Honda CEO Talks Up NSX

[tbromley]

What I said was that if I had plenty of money - that is the big qualifier here. I stand by it - cause you can SC or TC all you want but you have old technology. I love the NSX for what it is and it's a Honda and that makes a huge difference when it comes time to maintain. But all that is based on not having loads of cash. If I had loads of cash my strategy would be different in a way. I may still have an NSX - although it would most likely be the latest model I could find with low miles or at least the NA2 2001 so I keep the pop ups. But I'd have some other older cars too. But I would have later technology and more naturally aspirated power.

I like the NA cars - like the GT3 or GTS or R8 -V10 or Ferraris. That's what I mean. I'm not knocking the NSX - I appreciate it for what it is and since I'm more of the purist - I like things as they were designed and built by the manufacturer. For example - I would never go out and buy the 1973 911 RS and turbo charge or super charge it so that "it would be more like the newer ones in speed". See what I mean. Beleive me no one is doing that in the Porsche world either or at least it is super rarely done. They call those in the Porsche world "outlaws". Just a term.

If someone is not happy with the power level of the NSX - I say go find one you are happy with - and until you can afford that additional power - why make something what it is not and was not intended to be. Build your engine if you want for more NA power but keep it naturally aspirated - that's just me. Don't get me wrong - I would have a 911 Turbo if I could afford it too - just to experience the "launch" control thingy. If I had loads - I could go to the track and have expert instruction on how to be a better driver too. You know the more power you have the faster you run out of road on the street and there is just so much of that that is safe. I'm just not an expressway ramp drag kind of guy.

You know all I'm explaining is the way I see things and the way I like things - that means nothing to the rest of the folks here on Prime. You want to SC or TC your car - hey it's your car - do what makes you happy. There are reasons to do that I suppose but I'd have to be really careful before I'd buy someones TC/SC NSX. I wouldn't necessarily feel that way about a more "pure" example given a good level/history of maintenance.

People will do what they want but there are going to be fewer and fewer pure NSX cars out there and I want one that is pure - I think it will help it keep its value as well as maintain the car the way it was designed.

My 2 cents worth

 

[AR]

The new NSX could compete with the Ferrari California. The 2+2 is a must for sport ( not supercars ) cars in this day and age. Even if only good for child seats and occasional use.

 

[Nero Tenebre]

The new NSX could compete with the Ferrari California. The 2+2 is a must for sport ( not supercars ) cars in this day and age. Even if only good for child seats and occasional use.

I can't believe you just said that! Extra seats are not a "must" for sports cars, maybe if you want a car that "must fail". I hated that about my RX-8, if it had been a more pure car like the RX-7, it would have done much better. It waters down the term "sports car" completely with it's compromises and sacrifices for the additional passengers. If they put the word NSX on anything that is not MR --especially a 2+2, I will set my car on fire in protest. :biggrin:

 

[Timpo]

The new NSX doesn't have to be completely new...

Look at Porsche 911, they have been keeping similar style for like...how many decades?

All they did was...add power, add widebody kit, some refinements, etc...

 

[AR]

I can't believe you just said that! Extra seats are not a "must" for sports cars, maybe if you want a car that "must fail". I hated that about my RX-8, if it had been a more pure car like the RX-7, it would have done much better. It waters down the term "sports car" completely with it's compromises and sacrifices for the additional passengers. If they put the word NSX on anything that is not MR --especially a 2+2, I will set my car on fire in protest. :biggrin:

In Europe is a big thing the whole 2+2 thing. Some say that was one of the reasons the NSX was not a sales success over here.

 

[JoshuaWong1989]

What I said was that if I had plenty of money - that is the big qualifier here. I stand by it - cause you can SC or TC all you want but you have old technology. I love the NSX for what it is and it's a Honda and that makes a huge difference when it comes time to maintain. But all that is based on not having loads of cash. If I had loads of cash my strategy would be different in a way. I may still have an NSX - although it would most likely be the latest model I could find with low miles or at least the NA2 2001 so I keep the pop ups. But I'd have some other older cars too. But I would have later technology and more naturally aspirated power.

