yeah mate, it's the McLaren all day...Here, for fastaussie's edification, is ANOTHER positive review. But as I've always maintained, it was only when we started to get direct, side by side comparisons of real world conditions would the true worth of the NSX MkII be revealed - for good or bad! Now I'll be the first to admit I've been surprised and disappointed by the 'on track' results so far, as I reasonably [I thought] expected to see the NSX a much quicker on track car
it's an achievement for sure. but it isn't achieving nearly as much as it should, or you said it would with its fancy schmancy SH-AWD...Ying and Yang fastaussie. It's not for you, cool, but I wish you'd at least acknowledge it is an achievement of sorts.And I'm not a big fan of the NSX's visual appeal [never liked the back since I saw it at the Australian F1 last year], but I reckon it looks better than that McLaren, inside and out. Personal preference of course
i'm still on for the banquet!....hmmmmmmmmmm I think the nsxpo committee should rethink think having fastaussie as guest banquet speaker
read it again, and pay attention to the amount of negatives of the NSX versus the McLaren. they complained about the Honda's cheap interior, steering wheel, controls, low redline, said the McLaren had a better seating position, sounded better, quicker transmission, etc. they also liked things about the NSX better too, but it seemed less things. if you want a broader, softer, do-it-all Supercar, then yes, choose the NSX. if you want excitement and "driving entertainment" (hmmn, perhaps the reason most people buy a Supercar to begin with?), then it's the McLaren. they left it open to interpretation in my opinion. i'll buy an Accord if i want a sensible car thanks...Did you read the same review? The author clearly says the NSX is the overall winner and the McLaren is the thrill car.
said it before, and i'll say it again. it's a great car. perfect for many people, a dream car for some. it can do many things, and do them very well. but it doesn't appear to do anything the best, and i don't see the point in Honda revamping the NSX to be 3rd, 4th, or 5th best in any of the Supercar categories. the first and most important category of Supercardom, is performance. and as has been said many other times by people who are not me, it has missed that target...Fastaussie, I'm curious: do you think that the new NSX is objectively and inherently not a reasonable choice for anyone, or do you simply personally not prefer it to alternatives? It is easy for me to understand why people would say "Great car, but I prefer alternative X or Y." But you seem to consistently take a position closer to "no one should buy the NSX." Some cars have categorical flaws (I understand why people say "GT-R is fugly and I would never drive one" or "Corvettes are a dime a dozen and broadcast a white trash vibe"-- even though I've owned and enjoyed both of those brands with pride). But I don't see any categorical deal breakers for the NSX. Do you?
let the conspiracy theories begin!Fastaussie is an undercover Audi engineer. (BIG GRIN)
here's what i expect. when Honda says they've targeted Ferrari, Porsche, McLaren and others, and are jumping back into Formula 1, and they're reviving a scared and revered name plate after so long (not including gestation time for 2.0), i expect them to smack it well out of the park and flex all that hybrid tech smarts they've been touting for the last few years. and nothing less really. Supercars aren't sensible, responsible, and they're definitely not understated. if you're gonna go for it, let it rip...FA, I think you keep wanting Honda to make a reckless supercar to directly compete with the Italians, but we knew from 1991, and then 2012 when the concept debuted that they were not going to make the epitome of any supercar. I was surprised when the said they were going twin turbo at the very least, but we all knew it was never going to be the fastest or most visceral sports car ever. It was going to be like the first NSX, exotic looks and platform, but understated in tone, reliable, responsible, and competitive.
Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed the write-up greatly and I think expresses much about what attracts me to the car.I'll let the review, taken from Motor Magazine [Australia] speak for itself, and it's an on-road comparison with the McLaren 570GT by respected scribe Gavin Green.
Whatever. I am HIGHLY skeptical of such claims. It is more likely that Acura knew EXACTLY how the car was set up and made a decision to alter the alignment in a way they thought would allow Randy to turn a faster lap, but they bet wrong. And now they want a do over.Acura have discovered that the rear alignment on the NSX for the Motor Trend Hot Lap was way out of whack, which explains why the car was so loose during the comparison!
Yes. It is precisely because I think they have competent engineers that I think a significant alignment "problem" was unlikely a stupid error, but rather was a "failed bet."So you really think Acura's engineers would have experimented with the aligment, without thoroughly testing the change, before handing it to a magazine? Acura might be incompetent in marketing, but I don't think they are such bad engineers.
i agree, it sounds like yet another excuse...Whatever. I am HIGHLY skeptical of such claims. It is more likely that Acura knew EXACTLY how the car was set up and made a decision to alter the alignment in a way they thought would allow Randy to turn a faster lap, but they bet wrong. And now they want a do over.