Was looking at a Prelude for the wife and noticed that the curb weight is less than the NSX. I then looked at the Accord and noticed that the curb weight is less than the NSX. How can this be? How can a lightweight aluminum car weigh more than a 4 door family sedan? I don't get it. What good is all this lightweight aluminum and high-tech design?
NSX weighs more than an Accord or Prelude
- Thread starter gobble
- Start date
I remember reading an interview with one of the designers of the C5 Vette. In the interview they were discussing the old mid-engine vs front-engine debate.
The Chevy engineer said that they had honestly looked at the mid-engine layout but it would have been several hundred pounds heavier than the front-engine rear-transaxle design that ultimately found its way into the C5.
Consider that the C5/Z06 has a 5.7L engine and a steel frame and it's the essentially the same weight as the NSX.
I too have often wondered why, considering the all aluminum design, that the NSX isn't lighter than it is.
Perhaps the 2nd generation NSX will be lighter or at least the same weight with 4.5L V8.
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
The Chevy engineer said that they had honestly looked at the mid-engine layout but it would have been several hundred pounds heavier than the front-engine rear-transaxle design that ultimately found its way into the C5.
Consider that the C5/Z06 has a 5.7L engine and a steel frame and it's the essentially the same weight as the NSX.
I too have often wondered why, considering the all aluminum design, that the NSX isn't lighter than it is.
Perhaps the 2nd generation NSX will be lighter or at least the same weight with 4.5L V8.
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
The body of the NSX including the doors and deck lid weighs only 452 lbs. I've always found it hard to believe that there is 2500 + pounds more. Where is it? As I understand it, the only piece of steel in the car is a small crossmember behind the steering wheel.
I seem to remember someone here who was attempting to get a bumper support manufactured out ot aluminum.
I don't know what became of this and I wasn't able to find it by searching.
I wonder how much you could really lose by going to aluminum? I suppose if you didn't care about the crash-worthiness of the final result you might be able to save a fair amount.
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
I don't know what became of this and I wasn't able to find it by searching.
I wonder how much you could really lose by going to aluminum? I suppose if you didn't care about the crash-worthiness of the final result you might be able to save a fair amount.
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
First off, I must say that only the 4 banger Accords are lighter than the NSX-T and that they are negligible compared to the NSX coupe. The V6 Accord weighs more than either the NSX coupe or NSX-T. (The 4 cylinder accords are also lighter than a Ferrari 360 Modena which also boasts aluminum construction but I dont hear ferrari owners complaining.)
A lot of the "extra" weight went into good features such as chassis rigidity and larger tires/wheels at the 4 corners.
What concerns me is that there isnt a minimalist version of the car where they strip out all the crap that I can live without. Bringing the type R, S, or S-zero variants to the US would be a good start. I never use the radio or the AC, I dont care that the trunk is carpeted (or that there is a trunk for that matter). I dont mind the road noise and dont want the extra 50-100 pounds of sound deadening material it adds. T-top? Bah! I'll stick with my coupe. Im willing to lose most of the luxury frills if it will knock several hundred pounds off.
Im sure that a lot of the NSX demographic would be turned away by such a spartan vehicle, but I would at least like to be able to buy such a car without having to strip it down myself after the fact. It is also easier just to NOT have something installed in the first place. It should also knock chunks off the price tag too.
My vision of the ideal balance is something similar to the equipment level found in the lotus elise -- just a heater. No carpets, no radio, no AC, no trunk, etc etc. About the only concession to comfort that I would keep are the power locks and windows.
A 2400lb curb weight would make me a very happy customer. If only honda made a 290BHP super reliable version of the lotus exige.
Or how about this one. Honda has spent hundreds of millions working on a high tech 2 seater with 1800lb curb weight, aerodynamic body, 0.25Cd, lightweight alloy rims, and high efficiency vtec engine all to be assembled at Tochigi. Next generation NSX you say? HAHAHAHAHA. Lets see... 0-60 in 11 secs and 0-100 in... wait its maxed out already. That cant be the nsx can it? Perhaps you were talking about the Insight? To top it all off, they admit to a loss of over $20,000 per Insight sold and despite their 50MPG they arent selling like hotcakes by any stretch of the imagination.
