reviews are out

You're only reinforcing my point, FA. You have different expectations of a supercar versus what Honda does. You know from owning the first NSX that the successor that it was never going to scream like a Ferrari or Lambo V8/V10 once they chose a sensible turbo V6 for the powerplant. If they would have gone V8 like McLaren, that would have been interesting, but that's not the Honda way clearly.

There two kinds of people on this board. The ones that truly like the first gen NSX for what it is (qualitative factors that aren't exactly quantifiable) and then the ones that buy it and realize, it's not that fast so they sell it and get something faster. When are you going to move on from yours and get something faster??? Because, actually the new NSX is a lot faster.

I think the SH-AWD has it merits and results are showing. The anti-turbo lag mask alone is novel enough. There's one MT test that shows it performing decently but not great and another test that shows the R8 not doing well at all while the NSX was pretty damn good. We need more tests to gain a consistent conclusion on where it stands.
 
i agree, it sounds like yet another excuse...

Well, I think it is actually very VERY simple...

Either it is just an excuse for worse than expected results and the NSX is indeed just another good supercar.
OR
Acura/Honda has indeed somehow messed up the alignment and the NSX performance not as good as it could have been.

I think everyone has read about how Ferrari will send a team of engineers and drivers to a given track to set up the to be driven/tested car for optimal performance before BEFORE the journalists get theirs hand on it.

As the proof is in the pudding, just LET Honda set up the car as they think it should be and have Randy do another lap.
Then we will know for sure. Either the NSX is several seconds faster or it is not.

Simple...
 
just LET Honda set up the car as they think it should be and have Randy do another lap.Then we will know for sure. Either the NSX is several seconds faster or it is not.
A bit deja vu of last year's (or two years ago?) MT test when the Z06 was "down on power" and they did a retest. It was 5 seconds faster at 1:33 (but still lost to Viper). Maybe its all a conspiracy to maintain interest in the cars or sell ads for Motor Trend....https://youtu.be/9qWYJQClIyY
 
This is why I don't put stock in track times. It's good bragging rights, but let's see the whole slew tests and then make a more accurate conclusion, instead of just one or two test so far...

- - - Updated - - -

Also, the first test numbers had the NSX matching the ACR around a particular track driven by a Honda driver. So who knows?
 
Well, I think it is actually very VERY simple... Either it is just an excuse for worse than expected results and the NSX is indeed just another good supercar. OR Acura/Honda has indeed somehow messed up the alignment and the NSX performance not as good as it could have been. I think everyone has read about how Ferrari will send a team of engineers and drivers to a given track to set up the to be driven/tested car for optimal performance before BEFORE the journalists get theirs hand on it. As the proof is in the pudding, just LET Honda set up the car as they think it should be and have Randy do another lap. Then we will know for sure. Either the NSX is several seconds faster or it is not. Simple...
you're kidding yourself if you think Honda isn't setting their car up and doesn't have a team of engineers present...

- - - Updated - - -

You're only reinforcing my point, FA. You have different expectations of a supercar versus what Honda does. You know from owning the first NSX that the successor that it was never going to scream like a Ferrari or Lambo V8/V10 once they chose a sensible turbo V6 for the powerplant. If they would have gone V8 like McLaren, that would have been interesting, but that's not the Honda way clearly. There two kinds of people on this board. The ones that truly like the first gen NSX for what it is (qualitative factors that aren't exactly quantifiable) and then the ones that buy it and realize, it's not that fast so they sell it and get something faster. When are you going to move on from yours and get something faster??? Because, actually the new NSX is a lot faster.
you're correct, my idea of a Supercar is what most people's idea of a Supercar is. i own my current NSX because i like it, in the way i love the even slower Ferrari Dino 246. it's not because i need the fastest car Honda produces. and it's laughable you think i don't already have a faster car than the new NSX...
 
you're kidding yourself if you think Honda isn't setting their car up and doesn't have a team of engineers present...

Who said I would not assume some people from Honda would not have been present at the test?
It would make sense to have some people available at least, as would any other manufacturer as well.

