New Ferrari 488 GTB Raises the Bar Again

[N Spec]

that's marketing mate, that's how you excite the average Joe Blow about the engine in a Ford Taurus'. we all know those two engines will have virtually nothing (literally) in common besides the number of cylinders and turbo chargers.

mate, it's all relative. if you compare NSX numbers to that of Civic numbers from 2005, or even 1995, by your own definition you'd be saying that the NSX was not a production car...

It's good marketing because it unites the customer base of Ford as a whole so I agree with you on that. However, they should still make a dedicated engine for the supercar FGT.

It is relative, but accessible by 10% is much more reasonable than 1% of 1% odds. It's literally like winning the lottery odds versus, if I work smart and hard, I may be able to own a car that is $150K if I prioritize my finances properly. Whereas, the odds of someone owning the 7 figure hypercar is most-likely never going to happen.

 

[fastaussie]

I guess someone at MT is super-zealous and this was when MT was under the impression that the engine was going to NA...

as someone who has worked in the automotive journalism field myself for a good while, I understand why the NSX was included in this article. simply because it carries a hybrid power train similar (in layman's terms) to the McLaren P1, LaFerrari and Porsche 918. however the performance of the NSX does not warrant it being described as a "Hypercar". you misinterpreted it's inclusion in that article...

 

[N Spec]

as someone who has worked in the automotive journalism field myself for a good while, I understand why the NSX was included in this article. simply because it carries a hybrid power train similar (in layman's terms) to the McLaren P1, LaFerrari and Porsche 918. however the performance of the NSX does not warrant it being described as a "Hypercar". you misinterpreted it's inclusion in that article...

I didn't take it anymore serious than the discussion we are having now. There are no standards with constantly-evolving technology, so definitions and labels are almost useless and endlessly debated. However, it can't be denied that the new NSX has more in common with the hyper 918 than it does with the 458 or 488, unless you put them on the price gauge.

The 458/488 is meant as more of a purist sports car whereas the NSX represent the cutting edge of technology in contemporary times of the it's release for Honda/Acura - very much like what the hypercars meant for the top tier brands or flagship as some would label it.

 

[fastaussie]

in terms of price, and especially (perhaps most importantly) performance, the new NSX is grouped with the current crop of "Supercars" - the Porsche 911, Audi R8, Ferrari 488, Lamborghini Huracan, McLaren 650S, Ford GT.

I'd say the power output is of more comparative worth that how it is being developed. the Porsche has always had 6 cylinders, the Ferrari 8, the Audi 8 & 10, the Lambo 10. the Esprit even had a 4-cylinder for a while, with and without a turbo. these cars were never broken up into groups by the types of engines, but rather all grouped together by the performance numbers, which would slot the NSX in with the above mentioned group of "Supercars". at least in my opinion...

 

[MrHugo]

Since NSX is arguably a revolutionary car during the time of introduction, NSX 2.0 needs to set that bar again to be worthy of the name NSX because it did not follow the KISS philosophy which a lot of people was hoping ( I don't know what KISS is but I understand the meaning). I look forward to seeing NSX 2.0 to be revolutionary again with the hybrid platform, at the same time that car enthusiast can appreciate.

However, I like the fact that NSX appears to only interest a small group of people while being an exceptionally great car. NSX 2.0 might just be the case here.

 

[Valkyrie Pilot]

as someone who has worked in the automotive journalism field myself for a good while, I understand why the NSX was included in this article. simply because it carries a hybrid power train similar (in layman's terms) to the McLaren P1, LaFerrari and Porsche 918. however the performance of the NSX does not warrant it being described as a "Hypercar". you misinterpreted it's inclusion in that article...

I think there is confusion here about the definition of the term "Hypercar". I for one always thought it was meant to convey the next level of performance car above and beyond "Supercar". This is not the case.

From Wikipedia:

The Hypercar is a design concept car developed by energy analyst Amory Lovins at the Rocky Mountain Institute. This vehicle would have ultra-light construction with an aerodynamic body using advanced composite materials, low-drag design, and hybrid drive.[SUP][1][/SUP] Designers of the Hypercar claim that it would achieve a three- to five-fold improvement in fuel economy, equal or better performance, safety, amenity, and affordability, compared with today's cars.[SUP][2]

[/SUP]By this definition, the NSX is definitely a hypercar.

