IDK if anyone has seen the numbers in perspective but...

[N Spec]

A 911 Turbo weighs 3,500+ lbs.

R8 V10 weighs 3600+ lbs.

458 weighs ~3400 - weighed by owners. 488 is supposedly 20 lbs lighter even with twin turbos and hardware.

So at 3,800 lbs curb weight for the new NSX is pretty light now that things are in perspective considering the 3 motors and batteries, they did one hell of job keeping the weight low for a modern car with 918 tech!

The 570S is the only one high hp car that makes all of these other cars seem like pigs.

 

[jwmelvin]

I think you are being a bit casual about the addition of 200-400 lbs. But it's a very good point that servicing a McLaren is an issue for some people. I do hope that the new NSX has enough to make it something better than an improvement over the GT-R. The cars it competes with are in a different class because numbers are not the only point of significance. This is not news to anyone. My point was simply that the 570S is, to me, the most interesting comparison because it sits at the other end of the design spectrum.

 

[Adamantium]

Chris Harris' twitter feed seems to suggest that he feels very differently from a lot of the reviews out there.

I think what makes the car special will be its everydayness. I'd still go with the michelin but the 570 to me looks like a toy. There's no innovation here. Every one of the NSX's competitors is sticking to the same old formula, big normal engine and the lightest weight possible.

The GT-R broke the mold and moved the game on by being heavy with a seemingly low PWR yet it upset the establishment and forced everyone to raise their game, and that was a heavy car. No one questions how well it laps the nurburgring, there's no mistaking the fact that the car is fast. It took Porsche a long time to recover its lost ground.

Here we have a main stream manufacturer trying to bring hypercar technology to the masses. Porsche proved that a heavy car could still be fast. Look at the 918 at the ring, even the P1 which is heavy by classic hypercar standards still proves the value in using new technology.

If Honda just made a light weight high power car like everyone else, how would they expect to take sales from the establishment? Why would that showcase their engineering talent?

Even at $100k it would be just another car like the corvettes, the 911s, the R8s. I'm pleased they've had the guts to bring us the first truly achievable performance hybrid (the i8 is not a performance car imho).

3800lbs is still less than a GT-R, it still has more power, it still has better weight distribution, it still has torque vectoring across the front axle that even the 918 couldn't dream of.

Given all the above, there's a lot I'll be able to forgive the NSX, except the lack of a volume knob.

 

[gleibig]

I have been told from a reliable source that the car in launch mode is in veyron territory

 

[jwmelvin]

Those are all good points. Given the systems on board, the car is not all that heavy. And I do agree it is good to see Honda/Acura pushing certain areas of technology. That's fundamentally the NSX approach.

The original NSX was pretty great at using technology that made the car better. At the time, a lot of that had to do with lightweight construction. They haven't pushed on lightweight as distinctly with the new car. I hope the technology they have pushed on has as much impact. It doesn't seem like a particularly fuel-efficient car; since everyone is pounding on the daily usability, that seems significant. Maybe I'm not correctly remembering the mileage figures quoted--wasn't it mid 20's combined?

I also wonder why one would take the approach of configuring the chassis for distinct understeer and correcting that with a control system instead of optimizing the setup and then dialing in understeer with the control system. It is typically the case that one would want to optimize the physical system before implementing controls. Perhaps the reporting thus far is inaccurate and Acura has not designed the native car to understeer.

 

[Zoom]

Honda used to be "light is fast" and when they pulled all the stops they put out 120hp per liter engine with eye watering redline.. Imagine a small 4l V10 with this kind of output, mid engined, with superior Honda chassis and suspension you'd have a true LFA competitor that is currently missing.
I suppose they changed the approach to cover a different customer base, as the 1st gen didnt sell that much overall.

 

[95nsxtc]

Wrong! There are no competitors that buyers are likely to cross shop who can do sub 3 second 0-60.