Reading your posts you keep coming back to the point that because the NSX doesn't live up to the expectations, it is therefore automatically a wasted effort.
Basically what you seem to be saying is that ALL people getting themselves a proper Supercar should be getting only the fastest one available. And everyone would be driving the same car.

As far as what people expect from a supercar, it would probably be the same as what I would expect. Namely that is a extremely fast car.
And I actually do think the new NSX IS a very fast car.
 
If the NSX MT tested was out of alignment, there are a number of possibilities as to how that could've happened. It's happened to other cars at tests in the past, and it'll happen again. Some of these press cars lead rough lives and depending on what MT was doing with the car it could've simply been a matter of smashing the car over potholes too much. Or it could be that Acura did make an alignment change before giving it to them, either on purpose or by accident.

Hopefully Jeff (TOV) can get an answer from MT on this to clear things up a bit. Even if MT retested the car I don't expect it to shoot to the top of the timesheets but it should've had a better showing here, and the fact that Randy found the car looser than pretty much anyone else who has tested may mean there was an alignment problem. Sounds like Valkyrie Pilot may have been right.
 
Who said I would not assume some people from Honda would not have been present at the test?It would make sense to have some people available at least, as would any other manufacturer as well.Reading your posts you keep coming back to the point that because the NSX doesn't live up to the expectations, it is therefore automatically a wasted effort.Basically what you seem to be saying is that ALL people getting themselves a proper Supercar should be getting only the fastest one available. And everyone would be driving the same car.As far as what people expect from a supercar, it would probably be the same as what I would expect. Namely that is a extremely fast car.And I actually do think the new NSX IS a very fast car.
what i said is, "if you're gonna make a Supercar, make it to be the best". as for me, i'll get the fastest one available, because that's me. that's my reason for buying a Supercar. if i'm gonna buy a truck to tow stuff, i'll buy the one with the biggest towing capacity. or if i'm buying a minivan (which i never would do!) to tote the kids around town (which i don't have any of them either), i'd buy the one with the most seats, etc. that's my reasoning, but isn't everyone's...

- - - Updated - - -

everyone including yourself keeps pointing out that Ferrari sends engineers to magazine tests. and i'm telling you that all the manufacturers do, including Honda...
 
As for me, i'll get the fastest one available, because that's me. that's my reason for buying a Supercar.
So then you'd get a C7 Z06, right? AFAIK, it is the fastest car currently in production (after Viper was discontinued) around most circuits. Maybe the 488GTB would be close around some tracks, but for ~4X the price.
 
A bit deja vu of last year's (or two years ago?) MT test when the Z06 was "down on power" and they did a retest. It was 5 seconds faster at 1:33 (but still lost to Viper). Maybe its all a conspiracy to maintain interest in the cars or sell ads for Motor Trend....
Z06's are notorious for being down on power when the ambient temperature is hot. it's a huge known problem. not making full boost will drastically hurt your laps times, i wouldn't say the same for being slightly out of alignment...

- - - Updated - - -

So then you'd get a C7 Z06, right? AFAIK, it is the fastest car currently in production (after Viper was discontinued) around most circuits. Maybe the 488GTB would be close around some tracks, but for ~4X the price.
i wouldn't buy a Corvette, nor is it a Supercar in most people's book...
 
So the sine qua non of being a great supercar is being the fastest around the track, but the fastest car you can buy today is not a supercar because people don't consider it a supercar? Am I following your logic? Or are you acknowledging that factors other than lap times are relevant in determining the best / most desirable supercars? I am confused.Also, FYI, the 2017 Z06 (manual transmission) that is shipping now has updated cooling, improving the design spec from 85 degs to 100 degs as the maximum temperature that a pro level driver can drive the car around the track at 10/10 until the tank is empty, so heat is not an issue. For the earlier (2015-2016) automatic transmissions, they do overheat on hot days without cooling mods. I know. I have one.
 
a Supercar to me must look unmistakably like a Supercar (think Ferrari, Lamborghini, McLaren). it must sound like a proper Supercar should. and it must certainly have performance to back up the previous two points. again, this is my personal opinion. and no, the improved Z06's (with manuals) are still overheating all the time in hot ambient temperatures. how do i know, from my friends that work with this car at Chevy and can some times not even get a full lap out of them on track. and yes, they're pro drivers...
 
