HSX is not the next NSX

[jon69]

Here is what I took from topgear, didn't notice if anyone posted it but the story makes sense to me.....










Meet the Honda Sports Concept, which in size, performance, layout and appearance would make a convincing heir to the ageing NSX. The NSX, which has been around since 1989, has been consistently updated but will be over-ripe for replacement by the time the new model hits showrooms in 2006. The mid-engined HSC runs a modified version of the NSX's 3.2-litre V6, developing over 300bhp.

Performance will be pretty wild despite a power output that falls shy of the supercar heavyweights. Thank lightweight carbonfibre and aluminium construction for this. Honda, though, is keen to emphasise the HSC's ease of use (another characteristic it shares with the NSX). A clever iDrive-esque electronic control console and paddle-shift gearchange help to take the strain out of everyday use, as does a digital display that relays images from behind the car to help when reversing.

Things may not be quite as they seem with the HSC though. Rumours from inside the Honda camp suggest the company is not satisfied with the HSC's design, and that it wants something with greater longevity to succeed the NSX. The HSC may look great in the week of its unveiling, will it still be turning heads after 15 years in production? We've been informed of at least two designs currently on the drawing board as potential NSX replacements - and neither of them is the HSC?

 

[POWERED by HONDA]

If this is true... then that's pretty disappointing. That means Honda is planning on keeping this next car forever... just like the current NSX.

... but it COULD be a blessing as well... this means it will be a cleaner design that ages well like the current NSX... and hopefully they will upgrade it more often than they did with the current NSX.

 

[BB]

I think you should be encouraged by this article, not disappointed. I totally agree with the notion that the HSC looks quite good, but lacks the great design longevity of the original NSX. If true, it tells me Honda has high goals for the next NSX and will not simply pump out something that's merely "good enough". They want to re-create what they did in 1990 all over again.

I think the HSC is merely a preview of one of their better ideas thus far and from this we can see they're on the right track. I don't think we'll be disappointed in the end result.

 

[Dr.Honda]

I thought the HSC was 3.5 litre, anyone here have an '89 NSX?
I question the validity of this story.

 

[Sig]

I have a hard time believing they would allow the RL to have a larger displacement engine than the next NSX.

The only way I could see this happening is if Honda went down a forced induction path with the 3.2 engine..... which is in my opinion about as probable as Heidi Klum coming home with me tonight. I'll let you know tomorrow if that works out

 

[NeoNSX]

The HSC may look great in the week of its unveiling, will it still be turning heads after 15 years in production? We've been informed of at least two designs currently on the drawing board as potential NSX replacements - and neither of them is the HSC?

They must have seen the photoshopped improvements that we made to the HSC!!!

 

[ChrisK]

I have a hard time believing they would allow the RL to have a larger displacement engine than the next NSX.

The only way I could see this happening is if Honda went down a forced induction path with the 3.2 engine..... which is in my opinion about as probable as Heidi Klum coming home with me tonight. I'll let you know tomorrow if that works out

The RL always had a larger displacement engine than the NSX. When it was called the Legend, it had a 3.2L engine while the NSX had a 3.0L. In 1996 it got bumped up to 3.5L while the NSX finally got a 3.2L in 1997. But as you said, I'm sure it will be at least a 3.5L engine and definatly more HP than the RL even if it may have the same displacement.

 

[tochigidream]

I thought the HSC was 3.5 litre, anyone here have an '89 NSX?
I question the validity of this story.

I thought Honda made the very first NSX in 1989, but didn't release it until 1990 to Japan, and the U.S. in 1991. I could be totally wrong about this, so if someone more knowledgeable on this subject could confirm or correct me on this... thanks.

 

[Brian2by2]

I think blown is right...

 

[GQ NSX]

For some reason deep down I knew the HSC would not be the "direct" replacement. Honda/Acura is a very smart group of people--and just like any other business the main objective is sales and longevity of product.

I think Honda builds NSX's for the sheer fact that it is their "status" car, even if they lose money for every car they sell. The HSC would be an amazing status car--a memorable vehicle for the marquee. That's probably why they want it to be recognizeable and timeless because when they spend so much money producing a car like this, it better stay in the market a while.

The engine displacement is pitiful--even if the power to weight ratio is good. Even if the HSC isn't a direct replacement I'm sure it will do fine if it is released the way it is pictured. When the average-un-Nsx-knowing buyer sees the HSC they won't dismiss it simply because it isn't the NSX's replacement--they will weigh the options to make the final decision. The HP number should be something that Honda is concerned with, it's not just for real life magazine test's sake, but for the psychological aspect. Maybe it's just me, but when I hear about a car that is "exotic" I think about big power, innovation, good looks, and high price.

