Yeah it's a tough sell to say the NSX was a supercar when that red thing on the right came out in 1987.
Yup but the guy that owns that car also owns a 96 Red NSX T and loves it just as much. :wink:
Lamborghini owner claims NSX is not a supercar
- Thread starter dlynes
- Start date
Yup but the guy that owns that car also owns a 96 Red NSX T and loves it just as much. :wink:
It is debateable, and I certainly don't think it's a reach to classify the NSX as one. But then, I get a ridiculous amount of stares and comments and so on, and I drive a '93 300ZX (nope, don't own an NSX....yet!), and a Z32 is in the same performance class as the NSX, so does that mean I drive a supercar too? Didn't think so....but you get my point?
Can you please tell me what was a supercar in 91 that that was out of the nsx's league?
This should be good
Same question for 1997 when the NSX was given more power.
Heck, if you look at more then 0-60, if you look for example at how fast the NSX is on a race track, the NSX STILL in 2007 beats many Supercars that have almost twice the power.
nuremberg ring laptimes
7:55 --- 156.126 km/h – Ferrari F430 F1, 490 PS/1493 kg
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale, 425 PS/1387 kg
7:56 --- 155.798 km/h -- Porsche 996 Turbo, 420 PS/1569 kg
7:56.65 155.569 km/h – Lamborghini Gallardo SE, 520 PS/1560 kg
7:56.73 155.569 km/h -- Honda NSX-R, 320 PS/1467 kg
7:57 --- 155.472 km/h -- Lotec Porsche 993 Turbo, 600PS/1558 kg
7:59 --- 154.822 km/h -- Porsche 997 Carrera S, PASM setting “Performance”
8:03 --- 153.540 km/h -- Porsche 911 GT3, 360 PS/1391 kg
8:04 --- 153.223 km/h -- Lamborghini Diablo GT, 575 PS/1620 kg
8:05 --- 152.907 km/h -- Ferrari 575M Maranello F1, 580 PS/1820 kg
8:05 --- 152.907 km/h -- Porsche 997 Carrera S, 355PS/1461kg
Okay, so Senna says it's a super car. The Meclarin F1 designer says it's a supercar. Who else do we need? Does anyone here know michael schumacher? Maybe if he says it people will recognize it?????
Exactally. Were there ANY Ferrari's in 1997 that were faster then the NSX? With the exception of the F50, I don't think there were?
2002 Ferrari 360 Spider 3.6L V8 395 12.8 110.8 MT
1995 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta 3.5L V8 375 12.8 110.2 MT
1993 Dodge Viper RT/10 8.0L V10 400 12.8 110 MT
1999 Lotus Esprit 3.5L V8 T/C 350 12.85 110.96 MT
1998 Acura NSX 3.2L V6 290 12.9 110 CD
2002 Aston Martin Vanquish 6.0L V12 460 12.9 112.9 CD
^ 0-100mph in under 6 seconds?!?!?!?!?
its going to be a VERY VERY VERY small crowd
As it should be...
I'm sorry - but then a Murcielago would be... what?
Silly thread - but I got sucked in anyway... so here goes.
Who the h*ll cares what is or isn't a "supercar" as defined by someone other that you? It appears that it is all quite subjective anyway. I'll tell you that I have owned 2 NSX's and still miss them a great deal. They were outstanding cars any way you slice it. I have since purchased a Lamborghini Murcielago and can tell you that it is also extremely fulfilling. It has been my personal experience that both cars are very reliable and maintenance friendly... (so far.) Bottom line, nothing matches the NSX for upkeep and cost to maintain. Yes there are faster cars out there. Yes there are better handling cars out there. Same can be said for the Lambo. (Which to be fair, let's point out that there is also about 12 years of newer technology for the Murcielago vs. the NSX.) Depends a lot on what your driving style is and what you like. For instance, I bet a 250cc enduro bike would smoke both these cars in an offroad scenario. So you see - you can debate this 'til you are blue in the face and I don't think you will ever reach a consensus because I think a "supercar" is defined differently by each person. I see them as cars that are elite - cars that define the pinnacle of engineering for any number of catagories - be it speed, handling, design (visual), etc. They are also generally accepted to be cars that are highly alocated and cost prohibitive. I'd be willing to bet that there are those out there who disagree with this - and that is fine. At the end of the day - it is just a personal opinion. So don't get your panties twisted over a Lambo owner who feels it necessary to talk other marques down to make him feel better about his own.