911 Turbo (3.2 sec)
911 GT3 (3.0 sec)
570S (3.1 sec)
R8 V10 (3.4 sec)
R8 V10 Plus (3.1 sec)

The only possible exception is the GTR, but that car's sedan like body makes it unlikely to be cross shopped.

... to slightly quote one of my favorite F&F opening lines, dont take it too harshly..."wow. you can read the brochure"

those are printed numbers, and basically, most of them are conservative. Theres a reason 911 turbos are constantly the quickest cars in the real world. Im gona make 2 points:

The new c7 z06 claims a very laughable 2.9 0-60 (which no one will ever achieve) and thats because its an ameican manufacturer, where they give you numbers based on the best possible conditions and dont care if the car did it while it was burning to the ground or if it could only ever do it once, while running down a mountain. Germans on the other hand give you ratings and numbers on the cars worst day possible, 20000ft above sea level and only running on half the cylinders (exaggeration). so most the competitors will do an extremely competitve, if not better 60 than 3

Second point is if you want to look at just numbers, what is your reasoning behind why the r8 v10 plus and the 911 turbo would be slower to 60, despite having superior power to weight ratios and awd?

 

[Midnight_Raven]

If you compare it to the other hybrid sportcars/supercars/hypercars the numbers don't look bad at all. Especially when you consider the NSX has a very similar powertrain setup as the Porsche 918 and has an aluminum chassis vs carbon chassis, the weight difference seems reasonable especially at 1/5th the cost. I think that will be the key difference that Acura is hoping will attract customers for the new NSX compared to the other similarly priced sportcars/supercars. Buy hypercar technology at a bargain price in a great package. I guess we'll see what the market thinks once the car goes on sale this spring.

Updated to add some extra information:
(also the NSX performance times I believe are all estimates at this point)

Make..........Model............Curb Weight......Engine................Combined Power/Torque........Price................0-60 time...........1/4m time............top speed
Ferrari........LaFerrari........3,495 lbs...........6.3L NA V12........950hp/664lbf-ft ..................$1,416,000......2.4sec...............9.7sec.................218mph
Mclaren......P1.................3,411 lbs...........3.8L TT V8..........908hp/722lbf-ft....................$1,350,000.....2.6sec................9.8sec.................217mph
Porsche.....918...............3,724lbs........... 4.6L NA V8..........887hp/940lbf-ft....................$845,000........2.2sec................9.8sec.................214mph
Acura........NSX...............3,800lbs............3.5L TT V6..........573hp/476lbf-ft....................$155,000........3.0sec................n/a......................190mph
BMW.........i8...................3,274lbs............1.5L T I3.............349hp/406lbf-ft...................$141,965........3.6sec................12.1sec................155mph

 

[NSX2398]

I don't understand how Porsche can get 608 hp N/A out of a 4.6L motor (132 hp/L) and Acura can only get 500 hp out of 3.5 L with turbos. For years Honda was the leader in hp/L numbers .. they should be easily able to get what Porsche gets .. which would be 462 for 3.5L without turbos. Maybe they're sandbagging for the R model. I know that the S2K (120 hp/L) took some heat for low torque but with a hybrid, we've got loads of torque fill .. at least at low speeds.

 

[BB]

Second point is if you want to look at just numbers, what is your reasoning behind why the r8 v10 plus and the 911 turbo would be slower to 60, despite having superior power to weight ratios and awd?

Due to the electric motors the NSX power train provides more instantaneous torque than both the R8 V10 Plus and 911 Turbo. An electric motor's peak torque is available starting at 0 rpm and continues across the entire power band.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't understand how Porsche can get 608 hp N/A out of a 4.6L motor (132 hp/L) and Acura can only get 500 hp out of 3.5 L with turbos.

Because no Porsche 918 will ever have over 200,000 miles put on it by the owner.