We want a high performance car not some battery operated gas miser tree hugger golf cart. The S2000 should have more than demonstrated the demand for such cars. Stop squandering the R&D money on useless cars like the insight or the MDX. Damnit, they lost so much money on those cars that all they could afford to do was put new headlights on the updated NSX.
The 2nd generation NSX better NOT turn out to be some hybrid thing like the dualnote. I am not spending $100,000 on an electric car. Do you see Ferrari or Porsche putting batteries and electric motors in their cars?
Oops. I digress. enough ranting.
Personally, I applaud Honda and others for their developement of electric car technology. Oil is not an infinite resource, and will be getting harder and harder to "aquire". It will be nice, no, necessary, to have fuel options in the not so distant future. ( see current world events )Remember the gas prices just last summer? Remember the gas lines in the 70s? If they develop low cost, high mileage cars that use alt fuels, it will leave more petro for those of us who crave it for our toys. Sound selfish? Let's not forget, an NSX is not a necessity.What good is a high performance sports car if you can't get fuel to make it perform? I love to drive, and would rather know I can drive a high performance electric car ( whatever that may turn out to be ) than no car at all.
NSXLNT, Thanks for the good responce, I agree although this may be a visionary view point. On the related subject, the NSX would be an excellent platform to demonstrate the weight savings required to build cars in the future.
I personnaly am open to new technologies as long as the intentent of the NSX is retained.
As far as the MDX, as I understand it it is a money maker for Honda (not my kind of vehical). The insite, like the NSX, is another technology demonstration vehical (thanks Honda for the long range vision).
It would be great to have a reduced weight NSX brought to the states. The only reason I can think they don't is that model varation requires increased logistics. Even if it was special order it seems it would be viable.
Now, can anyone answer the question, where is the all this weight??? Do we have dark matter or a pico sized black hole hiding in the NSX somewhere?
hg
I personnaly am open to new technologies as long as the intentent of the NSX is retained.
As far as the MDX, as I understand it it is a money maker for Honda (not my kind of vehical). The insite, like the NSX, is another technology demonstration vehical (thanks Honda for the long range vision).
It would be great to have a reduced weight NSX brought to the states. The only reason I can think they don't is that model varation requires increased logistics. Even if it was special order it seems it would be viable.
Now, can anyone answer the question, where is the all this weight??? Do we have dark matter or a pico sized black hole hiding in the NSX somewhere?
hg
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
Jimbo is correct - All things being equal, a mid-engined car IS heavier than any other configuration. This is a compromise of more overall weight to reduce polar moment of inertia.
Despite all the marketing hype there is a lot of stuff in the car that is heavier than it needs to be.
Ever pick up the stereo? It is a brick.
The seats have a drilled aluminum frame to save weight and sound good in the marketing literature, but they still manage to weigh nearly 45lbs each!
The V6 with every trick in the book (VTEC, VVIS, etc.) is relatively heavy.
Huge pieces of glass all around the cockpit to give you that great view? Heavy.
You get the idea...
Despite all the marketing hype there is a lot of stuff in the car that is heavier than it needs to be.
Ever pick up the stereo? It is a brick.
The seats have a drilled aluminum frame to save weight and sound good in the marketing literature, but they still manage to weigh nearly 45lbs each!
The V6 with every trick in the book (VTEC, VVIS, etc.) is relatively heavy.
Huge pieces of glass all around the cockpit to give you that great view? Heavy.
You get the idea...
I agree the NSX is not exactly the lightweight car the prospects make it out to be. My 2nd car is a Citroen AX, made of steel (except the rear trunk lid) and weighs only 1515 pounds.