The 2017 Z06s are just hitting the street (the details on improved cooling were just announced yesterday), so I think you are mistaken, but I won't quibble with you. I've always thought supercars were the ones I can't afford, so I'm not sure if the Z06 or the NSX qualify. I think your opinion on the NSX collapses to: "I don't like it for my own reasons." Hard to can't argue with your taste. As an aside, the hybrid hypercars apparently don't do well on hot days either, but perhaps you give them a pass for your own reasons. Z06 cooling info from Corvette Cheif Engineer, Tadge Juechter, posted yesterday: http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums...swered-2017-z06-changes-and-improvements.htmlEnjoy whatever you decide to buy next.
 
Last edited:
perhaps you didn't read the part when i said "my friends, professional drivers, who work for Chevy"?i also knew the NSX didn't have the speed and pace you guys all were positive it did, well ahead of time also. because again, i had inside information. i told N Spec privately many months before the car was released, but wasn't about to post it an open forum. i work on the inside of this industry on occasion, so i'm usually privy to information a manufacturer isn't going to tell the whole world. and neither am i...

- - - Updated - - -

part of the allure and mystique of a Supercar is something that is completely out of reach for the average person. a car that costs more than a house in most areas of this country. and something so fast a Police helicopter couldn't catch you. something rarely seen in person beyond the posters on a teenager's wall kind of stuff. a Corvette is just far too affordable (by comparison) and much too common. the fact that many of us on this forum are able to afford such a machine means that we're a very fortunate bunch of individuals in this life...
 
what i said is, "if you're gonna make a Supercar, make it to be the best". as for me, i'll get the fastest one available, because that's me. that's my reason for buying a Supercar.

If the above statement is your criterium, I don't see why you would bother with cars like the NSX, Ferrari 488, Z06 or any of these low-budget supercars.
Why don't you simply get a Veyron, a Koenigsegg or a 918? and leave all this slow stuff behind?
 
I think the SH-AWD has it merits and results are showing. The anti-turbo lag mask alone is novel enough.
I think while it has some merits, it ends up being very expensive, and the car is way too heavy. Competition is doing better, lighter, cheaper, faster. The fact that the GT350R comes up on top in these comparisons tells a lot, and it's half the price of the NSX (*). Hell a GTRzilla is a lot cheaper, and offers similar performance.. What you are missing here, is the 1st gen NSX was done in pure Honda spirit, as in lighter = faster. That is very quantifiable. The engineering that went into it in order to make it consistently light was incredible for the time. As always in engineering doing simpler or lighter is very, very difficult. That's what has been missed on the 2nd gen i think. That also explains the lack of enthusiasm, given its price and weight, at the same level one can consider a Huracan that has a lot more sex appeal. We're way too far from the giant killer that was the 1st gen NSX or more recently the Nissan GTR. (*) edit i looked at prices, it's almost 1/3rd of the price actually !
 
Last edited:
If the above statement is your criterium, I don't see why you would bother with cars like the NSX, Ferrari 488, Z06 or any of these low-budget supercars.Why don't you simply get a Veyron, a Koenigsegg or a 918? and leave all this slow stuff behind?
you seem to be missing the point entirely. now you're talking about Hypercars, a completely different class...
Competition is doing better, lighter, cheaper, faster. The fact that the GT350R comes up on top in these comparisons tells a lot, and it's half the price of the NSX (*). Hell a GTRzilla is a lot cheaper, and offers similar performance.
MvM, N Spec, how do you feel about Honda's techno, tour de force, wonder car being bested by a Mustang?
 