And also because VW Group's engines are among the least reliable in the industry....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9815860/German-cars-lose-out-in-reliability-survey.html

 

[N Spec]

I think you are being a bit casual about the addition of 200-400 lbs. But it's a very good point that servicing a McLaren is an issue for some people. I do hope that the new NSX has enough to make it something better than an improvement over the GT-R. The cars it competes with are in a different class because numbers are not the only point of significance. This is not news to anyone. My point was simply that the 570S is, to me, the most interesting comparison because it sits at the other end of the design spectrum.

I'm not being casual about the 3,800 lb curb weight, but I'm talking about from a perspective of adding 400-500 lbs worth of batteries and motors for the SH-AWD system. The NSX would thus have weighed in somewhere around 3,300 lbs which is pretty light for a modern super-car compared to what I listed.

I am also very interested to see it go against the 570S tho. As the weigh difference will be very interesting dynamic to compare given similar power outputs.

- - - Updated - - -

Honda used to be "light is fast" and when they pulled all the stops they put out 120hp per liter engine with eye watering redline.. Imagine a small 4l V10 with this kind of output, mid engined, with superior Honda chassis and suspension you'd have a true LFA competitor that is currently missing.
I suppose they changed the approach to cover a different customer base, as the 1st gen didnt sell that much overall.

Maybe, but the S2000 sold pretty well for being an expensive NA I4 car. I don't think it's a sales point, but more of a mandate and demand for power. Everyone is going turbo.

I think it's just the era we are in with tight emissions, MPG standards and power levels. Turbos definitely make it easier to extract more power efficiently and think about the aftermarket modding room. The NSX is barely running 1 bar or 15 psi for a factory 500 hp car and I believe I read it's actually a non-VTEC motor. Most other twin turbo cars are running ~20 psi from the factory. This is relatively low-stress and there is room for more power and advancement for the future.

If the powerplant made say 450 hp NA, it would have been pretty fast but almost no room for improvement over the years like the last NSX.

I don't understand how Porsche can get 608 hp N/A out of a 4.6L motor (132 hp/L) and Acura can only get 500 hp out of 3.5 L with turbos. For years Honda was the leader in hp/L numbers .. they should be easily able to get what Porsche gets .. which would be 462 for 3.5L without turbos. Maybe they're sandbagging for the R model. I know that the S2K (120 hp/L) took some heat for low torque but with a hybrid, we've got loads of torque fill .. at least at low speeds.

 

[Adamantium]

Actually i mean to ask about that. I read the engine was non vtec, but in the official specs page from the manufacturer under the engine section it says:

[TABLE="width: 760"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]
ENGINE

[TABLE="width: 760"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Type[/TD]
[TD]Twin-turbocharged DOHC V6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Layout[/TD]
[TD]Longitudinally mid-mounted[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Displacement[/TD]
[TD]3493 cc[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Power - SAE Net[/TD]
[TD]500 hp @ 6500 - 7500 rpm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Torque (Nm)[/TD]
[TD]406 lb.-ft. (550) @ 2000 - 6000 rpm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Maximum Engine Speed[/TD]
[TD]7500 rpm[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Power Output Per Lite[/TD]
[TD]143 hp/liter[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Bore and Stroke[/TD]
[TD]3.6 in. x 3.5 in.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Compression ratio[/TD]
[TD]10.0:1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Valve Train[/TD]
[TD]24 Valve, IN/EX VTC, chain-driven camshafts[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

is vtc not enough to call it vtec?

- - - Updated - - -

Just noticed the bore stroke ratio is almost perfectly square. That will make for a really nice engine!

 

[Patricio]

I think cars are getting heavier as a safety precaution because customers demand more power
therefore manufactures have to make heavier cars so that customers get their HP fix in a heavy and fast but not insane fast car.
if a manufacture put 600hp in a 3000lb car they would have allot of deaths. 3800lbs slows them down a bit.

