Lotus Evora and Audi R8

L

lotus425

Registered Member
Joined
25 March 2011
Messages
34
Location
Arcadia, CA / Taipei, Taiwan
Currently an Owner of a 1991 NSX with 2002+ front & rear conversion, 2005 Lotus Exige, 2005 Porsche 997 cab, and 2011 BMW 740LI . Had a chance to check out the Lotus Evora a few weeks ago. Love the shape of the Evora. The mid engine 2+2 lay out enables me to carry two kids in the rear seats. Thinking about getting rid of the NSX, Keep the 997 cab + Exige then add a Lotus Evora to my garage.

The 997 will be my dedicated daily driver. Evora as weekend car and the exige for spirited track days.

Has anyone driven an Evora. What do fellow NSX members think about the Evora? Performance wise. Will the Evora out accelerate and out handle an NSX? Has anyone thought about replacing the NSX with an Evora or Audi R8?
 
lotus425 said:
Currently an Owner of a 1991 NSX with 2002+ front & rear conversion, 2005 Lotus Exige, 2005 Porsche 997 cab, and 2011 BMW 740LI . Had a chance to check out the Lotus Evora a few weeks ago. Love the shape of the Evora. The mid engine 2+2 lay out enables me to carry two kids in the rear seats. Thinking about getting rid of the NSX, Keep the 997 cab + Exige then add a Lotus Evora to my garage.

The 997 will be my dedicated daily driver. Evora as weekend car and the exige for spirited track days.

Has anyone driven an Evora. What do fellow NSX members think about the Evora? Performance wise. Will the Evora out accelerate and out handle an NSX? Has anyone thought about replacing the NSX with an Evora or Audi R8?
Click to expand...


RobD went to test drive the Evora while he owned his 91. I wont speak for him and will let him chime in.

but when i asked him to compare the evora to his current 05 (he sold his 91 and bought my former 05) and he said its not even close. the 05 is such a better car!
 
get the r8
 
evora is over 20 years newer and its performance isnt even impressive compared to an NA2.
 
IMO, the Evora is not an attractive looking car. Love the Exige.
 
Last edited:
I too am intrigued by the product offerings that Lotus has and plans for the future. And I'm sure their build quality and reliability has improved over the years. However, having lived through Lotus cars during the 70's and 80's I always think of L*O*T*U*S as "Lot's Of Trouble - Usually Serious".
 
 
Last edited:
lotus425 said:
Currently an Owner of a 1991 NSX with 2002+ front & rear conversion, 2005 Lotus Exige, 2005 Porsche 997 cab, and 2011 BMW 740LI . Had a chance to check out the Lotus Evora a few weeks ago. Love the shape of the Evora. The mid engine 2+2 lay out enables me to carry two kids in the rear seats. Thinking about getting rid of the NSX, Keep the 997 cab + Exige then add a Lotus Evora to my garage.

The 997 will be my dedicated daily driver. Evora as weekend car and the exige for spirited track days.

Has anyone driven an Evora. What do fellow NSX members think about the Evora? Performance wise. Will the Evora out accelerate and out handle an NSX? Has anyone thought about replacing the NSX with an Evora or Audi R8?
Click to expand...

I drove the NA Evora. NSX is a much more superiors car than that. Evora's interior is tighter and getting in and out is awkward, the controls are funky and more confusing than BMWs, and my buddy who owns it told me the car goes for warrantee repair quite often for stupid stuff. It is a beautiful car regardless and I do like the way it represents... I just like the NSX better.

Your better off swap your NA1 for a late NA2, the driving experience will be much better.
 
Last edited:
Back in November I got to poke around an Evora pretty extensively and then take a ride with a Grand Am driver in an Evora S.

The best way I can contextualize my impression is by calling it a "new-old" NSX (for better or worse).

Mid-engined, V-6, ~300hp, built as a sports/GT compromize. The only difference is it has 2 extra "seats" and doesn't sound or (IMHO) look as good.

The fit & finish of Lotus' recent offerings, isn't as dismal as in the GM/Pre-GM Era, though if you have issues with something other than the Toyota engine, it's probably not going to be cheap.

I was impressed at how quick it was while not having a harsh ride. We used some curb during the hot laps we turned and it didn't seem bothered. That said, I think my '92 with light suspension mods could probably hang with a non-S, and it's ride doesn't suck (but is stiffer than a stock Evora by a good margin). For a 2+2, it's pretty neat.

