New Ferrari 488 GTB Raises the Bar Again

[2slow2speed]

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!

You bring many interesting points regarding Honda and Acura's approach/goals for the U.S. marketplace.

At the same time it seems that we have all been ignoring the big gigantic elephant that has been in the room for a while.

Given that this is a Ferrari's vehicle thread it is important to point out that Ferrari needs F1 to keep it's clientele happy, having the Ferrari flag to rally the troops.

In Honda's case there was really no need for them to be involved in F1 from 2000-2008, the company spent hundreds of millions of dollars/yen, even getting to the point that they eventually ended up running 2 F1 teams.

I wonder if Honda spent so much on their F1 program that they had no spare funds to focus on the development of other sports vehicles targeted to both the Japanese market as well as the US market.

Toyota also had a similar experience as well resulting in very few sports car development in the same period, they were able to save face by delivering the LFA, but the general public got zero benefits from their F1 program.

Should be interesting to see how Honda will react with their current incursion into F1, and how that will affect the company's direction if it happens to be yet another money pit/ego project.

 

[Ponyboy]

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.

It's still a Honda that was produced in the last 10 years. And other posters have mentioned more. I think I understand what you're trying to say now. However, I just took your question at face value.

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?

I don't know exactly why Honda hasn't introduced a plethora of sports/sporty cars in the last 5-6 years. I do know that Honda actually lost money in their car division a few years ago and that they've invested a lot in R&D in the last few years as well. Maybe they're looking 20-30 years down the road instead of the next one or two? Maybe they overestimated how the Worldwide Financial Crisis would affect them? Maybe they're a crap company, despite great financial ratios, and management should be running a Dairy Queen? Maybe they just focused on their bread and butter vehicles until demand strengthened? Or maybe they're just focusing on the NSX and CTR for right now?

Either way, I'm glad they're back "in the ring." The NSX and CTR should be great driver cars.

 

[fastaussie]

unfortunately we're gonna have to wait at least a year, but I'm so eager to find out who did it best between the 488, GT and NSX. I have my own idea, but I think Ford could well be a serious spoiler as they've proclaimed their car to have the "best power to weight ratio of anything on the market". and they've stated that their engine produces upwards of 600 horsepower. time will tell who is tops... :smile:

 

[drmanny3]

Honda has always been a company that marches to a different drummer. I believe unlike the majority of people on prime that the new NSX is worthy of Honda's effort. People are quick to complain even through there is no data to wrap your brains around. Might be nice to see how well the car performs before writing it off. And to compare it to the new Ferrari is ludicrous and dumb. Lets face it most of the complainers cannot afford a car that sells for $150k no matter what the make. Honda is not a large company in the auto world per say. Given what they have done with a halo car, I think is extraordinary. It is one thing for Porsche, or Lambo, or Ferrari to make a sports car that is beyond that of a Miata or 370Z. To come up with a car that pushed the envelop in design and technology is really a feat. If I were not retired and had the money I would be inclined to have myself this car. I have had my 2001 since new and it still an exceptional car. While it is certainly dated it still performs well for a car that is 13 years old. While my overall miles are low I can recall when Ramon replaced the timing belt and other things that are called out after x number of years. The belt was in such good shape that all the imprinted labels were still as clear as when the belt was new. I ended up giving my stuff to a guy who used it in his rebuild. Go figure. How many cars have that build quality. I have a few friends that have had exotic cars. While the NSX does not have the same cache as Ferrari it is interesting that these guys still drive NSXs because they are fun, dependable, and dare we say it affordable for what they do. Most everyone I know who has an exotic is afraid to drive it least it get a ding or the miles add up negatively effecting their resale value. Wasn't there a recent story of someone supercharging their NSX when they already had 150,000 miles on the odometer?

Rather than rag on what you think the car is missing, why not talk about what they have accomplished in delivering this car. I believe this time around Honda will meter out the cars in a very slow fashion to keep interest high, not unlike a boutique car. Another thought, as mentioned by a few people the NSX was not terribly successful in selling a lot of cars. Consequently there were not a lot of changes from year to year. In the end I am kind of happy. You can own a 91 through a 2001 and have the same car body. Even the 2002 to 2005 was evolutionary. Now take Porsche. I like the 911 in terms of looks. But for the life of me I can not tell you what the various years are. All I can tell is that the older ones look old. Kind of like Corvette. Aside from the demographics that drives that car (rednecks through the gold chain crowd) the cars always look dated. We are truly lucky in that respect. If you have a clean NSX people will still come up and tell you they like your car.
Manny

 

[areout]

Maybe it has to do with the planned spinoff of Ferrari from the Fiat group. Perhaps there are commercial implications regarding the ability to meet Euro 6 emission standards if Ferrari becomes a stand alone entity.