However there is a lot of weight added in the NSX for strength (doors don't exactly feel light when you close them do they?) and there are a lot of accessories. Airco, electric mirrors/windows/chairs, it all adds up pretty quick. And don't forget the NSX is not a very small car. A Porsche 911 weighs about the same as an NSX and is in fact a smaller car.
However there is a lot of weight added in the NSX for strength (doors don't exactly feel light when you close them do they?) and there are a lot of accessories. Airco, electric mirrors/windows/chairs, it all adds up pretty quick. And don't forget the NSX is not a very small car. A Porsche 911 weighs about the same as an NSX and is in fact a smaller car.
I agree that saving gas and lower pollution is a good thing, but I do not find selling the insight (nor a hybrid NSX) as a way of achieving that. I realize this is digressing a bit from the topic, but I'll get back to it at the end of the post.
Although the insight is a fuel efficient car, its efficiency only has an effect if people actually buy and drive such a car. Sales numbers from the beginning of the year suggest that people arent buying it. In fact, the civic outsold the insight almost 100:1.
It takes honda 4 years to realize they should put the hybrid system into a civic. Shouldnt they have done that from the start rather than blow hundres of millions on developing an all new platform? Not only would it have been much cheaper, it yields a car that a family can actually live with, AND have an impact on saving the environment.
It really pains me to see that honda has chosen to blow hundreds of millions on making a worthless insight rather then put it into something that actually sells. They probably spent as much money designing the insight as it would cost to redesign the next generation NSX. Instead, years of misspending at honda left us all with a 2002 NSX that sports a butt ugly nose and a few measly plastic trim bits.
Anyway, back to the original overweight deal. In the grand scheme of things, the NSX isnt overweight. A lot of other performance cars weigh a lot more (diablo, murcielago, M3, M5, etc etc). If you want overweight -- the aston martin vanquish is WAY overweight at 4000 lbs!!!
BUT, I would definitely like to see a lightweight variant of the NSX in the future. Sales of the lotus elise has been very strong over the past 5 years and this more than illustrates the appetite for a high performance yet minimalist sports car. As I said before, there are a pile of features you can rip out of the NSX and still end up with a usable car. This could potentially rip 500-600 pounds off the car and yield something truly spectacular.
Interesting thread.
First of all, can anyone offer an explanation as to WHY mid-engine is heavier? Is it a problem of where you need chassis stiffness, or extra routing for the cooling system, and gas/clutch pedals, or what?
Second, as to where the weight went, things like 20 lb cats, 40 lb exhaust, 45lb seats, big heavy Bose speaker assemblies, vinyl padded dash, sound deadening, airbag(s), etc all add up quick.
Someone asked if anyone's measured their NSX... Last time I had mine corner-balanced, it tipped the scales at 3016 lbs, I think, with if I remember about a half tank of gas. That's right in line with the spec curb weight on a 91.
Third, as to how much weight could be removed and still have a liveable car, I think 500-600 pounds is probably more than what's feasible. Mark Johnson's Candy Cane is largely gutted with race seats, although he may still have stereo and A/C, and it's I believe still at least in the 2600's somewhere. And it's certainly more stripped than I'd want for a street car. Taking the car down to 2800lbs while remaining streetable wouldn't be too hard, though, especially if you can do without A/C and stereo. Spendy, though.
-Mike
First of all, can anyone offer an explanation as to WHY mid-engine is heavier? Is it a problem of where you need chassis stiffness, or extra routing for the cooling system, and gas/clutch pedals, or what?
Second, as to where the weight went, things like 20 lb cats, 40 lb exhaust, 45lb seats, big heavy Bose speaker assemblies, vinyl padded dash, sound deadening, airbag(s), etc all add up quick.
Someone asked if anyone's measured their NSX... Last time I had mine corner-balanced, it tipped the scales at 3016 lbs, I think, with if I remember about a half tank of gas. That's right in line with the spec curb weight on a 91.