I like the NA cars - like the GT3 or GTS or R8 -V10 or Ferraris. That's what I mean. I'm not knocking the NSX - I appreciate it for what it is and since I'm more of the purist - I like things as they were designed and built by the manufacturer. For example - I would never go out and buy the 1973 911 RS and turbo charge or super charge it so that "it would be more like the newer ones in speed". See what I mean. Beleive me no one is doing that in the Porsche world either or at least it is super rarely done. They call those in the Porsche world "outlaws". Just a term.

If someone is not happy with the power level of the NSX - I say go find one you are happy with - and until you can afford that additional power - why make something what it is not and was not intended to be. Build your engine if you want for more NA power but keep it naturally aspirated - that's just me. Don't get me wrong - I would have a 911 Turbo if I could afford it too - just to experience the "launch" control thingy. If I had loads - I could go to the track and have expert instruction on how to be a better driver too. You know the more power you have the faster you run out of road on the street and there is just so much of that that is safe. I'm just not an expressway ramp drag kind of guy.

You know all I'm explaining is the way I see things and the way I like things - that means nothing to the rest of the folks here on Prime. You want to SC or TC your car - hey it's your car - do what makes you happy. There are reasons to do that I suppose but I'd have to be really careful before I'd buy someones TC/SC NSX. I wouldn't necessarily feel that way about a more "pure" example given a good level/history of maintenance.

People will do what they want but there are going to be fewer and fewer pure NSX cars out there and I want one that is pure - I think it will help it keep its value as well as maintain the car the way it was designed.

My 2 cents worth

I believe a well sorted out NSX can still be relatively competitive to a modern sports car. My example would be take a look at the 996 GT3 which was probably as fast as the NA2 Type R. Now look at the 997 GT3 which many consider a benchmark for trackday weapon, the NA2 Type R with a 3.8L stroker NA motor is in essence like a 997.2 GT3 RS

Both light weight, naturally aspirated, track focused.

In my opinion it Honda were ever to update the NSX around the year 2002+ when they gave it the facelift they should have done what Porsche have done. Honda could have updated their V6 like Porsche with their Flat 6, even science of speed could do it, why not Honda, big fail on their part IMO.

This time line would have made much more sense to me if they were serious about keeping the NSX alive. But I guess not.

1992 Type R - NA1 1270kg 270hp 3.0L
1997 Type S Zero - NA2 1280kg 290hp 3.2L
2002 Type R - NA2 1280kg 340hp 3.2L
2006 Type R - NA3 1300kg 380hp 3.5L
2009 Type R- NA4 1350kg 460hp 3.8L

I believe these numbers are entirely possible and reasonable too.

If I had an NSX now, my ultimate dream would be a 2002+ Type R with a 3.8L motor making around 450hp naturally aspirated and I'll be happy.

1280kg + 450hp is really plenty good enough even when comparing to 997.2 GT3. In some sense NSX is outdated, in others its not actually.

 

[NSXrebel]

In Europe is a big thing the whole 2+2 thing. Some say that was one of the reasons the NSX was not a sales success over here.

"Some" are smoking crack.

 

[NSX167]

:smile:

 

[AR]

"Some" are smoking crack.

Like Lotus, Porsche, Maserati, Ferrari, Mercedes...

 

[tbromley]

BTW, the new Porsche 918 is on sale - they are taking orders.....anyone? Only 650k Euros - something like that. Yippeeeee finally a replacement for my NSX...:biggrin: Ohhhh and it's a hybrid too!

 

[Nero Tenebre]

"Some" are smoking crack.