It is also becoming a catch 22 to stay competitive, higher HP, reduced CO2 footprint, better mileage, etc, etc.

CO2 is 275 vs 260g so only 5% less, not what I'd call important difference...

 

[N Spec]

I like the points brought up here about the complicated situations/variables that may have hindered Honda's and Toyota's motorsport activity to sporty production cars. What I always found baffling is the extreme handicaps of the US sports cars market from Japan. The 240sx and MR2 were underpowered compared to their JDM counterparts. Cars like the FTO and Skyline, and the Type Rs have never seen US soil. Even the S2000 and Rx8 came in slightly underpowered due to claims of emissions. It doesn't really make sense if the US market so much larger than Japan's or even Europe's?

- - - Updated - - -

I 'd like to mention also every major Japanese company hailed 2 or maybe even 3+ sporty cars back in the 90s, but almost witnessed financial ruin in trying to keep those cars alive. Nissan was on the verge of bankruptcy and needed Renault. Mazda's stake from Ford increased to a full 33% ownership by 1996. Mitsubishi had Dodge's assistance but tried break out on their own and now, I might mention no longer produces the EVO or anything sporty anymore really. Only Toyota and Honda held strong financially speaking over that era and they weren't unscathed considering Toyota's matching pullout of there sporty cars. Honda and let me not forget Subaru were the only ones marching at the beat of their own drums until the recent global crisis that affected everyone virtually.

It's just nice to see a modern sports car revival from all automakers recently. Hopefully we will see even more automakers enter this historical race. Ford and Honda seems to want to challenge Ferrari again, but where are you Toyota? You've taken a stab at F1. I could care less about your partnership with BMW for another FR sports cars now...

It seems like every time Ferrari is mentioned, some resentment and comparison for Honda arises, but I think this was good group therapy to expel the tension that was retained over the years :redface: and recognize that the situation was more complicated and widespread. There has been plenty of nice constructive/hypothetical posts about Honda's direction. It's easy to just say "O, Honda was lazy and let the NSX weather in old age," but people should recognize the environment and variables were harsh to everyone in that era and Honda did pretty well, if not the best among the others in regards to the NSX, even if it's not apples to apples comparisons.

 

[MoreRPMs]

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.

Regardless of timelines of start of production vs beginning of production, the NSX is the only sportscar whose cycle was 15 years, basically unchanged. You can interpret that by arguing it did somewhat have changes, but the majority consensus would not agree with you, however.

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.

The 3000, as I mentioned earlier, was not even a sportscar; it was a 2 ton sedan-based front wheel drive car whose twin turbo version was AWD. So therefore, mentioning the 4 door, no-resemblance-to-a-sportscar EVO, even though it outperformed the 3000, was pointless.

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.

Don't know if you've noticed, but with the displacement change from 3 to 3 1/2 liters came a justifiable model name change (the two predecessors happened to have been both 3.0L, hence their name; just like the 240, 260 and 280Z). You must be the only person to argue that the Z33 is not the successor to the Z32 simply because it wasn't named "300ZX". Who cares what it's called?

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?"

Because, as I mentioned earlier, Ford had the ultimate say (sadly) and didn't want a 2 door competitor to encroach on its own Rustang. Plus, RX-7 means 2 door; whereas, because of Ford, they slipped the suicide doors into the design. The car still handled and drove like a true sportscar (e.g. there was an NSX owner on here who pronounced the Mazda the much better handler of the two a few years back), unlike the 3000GT, which did not have the heart & soul of a sportscar.

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.

A successor can be better, or it can be worse. (Is the RSX not the successor to the Integra, name and strut-suspension notwithstanding? By your reasoning, no. By everyone else's? Yes, it most certainly was.)The LFA is a far better sportscar than the Supra ever was. Was it officially a successor? No. But it's better. Which is why I presented you this scenario that you conveniently ignored:
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"?

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.

None of the MR models had a model cycle that was even 1/2the length of the NSX's. Nevermind that the last one had nothing to offer the enthusiast other than its 2200 lb curb weight. But, at least you agree that the MR did, in fact, have a successor.

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.

Those are things that are subject to lots of interpretation. There are sportscar afficionados out there who pronounce anything but a 2-seater with a droptop as "not a sportscar".

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.

S800 and S2000 is the only example, which happens to not fall in our lifetime.

^Ownage

Only in a delusional and spiteful person's mind.

 

[N Spec]

Only in a delusional and spiteful person's mind.

There's countless posts in here from other members telling people like to you stop whining about Honda and I'm the one that's delusional? Sure buddy, keep on fighting that good fight lol. What's your objective here again? To prove that Honda has been lazy/sucks or just to argue to prove that you aren't unintelligent?