Third, as to how much weight could be removed and still have a liveable car, I think 500-600 pounds is probably more than what's feasible. Mark Johnson's Candy Cane is largely gutted with race seats, although he may still have stereo and A/C, and it's I believe still at least in the 2600's somewhere. And it's certainly more stripped than I'd want for a street car. Taking the car down to 2800lbs while remaining streetable wouldn't be too hard, though, especially if you can do without A/C and stereo. Spendy, though.
-Mike
Most projections have the currently discovered oil reserves (with no estimate of undisovered resources) lasting 400-600 years at the current rate of use. IMHO, the real advantage of hybirds is the lower emissions.
Agreed, David.
There's plennnnnty of oil for our foreseeable future (and our children's too). That's why we need to start drilling more in Alaska.
And...it doesn't seem that the new hybrid Civic makes economic sense. Look at the what Car and Driver had to say about the imaginary economy...
"...But neither will you be saving a great deal of money. If we compare the Civic hybrid to the Civic LX, which is the most comparable conventional Civic, we find the following: If you drive 15,000 miles every year and gas is $1.50 a gallon, you'll save about $240 a year. To realize this saving, you will have paid about $20,000 (final prices are pending) for the Civic hybrid—a solid $3500 more than the price of an LX with alloy wheels, a CD player—and a small allowance for the hybrid's automatic climate-control system. Put that increment in a money-market account at five percent, and you'll earn $175 every year. At that rate, allowing for the time value of money, you will never save enough gas to pay back the premium you paid for the hybrid model...."
Why bother?
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
There's plennnnnty of oil for our foreseeable future (and our children's too). That's why we need to start drilling more in Alaska.
And...it doesn't seem that the new hybrid Civic makes economic sense. Look at the what Car and Driver had to say about the imaginary economy...
"...But neither will you be saving a great deal of money. If we compare the Civic hybrid to the Civic LX, which is the most comparable conventional Civic, we find the following: If you drive 15,000 miles every year and gas is $1.50 a gallon, you'll save about $240 a year. To realize this saving, you will have paid about $20,000 (final prices are pending) for the Civic hybrid—a solid $3500 more than the price of an LX with alloy wheels, a CD player—and a small allowance for the hybrid's automatic climate-control system. Put that increment in a money-market account at five percent, and you'll earn $175 every year. At that rate, allowing for the time value of money, you will never save enough gas to pay back the premium you paid for the hybrid model...."
Why bother?
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
It appears you're confusing "curb weight" with "GVWR" (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating). Curb weight is quoted in the car's specs and is the actual weight of the car with standard equipment and full fluids but no occupants. GVWR is shown on a placard on the car and is the maximum weight under which the car should be operated, and includes occupants and any cargo.
When the CRX (not CRX Si) was introduced in 1984, its curb weight was 1600 pounds. By the time of its demise in 1991, it was around 2200 pounds or so. It never had a curb weight of 2600 pounds. However, that sounds about right for the GVWR.
Curb weight on a '91 is 3010 pounds, and that includes a full tank of gas (about 110 pounds of gas).
Any discussion of politics would be better opened in the "Off Topic" forum than here. Also, I think you misinterpreted jimbo's comment and failed to recognize the satire...
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 22 April 2002).]
I have to throw out my disagreement to an earlier statement that hybrid design would be a waste. Screw the oil, screw the economy, screw the liberals. You are missing the point of this technology. Don't all of us here love turbos. Eh? What does a turbo offer us that makes us want one so bad. It recycles spent energy. The hybrid has the same potential to produce extra power as the turbo. The insight uses it's recaptured energy to maintain good gas mileage. Who cares. Instead, we can use this energy to add to what we are already putting down on the pavement. Imagine this system applied to a 4.2L V8! What was once used to conserve energy can now be used to make this engine act as a 4.2L V10. Personally I like the idea of using this energy to drive the front wheels for 4WD capability. Now all we need to do is add some turbos!
[This message has been edited by Juice (edited 22 April 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Juice (edited 22 April 2002).]