The worst part about these 3800lbs behemoths only work well with all the computers working.
you cant turn off the TCS and have any "manual override" fun, you will just lite up the tires all day.

cars appear much faster than they actually are when comparing 0-60 and 1/4 mile time from a 10 years ago but that's mostly from advanced launch and traction control stability control and tire advancements ect.... the actual power to weight is not that much more because every time they put in more power they add more weight.

take off the launch control and most of these cars are back into the mid 4 second 0-60 range. and 1/4 mile will suffer back into the high 11's.

launch control seriously bends the performance figures compared to 5-10 years ago to make cars appear 1 seconds faster when in rolling start scenarios they are only slightly faster.

Manufactures have also started "cheating" when compared to 10 years ago on lap times, nurburgring times and skid pads because today manufactures are equipping much more advanced compound 50-100 tread wear tires from the factory compared to 10 years ago. Yes newer cars handle well but not .2Gs better. you put the newest compound tires on a 2002 911 and you will get similar handeling results as the newest 911's.

Another thing to consider is that these 3800 lb behemoths are one trick pony's they are setup and use compounds only good for a few laps, just enough to make numbers look good. none will endure long term performance for many laps without brakes failing and overheating everything, physics just wont allow it.

I would love to see the performance numbers of the new cars compared to their 10 years ago counterparts with all the electronic assists off and same tires across the board to really compare the cars themselves with equal driving experience.

Car manufactures today are doing whatever possible to cheat the system and give people what they want regardless of real performance or longevity.
Another thing to consider is these new cars are beginning to drop in value much faster than ever before, because all the electronics and out of warranty costs are so nuts that the value of these cars as they age will plummet. its planned obsolescence which will make overall costs of ownership of keeping up with the newest cars allot more expensive than ever before.

 

[Adamantium]

Interesting points but as ever I'll refer to the GT-R as it's the only car I know well enough to comment on.

In the UK, the first 2009 GT-R was £50k when released. Now, 6 years later they still fetch 35-40k. The GT-r is arguably one of the lowest depreciating "new" cars on UK roads. Aside from limited run porsches and ferrari, nothing other than a classic car holds its money that well.

 

[PHOEN$X]

I would love to see the performance numbers of the new cars compared to their 10 years ago counterparts with all the electronic assists off and same tires across the board to really compare the cars themselves with equal driving experience.

I would be extremely curious to see this as well.

On a related note, a while back I swapped rides with a coworker's Tesla, and while the instantaneous torque was cool, it handled like a boat and felt more like a Lexus ES sedan than a sports car. The 17" touchscreen and fancy iPhone app didn't increase the "fun" factor. I was quite happy to get back into my NSX.

 

[Elistan]

is vtc not enough to call it vtec?

In my opinion, no. VTEC is the system by which two unique cam profiles can be used. This allowed for the choice between two different sets of lift/duration/timing specs for the valves. The Integra GSR, S2000 and 1st gen NSX are examples of cars with this system. Continuously varying the timing while not changing the duration or lift any does not qualify as the same VTEC we've known for so long. (From a marketing perspective Honda can call it whatever they want, of course, but appears they have not chosen to call it VTEC.)

 

[NSX2398]

... chain-driven camshafts

Interesting .. no more belts to break.

 

[flaminio]

The 1st Gen NSX was always a car that couldn't be defined by its numbers. You can go down every stat and find cars that beat it. Haters do this all the time, but I'm not aware of anyone who has actually driven an NSX that gives these haters any credence. Behind the wheel all those stats fade away as the driving experience transcends any number displayed on a computer screen somewhere.

Hopefully the 2nd Gen NSX will be likewise.

 

[MvM]

The worst part about these 3800lbs behemoths only work well with all the computers working.
you cant turn off the TCS and have any "manual override" fun, you will just lite up the tires all day.

cars appear much faster than they actually are when comparing 0-60 and 1/4 mile time from a 10 years ago but that's mostly from advanced launch and traction control stability control and tire advancements ect.... the actual power to weight is not that much more because every time they put in more power they add more weight.

take off the launch control and most of these cars are back into the mid 4 second 0-60 range. and 1/4 mile will suffer back into the high 11's.

launch control seriously bends the performance figures compared to 5-10 years ago to make cars appear 1 seconds faster when in rolling start scenarios they are only slightly faster.