Couple of random tidbits about your rebuttals.

-I'll say it again. The 350Z, MR-S and Rx8 were horrible successor to exotic-like Twin Turbo 300ZX, Turbo MR2 and Twin Turbo Rx7. Those successors were bloated, underpowered shadows of the golden era cars. So technically, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota botched their successions. Honda has not. The new NSX, even if it's a decade late has improved in many aspects if not close to all.

-The SW20 MR2 with a gen3 turbo 3sgte in stock form is formidible enough to compete with a stock NSX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEi-0Rx6J0

I've own both in many different trims and while the NSX is much better in all regards, the MR2 can offer a performance competitiveness at a much lower price. Don't sleep on the hand assembled Yamaha engine.

-And while the LFA is arguably a piece of art and makes a beautiful note from the V10, the Supra still has more fame and street cred/popularity than the LFA... So saying it's better is like saying there's a guy that was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan but never could make it mainstream. Ask Joe Guy if he knows what an LFA is and then ask him if he knows what the Supra is.

 

[stuntman]

-The SW20 MR2 with a gen3 turbo 3sgte in stock form is formidible enough to compete with a stock NSX:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFEi-0Rx6J0

I've own both in many different trims and while the NSX is much better in all regards, the MR2 can offer a performance competitiveness at a much lower price. Don't sleep on the hand assembled Yamaha engine.

I would disagree. The MR2 Turbo, especially in stock form, is far from formidable to the NSX. I take those Best Motoring videos with a grain of salt since the driver talent in those 'races' vary greatly and I would view it like I do Top Gear: More entertainment than valid comparisons. BM would like you to believe an NSX-R is faster than a Gallardo, 360 Challenge Stradale, F430, and many other cars that are clearly faster than it.

Having owned an MR2 Turbo & NSX and tracking stock to 400whp MR2's and stock to 700whp NSXs, the MR2 is about as comparable to the NSX as (probably) the new NSX (and it's 458/488, 650S, FGT, etc... competitors) to the P1/918/LAF trio. Or a stock 1st gen NSX is to the 458/488/650/FGT.

0.02

 

[N Spec]

I would disagree. The MR2 Turbo, especially in stock form, is far from formidable to the NSX. I take those Best Motoring videos with a grain of salt since the driver talent in those 'races' vary greatly and I would view it like I do Top Gear: More entertainment than valid comparisons. BM would like you to believe an NSX-R is faster than a Gallardo, 360 Challenge Stradale, F430, and many other cars that are clearly faster than it.

Having owned an MR2 Turbo & NSX and tracking stock to 400whp MR2's and stock to 700whp NSXs, the MR2 is about as comparable to the NSX as (probably) the new NSX (and it's 458/488, 650S, FGT, etc... competitors) to the P1/918/LAF trio. Or a stock 1st gen NSX is to the 458/488/650/FGT.

0.02

No, I don't think BM ever said the NA2 NSX-R was faster than any of those high powered cars. The video clearly showed the NSX-R losing at the end.

The NSX will out-handle the MR2 in any configuration and do it so with much more comfort and supple ride quality. However, what I am also referring to in stock form is the acceleration competitiveness also. A gen3 MR2 is slightly faster than an NA1 NSX in terms of acceleration thanks in part to a better power-to-weight ratio. The 93+ MR2 brakes performed well too. The NA1 would still win in higher speeds of course.

Make no mistake, I would choose the NSX any day and they are clearly in different classes of performance ultimately when modded. I was just saying don't write off the MR2 as uneventful.

- - - Updated - - -

And BTW, I'm not referring to a stock gen2 USDM MR2.

 

[stuntman]

No, I don't think BM ever said the NA2 NSX-R was faster than any of those high powered cars. The video clearly showed the NSX-R losing at the end.

The NSX will out-handle the MR2 in any configuration and do it so with much more comfort and supple ride quality. However, what I am also referring to in stock form is the acceleration competitiveness also. A gen3 MR2 is slightly faster than an NA1 NSX in terms of acceleration thanks in part to a better power-to-weight ratio. The 93+ MR2 brakes performed well too. The NA1 would still win in higher speeds of course.

Make no mistake, I would choose the NSX any day and they are clearly in different classes of performance ultimately when modded. I was just saying don't write off the MR2 as uneventful.

- - - Updated - - -

And BTW, I'm not referring to a stock gen2 USDM MR2.

BM has many videos of the NSX-R beating some clearly faster cars (Gallardo, F40, F355, 360 Modena, 996 Turbo, M3 CSL, 997 GT3, etc...)

I'm still not sure if a 242hp Gen 3 MR2 is faster than a 270hp NA1 NSX since the MR2 weighs 2,782lbs and has a 11.50lb/hp ratio while the 3,010lb NSX has a 11.14lb/hp ratio.