I can agree with this, but at the same time I don't think it is a bad idea to try and preserve our environment. I also don't like being at the mercy of the middle east.
Does any of this belong in an NSX? I think I would wait to see if and how it was implemented before I passed judgement.
[This message has been edited by nsxxtreme (edited 23 April 2002).]
I think the jury is still out on hybrid technology.
I think it's clear that it helps on emissions and it does increase mileage. But from a real-world cost-per-mile perspective it's a bit of a joke.
Now if the question is... can hybrid technology enhance a sports car like the NSX, well I think that also remains to be seen.
The electric motor, controls and batteries take up weight/space and requires extra supporting mass.
Sure you might get some extra horsepower and torque but is that really a desirable trade-off in sports car?
It seems like every third post here is about how to reduce weight on the NSX and you can bet that a hybrid NSX would have at least an additional 500 pounds to lug through the corners.
I think this is why Honda chose a big 4 passenger sedan like the DualNote (aka DN-X) as a hybrid showcase possibility and not a NSX replacement.
For MY NSX, I'd much rather have a plain old 4.5 liter i-VTEC V8 with 425 HP wrapped up in a gorgeous 2900 lb body.
-Jim
PS: I wasn't kidding about ANWR oil drilling. I think it can be done safely and in a enviro-friendly manner, but as Ken points out, let's leave this political debate to the off-topic area.
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
I think it's clear that it helps on emissions and it does increase mileage. But from a real-world cost-per-mile perspective it's a bit of a joke.
Now if the question is... can hybrid technology enhance a sports car like the NSX, well I think that also remains to be seen.
The electric motor, controls and batteries take up weight/space and requires extra supporting mass.
Sure you might get some extra horsepower and torque but is that really a desirable trade-off in sports car?
It seems like every third post here is about how to reduce weight on the NSX and you can bet that a hybrid NSX would have at least an additional 500 pounds to lug through the corners.
I think this is why Honda chose a big 4 passenger sedan like the DualNote (aka DN-X) as a hybrid showcase possibility and not a NSX replacement.
For MY NSX, I'd much rather have a plain old 4.5 liter i-VTEC V8 with 425 HP wrapped up in a gorgeous 2900 lb body.
-Jim
PS: I wasn't kidding about ANWR oil drilling. I think it can be done safely and in a enviro-friendly manner, but as Ken points out, let's leave this political debate to the off-topic area.
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
I'm not sure where you get that number from. The Civic Hybrid is only about 200 pounds heavier than the conventional Civic Sedan.
Ken,
It was a guesstimate.
I assumed that any hybrid system suitable for the NSX and for a "high-performance" car would require significantly larger motor(s), batteries, controller, and the added structure to support such stuff.
Perhaps it's 400 pounds?
Just like the NSX's V6 weighs more than the 4 cylinder Civic engine, I think it's reasonable to assume that there would be a scaling up of any performance hybrid solution destined for the NSX.
Whatever the weight penalty it's weight that would detract from that nimble sports car feel and handling.
In my opinion it's the wrong approach for a sports car.
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
It was a guesstimate.
I assumed that any hybrid system suitable for the NSX and for a "high-performance" car would require significantly larger motor(s), batteries, controller, and the added structure to support such stuff.
Perhaps it's 400 pounds?
Just like the NSX's V6 weighs more than the 4 cylinder Civic engine, I think it's reasonable to assume that there would be a scaling up of any performance hybrid solution destined for the NSX.
Whatever the weight penalty it's weight that would detract from that nimble sports car feel and handling.
In my opinion it's the wrong approach for a sports car.
-Jim
------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for 76-79 Honda Accords
Obviously we don't know what Honda has in mind for the next NSX. However, I think it's safe to assume that they understand the importance of light weight and its contribution to nimble feel and handling. Superior handling was one of the primary design objectives when the NSX was first developed. I seriously doubt that they would throw that out the window in the next iteration.
Similar threads