+1, It's a good thing the American market buys so many cars and plays a large part in marketability... or we might end up with a fluffy Mini-Cooper/NSX 2+2 hybrid instead of an exotic. :biggrin: Only partly kidding, if it were up to our market alone we would have unrefined, overpowered, under-efficient, leaf-spring suspension "sports cars".

Really though, as soon as it's +2 it's a GT car and not a pure sports car --no matter how fast it can get around a track.

I believe a well sorted out NSX can still be relatively competitive to a modern sports car. My example would be take a look at the 996 GT3 which was probably as fast as the NA2 Type R. Now look at the 997 GT3 which many consider a benchmark for trackday weapon, the NA2 Type R with a 3.8L stroker NA motor is in essence like a 997.2 GT3 RS



Both light weight, naturally aspirated, track focused.



In my opinion it Honda were ever to update the NSX around the year 2002+ when they gave it the facelift they should have done what Porsche have done. Honda could have updated their V6 like Porsche with their Flat 6, even science of speed could do it, why not Honda, big fail on their part IMO.



This time line would have made much more sense to me if they were serious about keeping the NSX alive. But I guess not.



1992 Type R - NA1 1270kg 270hp 3.0L

1997 Type S Zero - NA2 1280kg 290hp 3.2L

2002 Type R - NA2 1280kg 340hp 3.2L

2006 Type R - NA3 1300kg 380hp 3.5L

2009 Type R- NA4 1350kg 460hp 3.8L



I believe these numbers are entirely possible and reasonable too.



If I had an NSX now, my ultimate dream would be a 2002+ Type R with a 3.8L motor making around 450hp naturally aspirated and I'll be happy.



1280kg + 450hp is really plenty good enough even when comparing to 997.2 GT3. In some sense NSX is outdated, in others its not actually.

The 2002 Type R is rumored to have much more power than officially stated, due to the famous "gentlemen's agreement" perhaps. Many journalists/media members have thought so as well as the prime members who drove it in Japan (est. 350-400hp). I've never seen a dyno, but the performance numbers seem to back up the claim. Still, a 3.8 would do nicely. =)

 

[captainjman]

What I said was that if I had plenty of money - that is the big qualifier here. I stand by it - cause you can SC or TC all you want but you have old technology. I love the NSX for what it is and it's a Honda and that makes a huge difference when it comes time to maintain. But all that is based on not having loads of cash. If I had loads of cash my strategy would be different in a way. I may still have an NSX - although it would most likely be the latest model I could find with low miles or at least the NA2 2001 so I keep the pop ups. But I'd have some other older cars too. But I would have later technology and more naturally aspirated power.

I like the NA cars - like the GT3 or GTS or R8 -V10 or Ferraris. That's what I mean. I'm not knocking the NSX - I appreciate it for what it is and since I'm more of the purist - I like things as they were designed and built by the manufacturer. For example - I would never go out and buy the 1973 911 RS and turbo charge or super charge it so that "it would be more like the newer ones in speed". See what I mean. Beleive me no one is doing that in the Porsche world either or at least it is super rarely done. They call those in the Porsche world "outlaws". Just a term.

If someone is not happy with the power level of the NSX - I say go find one you are happy with - and until you can afford that additional power - why make something what it is not and was not intended to be. Build your engine if you want for more NA power but keep it naturally aspirated - that's just me. Don't get me wrong - I would have a 911 Turbo if I could afford it too - just to experience the "launch" control thingy. If I had loads - I could go to the track and have expert instruction on how to be a better driver too. You know the more power you have the faster you run out of road on the street and there is just so much of that that is safe. I'm just not an expressway ramp drag kind of guy.

You know all I'm explaining is the way I see things and the way I like things - that means nothing to the rest of the folks here on Prime. You want to SC or TC your car - hey it's your car - do what makes you happy. There are reasons to do that I suppose but I'd have to be really careful before I'd buy someones TC/SC NSX. I wouldn't necessarily feel that way about a more "pure" example given a good level/history of maintenance.