 

[stuntman]

By that definition so is a Prius with a composite hood. P1/918/LAF are "HyperCars". Despite semantics, the NSX is not in the same league as the big 3.

 

[fastaussie]

well Mr. Valkyrie Pilot, it appears you have smashed my latest argument mostly to bits, thanks heaps for that! :frown:

I reckon most people would agree with your original pre-Wikipedia statement regarding the "Hypercar" moniker to convey a level of performance above that of a regular and now mundane "Supercar". although based on the description of Mr. Lovins, a 3 to 5 fold improvement in fuel economy and affordability compared with the rest of today's current (regular or Super?) cars does not seem to have been met. the only car that springs to mind that may meet all of that criteria is the Toyota Prius...

By that definition so is a Prius with a composite hood. P1/918/LAF are "HyperCars". Despite semantics, the NSX is not in the same league as the big 3.

and yes, what Mr. Stuntman said. obviously great minds think alike... :biggrin:

 

[BamaFan]

It's only a marketing failure if their goal was to surprise everyone and have maximum impact at the unveiling. Bottom line is that Acura and Honda's performance image has been in terrible shape for many years, and the cancellation of the ASCC project didn't help. The brand desperately needed a boost and fans needed something, anything to give hope that things were going to get better at Honda/Acura. Revealing the NSX design early did that.

That strategy certainly had its down sides like the cynicism about the 'long development cycle' and the reduced splash for the production unveil. But all in all it gave a signal that maybe Honda is heading in the right direction again and that maybe they'll make cars for Honda enthusiasts again before we all die of old age.

That's a really good point. That very well could have been Acura's intent. Unfortunately, their share has continued to decline pretty sharply, but perhaps positive perceptions of the brand have increased.

- - - Updated - - -

No worries, thanks for the reply. I think we can both agree on the history for each version. Although I think it a stretch in saying that the NSX was driven around in a motion picture, I don't think it's worth mentioning much as argument. However, one point that I do significantly disagree with is the car is not perceived as "fresh" or "new" by the general public. Do you have any data to back this up with? Has there been research performed, that evidences this theory? B/c that's a fairly grand statement on behalf of the general public. Or do you mean "fresh" or "new" among auto enthusiasts. Be careful if so, b/c we (auto enthusiasts) tend to live in an echo chamber that confirms already present biases.

No real data. I honestly don't think anyone has polled (or will poll) the general public about their excitement around the NSX launch. Just a thought (not a 'grand statement' :smile: ) based on:
- The media plan (hit movie, Super Bowl) was not enthusiast-targeted.
- What I have read in the media's reaction, which seems to be more "it's about time" than "wow! best car ever!"
- 20 years of marketing experience

I'll step out of this conversation now...

 

[fastaussie]

- What I have read in the media's reaction, which seems to be more "it's about time" than "wow! best car ever!"

I'll step out of this conversation now...

your comment seems to have some validity...

 

[Valkyrie Pilot]

well Mr. Valkyrie Pilot, it appears you have smashed my latest argument mostly to bits, thanks heaps for that! :frown:

I reckon most people would agree with your original pre-Wikipedia statement regarding the "Hypercar" moniker to convey a level of performance above that of a regular and now mundane "Supercar". although based on the description of Mr. Lovins, a 3 to 5 fold improvement in fuel economy and affordability compared with the rest of today's current (regular or Super?) cars does not seem to have been met. the only car that springs to mind that may meet all of that criteria is the Toyota Prius...

LOL. Your welcome. I think when they say "affordability" they are talking, at least partly, about the cost of ownership (i.e. gas cost, maintenance cost).

Here is another quote from the Hypercars website comparing them to Supercars:

"How is a hypercar different from a supercar?
Supercars rely on older technology and ideas such as large engines to produce high performance at the expense of comfort, convenience, efficiency, weight and cost. In contrast, hypercars offer high performance with far greater efficiency through the use of advanced materials, superior aerodynamics, and technologies such as regenerative braking, electric power and hybrid drivetrains."

And interestingly, they do reference the Prius but say it is only a minor step in the direction of a hypercar.