Who the h*ll cares what is or isn't a "supercar" as defined by someone other that you? It appears that it is all quite subjective anyway. I'll tell you that I have owned 2 NSX's and still miss them a great deal. They were outstanding cars any way you slice it. I have since purchased a Lamborghini Murcielago and can tell you that it is also extremely fulfilling. It has been my personal experience that both cars are very reliable and maintenance friendly... (so far.) Bottom line, nothing matches the NSX for upkeep and cost to maintain. Yes there are faster cars out there. Yes there are better handling cars out there. Same can be said for the Lambo. (Which to be fair, let's point out that there is also about 12 years of newer technology for the Murcielago vs. the NSX.) Depends a lot on what your driving style is and what you like. For instance, I bet a 250cc enduro bike would smoke both these cars in an offroad scenario. So you see - you can debate this 'til you are blue in the face and I don't think you will ever reach a consensus because I think a "supercar" is defined differently by each person. I see them as cars that are elite - cars that define the pinnacle of engineering for any number of catagories - be it speed, handling, design (visual), etc. They are also generally accepted to be cars that are highly alocated and cost prohibitive. I'd be willing to bet that there are those out there who disagree with this - and that is fine. At the end of the day - it is just a personal opinion. So don't get your panties twisted over a Lambo owner who feels it necessary to talk other marques down to make him feel better about his own.
Well, you got a lot of comments and information -- and most of the Lambo "bashing" is relatively good-natured, and just a little payback for your Lambo owner's comment. No foul there.
Car and driver claims its Hondas Supercar
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOaG0Xa43PM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOaG0Xa43PM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOaG0Xa43PM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOaG0Xa43PM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
My definition of a supercar is that it has to be capable of 200mph+, have a very limited production numbers, and not be easily available to the public. Furthermore, I shouldn't be able to see one driving down the road here in Boca.
Here are a few cars meet my definition: Enzo, McLaren F1, Porsche 959, Vector W12, Bugatti, BMW M1.
Correct me if i'm wrong but if I remember correctly the BMW M1 isn't a car that does 200+ mph and I am almost positive that the NSX bests that car in every spec.
Car and driver claims its Hondas Supercar
Great vid, and a little sad that he's talking about a next-gen NSX like it's coming real soon, but six years later we seem no closer. I like his double S2000 engine concept, too. Imagine a supercharged 9000 rpm V8 putting out 500+hp in an HSC -- just the thought of such a car makes me automotively ... erect.
Guys in the end, we're all spending time worrying about what someone said that doesn't even own the car. It's all semantics. Supercar, Exotic... who cares. Performance numbers play into things, but that's not all it is. If there was a 900hp civic, and god knows there is somewhere... It's not exotic, or a supercar. It's a freak of nature civic. I'm sure there is a 1000hp Corvette somewhere. It's not a supercar, or an exotic... it's a seriously beefed up Vette. So it's all just semantics. It's like Bill Clinton arguing about the word "and".
I am not concern if the NSX is consider to be a "Supercar" or not. All I know is I don't have to open my driver door back my NSX into a parking space. I think the NSX is a high quality exotic car, with Super handling, and Super reliability, not Super expensive.
I think the Lamborghini owner's definition of a "Supercar" is - a car that can not be a daily driver, because it will break down.
I think the Lamborghini owner's definition of a "Supercar" is - a car that can not be a daily driver, because it will break down.
Funny you should mention Presidents as Clinton ,Carter and Bush Sr are still referred to as "Mr President" even though they are not the current President. Because the NSX is "Asian" europeans will always deny it in one way or another. People who get snotty try and do the same thing.
When the term "Supercar" started being used 300ZX TTs, RX7s , VR4s, NSXs and Supra TTs all fell in that category because they were outperforming ( in almost all catergories ) all the European competition. All magazines deemed them the Supercars from Japan that changed the way the Europeans make sportscars.
The Japanese proved you could make better performance numbers and better cars for half or less than what the Europeans were making them for. Recession in the mid to late nineties killed the Japanese supercar market as they became too expensive for what people would pay for a "Japanese" car. At least they felt if they bought a Ferrari or Porsche or Lambo they felt they bought prestige. Had the recession not halted the Japanese they would've naturally sent better higher performing sportscars into the market which really would've killed the Europeans supposed value.
The four second range for 0-60 of course would have become mundane as the next generation of 300ZX TTs and RX7's etc would be clocking mid fours as natural product evolution. Remember the Supra TT and NA2 NSX were both clocking mid to high fours so the competiton from Nissan , Mazda and Mitsu would of course have to beat those numbers with their next model. F355 and F360s would've been getting bar-b-qued by these next generation Asian sportscars just as the 348 and 911's had been by the early nineties model Asian sports cars.
Sufficed to say recession was the best thing that could've happen to the Europeans and I'm sure they're thankful for it. The American market is as prejudiced as most Americans are so when they go shopping and want "prestige" for their money they buy european as buying European is buying "prestige". Plain and simple.
All this "I don't consider" is really just people offering an uneducated opinion ,because car designers and auto reporters all considered the Asian cars as supercars and still do.
The cost of changing his clutch (Every 12000miles) must be super:wink:
Be careful about sweeping statements like this... I've had mine for two years and so far - no break downs. I think you are still caught up in the older Italian models' reputation. A large part of the issue seems due to the fact that these machines were tuned for the autobahns of this world. So it makes sense that every time a domestic (US) owner went for a spin around the block at a blistering 61 mph the engine needed to be re-tuned. These cars were NOT made for the US driver. Now, however, let's not forget that the Germans are engineering these cars. You CAN drive them here. And they are safer as well. Do a little research - these new generation Lambos are getiting driven extensively with few problems. That being said and to be fair - I never had any issues with either of my NSX's over the course of 7 yrs. ownership.