People will do what they want but there are going to be fewer and fewer pure NSX cars out there and I want one that is pure - I think it will help it keep its value as well as maintain the car the way it was designed.

My 2 cents worth

Tim,

Im not attacking your point of view at all, just stating mine. I think to some its important to keep the car stock for a myriad of different reasons. Purist, resale, whatever... and I respect that. In fact, when I was buying my car I only wanted a low mile NA2 that has no mods myself.

But I also know that I will never sell this car. You have a different car ownership experience than I do. You like to experience many different cars, and that is totally cool man.... but for someone who is gonna keep this thing till the day he dies (if all goes well), it makes sense to modify it to my particular taste.

To me, I rather keep the car looking RELATIVELY stock (ok, I changed the antenna and wheels), but under the hood extra power is not a bad thing in a sports car. Im not saying lets take a Geo Metro and make a sleeper out of it, but a sports car is made to go fast.

The NSX engine has limitations, but it is no where near meeting its full potential. Truthfully a turbo or supercharger should have been offered by honda OR at least a stroker engine like mentioned above. I personally do not see how its any different if you put on a turbo from the factory or aftermarket. Its all really the same thing.

I agree about the pop up head lights

I also agree that the new X should look as similar as possible to its predecessor.... like the 911's, its a good design, and lots can be done to it under the skin. Why mess with such a sexy looking profile! Would be nice if they dropped the car a bit so we dont need to do that aftermarket too.

Driving skills are the MOST important - no doubt. But at the end of the day, when you have a sports car... its nice to have the power to go with the looks. The X has always been underpowered and IMHO needs a little help. If honda is too stupid to give the people what they want, the people will get it themselves.

Its not like its a minivan, we arent trying to make it do anything it wasnt designed to do. It was designed to go fast..

NOW, would I do this to a Porsche.. Ferarri.. bugatti.. Lamborghini.. NO!
I would be scared to death to mess with one of those cars under the hood. But a Honda sports car... yeah, why not!

We have such a beautiful car, and we all love it a lot. But when a 20K econobox turbo (cobalt ss) pulls up and gives you a run for your money its sad as hell. If you were a boxer and got beat in the ring, why not work out more and bulk up so the next time you can kick some ass! Im not saying every NSX needs to bulk up, and Im not saying we should all get anabolic steroids (Nitrous) but why not let the engine give us everything it is capable of?

At the end of the day - to each their own - but there is a huge valid argument for those who would like GTR, Z06, 911 speed but don't have the money. And if you have a great platform like the NSX, why not add a little power to such a great car! We already have great components and design... we dont use leaf springs like a vette, we have 50/50 balance unlike ALMOST everything else out there...

 

[tbromley]

Tim,

Im not attacking your point of view at all, just stating mine. I think to some its important to keep the car stock for a myriad of different reasons. Purist, resale, whatever... and I respect that. In fact, when I was buying my car I only wanted a low mile NA2 that has no mods myself.

But I also know that I will never sell this car. You have a different car ownership experience than I do. You like to experience many different cars, and that is totally cool man.... but for someone who is gonna keep this thing till the day he dies (if all goes well), it makes sense to modify it to my particular taste.

To me, I rather keep the car looking RELATIVELY stock (ok, I changed the antenna and wheels), but under the hood extra power is not a bad thing in a sports car. Im not saying lets take a Geo Metro and make a sleeper out of it, but a sports car is made to go fast.

The NSX engine has limitations, but it is no where near meeting its full potential. Truthfully a turbo or supercharger should have been offered by honda OR at least a stroker engine like mentioned above. I personally do not see how its any different if you put on a turbo from the factory or aftermarket. Its all really the same thing.

I agree about the pop up head lights

I also agree that the new X should look as similar as possible to its predecessor.... like the 911's, its a good design, and lots can be done to it under the skin. Why mess with such a sexy looking profile! Would be nice if they dropped the car a bit so we dont need to do that aftermarket too.