 

[fastaussie]

these seem highly flawed descriptions. Ferrari's (Supercar) 488 will undoubtedly weigh in a lot lighter than the new NSX (Hypercar by description), and even the outgoing 458 is an extremely user friendly, daily driver machine with nothing sacrificed for the sake of comfort. and Ferrari's own LaFerrari uses a much larger engine in its own Hypercar than its Supercar. and the Ford and McLaren "Supercars" both use significant amounts of carbon fibre throughout their structures...

p.s. and as for the Prius being a Hypercar by definition. well, really no need to even address that stupidity! :biggrin:

 

[Valkyrie Pilot]

Apparently their description is a bit extreme and there are really no hypercars in production today. Again from the Hypercar website:

"While there are no hypercars currently in production, many features of hypercars have been incorporated into advanced technology prototypes, show cars, hybrid and electric vehicles."

However, I am not that fussy, FAussie. To me a hypercar is simply a supercar with a hybrid power unit. Hence the name:

Hybrid-Supercar or Hypercar.

 

[fastaussie]

I can dig it...

 

[MoreRPMs]

I mean, out of every sports car out there I can't think of another that took so long for the introduction to its successor. It'll be 25 years (or longer) from when the '91 went on sale to the time 2.0 hits the showrooms!

Supra, RX-7, 300ZX, 3000GT, MR-2, Espirit…the list goes on.

You picked these, and I gave you facts:

Mitsu & Lotus are in total disarray, so cross them off. Also, one can argue the 3000 was never a true sportscar as it weighed 4000 pounds and shared its platform with a sedan.

The Nissan, using your logic, that means there was no successor to the 240z, or 280z; surely you must know that after the '96 model year the car had a successor not 7 years later.

MR-2 had the MR-S about 5 years after it went out of production. And nevermind that Toyota more than made up for not making a successor to the mid-engined mediocrity with the introduction of LFA. Which, one could also argue that by doing so also acts as a replacement for the Supra (which happened to also have been built off a sedan platform, although it weighed several hundreds pounds less than the Mitsu, but was still a porker).

The RX-7 was last seen as a '95 here in the states (although it ran through '02 in its home market). And thanks to majority ownership by Ford we were given a 4-seater, not-quite-the-pure-sportscar-as-the-7, but still powered by a rotary.

To maybe restate myself -- is there another company with the capital of Honda that initially made a hell of a car/statement, rested on its laurels for a decade and a half, then waited another 10 years to bring another to market? I don't think so.

I countered each one of your claims, with actual replacements, or in the case of Mitsu & Lotus told you why, because of fiscal concerns, they're not producing nor does it look like anything in the pipeline. To which, you reply:

Either come up with an actual counter or just move on.

Let me get this right - you say the 300zx had no successor? So what then was the '03 350z? A replacement for the Pathfinder?

Mazda uses the letters FB, FC, FD to denote the rx-7 models. They then used the FE for the RX-8. Lots of enthusiasts scoffed at a 4 door, 4 seat "replacement" for the legendary 7, but the parent company apparently (probably under great duress from Ford) thought it worthy as the sequential naming falls right in line.

Once again, MR-2 had the MR-S not 5 years after ceasing production, so there's the replacement. Then came the LFA; which by your logic, because it's not named "Supra" or "MR-$hitbox" can't be a replacement. And, you may be right on that.....technically; depending on how you look at it. Let's see, for argument's sake say Honda stopped making NSXs in '99, and for '02 they brought out a small displacement/high reving V12 carbon-tubbed $250,000 car called the R550S (named for its 550 hp). No longer labelled an 'NSX', but nonetheless a more than worthy "replacement". Actually superior to the NSX in every way. Would you make the claim that "Honda never made a successor to the NSX"?

 

[fastaussie]

Hybrid-Supercar or Hypercar.

how about we just call them HySupeCars from now on to avoid any further confusion?

 

[N Spec]

Let me get this right - you say the 300zx had no successor? So what then was the '03 350z? A replacement for the Pathfinder?

Mazda uses the letters FB, FC, FD to denote the rx-7 models. They then used the FE for the RX-8. Lots of enthusiasts scoffed at a 4 door, 4 seat "replacement" for the legendary 7, but the parent company apparently (probably under great duress from Ford) thought it worthy as the sequential naming falls right in line.