From a satisfaction standpoint, I think an R8 would be more of an "experience" to drive at less-than-bonkers speed. Even the V8 is going to be notably faster than most of the rest of your stable.
 
arista5 said:
RobD went to test drive the Evora while he owned his 91. I wont speak for him and will let him chime in.

but when i asked him to compare the evora to his current 05 (he sold his 91 and bought my former 05) and he said its not even close. the 05 is such a better car!
Click to expand...


Mike is right....I was thinking of replacing my 91 with the Evora. So for the test drive I went!!! While I enjoyed the drive...it was not enough to push me out of my 91. When I drive my NSX, I feel it is so intuitive and responsive. I also felt the cab was a bit small(and I'm not a big guy at all)
and unimpressive for a 2011.

So I upgrading to Arista's 05 and WOW...no comparsion for me vs. the Evora....hands down NSX by a large margin.

If you are interested in an Evora...I know a great guy at Auto Sport Designs on LI that will give you a great deal!!! The prices on the Evora seem to drop $5,000 a week!:wink:
 
Even a Lotus dealer said to a NSX owner after testdriving an Evora that he would have been surprised if he would have switched from his NSX to an Evora.

An R8 is a completey different thing. I'm a sensible person, so I won't drive anything that is based on the time 70 years back from now, basically including Porsche.
 
question to those who have compared an early 90s NA1 to the 2002+ NA2's.

what makes the car drive/feel that different?

engine/tranny?
better suspension?
less road noise (assuming more sound deadening material)???
better fit/finish?

ive always been curious as they 'should' be basically the same.
 
myw said:
question to those who have compared an early 90s NA1 to the 2002+ NA2's.

what makes the car drive/feel that different?

engine/tranny?
better suspension?
less road noise (assuming more sound deadening material)???
better fit/finish?

ive always been curious as they 'should' be basically the same.
Click to expand...


MYW, I will ask RobD to chime in. He had a 91 and has an 05
 
myw said:
question to those who have compared an early 90s NA1 to the 2002+ NA2's.

what makes the car drive/feel that different?

engine/tranny?
better suspension?
less road noise (assuming more sound deadening material)???
better fit/finish?

ive always been curious as they 'should' be basically the same.
Click to expand...


I would say the 02+'s are better on everyone of those points you've listed...I also found because of the power steering there is much less driver fatique....suspension is tighter...let's face it they should be better....there is a 14 year difference between the 91 and 05...I just find the 05 to be much more refined...where as the 91's are more raw. Its just my opinion...I know some will disagree...and I am comparing 2 excellent examples of the NA1 vs NA2. You really have to drive one to know...unless the new NSX BLOWS ME AWAY....I can't see why I would ever sell my 05...unless an Imola/Onyx comes up for sale....isn't that right Mike!
 
thanks you guys for the help.

RobD said:
I would say the 02+'s are better on everyone of those points you've listed...I also found because of the power steering there is much less driver fatique....suspension is tighter...let's face it they should be better....there is a 14 year difference between the 91 and 05...I just find the 05 to be much more refined...where as the 91's are more raw. Its just my opinion...I know some will disagree...and I am comparing 2 excellent examples of the NA1 vs NA2. You really have to drive one to know...unless the new NSX BLOWS ME AWAY....I can't see why I would ever sell my 05...unless an Imola/Onyx comes up for sale....isn't that right Mike!
Click to expand...

arista5 said:
MYW, I will ask RobD to chime in. He had a 91 and has an 05
Click to expand...
 
I don't like the first generation NSX vs Evora and R8 comparisons, they only prove how "crappy" some new cars are. Take that NSX modify the suspension and engine and then the R8 will be a pathetic thing, and the Evora as meaningless as a Yugo. Comparisons have to be between cars of equal value or straight competitors of the same era. Why not do these tests using the latest NSX model year or why not a Comptech supercharged version, it was an option at the dealer.

I like the R8, but this car isn't what the NSX was back in 1991. Today supercars already are comfortable and reliable and great at the track in stock form. The R8 isn't doing anything super great and it's not a bargain supercar in any way. It is a nice hand made Audi, but it isn't revolutionary, not at all. It's not stealing sales from any other manufacturer nor turning Ferrari on its head.

The way I see the R8 is for those who fancy designer clothes at the Roxbury over a balaclava and a helmet crowd.
 
Last edited:
RobD said:
I would say the 02+'s are better on everyone of those points you've listed...I also found because of the power steering there is much less driver fatique....suspension is tighter...let's face it they should be better....there is a 14 year difference between the 91 and 05...I just find the 05 to be much more refined...where as the 91's are more raw. Its just my opinion...I know some will disagree..
Click to expand...

