Six Cars Road & Track is Glad Made a Comeback

[fastaussie]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/enth...-made-a-comeback/ss-AAgoGvM?ocid=iehp#image=1

the Ford GT is there, the GT350 Mustang, even the Camaro and a few others. no mention of the NSX...

 

[N Spec]

The Ford GT is the only car worth mentioning out of the whole list IMO, but the new GT350 is very impressive, but not so much for a $60K Mustang when the price is truly considered for a Mustang.

Now the new and inevitable twin turbo V6 Z car should make that list in the future - The 370Z is just mediocre as a package.

 

[fastaussie]

the list is comprised of cars based on what they and their former models represent, both past and present, with a nod towards the future. in the same way the 370Z carries on the nameplate and lineage of the original and revered "Z car", the 240. while i'm not particularly a fan of the big, heavy Camaro, there's no denying the Mustang GT350 is a wicked machine worth more merit than most people will give it, it's highly impressive and a few steps above the other Mustangs.

the Beetle is certainly iconic, as is the GT. both certainly deserve a place on a list like this. the Fiat 500 Abarth i'm not entirely sure about?

however, it's telling they didn't make any mention of the reborn NSX...

 

[ozone]

Does this mean they didn't respect the original NSX or are unhappy with the replacement? Time will tell if 2.0 can carry on the name of the original. I would think the only reason they wouldn't want a comeback of 1.0, is that it would be simply hard to top.

 

[effer]

Ha! Ha! They play it safe: no NSX2 has been sold and delivered now ...

 

[liftcontrol]

I think the NSX failed to make their list for two reasons.

1. It isn't really back yet. And there is no guarantee HONDA will not delay it again.
2. the 2nd Gen is so different in design, concept, power source, weight, etc. etc. from the original that it really is not a comeback; rather an entirely new car with the same name.

 

[fastaussie]

the original NSX is well respected, of that there is no doubt.

and the second coming of the NSX is also undeniably here.

so those two aren't reasons...

 

[BB]

I think the NSX failed to make their list for two reasons.

1. It isn't really back yet. And there is no guarantee HONDA will not delay it again.
2. the 2nd Gen is so different in design, concept, power source, weight, etc. etc. from the original that it really is not a comeback; rather an entirely new car with the same name.

But the 2017 Ford GT has not been released yet either. And the GT is even further away from being ready seeing as the press has not even been allowed to drive it yet. Plus I think the new GT looks very different from the original. Yet despite all this, it makes the list.

Let's face it, the automotive press is not very excited about the new NSX. Consider the NSX hood from Sundance that's currently being auctioned. There has been close to zero mention of it in both the mainstream automotive press and independent automotive web sites. I can guarantee you if there was a hood from a future Tesla model or Ford GT with celebrity signatures on it there would be a lot more press coverage.

 

[ozone]

I didn't even have my license when the original NSX came out. Was there more buzz about 1.0 coming out than 2.0?

 

[liftcontrol]

Well, Fast and BB, I tried to put a good spin on it for why it may not have been included, but I guess you guys are right.
The automotive journalists have not been impressed to death by what they have seen and driven of the 2nd Gen NSX, yet.

What a surprise then that it was not in that list by R&T.

 

[G.Irish]

The NSX's omission might have more to do with the fact that the first NSX debuted in 1991. All of the cars on that list debuted in the 70's or earlier. The first NSX's made have only become eligible as antique/vintage cars in the last month.

 

[fastaussie]

nah, that definitely isn't a reason either.

26 years from the first to the next, and 12 years in between is more than enough to warrant the title of a 'comeback'...

 

[N Spec]

Keep in mind, R&T chose the Lotus over the original NSX also...

 

[fastaussie]

chose the Lotus for what?

 

[N Spec]

Again, in the early 90s, the NSX was shunned by many reviewers by not having enough "soul" or derivative of the Ferraris. R&T believed the aged Lotus Espirit Turbo 4 looked better and would fare better than then new NSX. So wrong they were...

 

[fastaussie]

that's a very interesting read for several reasons. the Esprit SE was already very old and outdated at that time, the S4 and especially twin turbo V8 were heaps better cars. however, even though the NSX was obviously technically better in every way, they still gave the nod to the aging and antiquated Esprit for its personality.

"soul" and "character" are very important things when someone is throwing down the price of a house on a very impractical and singular designed automobile. it's not a rational purchase. arguably i believe the first NSX was a much bigger and surprising hit relative to its time than NSX #2 . Lotus has always been a very low volume car builder, Honda is obviously not.

clearly, by virtue of reading that last paragraph, you can get a very good sense of Honda's philosophy when designing and building vehicles like these. Honda either doesn't get how to play in the Supercar leagues, or doesn't care. you could actually take that exact paragraph and pick another car today and it would probably apply fairly directly without changing much. surprising that even after 25 years of a particular criticism Honda hasn't done anything to change it...