 

[N Spec]

BM has many videos of the NSX-R beating some clearly faster cars (Gallardo, F40, F355, 360 Modena, 996 Turbo, M3 CSL, 997 GT3, etc...)

I'm still not sure if a 242hp Gen 3 MR2 is faster than a 270hp NA1 NSX since the MR2 weighs 2,782lbs and has a 11.50lb/hp ratio while the 3,010lb NSX has a 11.14lb/hp ratio.

Touche, the NSX still has very slightly better power/weight ratio as my mental math is off. However, the 240 Hp MR2s have been seen doing low-mid 13s on the 1/4 mile and I reckon it's because the turbo makes better torque to assist in the matter compared to the NSX's NA1 motor, which typically does mid to high 13s. I've driven a factory boost gen3 swapped 93+ MR2 and it felt faster in a straight line than the NA1 NSX. Also, the 93+ MR2 Turbo brakes largely improved the 60-0 feet stopping distance, with some sources claiming under 100 ft. That's something the regular NSX could not match. So on paper, the MR2 was formidable. One would soon recognize the differences after driving the two cars of course. The NSX definitely shines much better than the MR2 at higher speeds.

As for BM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFAJCqsO_4M

In that video, the NSX-R loses at the end to the Gallardo and Murcielago. The 360, M3 CSL, and the Porsche in that video weren't exactly out of the NSX-R's performance/power bracket. I've never seen a video with the 997 GT3 vs. NSX. The F40 was perhaps too old and did not have proper maintenance especially being such an old turbo car? The F355 was not a faster or better car than the NA2 NSX. It just sounded better!

 

[Ponyboy]

Best Motoring was a group of professional race car drivers that take whatever test cars they're running as fast as they want to without damaging them…if possible. They blocked, obstructed, and delighted in being the biggest PITA on track at any (rather every) given moment. Not to promote any one car or brand but to mess around with their friends and win.

That said, irrespective of the faster car, whichever car "wins" is still quick enough to be ahead of the others.

 

[fastaussie]

-I'll say it again. The 350Z, MR-S and Rx8 were horrible successor to exotic-like Twin Turbo 300ZX, Turbo MR2 and Twin Turbo Rx7. Those successors were bloated, underpowered shadows of the golden era cars. So technically, Nissan, Mazda, Toyota botched their successions.

-And while the LFA is arguably a piece of art and makes a beautiful note from the V10, the Supra still has more fame and street cred/popularity than the LFA... So saying it's better is like saying there's a guy that was a better basketball player than Michael Jordan but never could make it mainstream. Ask Joe Guy if he knows what an LFA is and then ask him if he knows what the Supra is.

i'm gonna have to step in and disagree with a few of those points. having personally owned the 300ZX, i can say that it is absolutely a fantastic car but i wouldn't go ahead and label it exotic. it was quite common, relatively affordable but in no way in the realm of a Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini or the NSX in the early to mid 90's. there was nothing exotic about it, but it was certainly a super car, but not a Supercar.

i've also owned an MR2, and i will agree the successor wasn't the same as the originals. but its design brief and purpose for whatever reason was not the same as the previous two models. definitely a shame.

and in regards to the successor of the 300ZX, i would have to disagree with you again. i don't think you could say that the Nissan 350Z or the Infiniti G35 were horrible successors. in fact i believe the Infiniti G35 (or Nissan GT 350 as it's named in Australia and most other countries) was the actual successor to the 300ZX. while i was never a fan of the cartoonish looking Z, both of those cars were significantly better performing cars than the old 300ZX. and they were also massive sales successes. i have personally owned two Infiniti G35's in my time, have driven several Z cars and they are both extremely good machines, much better than the old 300ZX's, not really comparable.

and last but not least, in no way or any place can a Supra have more street cred than an LFA. simply not possible...

 

[N Spec]

i'm gonna have to step in and disagree with a few of those points. having personally owned the 300ZX, i can say that it is absolutely a fantastic car but i wouldn't go ahead and label it exotic. it was quite common, relatively affordable but in no way in the realm of a Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini or the NSX in the early to mid 90's. there was nothing exotic about it, but it was certainly a super car, but not a Supercar.

i've also owned an MR2, and i will agree the successor wasn't the same as the originals. but its design brief and purpose for whatever reason was not the same as the previous two models. definitely a shame.

and in regards to the successor of the 300ZX, i would have to disagree with you again. i don't think you could say that the Nissan 350Z or the Infiniti G35 were horrible successors. in fact i believe the Infiniti G35 (or Nissan GT 350 as it's named in Australia and most other countries) was the actual successor to the 300ZX. while i was never a fan of the cartoonish looking Z, both of those cars were significantly better performing cars than the old 300ZX. and they were also massive sales successes. i have personally owned two Infiniti G35's in my time, have driven several Z cars and they are both extremely good machines, much better than the old 300ZX's, not really comparable.

and last but not least, in no way or any place can a Supra have more street cred than an LFA. simply not possible...

