Motortrend - NSX Vs GT-R

nsxrock

nsxrock

Contributing Member
Joined
15 June 2002
Messages
179
Location
Palm Beach Florida
There is a motortrend comparison of the 2017 vs NSX coming this week.

29388022001_6872c706e6_c.jpg

Motortrend Acceleration numbers for the 2017 GTR vs NSX

17 GTR $112K 3936lbs.
0-60 2.9
1/4 [email protected]

NSX $197K 3876 lbs
0-60 3.1
1/4 [email protected]

They also did a back road drag race and it was a virtual tie.

Laguna Seca

NSX 1:36.3 (with optional corsa tires)
2017 GTR 1:37.08 (slowest time of any GT-R since 2010)
 
Last edited:
Please, please, please tell me that Randy Pobst drove them both at Laguna.

I wonder if they used the 2017 Nismo (is it out yet?)? On a $ for $ basis, it would be fair to use the Nismo. But I also think it would be fair to test Base Model versus Base Model.

I suspect the GT-R will narrowly beat the NSX off the line, but the NSX will beat it slightly in the 1/4 mile.

Of course, what I really care about is handling/cornering commentary and lap times.
 
Last edited:
Total tease here in the thread description! Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Guess we will have to wait.
 
I get it. This test of battle of the Japanese supercars was as obvious as Camaro vs Mustang. It's a shame they didn't find a Lexus LFA to throw in there as well but I guess since its out of production it's irrelevant now.

But if one car is a couple tenth a better than the other, holds a few hundredths more g in the skidpad test, or whatever other performance measurement....does it matter that much? Even if Randy Pobst says he likes the Nissan better...doesn't matter. There's a whole lot more laymen out there than professional race car drivers. The NSX is astonishingly easy for a layman to drive the car close to its limit and feel like a hero. And then there's the quite obvious thing. Do I really even need to say it? Oh fine. The NSX looks and is laid out like a proper supercar. Show it to some clueless neophyte and they still know it's something very expensive and fast. Show that same person the GT-R and they think it's a very weird looking Maxima that a kid who watched too many Fast & Furious movies would drive. I'm sure even a good portion of the Godzilla fanboys would agree that the NSX looks a whole lot better.
 
One thing is certain, looking at both cars really shows how much better looking the Nsx is!
 
NSX! said:
One thing is certain, looking at both cars really shows how much better looking the Nsx is!
Click to expand...

Yep. I had an early (2009? whenever it came out) GT-R and always thought it was fugly. The only heads it turned (in an enthusiastic way) were 14 year old boys.

But it was amazing on the track-- and SUPER easy to drive fast. I really think that the NSX needs to spank the GT-R (at least the base model) in terms of lap times if Acura is going to credibly claim that they raised the bar on accessible supercar-like performance.

If NSX is slower, it will still be a MUCH better all-around car (I never felt the GT-R was particularly refined or good for road trips--- although apparently the new ones are much better in this regard). And, AFAIK, the GT-R still has the same 6-speed DCT as the original--- amazing 8 years ago, but a bit clunky and dated now.

Plus, who gets excited about a facelift and end-of-life refresh? I'd wait for the R36 (or whatever-- the real Gen 2 of the USDM GT-R)
 
JD Cross said:
Numbers look about right to you Steve?
Click to expand...

Yes....but on my real world butt dyno doubtful I'd be able to tell the difference between the two.
GTR is more street machine v NSX canyon carver IMO....I like both.

It will be interesting to compare results when the mainstream magazines get a chance to wring it out without
Acura minders having thumbs on the scale.

Any idea when that happens?
 
N Spec said:
Given similar weight and horsepower ratings, the results doesn't surprise me.

Here are other top 10 cars MT tested on the track:

http://www.motortrend.com/news/top-10-fastest-production-cars-motor-trend-has-lapped-around-mazda-raceway-laguna-seca-304331/

Interesting that the older GTR have lapped better times than the new 2017 GTR. Maybe the conditions and drivers were off that day.
Click to expand...

Maybe conditions were slow that day, which is why the GTR lapped .7 seconds slower than its previous benchmark. But even if conditions were about .7-1 second slower on the day, that wouldn't be a particularly impressive lap time for the NSX IMO. In last year's Best Driver's Car test MT was able to get a ~1:35.6 out of a AMG GT-S at Laguna.

That said, the lap time is in the ballpark of several supercars in that price range so it's no slouch. But those expecting a world beater may be a bit disappointed.
 
Depending on unspecified driver, the times may not be comparable to prior testing by Randy Pobst, their benchmark driver. Should be comparable to each other, however.
 
It will be interesting to see the numbers but at the same time this is an odd comparison, super tuner VS. sport hybrid.

As someone that was interested in the NSX, the GTR numbers (no matter what they are/were) are completely irreverent, at least when it comes to where I would spend my $.

I would be willing to bet that the same goes for someone interested in the GTR. Its the ultimate tuner, its stock numbers are close to meaningless and the $ you save going with the GTR over the NSX would be reinvested in mods.
 
G.Irish said:
That said, the lap time is in the ballpark of several supercars in that price range so it's no slouch. But those expecting a world beater may be a bit disappointed.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NSX design team said it would be a world beater but did say it would be competitive in the segment which it is.
The numbers look to be where they said they would be.

