No V8 next generation NSX

[naaman]

Old post, but I just noticed this. The S2000 is 2 seconds behind the Z06 in the 1/4, not .2 2 seconds is HUGE. That's such a massive difference it basically reverses this argument.

Like it or not, the Z06 will eat the S2000 alive in every way. Actually, the Z06 will best the NSX handily also. *IF* Honda decides to update the NSX, they'd better make beating the Z06 a *bare minimum* requirement.

Ken responded to this already, but I wasn't clear enough in the original post. The Z06 quote was seperate from the LS1 quote in the original conversation. He was actually talking about the Camaro with the LS1 at that point, which, according to Road & Track runs the quarter mile in 13.9 sec, and the S2000 (same source) runs it in 14.1 sec.

Also, I have seen that Road & Track got the S2000 to 60 in 4.9 (!) seconds during a comparison test
.

Of course the Z06 is faster than the S2000... bad communication on my part.

 

[mlambert890]

Forget all the semantics and forget the S2000. If we're going to bring up the $50k Z06 vs. the $30k S2000, then we need to bring up the $90k NSX vs. the $50k Z06. The Z06 is simply quicker in the 1/4 and around the track than the NSX.

Point is, the NSX needs to be quicker. ALL of the Japanese sports cars need to be quicker. At the end of the day, if you're talking a certain performance measure, all that really matters is that measure. At the end of the day, the current crop of Japanese sports cars do not measure up in the 1/4. HP/liter is pretty pointless when HP/kg isn't there.

The magazine tests seem pretty dubious to me, by the way. I know a TON of guys who have run EASY high twelves with the bone stock normal C5 Corvette. I've personally seen these runs happen with consistency; 12.8, 12.9... all day.

That 4.9 in the "Sibbling Rivalry" issue of Road and Track for the S2000 0-60 is a misprint. Refer to the latest test of the S2000 vs. the 350Z, Mustang and Audi S4. They did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and estimated that the "average Joe" would be in the 7+ range.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Cara...2002/december/0212_comparo_hottin.xml?&page=4

The Motortrend article not withstanding, 14 seconds is the accepted norm for the S2000 in the 1/4.

 

[mlambert890]

Seriously guys. SO THE HELL WHAT?

The "so what" part is that the Z06 is also superior in performance to the NSX. In that comparison, it's the Z06 that becomes the "little guy" and the "underdog", but in that comparison, it actually beats the car that is 50% more expensive.

Personally, I think it kind of sucks to have to fall back on build quality and manufacturer reliability records in a performance comparison. If you guys really don't think the NSX needs to be quicker, I guess we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. If you do, then we are in agreement and this is all semantics.

 

[naaman]

Forget all the semantics and forget the S2000. If we're going to bring up the $50k Z06 vs. the $30k S2000, then we need to bring up the $90k NSX vs. the $50k Z06. The Z06 is simply quicker in the 1/4 and around the track than the NSX.

Point is, the NSX needs to be quicker. ALL of the Japanese sports cars need to be quicker. At the end of the day, if you're talking a certain performance measure, all that really matters is that measure. At the end of the day, the current crop of Japanese sports cars do not measure up in the 1/4. HP/liter is pretty pointless when HP/kg isn't there.

The magazine tests seem pretty dubious to me, by the way. I know a TON of guys who have run EASY high twelves with the bone stock normal C5 Corvette. I've personally seen these runs happen with consistency; 12.8, 12.9... all day.

That 4.9 in the "Sibbling Rivalry" issue of Road and Track for the S2000 0-60 is a misprint. Refer to the latest test of the S2000 vs. the 350Z, Mustang and Audi S4. They did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and estimated that the "average Joe" would be in the 7+ range.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Cara...2002/december/0212_comparo_hottin.xml?&page=4

The Motortrend article not withstanding, 14 seconds is the accepted norm for the S2000 in the 1/4.

Forget the Z06. It doesn't count. It is effectively a factory tuned Corvette made for track racing while still being street legal. If you want to compare Corvette to NSX, compare the standard coupe or T-top. Compare the Z06 with the Type R. So the Type R's not available in America? So what? In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a standard Corvette compared to an NSX. Why might that be? Why is it always the Z06 that is in competition with a normal NSX?