I should have said reach-for-exotic instead of exotic-like. Many of the shortcoming of the 300ZX was from the tight engine compartment that was a result of the designer wanting the 300ZX to have a short hood like a mid-engine car. I would never count the 300ZX as exotic, especially with the typical ownership demographic.

The G35 is a Skyline in Japan and thus, Skyline successor. I agree with you in that the G35 is better than the 350Z and I personally prefer the G35 over it. The 370Z is also a better step than the 350Z, but the 350Z was completely different direction and horrible step from the 300ZX.

Like I said, go around non-car guys and ask if they know what LFA is and what Supra is.

 

[fastaussie]

In that video, the NSX-R loses at the end to the Gallardo and Murcielago. The 360, M3, and the Porsche in that video weren't exactly out of the NSX-R's performance/power bracket. I've never seen a video with the 997 GT3 vs. NSX. The F40 was perhaps too old and did not have proper maintenance especially being such an old turbo car? The F355 was not a faster or better car than the NA2 NSX. It just sounded better!

in no parallel universe will a stock first generation NSX ever be able to beat a Gallardo, Mucielago, F360, Porsche GT3 and especially an F40 on a race track with equal drivers. these cars will simply motor away any time the throttle is opened. it would not even be a contest...

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said, go around non-car guys and ask if they know what LFA is and what Supra is.

the LFA is certainly not as well known as the Supra is, but the Supra was produced for almost 25 years through several iterations, the LFA only 2 years. so naturally it wouldn't be as well known to the non-performance car enthusiast. now, ask a car enthusiast...

- - - Updated - - -

The G35 is a Skyline in Japan and thus, Skyline successor. I agree with you in that the G35 is better than the 350Z and I personally prefer the G35 over it. The 370Z is also a better step than the 350Z, but the 350Z was completely different direction and horrible step from the 300ZX.

take a look at a picture of a 300ZX and a Infiniti G35 next to each other, tell me if you don't see a very strong family resemblance. and remember that Infiniti doesn't really exist outside of North America. regardless, while i personally didn't like the appearance of the 350Z, it was still a markedly better car than the old 300Z..

p.s. the reason for the short hood, cramped engine bay and the engine shoved as far back as possible wasn't for the look of a mid-engined car. it was for handling. as is the case with the 350Z/G35, it's a front mid-mounted engine...

 

[N Spec]

in no parallel universe will a stock first generation NSX ever be able to beat a Gallardo, Mucielago, F360, Porsche GT3 and especially an F40 on a race track with equal drivers. these cars will simply motor away any time the throttle is opened. it would not even be a contest...

the LFA is certainly not as well known as the Supra is, but the Supra was produced for almost 25 years through several iterations, the LFA only 2 years. so naturally it wouldn't be as well known to the non-performance car enthusiast. now, ask a car enthusiast...

It wasn't a stock first gen NSX in the video my friend lol. It was the 2002 NSX-R. Also, what's 20 hp right?

Here is a social media example from Instagram, where many car guys roam that post pics of "cars" so they would be considered more enthusiasts. A simple hastag tally returns:

You can see the Supra hashtag beats LFA hastag by 10 fold. Even the plural "Supras" hashtag beats the LFA. Other cars included for gauging. You can see the GTR has some serious popularity.

Also if you want to play the rarity/scarcity card, #F50 hashtag returns 200K versus the LFA's meager 135K.

Lastly, I'm surprised the G35 is not called Skyline in Australia, because that's what it is, NOT a 300ZX successor.

Anything else you would like to contest? Haha.

 

[fastaussie]

nah, not really. i personally refuse to acknowledge anything that has the word "hashtag" included in it.



and i'm well aware of what the cars are called in Australia, because i'm both from the country and have owned these cars.

the Skyline however is a turbocharged 6-cylinder with AWD. while it has said "Skyline" on the back of the Nissan 350 GT, we're all aware this and the Infiniti G35 are non-turbocharged, rear wheel drive only cars, as is the 300ZX.

the Australian Skyline, as pictured below, is the predecessor to the current (American market) GTR. a turbo V6 with AWD. i don't work for Nissan, so i'm not sure why they chucked the "Skyline" name on the 350 GT. but i think you can see how the 350 GT or G35 has a family resemblance to the 300ZX, and the Skyline (GTR), to well, the GTR...