Who knows though? Just my two cents.

ravi

 

[NetViper]

First off, I think it is crazy to design a car to last 12 years at a time. What other company does this? Porsche updates the 911 constantly and puts out a new model every 5-6 years. Ferrari puts out new models every 4-5 years. Honda should do the same.

I think the HSC is very exotic looking and certainly exotic enough to last 5-6 years.

The HP figure quoted is totally pathetic, even if it weights 2800 lbs.

Personally, I would like to see two models. NSX NA with 350 HP and NSX turbo with 430HP. Then they can easily compete with porsche and ferrari. The cars could be a $10,000 price difference and i am positive most people would go for the turbo.

 

[jon69]

The way I see it the HSC must be some sort of way of testing the waters to see what they can come up with, judge public reaction, etc... Financially it makes the most sense as it requires the least investment, after all if you look at the car it appears to use much of the current NSX, look at the rear window and the shape of the engine cover, to me it appears exactly the same as the current NSX so the frame is probably the same with just some changes to body work, interior revisions, and maybe some updated mechanicals.
If you think about it it's not all bad, looks like a new car and it's built around a tried and tested automobile. Look at the current NSX/R, Top Gear voted it it's sports car of the year and they indicated it was the best "drivers" car. Now the HSC appears as though it could be even lighter, meater (=grippier ) rubber, better brakes and I'm sure 350hp is easily attainable. With those numbers the car could easily match 360's , 911's in acceleration and I would bet it would kill them around a road course, and be the best driving machine.
Nothing really wrong with a V6, after all 911's have been using them for a while and if you can keep the same acceleration as it's competitors you will have less weight and be more nimble, still think the current V6 is one of the most enjoyable engines around, just need more ooomph. Honda has been quoted that they will not make a V8, I think this is blind ignorance on their part, but they have said that their performance will match or exceed competition with the factor of lighter weight, hybrid powertrains and can you believe they were quoted saying forced induction!!!!
I think the HSC is a good start but turbocharge that puppy for 500hp (the skyline will have it) have it weigh less than 3000lbs and have it in M5/M6 pricing and you'll sell more than 200 cars a year! Just do us and yourself a favour, update the car more often, this HSC should have came out 5 years ago!

 

[Rubber Chicken]

If indeed this isn't the next NSX, I wonder how they plan to slot in the NSX into the market. Market this as an upscale sports car, and the NSX as a true exotic? (with true exotic pricing )

Maybe it's just me, but when I hear about a car that is "exotic" I think about big power, innovation, good looks, and high price.

So you WANT to have the next NSX cost a lot? One of the best parts was that it was cheaper than a 355/348 and yet it performed on the same level. I think of exotic as low seating position, low center of gravity, head turner, NSX has proven that an exotic doesn't have to be impractical as a daily driver, or expensive... (compared to other exotics)

 

[Jin1976]

... and hopefully they will upgrade it more often than they did with the current NSX.

Upgrading which parts. I hope it will not be the body parts. Engine and suspension is okay to upgrade. I just don't want my next NSX looks to be outdated by just one or two years (eg. Lancer Evo, Subaru STi or Skyline GTR).

 

[cpmoran]

IMHO, the hsc (honda sports concept) is nothing more than a concept, something the public can look at. If the people love it they will use some of the things people liked from the hsc on the next nsx. I really like the interior and the paddle shifters (F1 rules). For me the bottem line is that the hsc does not have a timeless design. The next nsx will be on par with the 360 and almost half the price. Just my 2 cents.

 

[mlambert890]

First off, I think it is crazy to design a car to last 12 years at a time. What other company does this? Porsche updates the 911 constantly and puts out a new model every 5-6 years. Ferrari puts out new models every 4-5 years. Honda should do the same.

I'm kind of shocked you would choose Porsche to try to make this argument. Porsche has simply got to be the second best sports car example of model *longevity* next to Lotus.

How is Porsche "updating the 911 constantly"? Really, the only truly massive change to the 911 since like 1965 has been the switch to a water cooled engine which is hugely contraversial and was not so well received by Porsche enthusiasts.

From 1965-1997, the Porsche 911 had the same basic sillouhette and ran an air-cooled, rear mounted, flat six engine. Of course the car got faster, nimbler and more able as DECADES passed, but each generation of 911 has been one of the world class sportscars of its day without having to deviate from the pattern. That's Porsche's claim to fame!

Sure they've diversified the model line with Turbo, Cabrio, AWD and GT editions over the years, but even each of those variants are now DECADES old.