I will disagree. With the exception of the 6 speed vs 5 speed the cars drive the exactly the same. How can you describe one as "refined" and the other as "raw" when 90% of the parts are identical? :confused:

Is a pristine NA2 better than a pristine NA1? Of course. But it all depends on what your priorities are. If I had to do over again, I think I would have gotten a coupe and used the extra money on go fast parts. But then again, I track my car often.
 
Last edited:
CL65 Captain said:
I will disagree. With the exception of the 6 speed vs 5 speed the cars drive the exactly the same. How can you describe one as "refined" and the other as "raw" when 90% of the parts are identical? :confused:
Click to expand...


not speaking for rob, but some of the things he said that were different/better from his 91 to the 05...

obviously ease of the steering, he told me how much more comfortable the seats are, how much better it seemed to handle, the power of the 3.2 vs the 3.0 just to name a few.
 
arista5 said:
not speaking for rob, but some of the things he said that were different/better from his 91 to the 05...

obviously ease of the steering, he told me how much more comfortable the seats are, how much better it seemed to handle, the power of the 3.2 vs the 3.0 just to name a few.
Click to expand...

steering - yes. Only when you are parking.

seats more comfortable??? WTF? they are the exact same, with the exception of perforated leather.

handling??? Change out the 15/16 for 16/17 or 17/17 and the NA1 will actually handle better because of the increased rigidity and lighter overall weight. Give me a stock NA1 vs stock NA2 and I bet you my lap times are within 10ths and honestly I'm not sure which one would turn a better lap. The NA2 does have some advantages such as 6 speed and slightly larger rotors and more rubber. But the NA1 is lighter. Collin Chapman said you can add more hp and the car will be faster down the straight, but add more lightness and it's faster everywhere.

power of the 3.2??? Add a header to a NA1 and you are at the exact same power and at a lighter weight. The only thing that makes a difference is the gearing of a 6 speed vs 5. The 290hp vs 270 hp stock vs stock is moot because of the increased weight of the targa.

Describing one as raw vs refined is a bit of an exaggeration IMO. Now if you were comparing a 993 Porsche to a 997 then that analogy would hold true as they are two completely different platforms of the same model - but the NA1 and NA2 NSX are almost identical with the exception of tweeking a little here and there. Actually, it's almost pitiful of Honda when you compare the first and last of the model run and how little they did to improve the car in 14 years.
 
Last edited:
I agree. The difference from the subtle changes over the years would not make enough difference to call it a different car. I will say that the final years like the 2002+ are more refined in the sense of having little details more modern and minor improvements made, but they are virtually the same car. Over 15 years the NSX has hovered very close to the same performance figures with only minor improvements or adjustments. Change in material/pattern here or there in the interior were subtle improvements (very nice changes tho), but it's not a change in form or shape. The only real exterior change came in 02, but it only changed the plastic while again maintaining the same shape and form. So a refinement in skin/coverings or material but not in actual design.

The biggest difference is pricing.
 
N Spec said:
I will say that the final years like the 2002+ are more refined in the sense of having little details more modern...
Click to expand...

Like a radio with Nav or one that doesn't have a cassette player? :biggrin:

Like it or not 1991 or 2005 there is very little modern about our cars. A 2005 Hyundai Genesis is a hell of a lot more modern than a 2005 NSX.

I'll say it one more time and then leave the thread back to NSX vs Evora vs R8.... Actually, it's almost pitiful of Honda when you compare the first and last of the model run and how little they did to improve the car in 14 years.

This is how you improve a car over 14 years. :) If you drove these two cars, they would be worlds apart. One you could call "raw" and the other you could call "refined". NSXs, eh.... they are exactly the same with just tweeks here and there.... they are the same cars.


1991 Porsche 911

PPP1622.jpg


1991-Porsche-911-C2-Turbo-Strosek-interior.jpg


2005 Porsche 911

2005_911_gallery_gallery_002_gallery_image_large.jpg


photo.php
 
Last edited:
CL65 Captain said:
steering - yes. Only when you are parking.

seats more comfortable??? WTF? they are the exact same, with the exception of perforated leather....

handling??? Change out the 15/16 for 16/17 or 17/17 and the NA1 will actually handle better because of the increased rigidity and lighter overall weight. Give me a stock NA1 vs stock NA2 and I bet you my lap times are within 10ths and honestly I'm not sure which one would turn a better lap. The NA2 does have some advantages such as 6 speed and slightly larger rotors and more rubber. But the NA1 is lighter. Collin Chapman said you can add more hp and the car will be faster down the straight, but add more lightness and it's faster everywhere.

power of the 3.2??? Add a header to a NA1 and you are at the exact same power and at a lighter weight. The only thing that makes a difference is the gearing of a 6 speed vs 5. The 290hp vs 270 hp stock vs stock is moot because of the increased weight of the targa.