And price? That's not really relavent either. Like you said, all that matters at the end of the day is performance. The price of a car includes more than just it's performance capabilities... well, excpt for cars like the 350Z... Nobody is "falling back" on build quality... it's just that people want a car that can handle being driven all the time over a long period of time. Reliability is a factor when choosing to purchase a car. So, yes, reliability CAN be the factor that makes one car better than another to a given purchaser.

As far as "needing" to be quicker in the quarter mile... what does quarter mile prove? "Hey, my car is 100% superior because it can run the quarter mile two tenths of a second faster than yours... so there!" Puh-lease! Running the 1/4 is only one aspect of performacne. Any car can be modified to run the quarter mile faster than any other car. If what you want is a quarter mile car, buy one. If you want a track car, buy one. The Z06 happens to accel at both track and quarter mile, but at what cost? In consumer reports, the Z06 was rated as having a ride quality of 1 (out of 10). Even the Viper got a 2! The NSX scored 4. Nissan 350Z? 1.

The fact that the NSX is being compared with the likes of Z06 says a lot for it right there. It manages to be a reliable, livable daily ride AND delivers great performance.

 

[LJSB]

IMO Honda is not going to put a larger engine in the NSX unless they redesign the whole car. I think the shift in power/size/ weight from a larger or more powerful motor would unbalance the current car in their eyes and that would undo what they set out to achieve and did accomplish with the car we own and love.
I can't see them designing and building a "next generation" or totally New NSX anytime soon, if at all.
They, Honda, are much more interested in new fuel designs ie. fuel cell, hybrid vehicles, and see this as their key to having a commanding presence in the auto/maunufacturing world of the future.
Should the time come that they see the physical resources
allotted to the NSX , as being better facilitated on a new vehicle with lucrative potential, that can give them the edge in market share, the NSX will be gone. Perhaps it could be reborn in the distant future after this new goal is firmly in hand.

IMO the lack of Sochiro Honda, even in the background, or as a living presence, has dulled their enthusiasm for developement of high performance cars and the NSX has been kept around as kind of a "reminder" or in Japanese terms "in honor" of him. This alone is the only reason why the car may stay around, pretty much as it is with a little tinkering on special models for the "home" market.

This is just my opinion, not fact, not my wish just my 2 cents.
Just flapping my gums.
I hope they make a new powerful NSX too, I just don't think it's going to happen.

 

[huckster]

From a business standpoint, I think a highperformance supercar will be on Honda's list. Where it is prioritized is another matter altogether.

I can see the ultraperformance car being atrophied or non-existent for a period of time. However, at some point I think Honda will return to it.

Honda has the marketshare worldwide as a vehicle manufacturer to afford and covet an ultraperformance supercar in their lineup. Smaller manufacturers have to focus on creating a niche. Honda can compete in every niche.

Honda has been namebranded with performance on the motorcycle scene for almost 30ys now. When their line of vehicles started to take off they could have stopped focusing on motorcycles, but they didnt. Honda has further expanded into generators, lawn equipment, etc. They have become the Walmart of motors.

I suspect, as mentioned by other posters, that Honda is currently focused on technology development that may or may not be applicable to a NSX type of car. Green technology is Honda's opportunity to revolutionize the industry once again, and they are wisely pursuing this. Acheiving 20plus miles to the gallon from a highoutput engine was hard to imagine 30yrs ago--yet here we are today, in no small part thanks to Honda.

So, IMO, Honda will sooner or later turn to a NSX type car.

They have shown the desire and offered the products to cover all market sectors. From lawn equipment, to luxury cars, economy cars, motorcycles, and our beloved nsx exotic.

They have the money and resources to develop a car based upon image, not profit.

All that remains to be seen is how long it takes for Honda to refocus on building a new exotic. Hopefully it isnt another ten years.

 

[nsxtasy]

The Z06 offers great "bang for the buck" - based on test numbers and price, not any other qualities - which is why it is always used as an argument for why Honda, and Porsche, and everyone else ought to increase power.

However, what's missing in those arguments is this. The Z06 is the ONLY car that costs less than an NSX and accelerates quicker. There are cars that can accelerate in a straight line quicker than the NSX - 911 Turbo, the new 385-hp NA 911, Ferrari, BMW Z8, Viper, some new low-volume Mercedes models, etc - but they all cost more than the NSX.