 

[N Spec]

nah, not really. i personally refuse to acknowledge anything that has the word "hashtag" included in it.



and i'm well aware of what the cars are called in Australia, because i'm both from the country and have owned these cars.

the Skyline however is a turbocharged 6-cylinder with AWD. while it has said "Skyline" on the back of the Nissan 350 GT, we're all aware this and the Infiniti G35 are non-turbocharged, rear wheel drive only cars, as is the 300ZX.

the Australian Skyline, as pictured below, is the predecessor to the current (American market) GTR. a turbo V6 with AWD. i don't work for Nissan, so i'm not sure why they chucked the "Skyline" name on the 350 GT. but i think you can see how the 350 GT or G35 has a family resemblance to the 300ZX, and the Skyline (GTR), to well, the GTR...

It's not all young or unsophisticated people that use hashtags. It's really just a means on gauging and reaching into the public or social media.

Anyways, Nissan decided to split the Skyline and GTR namesakes very much like how Toyota separated Celica and Supra. The regular non-GTR Skylines of the 90s were luxury saloons that were just RWD. This was what the G35 or 350GT, 6 cylinders, RWD.

I don't think the G35 or 350Z resembled the Z32 300ZX at all. The G35 and Turbo 300ZX were very close in weight. Besides the Z namesake, the 350Z was more Porsche/Audi TT like than the low stanced 300ZX.

- - - Updated - - -

O, and the epitome Z32 300ZX example is twin turbo V6 with 300 HP, not the NA 222 hp V6 or the 2+2 tanker.

 

[stuntman]

Touche, the NSX still has very slightly better power/weight ratio as my mental math is off. However, the 240 Hp MR2s have been seen doing low-mid 13s on the 1/4 mile and I reckon it's because the turbo makes better torque to assist in the matter compared to the NSX's NA1 motor, which typically does mid to high 13s. I've driven a factory boost gen3 swapped 93+ MR2 and it felt faster in a straight line than the NA1 NSX. Also, the 93+ MR2 Turbo brakes largely improved the 60-0 feet stopping distance, with some sources claiming under 100 ft. That's something the regular NSX could not match. So on paper, the MR2 was formidable. One would soon recognize the differences after driving the two cars of course. The NSX definitely shines much better than the MR2 at higher speeds.

As for BM:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFAJCqsO_4M

In that video, the NSX-R loses at the end to the Gallardo and Murcielago. The 360, M3 CSL, and the Porsche in that video weren't exactly out of the NSX-R's performance/power bracket. I've never seen a video with the 997 GT3 vs. NSX. The F40 was perhaps too old and did not have proper maintenance especially being such an old turbo car? The F355 was not a faster or better car than the NA2 NSX. It just sounded better!

You know that's not a fair comparison. US-Spec NA1 5-speeds have the worst gear ratios of any NSX for acceleration performance, which is probably more significant than it's 14lb-ft of torque deficit to the MR2 (210 vs 224). After a quick search, the best #'s i've found for a JDM 242hp MR2 is NA1 NSX-matching 5.5 seconds to 60 and 13.9 in the 1/4 mile. Do you have links to mid-low 13's or sub 100' braking?

The US-spec NA1 NSX is quite a bit faster than the US spec MR2. If you want to talk about the JDM 3rd revision MR2, it would be more appropriate to compare it to a JDM NA1 with the JDM's closer 1-4 gear ratios. I have not looked up JDM NSX 0-60 times but having swapped my US-spec 5-speed to a JDM 5-speed ratios, it's probably around half a second quicker to 60 and in the 1/4 mile.

I've seen most of the BM videos and there's one where the NSX-R beats the F40 and beats and/or has a faster lap time than all the cars I listed in my previous post. The 360 has >100hp on the NSX-R and a fairly competent chassis and I agree with fastaussie -it's a faster car than the NSX-R. The F355 was a lot faster than the NSX-T in 1997's Motor Trend test and 1999 Road & Track's test (w.Mario Andretti driving). The NSX-R is a track-focused car so maybe it can beat an F355, either way it would be close and i'd love to back to back these two cars.


Am I the only one here who likes the 350Z? It is a "Z" and I don't see how you can argue it's not a successor to the TT 300ZX (even though it started with a factory-rated 13hp deficit but then made the same 300hp).

 

[canieaturchikn]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Valkyrie Pilot]

take a look at a picture of a 300ZX and a Infiniti G35 next to each other, tell me if you don't see a very strong family resemblance. and remember that Infiniti doesn't really exist outside of North America. regardless, while i personally didn't like the appearance of the 350Z, it was still a markedly better car than the old 300Z..

