The original NSX was never intended to compete with it's contemporary hypercars (F40), but it's difficult to argue that it was an 'underdog', at least from it's inception. It easily eclipsed much of the competition at the time (348), and it took many years (for Ferrari at least) to equal performance (F355) and considerably longer in terms of reliability (F430). Where the NSX fell behind was its lack of development over the years, as the competition furiously carried on and the nsx stayed for the most part unchanged since 1989. It certainly was not good for the NSX, nor Honda's business in sports cars, and is part of why some may describe it today (with a certain degree of accuracy) as an 'underdog'.
Now if we assume that it would be a wise decision for Honda/Acura to follow suit as an 'underdog', which I might characterize as 'second best', 'good enough', or 'attempting to eclipse, or at least mimic, yet fail', then I suppose that's where we disagree. The NSX cannot just be 'good enough' being the underdog it is today to succeed. It must be at the very least, twice as good as it's competition, meaning greater performance, or equal performance and half the cost. Otherwise, the millions spent in R&D to produce a statement, a halo car, will be remembered as an exercise of mediocrity (read failure, at least from my perspective). Now you are correct in that we know little about the car, but I absolutely do care about the future of the NSX, and I hope this rant elucidates my passion for it. I most certainly want it to succeed. I feel I need to express my concerns however when I fear they are missing the point, when I find its styling to be 'adequate' but most certainly not timeless, and its sound to deliver nothing close to the drama that excites the hearts and minds of auto enthusiasts today.
"I wish my father could make sushi forever," the son says, "But eventually I'll have to take his place."
"Jiro's son must be at least twice as good just to be equal! That's how influential his father is."