I think what's yet to be seen is what times the average driver would achieve with each of the cars in the segment.
For mortals I think the NSX will prove to be as fast as anything else
 
chrisn said:
Depending on unspecified driver, the times may not be comparable to prior testing by Randy Pobst, their benchmark driver. Should be comparable to each other, however.
Click to expand...

Looks like the driver was Randy Pobst (according to the video comparo description).

JD Cross said:
I don't think the NSX design team said it would be a world beater but did say it would be competitive in the segment which it is.
The numbers look to be where they said they would be.
Click to expand...
Yeah at the launch a couple of times people said that the car was not about absolute lap times which is why they didn't publish Ring times and what not. They met their benchmarks, something they made sure they repeated several times, so it's not as if lap times didn't matter.

As before, Honda is trying to do a dance of positioning the car as a serious performance machine while also communicating that it's not only about performance. Many other cars in the segment are trying to do the every day super car thing too, to varying degrees of success. Now merely being the everyday supercar is not enough, because there are a couple of those now. The question will be what is the most compelling execution of that concept? Or which interpretation of the concept appeals to a particular driver's tastes.
 
While the NSX "won" the comparison test, the tone of the review was disappointment in the margin of victory - it should also be noted the NSX was track tested on track tires and the GTR was not. Basically all of this new technology did not result in the leap forward the MT guys expected. I recall a similar tone in tests of the then new R8 and the incremental performance improvement provided by its ideal layout versus the clearly compromised 997S.
This result is IMO more a testament to the advanced development of most performance cars than an indication of failure on the part of the NSX. As these cars approach the boundaries of physics, advances are going to be marginal at best.
The NSX is a very impressive performer and IMO best viewed in comparison to the other hybrid hypercars on the market for a small fraction of the cost. When compared to similarly priced competition, it becomes less of a standout.
 
The stock gtr VS semi stock Nsx is kinda boring in comparison. I am much more interested in knowing if a Nsx motor can handle 800 or so horses with bigger turbos and a tune like the stock gtr' s can do. That will be the true test of engineering in my opinion. The problem is, we probably will not see that for quite some time as the Nsx is priced well beyond the gtr and you'd wanna keep the warranty.
You could buy a 2009 gtr for 60k, do some bolt ons, tune, and suspension to mop the floor with any factory car. All for less than 100k. But I agree the Nsx is much more easy on the eyes. Godzilla is just a big fat lizard. But it does not surprise me that they are about neck and neck. As the other prime member put it, we have reached the threshold of physics basically...
 
Jinks said:
The stock gtr VS semi stock Nsx is kinda boring in comparison. I am much more interested in knowing if a Nsx motor can handle 800 or so horses with bigger turbos and a tune like the stock gtr' s can do.
Click to expand...

I am actually more interested in how much the electric drive is held back and/or if battery upgrades will eventually be available (even if aftermarket).

I would not more out of the turbos unless I get more electric punch to fill in the inevitable increased lag that comes with bigger turbos.
 
nosirrahx said:
I am actually more interested in how much the electric drive is held back and/or if battery upgrades will eventually be available (even if aftermarket).

I would not more out of the turbos unless I get more electric punch to fill in the inevitable increased lag that comes with bigger turbos.
Click to expand...
Me personally would steer clear of any and all aftermarket batteries. We all know how the shorai batteries stand up to use.

But it makes me wonder if Acura has an ace in the hole upgrade like the Tesla's do in upgraded software like the ludicrous mode?
 
Last edited:
Jinks said:
Me personally would steer clear of any and all aftermarket batteries. We all know how the shorai batteries stand up to use.

But it makes me wonder if Acura has an ace in the hole upgrade like the Tesla's do in upgraded software like the ludicrous mode?
Click to expand...

One way or another tuners will eventually answer this even if Acura doesn't. My RS7 was massively detuned. Simple ECU tune and I have more than 100+ HP/TQ. I don't expect that much to be held back in the NSX but just imagine if it is?

Thinking about this a little more......I am picturing an electric turbo upgrade that taps into the existing batteries to insta-spool the turbos. Now THAT would be one hell of an upgrade.
 
nosirrahx said:
One way or another tuners will eventually answer this even if Acura doesn't. My RS7 was massively detuned. Simple ECU tune and I have more than 100+ HP/TQ. I don't expect that much to be held back in the NSX but just imagine if it is?

Thinking about this a little more......I am picturing an electric turbo upgrade that taps into the existing batteries to insta-spool the turbos. Now THAT would be one hell of an upgrade.
Click to expand...
I concur.....
 

Similar threads

neuronbob
neuronbob's trip to NSX Drive Experience (long)
Replies
6
Views
2K
EuroBoutique
EuroBoutique
EuroBoutique
Thoughts on our new Huracan vs. the NSX 1st gen and 2nd gen
2
Replies
26
Views
12K
EuroBoutique
EuroBoutique
NSX69
Yahoo! 1st Drive
Replies
0
Views
2K
NSX69
NSX69
stuntman
Stock vs. NSX-R wing vs. GT Wing vs. Hybrid? - On track
4 5 6
Replies
148
Views
38K
jwmelvin
jwmelvin
macgruber
1997 NSX-R GT-2 #11 of 11 for sale in Florida?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Teej
Teej
Back
Top