Statisticians would call the Z06 an "outlier" data point. Sure, it deserves credit for bang for the buck. If you think it's a better buy, buy one. But don't try to make a case by implying that there are lots of other examples out there of faster cars that cost less than the NSX, because there aren't.

 

[naaman]

Well, assuming that you can get an NSX for 73-75k, AND that you cannot talk a Dodge dealer lower than that for a Viper, which reatils at 80k, then, yes: all those cars are more expensive than an NSX.

With regard to the Viper, I would imagine it would sell at a primium like many Ferraris (360, for example retails at 160k, but you see used ones going for over 200k) simply because it's "THE Viper.

 

[burbel]

Actually, the last time I went into a Dodge dealership (to look at a PT Cruiser, of all things), they had an ACR Viper and a standard Viper, both selling for below MSRP, the ACR around $15,000 below. It actually got me thinking, until I realized what I was contemplating and took the PT for a test drive. But a Viper might well be had for less than an NSX, new vs. new - depends, as always, on how willing both dealers are to part with the cars.

One thing I've noticed with sports car comparisons and discussions with folks at work, folks that are at least "somewhat" interested/knowledgable about cars, is that the NSX is seen as a joke. A friend at work drives a 2002 WRX, another a Honda Del Sol - most other coworkers consider my NSX to be in the middle in terms of performance, and that's a hard stereotype to break. I actually had to *show* the person with the Del Sol that my car was in fact faster, but he still insists that his car handles far better than mine.

When someone sees a Z06 on the road (and, even in a relatively sportscar-free area like Austin, you will pass 1-2 every day), they know it's a fast car. I think that's why it's getting compared to so many cars - right now, IMO, it is the performance leader for cars to the Generic American (tm). It's getting compared to Ferrari, Porsche, the new Mustang Cobra, older Camaros, everything that people generally associate with performance. People that see riced Civics think of it when they laugh. To me, if Honda wants to regain the performance car title, like how they took it (or at least validly challenged it) when the NSX was released, then they *need* to beat the Z06 - right now it seems to be the PR king of the hill...

Now, to be honest, I think a little more torque on the NSX would be nice, but if they had to add enough performance to beat the Z06, engineer lightness, etc., I don't know if I would even want the new NSX. It might lose what it means to me, mainly, a solid balance of what a car should be. To each their own, but I'll be sticking with my '92 until something better comes along - IMO nothing has, yet.

 

[huckster]

Interesting. Among my colleagues the viper would be the 'WOW' car, not the vette. Agreed, most do not know much about the nsx. The few who've seen mine were really impressed and commented on how beautiful it is.

 

[nsxtacey]

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15745

 

[Da Hapa]

take that C&D article with a huge grain of salt.

That 4.9 in the "Sibbling Rivalry" issue of Road and Track for the S2000 0-60 is a misprint. Refer to the latest test of the S2000 vs. the 350Z, Mustang and Audi S4. They did 0-60 in 6.3 seconds and estimated that the "average Joe" would be in the 7+ range.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Cara...2002/december/0212_comparo_hottin.xml?&page=4

The Motortrend article not withstanding, 14 seconds is the accepted norm for the S2000 in the 1/4.

1) SpookyP is absolutely correct about the misprint. The best I've seen for an S2K is 5.3 seconds. Most rag's have mid to high 5 second times and as an owner, I can tell you that's more reasonable. A few owners (under the absolute right conditions) have gotten very low 5's but I think when you have to worry about track temp's, tire pressure, etc. you're really spllitting hairs.
2) That C&D article was a complete pile of steaming crap. They tested a car with about 300 miles on it. The owners manual clearly tells you that a new S has to be "broken in" prior to redlining. Failure to do so diminishes performance, burns oil, etc, etc. As you all know, proper VTEC engagement requires a multitude of things (not the least of which is proper oil type and levels). I guarantee you that C&D not only trashed that poor car but inadvertently hosed the performance of the car by thrashing it.
3) I would agree with 14 second 1/4 times. Again, a few rags and a few owners have dipped into the high 13's but 14 seconds with a trap speed of about 100mph is probably the norm.

 

[nsxtasy]

Re: take that C&D article with a huge grain of salt.

3) I would agree with 14 second 1/4 times.

But I don't think anyone (other than spookyp) would claim that a stock, regular (non-Z06) Corvette would do the 1/4 mile in 12.5...?