Once again, MR-2 had the MR-S not 5 years after ceasing production, so there's the replacement. Then came the LFA; which by your logic, because it's not named "Supra" or "MR-$hitbox" can't be a replacement. And, you may be right on that.....technically; depending on how you look at it. Let's see, for argument's sake say Honda stopped making NSXs in '99, and for '02 they brought out a small displacement/high reving V12 carbon-tubbed $250,000 car called the R550S (named for its 550 hp). No longer labelled an 'NSX', but nonetheless a more than worthy "replacement". Actually superior to the NSX in every way. Would you make the claim that "Honda never made a successor to the NSX"?

The 350Z took 7 years to come out and it was a horrible successor just as the Rx8 compared to the Rx7. Both slightly underpowered and slower.

The MR-S was also slower and weakly compared to the turbo MR2 SW20.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently their description is a bit extreme and there are really no hypercars in production today. Again from the Hypercar website:

"While there are no hypercars currently in production, many features of hypercars have been incorporated into advanced technology prototypes, show cars, hybrid and electric vehicles."

However, I am not that fussy, FAussie. To me a hypercar is simply a supercar with a hybrid power unit. Hence the name:

Hybrid-Supercar or Hypercar.

This would be the best definition IMO. A supercar that uses cutting edge tech (at current times) to be even more efficient at being "super".

 

[Ponyboy]

You picked these, and I gave you interpretations:

Kudos for moving away from the simpleminded insults. Although you still seem very defensive and your timelines begin at funky intervals that make comparison difficult except to confirm bias. You compare the beginning of production of one model to the next one (25 years for the NSX) but then compare the end production date with the beginning of another (280, MR2, etc). I'll get to the weird timeline comparison in a later post b/c that is actually what the point of contention was anyway.

Now to your thoughts:

1. Irrespective of fiscal concerns (I guess it's convenient to forget that Honda had it's share of financial troubles in 2008-11), the 3000GT and Espirit have had no successor. Curious you make no mention of the Evo or Exige/Elise though.
2. The 300ZX includes the Z31 and Z32. So there's a history there that isn't shared with the 350Z. If you want to call the 350z a successor that's fine. I was specifically discussing models with the same name and/or nomenclature as you've noticed.
3. The RX-7 was produced from '78 to '02. Does Mazda make another version of the RX-7 today? I get it. You're calling a 4 door car a successor b/c it follows an FX internal code. I wonder why they didn't call it an "RX-7?"
4. The Toyota Supra was produced from '78 to '02. Does Toyota make another version of the Supra today? I get it. You're calling a $400,000 dollar car a Supra successor. See above.
5. The Toyota MR2 was followed by the MR2 Spyder in the US so it actually did have a successor with the same name (mostly) but it isn't around today. Production was from '84 to '07. I guess Toyota has two more years before the disenfranchised start mumbling about taking as long as the NSX.

Because the frame of references are too far apart, a car is produced following another does not make it a "successor" particularly when there are such obvious physical, mechanical, intent, and price differences including the actual names and particularly when the manufacturer teases about bringing back a car with the previously discussed names.

But even if we did use your method of succession including the funky timeline calculation, there's the S800 and the S2000: 33 years. So either way, "out of every sports car out there," there is "another that took so long for the introduction of it's successor." But at least you get to keep your pent up disgust focused on the same manufacturer.

 

[N Spec]

^Ownage

This is why I still frequent these boards, because there are still people who see the big picture and stay informed or try to be. There are a few disgruntled Honda/NSX fans that make it seem like Honda is the only that has been stumbling but Nissan perverted the Z's promising legacy and the RX8's status is worth less than $4K. You can go buy a 2004 Rx8 right now for about 4,000. I had someone try to trade me a running, fresh engine swapped Rx8 with navigation and leather for my non-running MR2 with an *upgraded turbo. That's the current rotary legacy.

Thanks for the nice teases of the Furai, MID4, E-merge, Cien, FT-1, several LF concepts, countless Audi/VW mid engine concepts, etc. Let's not forget about those many concepts-to-never cars

 

[2slow2speed]

Seriously in the last 10 years what has Honda really produced as far as sports/sporty cars?

Mazda (various evolutions of the Mazda Miata, various flavors of the Mazdaspeed 3's)
Nissan/Infiniti (350Z, 370Z, G35, G37, GT-R)
Toyota/Lexus (LFA, IS, RC, FRS)
Subaru (WRX/BRZ)
Mitsubishi (EvoIX, EvoX)

Honda (Civic Si?, CRZ???)

 

[Ponyboy]

Seriously in the last 10 years what has Honda really produced as far as sports/sporty cars?

