the Viper. The big argument the NSX has going for it is technical wizardry, but you're saying thats not enough b/c it has a "small crap engine" or "not a real engine"

Well, compared to the SRT-10, the LS7 isnt a real engine at all. Its a small POS that boasts a lot of technical gimics that don't mean anything b/c in the end, the Z06 gets spanked by the SRT-10 thanks to monster displacement. And the whole concept of American muscle is displacement.

Now mind you, I dont subscribe to the above at all. I think both are great cars and both have merits and drawbacks and that DRIVING experience is what matters and that is subjective.

But its just interesting that you dont apply the same logic you use to discredit the NSX to the Z06.

 

[mlambert890]

I love this thread. its so interesting to see everyone's true colors come out good or bad. It really is a nice departure from the daily politically correctness of this forum.

You guys can't keep on jumping down BATMAN's throat for voicing his opinion. I frequent supraforums a lot and they all love the nsx except that its too slow. Of course its going to slow if the average single turbo supra makes 500-600whp on the lower end of the spectrum. .

Do Supras get driven? It seems that Supras really just live on the dyno. Ridiculous 1000HP single turbo monstrosities that make 99% of their power at the VERY end of their power curve. Heavy as hell factory, I rarely saw deeply scientific threads on Supra Forums (and Ive been a member there forever too) about corner balancing and lightening. Everything is ludicrous HP #s and stupid pissing contests with Mustangs and F-Bodies.

I hate to say this, but ALL of that misses the whole concept of the NSX. The NSX isnt "slow", its not a drag racing muscle car. Its a more mature community as well.

The Supra community lives on making 1500HP at the dyno and posting illegal street racing videos against motorcycles. The NSX community lightens the car and compares lap times around actual race tracks.

Its two completely different things.

Anyone who thinks a car that isnt "in the 8s" or whatever is "slow" is just incapable of "getting it". Different cars have different missions. If what you want out of a car is a top fuel dragster or a car you can kill yourself in when you floor it on the NJ turnpike street racing a Mustang, then the NSX isnt for you and you should just pretend it doesnt exist.

And all of this is really moot anyway as the NSX now is more of a historical car. Its a testament to Honda that its even remotely possible to modernize it and keep it competitive. So in that way its more along the lines of a Porsche 964 than, say, a Ferrari 348, but there is no escaping that its essentially a modern classic.

For my money, if I were the type who is truly only satisfied knowing that they have the BIG NUMBERS, I wouldnt be considering *any* of these cars.

The 996TTs I looked at are the same money as a 97+ NSX, cheaper than a C6 Z06, and with minor mods will destroy any Corvette OR Viper (because with the superior TT suspension, brakes, and AWD you can actually *use* the 500+HP). And do it with far better build quality, have much more cachet (for folks who care), earn more "respect" on the street (everyone respects the TT), have an interior that actually looks like MAYBE it belongs on a $100k car, be a car you never have to "apologize" for (again, if you care about "respect" - the Corvette and Viper get pissed on everywhere except the US) and be far more balanced.

 

[s14_tat]

well there are many sections on supraforums, even thought there are a lot of monster supras, typically the ones making 500-600whp have very useable power bands. my friends has the fuel system and the clutch to go 700+whp but he settled for low 500whp because didn't want a all or nothing turbo. infact his current turbo is actually more responsive than running the factory twins in the "true twin setup" mode.

he loves my nsx and he does not think that it is a slow car at all, and he might sell his supra for the nsx or a something a long those lines. like i said different strokes for different folks. i would never trade my nsx for a supra no matter how fast it is. do i know what a 120+ mph in the 1320 feels like? yeah, do i absolutely need one? it would be nice but theres much more to a car than that.

 

[BATMANs]

Do Supras get driven? It seems that Supras really just live on the dyno. Ridiculous 1000HP single turbo monstrosities that make 99% of their power at the VERY end of their power curve. Heavy as hell factory, I never saw deeply scientific threads on Supra Forums (and Ive been a member there forever too) about corner balancing and lightening. Everything is ludicrous HP #s and stupid pissing contests with Mustangs and F-Bodies.

I hate to say this, but ALL of that misses the whole concept of the NSX. The NSX isnt "slow", its not a drag racing muscle car. Its a more mature community as well.