Manufactures have also started "cheating" when compared to 10 years ago on lap times, nurburgring times and skid pads because today manufactures are equipping much more advanced compound 50-100 tread wear tires from the factory compared to 10 years ago. Yes newer cars handle well but not .2Gs better. you put the newest compound tires on a 2002 911 and you will get similar handeling results as the newest 911's.

Another thing to consider is that these 3800 lb behemoths are one trick pony's they are setup and use compounds only good for a few laps, just enough to make numbers look good. none will endure long term performance for many laps without brakes failing and overheating everything, physics just wont allow it.

I would love to see the performance numbers of the new cars compared to their 10 years ago counterparts with all the electronic assists off and same tires across the board to really compare the cars themselves with equal driving experience.

Car manufactures today are doing whatever possible to cheat the system and give people what they want regardless of real performance or longevity.
Another thing to consider is these new cars are beginning to drop in value much faster than ever before, because all the electronics and out of warranty costs are so nuts that the value of these cars as they age will plummet. its planned obsolescence which will make overall costs of ownership of keeping up with the newest cars allot more expensive than ever before.

Agree with you on many points there

Todays car CAN become so insanely powerful BECAUSE of all the electronic gadgets and controls.
Technically, a 911 Turbo could have been made a 600 HP back in the early eighties, but no one would have been able to use it because you and the car would have been going everywhere except straight. It would have taken a VERY good driver to drive a car like that fast without any extra help.
Same goes for modern sedans with 500+ HP which seem to handle well. For a large part this is due to modern electronics interfering with our human clumsy control.

And yes, whatever magazine journalist might write about cars 'sticking like glue', everyone with a bit of, the truth is that modern cars are (slightly) faster than older cars in corners mostly because of better and bigger rubber under the car.

Would gladly see a test with lap-times (any track) the AVERAGE laptime over (eg.) 5 LAPS with cars like the 458, NSX (old and new), several 911's and whatever.
Differences between 'old' and 'new' sports cars might be a lot smaller then.

 

[95nsxtc]

I agree with everything you said except this:

I think cars are getting heavier as a safety precaution because customers demand more power
therefore manufactures have to make heavier cars so that customers get their HP fix in a heavy and fast but not insane fast car.
if a manufacture put 600hp in a 3000lb car they would have allot of deaths. 3800lbs slows them down a bit.

Almost every car is getting lighter

 

[fastaussie]

Almost every car is getting lighter

i also concur with this concurrence. the 488 is lighter than the 458. the new R8 is lighter than the previous model. the Huracan is lighter than the Gallardo, etc.

and for comparison's sake, a 488 will be probably 500 lbs. lighter than the new NSX with 100 more horsepower...

 

[BB]

The analysis in the article linked at the beginning of this thread is poor. It incorrectly identifies who the competition is and it's incorrect on pricing.

The cars that the new NSX should be compared to are the base R8 V10 and the 911 Turbo. These two cars retail for about the same amount and like the NSX are more oriented towards sport luxury than outright track car. Comparing the NSX to special track focused editions such as the 911 GT3 is just silly. Wait for the NSX-R and compare that to the GT3.

If we compare the NSX to its direct competitors, it appears very competitive....

911 Turbo = 3681 lbs / 520 hp
R8 V10 = 3653 lbs / 540 hp
NSX = 3800 lbs / 573 hp

Additionally the article is misleading on price. It says the NSX will cost $170,000 then uses only the base price for its competitors. Acura has always said the base price would be around $150,000 and that the base model would come "well equipped" just like all Acuras do. It's actually the German brands that are well known for being poorly equipped in base form. So in reality that 911 Turbo will likely cost more than a similarly equipped NSX.