Scan_zpsqrwms8tx.jpeg~original
 
In the Supercar olympics, I *deduct* points for an overly track-centric design. I think a 991TT/S is a "better" supercar than a GT3RS (assuming either of them are supercars in the first place), for example. I think it's fun to compare lap times of street-focused or dual-use cars, but comparing lap times of the GT350R (or Viper ACR) to a more "balanced" car is a bit silly. I don't think anyone with ~$200K to spend on a car primarily for track use would choose the NSX. That factoid has very little impact on my assessment of the NSX as an all-arounder. And I don't really care if anyone thinks the NSX is a "supercar." Its a blurry an daily line/bucket in any case.I think its comes down to how much people like interesting new technology and new platforms. I do, which puts point in the NSX column for me. The first cars were slower than the fastest horse-drawn carriages of their day. Some people still preferred the car due to novelty and future-oriented technology.
 
comparing lap times of the GT350R (or Viper ACR) to a more "balanced" car is a bit silly. I don't think anyone with ~$200K to spend on a car primarily for track use would choose the NSX.
They'd pick the Huracan. Overall better looks, fantastic engine sound... As for "being interesting in technology" i am a technologist, that's my whole life, i live and breathe technology. But i'm also an engineer and appreciate good engineering. 1st gen NSX was that, great engineering that kept its focus (light weight = more fun). See the trend of all recent reviews, why everyone praises the MX5, the 570S, etc... : these are driver cars, light weight, FUN. Even the MT article didnt rank the cars from their lap times. What can be important is good, balanced and predictable behavior on the edge and that's where these cars deliver. This translates in these cars also being great on open roads. I'll say it again, as a high tech GT concept the 2nd gen NSX is nice, but should be called "Accord Coupe GT" or something in that spirit, and it wouldnt face the same kind of competition, and maybe come out on top. There's a lot of meaning in a name.
 
Fair enough. I don't place any value/significance in the NSX name as it relates to the Gen2 car. It would be great if they called it the Accord GT. Or maybe Integra GT. I'd still buy it. In terms of technology, the cool part about the NSX is the "systems engineering"-- the way stuff works together. It's a great accomplishment that provides a platform for future development. A different approach than "perfection via simplicity." I appreciate both. Supercars five or ten years from now in the NSX price range will share more DNA with the NSX than the 570S or Lambo, I predict. But, again, there need not be a concensus "best" as long as the car is interting enough for some people to add one to their stables.
 
Last edited:
NSX review in Nov. C&D

Same 0-60 time: 3.1s, 1/4 mile time of 11.2s @ 126mph. Skid pad 1.06g, 70-0 braking 142 feet. Overall decent review.
 
Last edited:
In the Supercar olympics, I *deduct* points for an overly track-centric design. I think a 991TT/S is a "better" supercar than a GT3RS (assuming either of them are supercars in the first place), for example. I think it's fun to compare lap times of street-focused or dual-use cars, but comparing lap times of the GT350R (or Viper ACR) to a more "balanced" car is a bit silly. I don't think anyone with ~$200K to spend on a car primarily for track use would choose the NSX. That factoid has very little impact on my assessment of the NSX as an all-arounder. And I don't really care if anyone thinks the NSX is a "supercar." Its a blurry an daily line/bucket in any case.I think its comes down to how much people like interesting new technology and new platforms. I do, which puts point in the NSX column for me. The first cars were slower than the fastest horse-drawn carriages of their day. Some people still preferred the car due to novelty and future-oriented technology.
i agree that comparing "street cars" (or street versions of Supercars) to hard core track oriented cars like the Viper ACR or Z06 is a bit silly. i don't put the Mustang or Camaro in the same category myself, even though the performance is creeping up there. i would definitely consider both of the aforementioned Porsches to be Supercars, and bloody good ones also. and i reckon the NSX is considered a Supercar, perhaps not in the same way a Ferrari or Lamborghini is, but it's absolutely a Supercar. read Zoom's quote below, he is right on the money...
They'd pick the Huracan. Overall better looks, fantastic engine sound... As for "being interesting in technology" i am a technologist, that's my whole life, i live and breathe technology. But i'm also an engineer and appreciate good engineering. 1st gen NSX was that, great engineering that kept its focus (light weight = more fun). See the trend of all recent reviews, why everyone praises the MX5, the 570S, etc... : these are driver cars, light weight, FUN. Even the MT article didnt rank the cars from their lap times. What can be important is good, balanced and predictable behavior on the edge and that's where these cars deliver.
i agree wholeheartedly. i think Lamborghini (with the Huracan 580-2 especially), Ferrari, Porsche, McLaren and even Mazda have been nailing it. they're building driver's cars, cars that are amazingly fun to drive. i guess even Ford has it figured out pretty well. light weight, great steering, exhilarating engines, all equating to the most entertaining drive you can have, regardless of the price. this is why people love a 458, or a 911 GT3, or a Miata. this is what Honda needs to be producing, excitement...
 
Copy from Motor Trend Best Driver Car 2016...NSX

Perhaps no car in this year’s Best Driver’s Car lineup piqued more interest than the new Acura NSX. A hybrid powertrain with three electric motors.
Active all-wheel drive with torque vectoring. Nine-speed dual-clutch transmission. More than 25 years after they shamed Ferrari, could Honda engineers do it all over again?

The short answer is, nope. Although technically interesting, visually arresting, and suitably fast, the 2017 Acura NSX isn’t a game changer.
If it causes raised eyebrows in Maranello, it’ll be because the Ferrari guys, like us, were perhaps expecting all that technology to deliver more.

“Most of my drive … was spent eagerly waiting for the ‘aha!’ moment when I’d clearly comprehend what Acura‘s
new-age ‘new sports experience’ was,” Kong said. “There were no eurekas found, though.”

Best Driver’s Car isn’t a numbers game, but the numbers provide useful context for a newcomer like the NSX. Against the other
contenders, it recorded the fourth quickest 0-60 and quarter-mile times and tied for third in the 0-100-0-mph test: 3.1 seconds,
11.3 seconds, and 10.9 seconds, respectively. But it was only sixth fastest around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, more than
two-tenths of a second behind the Shelby GT350R, a car with a DIY six-speed manual and performance technology old
Carroll Shelby would have found familiar, and less than a tenth ahead of the less powerful two-wheel-drive Porsche 911.

Where’d the speed go? “The NSX is very sensitive on corner entry to weight management,” explained Pobst. “If I leave the weight forward, leave the
weight on the nose a little too long on the way into the corner through trail braking, I get an entry oversteer that stays.” For Walton
that translated to sideways fun for the cameras: “The car drifts like it was set up to do it: a slight flick, jump out of the throttle, then roll
back on hard, but not to the floor.” But sideways is slow.

“The torque-vectoring front end should have completely redefined how a mid-engine supercar handles,” Cammisa said.
“It does no such thing.” Instead, the NSX forces you to redefine your driving style. You have to learn to brake early and in a
straight line to keep the rear end under control and then use a modicum of power to get the electrically driven front
wheels to help you through the turn before rolling on the throttle. Finding the right balance is tricky, not helped by the
numb steering and initial lack of bite from the carbon-ceramic brakes.

Where the NSX does shine is its talent at using torque-fill to emulate the response of a naturally aspirated engine.
The integration between the electric motors and an internal combustion engine is as seamless as the shifts from the nine-speed transmission.

Driven with intent on a quiet, twisting two-lane, in Track mode, and while manually shifting the transmission, the NSX is deceptively, impressively fast.

But there’s always a part of your brain trying to figure out how to get around the artificially induced foibles in the handling, always trying to
out-think the car. That makes the Acura NSX weirdly involving to drive. But not Best Driver’s Car. — Angus MacKenzie

Lug torque: 133 lb-ft
Doorpost cold pressures (f/r): (ContiSport Contact) 32/32 psi
MRLS (Laguna Seca) hot tire pressures (f/r): (Trofeo R) 34/34 psi

Acceleration settings/procedure:
Brake, select Track mode
Select DriveThrottle to the floor (wait 1-2 seconds)
Release brake


Figure-eight settings/procedure:
Track mode, ESC off (left side of I.P. press/hold until you hear two beeps)
Allow the weight to transfer to the front wheels before going back to the throttle at or slightly in advance of the apex. You should feel the torque vectoring helping the vehicle hold the desired line.


MRLS settings: Track mode, ESC off
 
Last edited:
Back
Top