Driving skills are the MOST important - no doubt. But at the end of the day, when you have a sports car... its nice to have the power to go with the looks. The X has always been underpowered and IMHO needs a little help. If honda is too stupid to give the people what they want, the people will get it themselves.

Its not like its a minivan, we arent trying to make it do anything it wasnt designed to do. It was designed to go fast..

NOW, would I do this to a Porsche.. Ferarri.. bugatti.. Lamborghini.. NO!
I would be scared to death to mess with one of those cars under the hood. But a Honda sports car... yeah, why not!

We have such a beautiful car, and we all love it a lot. But when a 20K econobox turbo (cobalt ss) pulls up and gives you a run for your money its sad as hell. If you were a boxer and got beat in the ring, why not work out more and bulk up so the next time you can kick some ass! Im not saying every NSX needs to bulk up, and Im not saying we should all get anabolic steroids (Nitrous) but why not let the engine give us everything it is capable of?

At the end of the day - to each their own - but there is a huge valid argument for those who would like GTR, Z06, 911 speed but don't have the money. And if you have a great platform like the NSX, why not add a little power to such a great car! We already have great components and design... we dont use leaf springs like a vette, we have 50/50 balance unlike ALMOST everything else out there...

I'll buy that - good point Jason!

 

[NetViper]

+1, It's a good thing the American market buys so many cars and plays a large part in marketability... or we might end up with a fluffy Mini-Cooper/NSX 2+2 hybrid instead of an exotic. :biggrin: Only partly kidding, if it were up to our market alone we would have unrefined, overpowered, under-efficient, leaf-spring suspension "sports cars".

Really though, as soon as it's +2 it's a GT car and not a pure sports car --no matter how fast it can get around a track.




The 2002 Type R is rumored to have much more power than officially stated, due to the famous "gentlemen's agreement" perhaps. Many journalists/media members have thought so as well as the prime members who drove it in Japan (est. 350-400hp). I've never seen a dyno, but the performance numbers seem to back up the claim. Still, a 3.8 would do nicely. =)

I had heard it was maybe 300-320... certianly not 350 or 400... but it would be nice.

 

[N Spec]

I could believe 330-340 hp max for the NA2 NSX-R. It runs 12.8ish 1/3 mile at 2800 lbs. 2002+ NSXs can run that with IHE and mild weight reduction or so I have seen.

I agree also. A FR 2+2 is not what the NSX was or is meant to be and definitely not a true sports car. A 2+2 MR would make it an Evora and if they execute it well for a MR 2+2 NSX, then great, but I do not see that happening...

 

[AR]

Guys the GTR is 2+2, so is the 997 TT different strokes for different folks. I would not say they are not sports cars/junior supercars.

By the same token a Fiero, MR2, MGF are hardly true balls to the wall sport cars, yet they are 2 seater MR cars.

I'll rather have a GT Honda sports car in 3 years than no Honda Sports car.

On that note the RX7 FD3S, Mk4 Supra and R34 GTR are hardly not sports cars.




In an ideal world we would have a new Mid engine 2 seater, R8V8 beater from your Acura dealer.

It sort it rhymes, it was not by design, just think about, give it some time.

998 price would be very nice, GTR performance so it will be a stormer.

Deep down inside we have this pipe dream and of an NSX whose engine will pop and scream.

So come on Honda, just get it right and give us a new car to drive with Pride.

 

[Honcho]

I had heard it was maybe 300-320... certianly not 350 or 400... but it would be nice.

Me too. We pretty much know what Honda did to that engine. They balanced and blueprinted the rotating assembly = 10hp.

290 + 10 = 300

The NSX-R uses a separate ECU. This tells us that they remapped the ECU fuel and timing tables. Probably good for another 10, but I bet you it's not smog legal.