Don't get me wrong... I do like Porsche a lot and I think this consistency is part of their charm, but the facts being what they are, Porsche can simply not be grouped in with the companies that reinvent themselves every 4 years.

Another example from the sports car world of designers looking for longevity is the Corvette. The C3 and C4 had looooong runs and the C5 will be about 8 years old when it is finally replaced by the C6.

I've got to say that I don't understand some of these criticisms of Honda at all. The original NSX ran 1991-1996. The 1997 release of the 3.2L engine certainly counts as a significant update. Personally, I think the changes to the engine and transmission are quite noticeable from a 1996 to a 1997 - sorry if that pisses off any of the 91-93 owners, but I feel a big difference between the two platforms.

In 2002, the car got a visual facelift and (small) weight reduction as well. It may not be to everyone's liking, but the 02 facelift should certainly also count as an "update".

 

[GQ NSX]

So you WANT to have the next NSX cost a lot? One of the best parts was that it was cheaper than a 355/348 and yet it performed on the same level.

Rubber Chicken, don't get me wrong, the low price was one of its best attributes. However with these high dollar amounts people start thinking. For example, say a 360 Modena costs $150k. If the HSC is priced at $100k, psychologically the buyer will wonder what makes the Ferrari so special for that extra 50k. Of course enthusiasts don't think like this, but many of the people buying these cars simply for the sake of buying them do.

Jmho.


ravi

 

[NSXTASY_MD]

Netviper, and others....

AGAIN, I GARAUNTEE YOU that this HSC (the next NSX) or whatever you wanna call it WILL have ~350HP while being as light as a stock 91' NSX (or lighter). It will HAVE to have it in order to make sense from a marketability stand point. Even at 350HP it's quite conservative compared to what Honda CAN do and HAS done (i.e. S2000) in terms of output per liter. Making the motor powerful (great power/weight) while keeping the remarkable reliability the NSX's and Honda's in general are known for.

I don't care what "topgear" says ...Honda isn't going to give away ALL their cards before the show Expect this car to impress....certainly more than 300HP @ roughly 3000lbs....that wouldn't be an improvement.


There is a direct link to "MSRP -to- Power/weight ratio" when it comes to sportscars...especially nowadays** 300-to-320HP ISN'T gonna kick it @ a ~3000lbs curb weight unless the MSRP is under 50 grand for this concept car...

Conversly, if this car has all these fancy composites and production technics to keep that curb weight very low (for example: <2800lbs)(to keep the power to weight competitive)....THAT, in itself will draw the costs (hence price/MSRP) UP....to say 85-to-100K. At THAT MSRP the required power-to-weight ratio is obviously higher (because of the competition at that price) hence higher HP will be a given (i.e. 350+HP) Do you see the direct "cause and effect" marketing phenomenon

 

[NemesisX]

To All....
I just have one thing to say.....

TRUST IN HONDA.......They knew what they were doing when the NSX first came out.....and I believe they still know what they are going to do for the next NSX.

The NSX revolutionized the sports car market.....they may not be able to make as big a splash this time...but they KNOW what they are doing....have FAITH!

 

[nicholas421]

The HP figure quoted is totally pathetic, even if it weights 2800 lbs.

alright already... let it go man. we know how you feel about 300hp. what is with your fixation on the number 300. not a single article has "quoted" 300hp. most of them have stated "at least 300" or "over 300". last i checked 400hp qualifies as "at least 300".

 

[gheba_nsx]

I think 350hp will be the number. I cannot imagine Honda giving us 400ps... unfortunately...

 

[NetViper]

How is Porsche "updating the 911 constantly"? Really, the only truly massive change to the 911 since like 1965 has been the switch to a water cooled engine which is hugely contraversial and was not so well received by Porsche enthusiasts.

Well, when i read an old article with the 94 NSX vs the 911, the 911 had 282 HP and the NSX had 270. Porsche kept increasing the HP while Acura sat on their butts after 97. Now the 911 makes 315-320 HP the NSX still 290. Next year they are releasing a special edition porsche 911 and it will have 340 HP. So I would say they keep updating it over the years to stay competitive, while acura does not. Of course, then there is the GT3, 380HP, the Turbo 415 HP and the GT2 450 HP.

All I really meant was the porsche does more to keep their cars competitive in a HP hungry market.

 

[Silver F16]

Going by the general disappointing poll numbers and feedback, perhaps Honda will have something else to show for Gen 2 NSX. It's tough to beat the overwhelming response from 1991. I have faith in Honda alright. I have faith they will show me more of the similar designs they have been doing with vehicles like TL, TSX, and revised S2000. Hmm.....