When you look at this this way, it appears the NSX may provide the best overall value in its target segment. Cheaper than than a similarly equipped 911 Turbo and R8 V10, but with performance similar to an R8 V10 Plus. This is notable since the R8 V10 Plus is a car who's base price is at least $40,000 higher and Motor Trend's R8 test vehicle came in at whopping $225,000. Yet ironically the article tries to inaccurately paint the new NSX as being a "poor value". I see no evidence of this being accurate.

 

[N Spec]

The analysis in the article linked at the beginning of this thread is poor. It incorrectly identifies who the competition is and it's incorrect on pricing.

The cars that the new NSX should be compared to are the base R8 V10 and the 911 Turbo. These two cars retail for about the same amount and like the NSX are more oriented towards sport luxury than outright track car. Comparing the NSX to special track focused editions such as the 911 GT3 is just silly. Wait for the NSX-R and compare that to the GT3.

If we compare the NSX to its direct competitors, it appears very competitive....

911 Turbo = 3681 lbs / 520 hp
R8 V10 = 3653 lbs / 540 hp
NSX = 3800 lbs / 573 hp

Additionally the article is misleading on price. It says the NSX will cost $170,000 then uses only the base price for its competitors. Acura has always said the base price would be around $150,000 and that the base model would come "well equipped" just like all Acuras do. It's actually the German brands that are well known for being poorly equipped in base form. So in reality that 911 Turbo will likely cost more than a similarly equipped NSX.

When you look at this this way, it appears the NSX may provide the best overall value in its target segment. Cheaper than than a similarly equipped 911 Turbo and R8 V10, but with performance similar to an R8 V10 Plus. This is notable since the R8 V10 Plus is a car who's base price is at least $40,000 higher and Motor Trend's R8 test vehicle came in at whopping $225,000. Yet ironically the article tries to inaccurately paint the new NSX as being a "poor value". I see no evidence of this being accurate.

Haters are going to hate if even it doesn't make logical sense. This is why I don't discriminate based on brand but what's really at hand and before my own eyes. It's still too early to tell how well the new NSX is going to execute things, but what is known so far is that it's looks pretty good compared to the cars in it's price bracket and then some.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/458-italia-488/448635-458-speciale-curb-weight.html

Also. I would be wary about quoted curb weights from Italian makers. They like to report dry weight. Speciale owners are reporting 3,280+ lbs which means the regular 458 is actually closer to 3,400+ lbs and thus 488 being only 25 lbs lighter.

C7 Z06s are reportedly at 3,524 lbs.

So modern supercars are truly not that light compared to the old days. Again, the new McLarens are the only ones that seem to be 3,000 lbs or less and this is largely because of the build direction they chose that is very noticeable when you get up close and examine the details.

 

[BB]

Haters are going to hate if even it doesn't make logical sense. This is why I don't discriminate based on brand but what's really at hand and before my own eyes. It's still too early to tell how well the new NSX is going to execute things, but what is known so far is that it's looks pretty good compared to the cars in it's price bracket and then some.

Unfortunately for Honda the haters are very common. It appears there is a large number of mostly younger people who passionately hate the Acura brand. I agree that it's still too early to fully judge the car, but the information released thus far has been mostly positive. Thus I am still fairly optimistic about the car.

I noticed Car & Driver recently updated their Premium Sports Car rankings to look like this...

3. McLaren 570S
4. Acura NSX
5. Audi R8

Not bad at all! Although I suspect many were hoping for something more revolutionary.

 

[N Spec]

What is number 1 and 2?

I find it funny how C&D separates premium and exotic sports cars -most-likely by price range. However, that's an endless debate.

I'm a "younger" person and know many younger people in my generation that likes Acura but my viewpoint may be limited. I've never been a die hard Honda fan neither and it was the NSX that initially won my interest.