This video addresses this comparison head on. And they seem to echo N-Spec's sentiments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTpjEWTkrM0

 

[N Spec]

You know that's not a fair comparison. US-Spec NA1 5-speeds have the worst gear ratios of any NSX for acceleration performance, which is probably more significant than it's 14lb-ft of torque deficit to the MR2 (210 vs 224). After a quick search, the best #'s i've found for a JDM 242hp MR2 is NA1 NSX-matching 5.5 seconds to 60 and 13.9 in the 1/4 mile. Do you have links to mid-low 13's or sub 100' braking?

The US-spec NA1 NSX is quite a bit faster than the US spec MR2. If you want to talk about the JDM 3rd revision MR2, it would be more appropriate to compare it to a JDM NA1 with the JDM's closer 1-4 gear ratios. I have not looked up JDM NSX 0-60 times but having swapped my US-spec 5-speed to a JDM 5-speed ratios, it's probably around half a second quicker to 60 and in the 1/4 mile.

I've seen most of the BM videos and there's one where the NSX-R beats the F40 and beats and/or has a faster lap time than all the cars I listed in my previous post. The 360 has >100hp on the NSX-R and a fairly competent chassis and I agree with fastaussie -it's a faster car than the NSX-R. The F355 was a lot faster than the NSX-T in 1997's Motor Trend test and 1999 Road & Track's test (w.Mario Andretti driving). The NSX-R is a track-focused car so maybe it can beat an F355, either way it would be close and i'd love to back to back these two cars.

I was comparing the JDM NSX NA1 to the JDM MR2 Turbo. BM did test for both of them and the MR2 consistently ran better times than the JDM NA1 in various videos for both cars. Of course, you seem to debate the skills of BM drivers, even if it's simple acceleration tests, so I won't debate it much more with you since they are really close in hp-weight ratios.

Sports Compact Car was the source that measured 98 ft for the 60-0 for the 93 or 94 MR2 I believed. I can't find the link anymore.

There have been USDM and JDM NA2 that have reached high 12s to match the 360 and F355 1/4 mile run, so it's not a stretch to believe that they are competitively close on the track, just as I mentioned the gen3 MR2 Turbo was competitive and NOT necessarily saying any car was better with the exception of my disclaimer saying "the NSX is much better in all regards" in comparison to the MR2.

- - - Updated - - -

This video addresses this comparison head on. And they seem to echo N-Spec's sentiments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTpjEWTkrM0

I've been a diehard 300ZX fan long before I owned the NSX. Many Z32 owners or enthusiast will agree the 300ZX was the special "Z" and Nissan botched the direction completely after that car. I think one day, they'll make another twin turbo Z tho with better looks than the current Z too I hope...

Am I the only one here who likes the 350Z? It is a "Z" and I don't see how you can argue it's not a successor to the TT 300ZX (even though it started with a factory-rated 13hp deficit but then made the same 300hp).

I think you're being awfully lenient to a mediocre sports car that sold well because it was cheap, considering the level of detail you've gone to debate with me here.

You can see the styling along with power configuration are drastically different. The 350Z looks like the typical 20xx bloated "sporty" car and guess what? It did horrible in safety crash testing! The 370Z stepped up it's performance game and looks a bit meaner, but I think Nissan should take notes from the Z32 300ZX especially when you have modern cars that looks leaner still like the new Miata, Corvette, or BRZ. Those cars seem to convey a low slung sports car stance in today's stringent safety regulations.

 

[stuntman]

I was comparing the JDM NSX NA1 to the JDM MR2 Turbo. BM did test for both of them and the MR2 consistently ran better times than the JDM NA1 in various videos for both cars. Of course, you seem to debate the skills of BM drivers, even if it's simple acceleration tests, so I won't debate it much more with you since they are really close in hp-weight ratios.

Not in your previous statement:

"I've driven a factory boost gen3 swapped 93+ MR2 and it felt faster in a straight line than the NA1 NSX. "

Do you have a link of a BM MR2 vs. NA1 NSX? BM has many gross errors in not only their on track 'races' but many acceleration tests as well where they don't launch two cars at the same time. Look at this ridiculous comparison of the MR2 Vs. a 348 (which the NSX was faster in acceleration than) where the MR2 launches way before the 348 and they call them dead even in the 1/4 mile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bULZt__huE

Do you disagree with the above?

Wikipedia has the 348 as a 5.6 sec to 60 and 13.8 in the 1/4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrari_348#TB_and_TS

There have been USDM and JDM NA2 that have reached high 12s to match the 360 and F355 1/4 mile run, so it's not a stretch to believe that they are competitively close on the track, just as I mentioned the gen3 MR2 Turbo was competitive and NOT necessarily saying any car was better with the exception of my disclaimer saying "the NSX is much better in all regards" in comparison to the MR2.