It is to be expected. If the NSX clutch controlled that much power and torque, I'd suspect that it would be expensive too. It's not like we are comparing apples to apples ya' know. (And before I get everyone all excited - all I'm saying is that I would expect a similar repair on a Lambo to be more expensive than on an NSX given the significant difference in value between the two marques.)
I can understand what you mean about a higher priced car equating to a higher cost in "maintanence"; but it is the repair issues that I'm concerned about. One of the perks of the NSX is supercar handling and performance less the lack of reliability that plagues most supercar/exotics.
From what I've heard, Lambo's have repair issues. But, if your's issues have just been maintanence then I'm impressed. There's no doubt, many NSX owners, though I should probably speak for myself, find Lambo's to be absolutely gorgeous cars. I personally would love to have a Gallardo, and hoped greatly that the next NSX will be of similar design. However, I've heard of parts breaking, along with other minor issues that did not stem from maintanence issues, or even wear and tear due to time. Some of these issues occured on a relatively new Lambo. I guess if I was rich enough to afford a Lambo, I would be angry if I had to spend $25k the first 10k miles of ownership, and would rather get nicely modded NSX instead.
However, if the Lambo came with the same reliability of the NSX (and let's be honest, the NSX is renowned for it's reliability), then the Lambo will be a MUST HAVE car, I think.:smile:
If this is the case, then NSX = exotic. NSX-R GT = Supercar.
I guess the NSX-R will fall somewhere in between :wink:
Correct me if i'm wrong but if I remember correctly the BMW M1 isn't a car that does 200+ mph and I am almost positive that the NSX bests that car in every spec.
Considering that BMW only made 456 M1's between 1978 and 1981, that makes it pretty rare. Going 200mph+ is only one aspect, and it wasn't until the 1990's when we starting seeing OEM cars exceed that speed. Furthermore, most magazines regarded the M1 as a supercar of it's era. Unfortunately 15 years from now, the NSX probably won't be regarded as a supercar. A well executed exotic, most definitely. :wink: The best part of all, we can all call anycar we want a supercar if that's what we believe it is. I'm sure there's some guy out there with an AMC Pacer who thinks his car is a supercar. :biggrin:
REAL exchange Re: Lamborghini owner claims NSX is not a supercar
I also have a much maligned "not a supercar/exotic" (by F-word, L-word people) Pantera.
Stranger: That is a beautiful/wild car...it must be EXPENSIVE!
Me: Actually, I probably paid less than a new Lexus
Stranger: It must be a pain to get worked on and find parts.
Me: Really, with the internet (and American engine) its well supported!
Stranger: It must be holy hell to insure!
Me: Frankly, I don't have it insured like a specialty vehicle but my insurance company treats it like my daily driver.
Stranger: If its not TOO expensive, not TOO hard to work on, and not hard to insure...WHAT GOOD IS IT?
I posted this elsewhere...but it is applicable.
I also have a much maligned "not a supercar/exotic" (by F-word, L-word people) Pantera.
Stranger: That is a beautiful/wild car...it must be EXPENSIVE!
Me: Actually, I probably paid less than a new Lexus
Stranger: It must be a pain to get worked on and find parts.
Me: Really, with the internet (and American engine) its well supported!
Stranger: It must be holy hell to insure!
Me: Frankly, I don't have it insured like a specialty vehicle but my insurance company treats it like my daily driver.
Stranger: If its not TOO expensive, not TOO hard to work on, and not hard to insure...WHAT GOOD IS IT?
M1 was never capible of doing 200mph. It had the top speed of about 160, plus or minues a few. Many people considered the NSX a modern day M1 during the early 1990's because the concept, approach, and performance were very similar between the two. It had slightly more than 265hp (US) and 27hp (Europe), and was slightly heavier than the NSX.
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/vintage/m1.htm
The first production car to reach 200mph was the F40, which was in 1997. The car had 200 more hp than the M1 and was 500lbs lighter.
http://www.bmwworld.com/models/vintage/m1.htm
The first production car to reach 200mph was the F40, which was in 1997. The car had 200 more hp than the M1 and was 500lbs lighter.
Does this guy know ford owns lotus.....
- Joined
- 6 June 2006
- Messages
- 57
Simply put...I would think a "supercar" would be something with very low or limited production numbers, that would outperform most other sports cars within that given point in time.
I believe the NSX was a supercar when it first came out...I'm not sure of it's production numbers but I imagine they had to have made no more than 10,000, no?
Some people consider the Supras "supercars" cuz they only made 11,000 of them.
I dunno...i think the supercar designation is more of a selling point and an opinion....but what the hell do i know?
I'm just a guy with a Toyota.
I believe the NSX was a supercar when it first came out...I'm not sure of it's production numbers but I imagine they had to have made no more than 10,000, no?
Some people consider the Supras "supercars" cuz they only made 11,000 of them.
I dunno...i think the supercar designation is more of a selling point and an opinion....but what the hell do i know?
I'm just a guy with a Toyota.
Is this Lambo owner named Allan, by any chance? :tongue:
