Com' on man...that article is classic Clarkson. My daughter gifted me his book, "The World According to Clarkson", for my birthday. Some of his rantings are hard to read. He doesn't much care for America, Americans or what Americans do...who cares. I've put that book down many times and wondered if anything (other than Ferraris and giving James May grief) makes this guy happy. BL, the dude gets paid to write/say things that he believes many people think, but won't say. They're just words from a guy who got sacked from the most popular automotive television program in the history of automotive television programs. What a plum sack. His thoughts on the latest NSX iteration are just that, his thoughts. Let it go. Now go drive your amazing Honda.
Jeremy Clarkson NSX Review
- Thread starter Esprit9
- Start date
I'm not sure I agree from a big picture view. The original was revolutionary and changed the face of supercars in terms of being driven everyday, don't best you up, reliable, handles well, etc... It forced supercars to become polished and reliable and influenced the McLaren F1.
Whats revolutionary about the new NSX that hasn't been done by the 918? (I don't think the separate front motors is a good enough argument). If the McLaren F1 came out before the NSX, it might not have been viewed as so iconic, likewise if the new NSX came out before the 918, you might have more of an argument.
I agree, Tiff & Jason were so fun to watch, especially when they did head-to-head car-swapping segments. In case I've been sleeping under a rock, they're no longer on, right? Is there any other Fifth Gear type show on tv or online with any of them, including VBH?
- Joined
- 23 February 2016
- Messages
- 2,591
It is kind of early to see what the Gen 2 NSX does for the currently limp biskit Acura brand and that will obviously be influenced by the products we see in the next 2-5 years
my view is the car is evolutionary in nature, no news here but the well used point that it puts 918 like tech (which costs about $1.5 million these days) in the hands of shlub drivers like me, and I have been having a blast with it. Plus the responses the car gets on the street have been priceless.
it also lets Acura say they did a hybrid supercar before they became routine.
Stuntman, with new Ford GTs starting to be delivered, can you comment on the great Canadian beast?
my view is the car is evolutionary in nature, no news here but the well used point that it puts 918 like tech (which costs about $1.5 million these days) in the hands of shlub drivers like me, and I have been having a blast with it. Plus the responses the car gets on the street have been priceless.
it also lets Acura say they did a hybrid supercar before they became routine.
Stuntman, with new Ford GTs starting to be delivered, can you comment on the great Canadian beast?
You're looking at one facet or the big picture as you say. However, the original NSX made a statement by being very pure and simplified whereas the new one is making a statement by being overly complicated. Revolutionary is the wrong word for both cars imo, more like Front-line stepping.
Checklist of NSX traits:
-Mid-engine
-Small-medium displacement V6
-Exotic composite materials
-Low and wide stance (same size as the competiting/benched Ferrari of the era)
-Excellent Forward visibility
-Fraction of Ferrari pricing (same percentages with the era)
-Everyday usability
-Balanced performance from conservative hp not extreme benchmark numbers
-And apparently neither are selling well :redface:
I'm sure I could sit here and name a bunch more and the only real things missing are lightweight curb weight, true RWD, and NA high revving motor.
The original NSX didn't have exotic composite materials.
How about: "materials that push technology," e.g. aluminum unibody, titanium connecting rods, fiber-reiinforced cylinder linings. The new one seems to make some efforts in that direction, with ablation casting and some high-strung steel, plus the overall multi-material mix.
Porsche already does that...
Original NSX was what is was. As far as I know, it was more innovative and more influential at the time of its release than the Gen 2 was.
Gen 2 NSX is what it is. Who cares about the percentage of Gen 1 "DNA" is in the Gen 2?
If you went back to 1991 and put 10 Gen 1 NSX owners in a time machine and let them drive Gen 2 NSX and nine other 2017 model cars (all de-badged, of course), you would not get consensus as to which 2017 car was the spiritual successor of the Gen 1. I suspect the 570S or maybe the Cayman GT4 might get more votes than the Gen 2.
Again, who cares?
Apart from good looks, I think the most innovative thing about the Gen 2 is that so many of its systems are "software defined"-- from the brakes to the EV system to the torque vectoring. The initial engineering work of developing the "abstraction layer" between driver inputs and physical/mechanical responses is hard, and thankless work in the sense that a "perfect job" is when the driver can't tell that its there. But once you have that foundation, it *should* unlock a lot of exciting opportunities for tuning, development and lots of dynamic and adaptable systems.
I appreciate the gravity of this accomplishment even if it initially does not quite keep pace around the track with the current best of breed. I am optimistic about the future. The new NSX will never be able to defy physics, but (like the R35 GT-R did) I think it has the potential to shock people with how much the platform will ultimately squeeze more performance out of its headline specs than people expected.
Gen 2 NSX is what it is. Who cares about the percentage of Gen 1 "DNA" is in the Gen 2?
If you went back to 1991 and put 10 Gen 1 NSX owners in a time machine and let them drive Gen 2 NSX and nine other 2017 model cars (all de-badged, of course), you would not get consensus as to which 2017 car was the spiritual successor of the Gen 1. I suspect the 570S or maybe the Cayman GT4 might get more votes than the Gen 2.
Again, who cares?
Apart from good looks, I think the most innovative thing about the Gen 2 is that so many of its systems are "software defined"-- from the brakes to the EV system to the torque vectoring. The initial engineering work of developing the "abstraction layer" between driver inputs and physical/mechanical responses is hard, and thankless work in the sense that a "perfect job" is when the driver can't tell that its there. But once you have that foundation, it *should* unlock a lot of exciting opportunities for tuning, development and lots of dynamic and adaptable systems.
I appreciate the gravity of this accomplishment even if it initially does not quite keep pace around the track with the current best of breed. I am optimistic about the future. The new NSX will never be able to defy physics, but (like the R35 GT-R did) I think it has the potential to shock people with how much the platform will ultimately squeeze more performance out of its headline specs than people expected.
A nice summary of what's in the new NSX is here.
View attachment 2017 NSX tech intro.pdf
View attachment 2017 NSX tech intro.pdf
There is no such thing as pure aluminum. It's going to be a composite. Aluminum was and actually still is pretty exotic material for a car.
alloy != composite
Yup
Yes there is, it's on the periodic table of elements: AL
Not when the most mass produced, highest selling vehicle in the world has a body made of it.
Last edited:
You Sir have captured within your statement, the Engineering innovation and excution that Honda Engineers accomplised with this new car. Most people will never or connot appericate the Engineeing aspect of this car, they are focus only on the publised Times.
Bram
al·loy
noun
ˈaˌloi/
1.
a metal made by combining two or more metallic elements, especially to give greater strength or resistance to corrosion.
"an alloy of nickel, bronze, and zinc"
synonyms: mixture, mix, amalgam, fusion, meld, blend, compound, combination, composite, union; technicaladmixture
"modern pewter is an alloy of tin, copper, and antimony"
Yup
Yes there is, it's on the periodic table of elements: AL
Not when the most mass produced, highest selling vehicle in the world has a body made of it.
The steel cars to aluminum ratio numbers in the world would make it look exotic. We could digress on the word exotic all day tho.
[MENTION=18349]N Spec[/MENTION], you are apparently not an engineer. Nor do you apparently ascribe any significance to the term "composite" in vehicle construction. That's odd.
An alloy is a composite with metals. A composite is not necessarily an alloy unless it pertains to metals. Very much like complicated is something complex with an issue but complex is not necessarily complicated.
Being is odd is better than strictly following rules. Discoveries in the world weren't simply done because a mind followed one construct.
fastaussie
Suspended
so N Spec is trying to fluff up the (previous and current) NSX, and you guys are arguing with him over what was proclaimed by Honda and the automotive press to be one of the gen 1's most significant attributes and engineering achievements. and Stuntman is now listing all of the things and achievements the first and second NSX's aren't.
i really don't understand you guys at times?
therein lies the problem. as some have said, to the polarization of this particular NSX.
it's very easy to understand why the NSX is easily dismissed as sub par (performance relative to its competition) or as a disappointment to some. the performance technology is extraordinarily innovative, massively complex, and is itself a work of art combining their seamless integration. so the engineering feat is impressive, yet the actual results are not akin to what the performance achievements should have been, or were expected to be.
most would probably argue that the original NSX was more than the sum of its parts. while the latest NSX is not equaling the sum of its parts (or potential at this time)...
i really don't understand you guys at times?
therein lies the problem. as some have said, to the polarization of this particular NSX.
it's very easy to understand why the NSX is easily dismissed as sub par (performance relative to its competition) or as a disappointment to some. the performance technology is extraordinarily innovative, massively complex, and is itself a work of art combining their seamless integration. so the engineering feat is impressive, yet the actual results are not akin to what the performance achievements should have been, or were expected to be.
most would probably argue that the original NSX was more than the sum of its parts. while the latest NSX is not equaling the sum of its parts (or potential at this time)...
Unlike you fastaussie, I don't have an agenda for or against the car. I'm just pointing out errors and contradicting some statements as they're said and making new statements to (hopefully) bring a different perspective to the conversation. Maybe I should just stop....
As far as "composite" definition goes -especially when used in manufacturing:
Composite:
A composite is a material which is made up of two or more materials with significantly different properties. When they are combined they make a new material, with properties which are different to the original materials.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-composite-and-an-alloy
As far as "composite" definition goes -especially when used in manufacturing:
Composite:
A composite is a material which is made up of two or more materials with significantly different properties. When they are combined they make a new material, with properties which are different to the original materials.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-composite-and-an-alloy
Last edited:
"Composite material: The individual components remain separate and distinct within the finished structure."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_material
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_material
Here's some unalloyed truth: elegance in engineering has intrinsic value to some people. The new NSX is more than fast enough on the street, doesn't embarrass itself on the track (if someone is faster than me around the track in their shiny new toy (not a race prepped car), 99% of the time it is due to the driver), it looks great and, critically to me, has a lot of cool technology. That composite package of benefits is either "enough" or not for buyers. It's enough for me. I'm a happy camper. If people care only about lap times, get a Z06. I'm a broken record on this stuff.
That's not possible. :wink:
fastaussie
Suspended
nor do i. i have said dozens of times that it's a very nice car.
and whether it succeeds massively or fails miserably has nothing to do with my opinion...
i'm 100% in agreement with 100% of that...
i just said it. and if you look back through other threads i'm certain you'll find evidence of it...
I never said there wasn't a difference between the two. One is much more precise and specified definition as I pointed out before.
Similar threads