Do you have a link? I have not seen a publication that recorded a stock NSX in the high 12s, while the 360 frequently hit 12.8 or better. I'm not sure about an NSX-R (which probably has 300hp) but the F355 has 75hp on top of that and beat the NA2 NSX-T by a good margin in every acceleration test i've seen. With 100hp+ over the NSX, and having tracked a 360, i'm pretty sure it will out drag one on the track without too much trouble.

I think you're being awfully lenient to a mediocre sports car that sold well because it was cheap, considering the level of detail you've gone to debate with me here.

You can see the styling along with power configuration are drastically different. The 350Z looks like the typical 20xx bloated "sporty" car and guess what? It did horrible in safety crash testing! The 370Z stepped up it's performance game and looks a bit meaner, but I think Nissan should take notes from the Z32 300ZX especially when you have modern cars that looks leaner still like the new Miata, Corvette, or BRZ. Those cars seem to convey a low slung sports car stance in today's stringent safety regulations.

Due to its excessive anti-squat, the 350 is probably one of the best drifting cars in stock form that was ever made. The VQ35HR in the last model was a pretty good 306hp engine that took well to forced induction. At the time, i'd probably take a 350 over an S2000 due to its increased power, torque, longer wheelbase as a more fun daily driver. The 370 was a big improvement and I like those too.

 

[2slow2speed]

I was a fan of the Z32 300ZXTT as well, so I've never warmed up to either the Z33 350Z or the Z34 370Z in terms of either exterior looks, or interiors. The Z32 were bespoke in many ways, the Z33 was not because it made it easier to for Nissan/Renault to amortize the costs of the development across various platforms.

From an aesthetic/design point of view they didn't look the best. From a handling and performance standpoint they did deliver for the market segment for the price of the product. An affordable sports car, that offered decent performance and handling. If it wasn't for the 350Z been such a sales success the R35 GT-R would probably not have had such a large following at the US launch, there was a ladder/path that loyal Nissan customers could follow when upgrading their cars. Sentra SE-R, 350Z, GT-R.

Honda used to be similar, get a Civic SI, upgrade to a Prelude, upgrade to a Acura Legend 2 door, NSX. Or Civic SI, Integra (RSX), Acura TL (2door), NSX. Now Honda/Acura is trying something that is completely backwards, they have a Halo car (NSX2.0), but yet they have had nothing new in the market segment for more than 10 years that has kept their customer base happy.

Someone who is not familiar with the Acura brand but who is going to buy a NSX2.0 is probably not interested in buying a TLX, MDX, IRL, etc.. Let alone an Accord/Civic/Pilot/CRV/etc.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A proper sports car company like Ferrari or Porsche or BMW has an entire family of sports cars for their customer base, from the low end (from their POV) to the top end halo cars. There are new generation of sports cars that come out every 5-6 years to keep their customer base happy, upgrading the product, etc.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some might claim that Honda was well managed in the 2000's, I beg to differ. A smart and well run company would not spend hundreds of millions of dollars banging their heads against a wall, seeing increasing costs without getting results. Given that the projected budget for the F1 program for 2009 for Honda prior to them pulling out of F1 was in the mid to high $300M mark, it would not surprise me if Honda wasted close to a billion dollars during their 2000-2008 in F1. (It has been rumored that Toyota spent over 1 billion dollars in their 2002-2008 F1 program without getting a single win). Some folks wonder why it became taboo for the CEO of Honda to talk about sports cars after the financial crisis, kind of obvious isn't it?

Some folks might feel the need to call out other brands to participate in F1, that is nothing more than been a bit naive.

Toyota learned the hard way that been in F1 does not equal been successful in the marketplace, they know better.

Porsche won the F1 championship as an engine supplier 20+ years ago and as such they have nothing to prove to anyone if the ROI is low. I would much rather have companies like Porsche working on other sports cars than wasting precious funds developing cars that have zero to do with the cars that I can buy from the dealerships and then drive on the road.

Audi has been rumored to perhaps been in F1 in the future since they have not been in F1 for a very long time, given that Audi has pretty much dominated LeMans for so many years maybe they will maybe they won't. Either way Audi has nothing to prove to anyone.

Infinit (Renaut/Nissan) got a lot of publicity when RedBull won the WDC/WCC (as sponsor for 2 years and title sponsor for 2 years) 4 years in a row 2010-2013, I really doubt that they spent anywhere close to what Honda spent in the 2000-2008 given that F1 budgets went down and Mercedes been a team owner and engine supplier only spent 150million Euro's with their F1 program last year (much less than what Honda spent in 2008 in their F1 program).

------------------------------------------------------------

Again this been a Ferrari thread, it is a good thing that Ferrari keeps producing evolutionary as well as revolutionary cars that keeps their customer base happy.

Going Forced induction for the F488 might put off many Tiffosi, but I have no doubt that Ferrari been Ferrari probably has many things on it's plate that they are working on.