 

[Zanardi 50]

IMO Honda is not going to put a larger engine in the NSX unless they redesign the whole car. I think the shift in power/size/ weight from a larger or more powerful motor would unbalance the current car in their eyes and that would undo what they set out to achieve and did accomplish with the car we own and love.
I can't see them designing and building a "next generation" or totally New NSX anytime soon, if at all.
They, Honda, are much more interested in new fuel designs ie. fuel cell, hybrid vehicles, and see this as their key to having a commanding presence in the auto/maunufacturing world of the future.
Should the time come that they see the physical resources
allotted to the NSX , as being better facilitated on a new vehicle with lucrative potential, that can give them the edge in market share, the NSX will be gone. Perhaps it could be reborn in the distant future after this new goal is firmly in hand.

IMO the lack of Sochiro Honda, even in the background, or as a living presence, has dulled their enthusiasm for developement of high performance cars and the NSX has been kept around as kind of a "reminder" or in Japanese terms "in honor" of him. This alone is the only reason why the car may stay around, pretty much as it is with a little tinkering on special models for the "home" market.

This is just my opinion, not fact, not my wish just my 2 cents.
Just flapping my gums.
I hope they make a new powerful NSX too, I just don't think it's going to happen.

pbassjo,
thanks for articulating my thoughts on this. I couldn't have said it any better.

 

[Silver F16]

Correction,

M3 and 911 (non-turbo) are as fast as NSX in a straight line. Even your Mustang SVT with the 395 horses and standard C5 corvette with 6 speed will run even with NSX (straight line).

I hope we don't get into a picking fastest times from one magazine and slowest times from another to do this comparision. Read them all, these 4 cars are pretty much in the same bracket either 0-60 or 1/4 mile. All of these are cheaper than NSX, even at $73K. 911 prices start at $69K.

NSX is plently fast, but at 290 horses, it represent one of the worst bang for the buck ratio. Hopefully Honda address that in a year of two.

 

[nicholas421]

if there are no plans on creating a next gen nsx, why would honda keep hush about it? what would be the benefit of keeping people guessing? wouldn't the eventual let down hurt their image?

 

[nsxtasy]

Correction,

Wrong. The original statement was correct.

M3 and 911 (non-turbo) are as fast as NSX in a straight line. Even your Mustang SVT with the 395 horses and standard C5 corvette with 6 speed will run even with NSX (straight line).

Yes, those cars can post similar times to that of the NSX-T. They are not quite as quick as the now-discontinued and rare 3.2-liter NSX Coupe, but they are very close.

However, you apparently did not read the original statement I made, which I still stand by:

All of these are cheaper than NSX, even at $73K. 911 prices start at $69K.

Uh oh, here we go again with the same misleading statements about the 911, comparing apples with oranges.

Porsche makes 13 models of 911 - 10 that are normally aspirated, 3 that are turbocharged. These vary in price (MSRP) from $69,365 for the Carrera Coupe to $88,185 for the Carrera 4 Tiptronic, and $116,965 to $182,465 for the turbocharged models. Most (90 percent) of the 911 cars sold are not the $69,365 Carrera Coupe. And that $69,365 Carrera Coupe is a bare-bones car for which you need to add $1,090 for HID headlights (standard on the NSX-T) and $3,070 for metallic paint (standard on the NSX-T). You would also need to spend $7,400 more for the model with a Targa top (standard on the NSX-T). All of which brings the MSRP of a comparably equipped 911 to over $80K. Even with a discount from MSRP, you are unlikely to be able to buy that car for as little as a new NSX-T.

So what you come down to is this:

1. Is it possible to buy a new Porsche 911 for less than a new NSX-T? Yes.

2. Is it possible to buy a new Porsche 911 comparably equipped to a new NSX-T for less money? Probably not.

3. Do most new Porsche 911's sold sell for less money than a new NSX-T typically sells for? No.

 

[outofstep]

I'm gonna guess that it's safe to assume many of you have never been to a dragstrip... ever

If you think that LS1s are running high thirteens in stock trim, you are in for a rude awakening if you run them in a high 13 second car.

That and please cut the lame hp/liter arguement.

Sorry that my first post had to be this, but this managed to press afew of my buttons. Almost as bad as folks asking why I have one turbo instead of two.