300 + 10 = 310

As for the "last" 10 hp, this is where the rampant speculation starts. Plenty of stuff Honda can do to get that last 10: Port match the intake and exhaust manifolds, bore the throttle body and extrude hone the intake, trick cams, high comp pistons, etc. None of this would be evident on visual inspection of the engine bay.

310 + 10 = 320

My 2 cents.

 

[PhiAlpha44]

I couldn't agree more.

I'm happy with my NSX. Honda, just build your five unicorn HSV like the NSX-R GT and pretend it is a production car. Just don't stop supplying NSX replacement/repair parts.

 

[sporteknik]

IT'S ON! :smile:


From TOV (04/14/11):
"With regards to the range topping "super-sportscar", John Mendel offered last that Takanobu Ito has definitely committed to bringing it to market. Unfortunately our truth serum didn't have enough time to take full effect, as John was mum on any further details. So all we have is yet another "confirmation" that the project is a go, even though it's already been essentially "confirmed" 2 or 3 other times".

 

[Honcho]

IT'S ON! :smile:


From TOV (04/14/11):
"With regards to the range topping "super-sportscar", John Mendel offered last that Takanobu Ito has definitely committed to bringing it to market. Unfortunately our truth serum didn't have enough time to take full effect, as John was mum on any further details. So all we have is yet another "confirmation" that the project is a go, even though it's already been essentially "confirmed" 2 or 3 other times".

I just saw this today on TOV. Good news.

 

[tbromley]

I just saw this today on TOV. Good news.

Yeah, I read that too. Sounds good to me. You know like others are saying on the other thread in this section - Motor Trend- it may not be a mid engine car - it may be different - but what we all are looking for is another true sports car from Honda/Acura.

 

[Huck]

Too little, too late??? The market is getting flooded with hi-performance sports cars so coming in after the demand is being met is not my idea of jumping in for fun. If Honda can make 1200hp for Indi cars, that can surely make a super exotic to compete with the latest and greatest. I just wonder about their timing and my timing----. I'm getting a little old for 180mph and 0-60 is 3.x seconds. It's fun butttt.
What I have done in the past is TWEEK a bit. Performance Chip a car to get a better bang for the buck and to be just a wee bit better then stock. My buddy and I just chipped a Ford Super Duty Diesel Truck ---$350. in chips will give over 100 additional horse power--!! Now if there was a simple, quick, and safe way to boost HP from a 20 years old NSX, I would be all over it but---TC or SC is very expensive and detailed to get that bang---and by the way, You better know someone local to help you when something isn't running just right, as the dealer wouldn't. What will nitrus do for a NSX and what would that little TWEEK set me back?

 

[jrbvegrun]

Automotive News this morning had this article about Ito talking about the NSX successor:

http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110425/OEM03/304259945/1117

Jeff

 

[NSX69]

Honda Works on Successor to NSX​

Honda Motor Co. President Takanobu Ito says his company is developing a sports car that will be the spiritual successor to the discontinued Acura NSX.

But in tune with the times, the new car won't feature the brute V-10 engine that had been envisioned for the next NSX. That vision was scrapped in 2008 during the global financial crisis.

Speaking to reporters at the Shanghai auto show, Ito said the car would be exhilarating to drive but also environmentally friendly: "That's the kind of sports car we want to make."

Ito did not give details of the sports car or a timeline for its launch. The vehicle is expected to use an electric drivetrain to give the gasoline engine a boost, a Honda spokesman said. The car will be positioned as a high-performance counterpart to the 2-seat Honda CR-Z sporty hybrid.

"We are working very hard on it," Ito said.

Ito's predecessor Takeo Fukui killed plans for an NSX replacement as 1 of several cost-saving cutbacks.

That version of the NSX was expected to have a front-mounted V-10 engine turning out at least 500 hp. It would have followed the 1st-generation NSX, which had a mid-mounted V-6. That NSX went out of production in late 2005 after 14 years.

 

[chudson1549]

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/04/25/report-honda-nsx-development-soldiers-on/