Describing one as raw vs refined is a bit of an exaggeration IMO. Now if you were comparing a 993 Porsche to a 997 then that analogy would hold true as they are two completely different platforms of the same model - but the NA1 and NA2 NSX are almost identical with the exception of tweeking a little here and there. Actually, it's almost pitiful of Honda when you compare the first and last of the model run and how little they did to improve the car in 14 years.
Click to expand...


Then, in my opinion...just my opinion the little tweaking here and there has made a significant difference to me...just me...and I stand by my opinion...I feel the 10% difference as you put it.... puts the 02+ over the top for me than the NA1.

Styling...I like the bug eyes and feel its a more updated look....
pop ups might be classic but they are a dated look.
Targa...how could you not like this option...Awesome!
6 speed...we all agree...better.
Power steering....what a pleasure.
Seats....the perforated leather look and feel are more to my liking.
3.2 vs 3.0...no comment needed.
All the bugs were worked out...window issues, snap ring...etc.
I never commented about lap times....no interest to me. On the street
the 02+ is a nicer riding and driving car...imo.

That's enough for me....(when I wrote raw vs refined...I was at work and pressed for time...how about one is refined and the other is more refined)

PS-Arista5...you are more than welcome to speak for me....we be boys!!!!
 
Last edited:
CL65 Captain said:
Like a radio with Nav or one that doesn't have a cassette player? :biggrin:

Like it or not 1991 or 2005 there is very little modern about our cars. A 2005 Hyundai Genesis is a hell of a lot more modern than a 2005 NSX.

I'll say it one more time and then leave the thread back to NSX vs Evora vs R8.... Actually, it's almost pitiful of Honda when you compare the first and last of the model run and how little they did to improve the car in 14 years.

This is how you improve a car over 14 years. :) If you drove these two cars, they would be worlds apart. One you could call "raw" and the other you could call "refined". NSXs, eh.... they are exactly the same with just tweeks here and there.... they are the same cars.
Click to expand...

Exactly, same overall car with different tweaks.

To be fair about the 14 years of refinement tho, you are comparing 2 very different models of the 911. There was a complete redesign after x amount of years, whereas the NSX was contracted to produce ~20,000 examples (I remember reading this a while back). So it may not have been because Honda did not care to do a new or redesign as far as refinement goes, but they were limited by sales number and the contract, so Honda overestimated sales. The best thing to do with that was to upgrade components that were easily changeable since leaving a car with updates completely would have been silly. Had Honda sold 20K units by 1997, I believe they would have had something like the HSC already out by then with completely new body panels and interior - like what Porsche did and does. Honda should have only contracted for 14K units or a number less than 20K :rolleyes: since it took them 15 years to near that 20K production number worldwide.

Also the first example you showed of the 911 was not on par with the 91 NSX's interior/exterior, whereas the second example you show is close but still not better than the 02+ IMO as far as styling goes, especially the center console. It comes back again to the argument that not much was needed to improve the NSX, even though in today's time, over 20 years later, it is indeed looking outdated.

I think RobD made the right choice as far as what he was looking for. The NSX-T offers a wider range of appeal for the casual drivers whereas the 91-94 are better suited for the track and modding, but are also good daily drivers. However, I find it misleading to say that there is a huge difference between any NSX given the conditions are the same. For 15 years worth of production the NSX has been the same by essence or underlying design/blueprint.
 

Similar threads

ArloNSX
The trials and tribulations of 0266
Replies
8
Views
344
ArloNSX
ArloNSX
W
How an M4 made me decide against an R8 (for now)...and brought me back to the NSX.
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
RyanRA
RyanRA
simonasaur
Another kwv3 review
Replies
2
Views
171
simonasaur
simonasaur
furinax
Lotus Evora 400
Replies
10
Views
2K
RyanRA
RyanRA
J
All IL & WI NSX Members - June 19, 2021 Get Together
Replies
1
Views
1K
croftoncustoms
croftoncustoms
Back
Top