The Supra community lives on making 1500HP at the dyno and posting illegal street racing videos against motorcycles. The NSX community lightens the car and compares lap times around actual race tracks.

Its two completely different things.

.....

And all of this is really moot anyway as the NSX now is more of a historical car. Its a testament to Honda that its even remotely possible to modernize it and keep it competitive. So in that way its more along the lines of a Porsche 964 than, say, a Ferrari 348, but there is no escaping that its essentially a modern classic.............The 996TTs I looked at are the same money as a 97+ NSX, cheaper than a C6 Z06, and with minor mods will destroy any Corvette OR Viper (because with the superior TT suspension, brakes, and AWD you can actually *use* the 500+HP). And do it with far better build quality, have much more cachet (for folks who care), earn more "respect" on the street (everyone respects the TT), have an interior that actually looks like MAYBE it belongs on a $100k car, be a car you never have to "apologize" for (again, if you care about "respect" - the Corvette and Viper get pissed on everywhere except the US) and be far more balanced.

Supras do get driven.

Funny you mentioned that. I've heard Supra guys ask that about NSX garage queens.

MKIV TT are 3486lbs
MKIV NA are 3219lbs

US-Spec NSX are 2950lbs and 3150lbs for the Targa

Not as much of a delta in weight that might warrant "heavy as hell."

How are 911s far more balanced? Last I heard the ideal weight distribution is 50/50 like a Z06, Viper or FD.

I spoke to a few 911 owners and all of them said that u need a track and sufficient knowledge-base and driving experience to handle the 911s like the way they were suppose to be driven or else major wipe out.

If memory served me right, I read one of the car mags on an interview with e Enzo Ferrari prior to his death. He said that he favors the front-mid engine layout with a 50/50 distribution over a rear-mid since it's easier to control and recover at the limits or when the limits were exceeded.

Hence why he went from the Testarossa to the 550 and beyond.

 

[Gman]

Funny thing is that most of us on prime, Appreciate the Corvette Zo6/Zr1 capabilities, must of us AGREE it's an amazing MONSTER car that lacks some "class", that's it, pretty much ALL of us here agree is great car, yet, trashing out the NSX is unnecessary, specially coming from an NSX owner, guess what, my "PENIS" is big enough, so that is what matters --TO ME--lol ... I can give a s**t the Z06 will walk on me, actually, listening the ROAR of that V8 makes me giggle ... i will LOVE the Z06 forever I am sure, and IDOLIZE my NSX because the NSX it is an AMAZING car ...

Seriously, wtf, Batman, what are you trying to accomplish here man? get rid of your damn NSX and move on, let go, leave us the ones that appreciate both cars (and maybe own both some day) in peace ... and someone CLOSE THIS Thread please ...

Oscar

I like the Corvette alot and have been searching DAILY for one, BUT this thread is starting to irritate me. I agree with the above post!

 

[Fireballs_92nsx]

I really don't understand the debate. It's personal preference and also we are comparing a newer model to a car that basically went unchanged for 15 years.


Of course the newer cars will feel better, have more power and seem like a better deal. I know from looking, shopping and selling cars that looking at a 1994 viper is a major let down, and even sitting inside a 1996 zr-1 vette, it is also very dated. You can tell which vehicle was an exotic, and who created such a machine.

I love the idea of a new car, but it is not fair to compare the vette or viper to a nsx.

 

[lightguy]

How are 911s far more balanced? Last I heard the ideal weight distribution is 50/50 like a Z06, Viper or FD.

I spoke to a few 911 owners and all of them said that u need a track and sufficient knowledge-base and driving experience to handle the 911s like the way they were suppose to be driven or else major wipe out.

If memory served me right, I read one of the car mags on an interview with e Enzo Ferrari prior to his death. He said that he favors the front-mid engine layout with a 50/50 distribution over a rear-mid since it's easier to control and recover at the limits or when the limits were exceeded.

Hence why he went from the Testarossa to the 550 and beyond.

In a perfect world weight distribution would be, for me, 65 rear /35 front with rear drive of course. Much better for acceleration and breaking. Cornering gets tricky with old set ups and lots of rotational mass (911) when the rear does break away. Over exagerated with todays 911's. But polar movement is important hence Mid engine over rear.

I do not like the 550. You can feel the weight out front. It does not feel like a sports car to me. Corvettes and Vipers the same. For Grand tourers, top speed, and quarter mile great, but I like my mid engined cars.

 

[2slow2speed]

How are 911s far more balanced? Last I heard the ideal weight distribution is 50/50 like a Z06, Viper or FD.

I spoke to a few 911 owners and all of them said that u need a track and sufficient knowledge-base and driving experience to handle the 911s like the way they were suppose to be driven or else major wipe out.

If memory served me right, I read one of the car mags on an interview with e Enzo Ferrari prior to his death. He said that he favors the front-mid engine layout with a 50/50 distribution over a rear-mid since it's easier to control and recover at the limits or when the limits were exceeded.

Hence why he went from the Testarossa to the 550 and beyond.

For people who are not used to driving at the limit a F/R car is a lot more forgiving so a mid front engine design might be better.

Most purpose built race cars are M/R platforms for a reason, turn in is better and having the engine in the rear also allows earlier throttle application than a F/R car, braking is better and more balanced as well.

 

[mlambert890]

Supras do get driven.

Funny you mentioned that. I've heard Supra guys ask that about NSX garage queens.

MKIV TT are 3486lbs
MKIV NA are 3219lbs

US-Spec NSX are 2950lbs and 3150lbs for the Targa

Not as much of a delta in weight that might warrant "heavy as hell."

How are 911s far more balanced? Last I heard the ideal weight distribution is 50/50 like a Z06, Viper or FD.

I spoke to a few 911 owners and all of them said that u need a track and sufficient knowledge-base and driving experience to handle the 911s like the way they were suppose to be driven or else major wipe out.

If memory served me right, I read one of the car mags on an interview with e Enzo Ferrari prior to his death. He said that he favors the front-mid engine layout with a 50/50 distribution over a rear-mid since it's easier to control and recover at the limits or when the limits were exceeded.

Hence why he went from the Testarossa to the 550 and beyond.

330lb diff is a lot, sorry... anyone who tracks a car will say that starting with a 330lb deficit sucks. Wasnt the big advantage of the FD that it was so light?

The weight of the NA Supra is of no consequence since the power/weight ratio isnt there for NA. Supra needs to be FI to get a good power/weight ratio and even then, its only modded when it starts to really shine performance wise. The NA Supra is over 3200lbs with 220hp. The mighty TT is only 276hp and nearly 3500lbs. The NSX is 290HP and lighter than either by a good margin. Or are you only willing to compare the NA1 NSX-T (worst case) with modded MKIV Supras? Maybe compare the auto NSX while you're at it against fully race built Supras. Might as well.

The Supra forums folks know nothing about the NSX... Considering how few were produced its amazing how many get tracked. And the "dyno queen" rap against the Supra comes from EVERYWHERE. You have a weird grudge against the NSX and in favor of really any other car, so its not allowing you to be objective here.

I mean come on man... you're now going to take the position that the Supra isnt a really heavy car for a GT and isnt known for being a dyno queen? Are you serious?

As for "balanced" on the 911, I didnt mean weight. I meant for all around usability. Its a car that is very easy to drive on the street, doesnt get a ton of attention, is reasonable on maintenance and reliability, has back seats and pretty ok ground clearance, is even AWD (for the C4 and TT) and yet is great on a track. More than any of these cars, the 911 has "practicality". Thats what I meant by balance.

Agree that this thread has become idiotic (apologize for perpetuating it)

 

[BATMANs]

330lb diff is a lot, sorry... anyone who tracks a car will say that starting with a 330lb deficit sucks. Wasnt the big advantage of the FD that it was so light?

The weight of the NA Supra is of no consequence since the power/weight ratio isnt there for NA. Supra needs to be FI to get a good power/weight ratio and even then, its only modded when it starts to really shine performance wise. The NA Supra is over 3200lbs with 220hp. The mighty TT is only 276hp and nearly 3500lbs. The NSX is 290HP and lighter than either by a good margin. Or are you only willing to compare the NA1 NSX-T (worst case) with modded MKIV Supras? Maybe compare the auto NSX while you're at it against fully race built Supras. Might as well.

The Supra forums folks know nothing about the NSX... Considering how few were produced its amazing how many get tracked. And the "dyno queen" rap against the Supra comes from EVERYWHERE. You have a weird grudge against the NSX and in favor of really any other car, so its not allowing you to be objective here.......

What's the delta between a NA Targa MKIV and a Targa NSX?

Not as much as u might think.

the USA spec MKIV TT was not 276HP. More like 316 hp (236 kW; 320 PS) at 5600 rpm and 315 ft·lb (427 N·m) at 4000 rpm.

 

[tbromley]

Guess what guys, the previous owner of my NSX took the money and bought a Z06 Vette! I couldn't believe it - but that's the story - a black on black w/ 7500 miles on it for 44k or something like that 2 years old and was a 75000 car. Just goes to show how much depreciation the car has already suffered.

I just had to perpetuate this crazy chain with this - man what is going on in the world!! Progress some might say. Oh well I believe I have the better end that deal. But I've never had a Vette.

 

[donutbob]

I'm sure this debate has a bit of heat to it...:smile:

I'll chime in, bottom line is the car's share a similar objective, but achieve it with different philosophies. The real trick is to simply own both.

Don

 

[NetViper]

I'm sure this debate has a bit of heat to it...:smile:

I'll chime in, bottom line is the car's share a similar objective, but achieve it with different philosophies. The real trick is to simply own both.

Don

That would be awesome.

Either car great for Track Days. NSX for Finesse, Z06 for raw power. Hell bring them both and alternate sessions!

Z06 great to stomp around town and use for a DD.

NSX awesome for cruising on weekends and enjoying the exotic lifestyle.

 

[vmlinsx]

Coming from an FD, I love my NSX.

I loved my RX-7 also. I still think the 3rd gen RX-7 is one of the most beautiful cars ever built, along with the MX-6 and 929 from the same design team. They were gorgeously fluid-looking designs. My RX-7 was also a blast to drive. It was light and fast, and handled well. When I started looking for a sports car again, I came really close to buying another one.

However, the NSX won me over. What makes the NSX superior in my mind is the total package. There are cars that are faster in the straights. There are cars that handle better. There are cars that are more beautiful. And there are cars that are more reliable. But, you will be hard pressed to find a car that has all of these features and combines them as well as the NSX does.

I think the NSX is destined to be a true classic. It's a great technology demonstrator: mid-engine, aluminum frame, aluminum block. Way ahead of its time. When in 2015 people will be boasting about how great the C7 vettes are, the NSX will still be a head-turner.

 

[s14_tat]

What's the delta between a NA Targa MKIV and a Targa NSX?

Not as much as u might think.

the USA spec MKIV TT was not 276HP. More like 316 hp (236 kW; 320 PS) at 5600 rpm and 315 ft·lb (427 N·m) at 4000 rpm.

not only that, a stock mark iv TT are known to put down 280-300whp stock which means that they are very very underrated.

 

[BATMANs]

Coming from an FD, I love my NSX.

I loved my RX-7 also. I still think the 3rd gen RX-7 is one of the most beautiful cars ever built....They were gorgeously fluid-looking designs. My RX-7 was also a blast to drive. It was light and fast, and handled well. When I started looking for a sports car again, I came really close to buying another one......

I'm with u on that.

The comments that I hear from non-FD owners is that although it's fussy with regards to proper tuning, it's one of the best looking front engine cars to be ever produced and certainly one of the best performing car.

 

[BATMANs]

not only that, a stock mark iv TT are known to put down 280-300whp stock which means that they are very very underrated.

Exactly.

It's as if the makers of the MKIV knew that people would want to squeeze more HP outta them.

By simply turning up the boost, installing an intake and full exhaust system I've seen many MKIV do 390-430rwhp on stock twins. The price of the mods (most of it is in the exhaust system) is anywhere between $400 - $900.

What sorta RWHP is the NSX going to get with the $400 - $900........ 5 RWHP.

What u get from a MKIV is one of the strongest mass produced engines (with forged internals) ever made in the world. Couple that with the strongest tranny in a mass produced car and it's pretty much game over......

 

[rbilder]

Or just purchase a crotch rocket motorcycle if you want to go fast....

http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/52561792.html

This guy was clocked at 188 mph on his 2003 Suzuki crotch rocket motor cycle. He also was going 171 mph through a construction zone, fines double.

I wanted to share this, but didn't want to start a new thread, since it is off the subject of the NSX... unless just to give a heads up that a 188 mph fine in a 75 mph zone will cost ya $1410 and a license suspension for starters, At least in IA.

I can only speculate the 171 mph through the construction zone would be even worse.