2005 Honda S2000
2006 Honda S2000
2007 Honda S2000
2008 Honda S2000
2009 Honda S2000

And there were S2000s sold in 2010 and 2011.

 

[2slow2speed]

2005 Honda S2000
2006 Honda S2000
2007 Honda S2000
2008 Honda S2000
2009 Honda S2000

And there were S2000s sold in 2010 and 2011.

AP2 is pretty much an AP1 with a 2.2L engine and modified suspension and some goodies basically the same car for 12 years. Launched in 2000 in the US.

Not a new car designed and debuted during the last 10 years.

How many generations of the WRX have come out during since 2000? How many generations of the Evo? How many generations of the Miata? etc, etc

Honda corporate kept making excuses that they could not do this or that due to the economy, then again how come the smaller companies were able to do something during the same exact timeframe? Better management? A sense of direction and loyalty to their existing customer base?

 

[BB]

Seriously in the last 10 years what has Honda really produced as far as sports/sporty cars?

Within the last 10 years Honda has had the S2000 (2009), Civic Type-R (2010), Acura TL Type-S (2008). It's really only within the last 5 years that they almost completely stopped providing any sportier car options. Right now the only sporty models that I'm aware of are the Civic Si and the Acura ILX with 6-speed manual.

Toyota hasn't been much better. The LFA was so limited in production that it was never really attainable and is already discontinued, the RC has only been around since 2014, and while the FRS is very sporty its quality is poor.

 

[2slow2speed]

Within the last 10 years Honda has had the S2000 (2009), Civic Type-R (2010), Acura TL Type-S (2008). It's really only within the last 5 years that they almost completely stopped providing any sportier car options. Right now the only sporty models that I'm aware of are the Civic Si and the Acura ILX with 6-speed manual.

Toyota hasn't been much better. The LFA was so limited in production that it was never really attainable and is already discontinued, the RC has only been around since 2014, and while the FRS is very sporty its quality is poor.

Good points.

I guess I should have rephrased things, what has Honda designed during the last 10 yearss and produced that could be purchased in the US during that timeframe that was sporty?

The S2000 does not count since it was basiscally the same car during the entire run. It's like saying, hey the 2005 NSX should be there since it was still available in 2005.

The Civic Type-R was not available in the US. (neither the Japanese version nor the Euro-Spec version)

The 2008 Acura TL TypeS was probably the last Acura model that was liked by many forum members, (good handling and it even had a LSD!). I personally liked the TSX more given that it was lighter.

I forgot to include the Accord Coupe, but those cars had no LSD/TBD and suffered from Torque Steer. (Ironic that Honda Axed the Prelude and decided to make the Accord Coupe the bearer of that market segment without giving it any of the goodies that the Prelude's had)

But none of them were proper sports cars, in the truest sense that given a choice to corner carve the mountain roads in a great weather day you would take one over a simple Mazda Miata. (something that would be a no-brainer with either a S2000 or a NSX)

 

[BB]

I guess I should have rephrased things, what has Honda designed during the last 10 yearss and produced that could be purchased in the US during that timeframe that was sporty?

If we're limiting this to only the US then perhaps we should blame the tastes of US consumers for the lack of sports cars from Japanese automakers? The US is Honda's biggest marketplace, thus the tastes of US consumers places undue influence on Honda's overall product plans. By contrast the US is not the largest marketplace for most European automakers, causing their products to overall be less focused on the US. Note how poorly VW (the best selling brand in Europe) sells in the US. Honda understands the US marketplace very well, while most European brands still can't figure us out.

I've noticed that as Honda has become a more US centric brand the negativity and criticism directed at them by the car enthusiast crowd has increased. So I found it ironic that at the NSX unveiling in Detroit they seemed to be going out of their way to make the car seem even more American in origin than it actually is-- e.g. none of the Japanese designers were shown, only the US designers were showcased. From this I can only conclude that Honda's primary purpose for the NSX is to send a message to the average US car buyer, enthusiasts are secondary.

Ok here's another sporty car from the last 10 years.... What about the 2009-2014 Acura TL SH-AWD 6-speed manual? I've never driven that particular one but others say it's very sporty. The 6-speed manual version came with stiffer suspension and the SH-AWD system provides benefits similar to a LSD. Although these cars sure were ugly!