 

[mlambert890]

Oh jeez, here we go... What are you calling an "LS1"? C5 Vettes, or late model F-bodies? If you're talking C5 Vettes, then no one here is quoting "high 13" ETs that I noticed on this thread. It's pretty well known that a base C5 is a high 12, low 13 car. So is a 3.2L NSX... A fact which seems to go completely ignored by the ignorant masses...

As for the "lame HP/liter argument"... I agree that it's kind of pointless. Of course it's not really any more pointless than the "I'll race you from 80mph-190mph" argument that modded Supra owners seem to want to resort to anytime they run into a Viper...

 

[naaman]

Hmmm...
Yeah, I was talking about Camaros, not Corvettes. But HP/Liter is not totally invalid, since a smaller engine does have it's benefeits.

What would happen, for example, if you swapped a Vipers 8.3 into an Enzo's engine bay (assuming it could fit)...

 

[mlambert890]

HP/Liter has definite merit as a technical discussion, but that kind of discussion is on a different level (ie - actual engine design merits).

I see the point that in terms of a "put up or shut up" type discussion, claiming a high hp/liter ratio while getting stomped at the track rings kind of hollow.

Of course, I also feel the same about dyno queen Supras getting destroyed by Vipers in the 1/4 mile and then saying "yeah, well lets race from 80-200!!!!" Equally ridiculous. That's not to say that there aren't Supras that will eat Vipers in the 1/4, it just seems that many dyno monsters fall short and resort to a pocket full of excuses when the light bar ticks green...

 

[KGP]

I'm gonna guess that it's safe to assume many of you have never been to a dragstrip... ever

If you think that LS1s are running high thirteens in stock trim, you are in for a rude awakening if you run them in a high 13 second car.

No. I don't think it is safe to assume that. But, it really is pointless from my viewpoint, as well as most other NSX owners I would guess. I could absolutely care less what my car does in a quarter mile, period. Sure, I want better acceleration than most cars out there, but from a dead stop to 1/4 mile I could care less.

However, I somewhat care about how fast my car can get around a road course, and I suspect that I am the major limiting factor there, not the car itself.

 

[mlambert890]

No. I don't think it is safe to assume that. But, it really is pointless from my viewpoint, as well as most other NSX owners I would guess. I could absolutely care less what my car does in a quarter mile, period. Sure, I want better acceleration than most cars out there, but from a dead stop to 1/4 mile I could care less.

However, I do care about how fast my car can get around a road course, and I suspect that I am the major limiting factor there, not the car itself.

That's very well said. It's not a big surprise that the NSX isn't a 1/4 mile car. The real appeal of the NSX is the driving experience. Those who love the car (read that as: "those who post here") love the experience of driving the car (the feedback, the driver position, the handling characteristics, etc.) Would we want it to be quicker? Sure... But most cannot max out the capabilities of the stock car anyhow and, for those who are willing, there is always the aftermarket.

I'm sure that, barring unforseen disasters, I will eventually SC my NSX...

 

[naaman]

Good point. The main argument in favor of HP/Liter is that in theory, if the smaller engine were upsized with the same horsepower per displacement as it has now, it would be faster than the other guy...

The thing about the Viper is that it makes so much power at a low rpm, that severely turbo lagged engines have no hope of catching it within the space of a quarter mile.

As far as the NSX is concerned, people who buy it aren't as interested in drag racing as they are in, say, track racing...

 

[outofstep]

What are you calling an "LS1"? C5 Vettes, or late model F-bodies

I'm talking about the F-Bodies.

A fact which seems to go completely ignored by the ignorant masses...

Kinda like the whole F-Body/vette deal. My buddies Z06 with DRs and freemods (nothing over 20 bucks) cracked high 11s.

Of course, I also feel the same about dyno queen Supras getting destroyed by Vipers in the 1/4 mile and then saying "yeah, well lets race from 80-200!!!!" Equally ridiculous. That's not to say that there aren't Supras that will eat Vipers in the 1/4, it just seems that many dyno monsters fall short and resort to a pocket full of excuses when the light bar ticks green...

It's sad thats how quite afew of them are. However; having a medium sized turbo, high stall torque and gears, means I love going from a dig. 15 pounds off boost of the line is funtimes.

It's not a big surprise that the NSX isn't a 1/4 mile car. The real appeal of the NSX is the driving experience

Neither is the supra. But seeing as how I've turned mine into a drag car I need a new driving car. That's why I'm here.