 

[sadlerau]

surprising that even after 25 years of a particular criticism Honda hasn't done anything to change it...

You just don't get it, obviously. Honda has ALWAYS marched to a different beat. They did it for the MkI, and they're doing it for the MkII. Honda, and some of us, don't see that viewpoint as a criticism, but rather as a virtue. Obviously you don't, but I wish you'd let it go, and accept that Honda just like to do things differently.

 

[fastaussie]

You just don't get it, obviously. Honda has ALWAYS marched to a different beat. They did it for the MkI, and they're doing it for the MkII. Honda, and some of us, don't see that viewpoint as a criticism, but rather as a virtue. Obviously you don't, but I wish you'd let it go, and accept that Honda just like to do things differently.

i wish you'd be impartial and less biased.

if the automotive press and most of the general Supercar buying public isn't accepting Honda's way of making cars in this particular category, maybe they should try another way? they don't break the mold with Civics and Accords, CRV's and such. and seem to be doing pretty good in that regard, relatively speaking (even though they cope a bit of flak in those categories on occasion also)...

 

[sadlerau]

i wish you'd be impartial and less biased.

if the automotive press and most of the general Supercar buying public isn't accepting Honda's way of making cars in this particular category, maybe they should try another way? they don't break the mold with Civics and Accords, CRV's and such. and seem to be doing pretty good in that regard, relatively speaking (even though they cope a bit of flak in those categories on occasion also)...

Why would I want to be non-biased?? This is a NSX website last time I looked? Realistically, the MkI that we all love had a chequered career at best with the motoring press at the time, and the new model will in all probability be the same. To most it is way too early to pass judgement on the MkII, as only a handful of people have driven it, and yet you have been strident in your dismissal of it's worth on the hearsay of some acquaintances and a very restricted press drive. You are condemning in your prejudice because it doesn't meet YOUR expectations of where the MkII went from a philosophical viewpoint!

So who is being partial and biased here??

The MkII doesn't meet your expectations, fine, but please get over it.

 

[N Spec]

I like the fact that Honda "doesn't care" or want to be like the rest the supercars.

 

[fastaussie]

Why would I want to be non-biased?? This is a NSX website last time I looked? Realistically, the MkI that we all love had a chequered career at best with the motoring press at the time, and the new model will in all probability be the same. To most it is way too early to pass judgement on the MkII, as only a handful of people have driven it, and yet you have been strident in your dismissal of it's worth on the hearsay of some acquaintances and a very restricted press drive. You are condemning in your prejudice because it doesn't meet YOUR expectations of where the MkII went from a philosophical viewpoint!

So who is being partial and biased here??

The MkII doesn't meet your expectations, fine, but please get over it.

you know what they call companies that don't listen to the criticisms of their clients and customers, or design products for them or the market segment? bankrupt.

however it's not my expectations that need to be met, it's R8 owners, 911 owners, etc. the people who buy these types of cars. you'll need to realise that the whole world does not share your love affair with the name NSX and won't automatically buy it for that reason alone. i'm certainly not the only person on this forum who has or currently owns an NSX who isn't buying a new one.

while i wasn't paying much attention when the original NSX debuted, to the best of my current knowledge the accolades and buzz from the automotive press seemed significantly higher and more positive than this current one.

as for your prejudice about my prejudice, i truly don't care less. i drive every car in this class, in pre-production, post production, and even some times under my own registration as well.

regardless, don't be mad at me. this thread isn't about my personal opinions, it's about Road & Track's...

- - - Updated - - -

I like the fact that Honda "doesn't care" or want to be like the rest the supercars.

if they don't sell enough cars, they may care...

 

[Superfluous]

I like the fact that Honda "doesn't care" or want to be like the rest the supercars.

^ This

Acura is offering something unique. The NSX looks like a supercar and has many of the performance attributes of a supercar. On the other hand, the NSX also has certain attributes that other supercars do not have, and lacks certain characteristics that other supercars have. It is not a prototypical car. It does not fit squarely in any precise definition. This is exactly what makes the NSX appealing to me. On the other hand, I certainly understand why some -- particularly track oriented drivers -- do not like the balance achieved by Acura.

I think the foregoing is what has created much of the debate on Prime. Some are quick to point out where the NSX appears to deviate from other "supercars." In many instances, the identified deviation is accurate. However, that deviation was not by accident. Acura intentionally created something different. So, maybe the NSX does not qualify under the existing definition of "supercar." In that case, what is it? Part supercar, part sports car? I'm ok with that. I think that is exactly what Acura was aiming for . . . a car that has the looks and performance of a supercar, with the reliability and every-day drivability of a sports-car. And, that is exactly what I want.

- - - Updated - - -

you know what they call companies that don't listen to the criticisms of their clients and customers, or design products for them or the market segment? bankrupt.

I don't recall reading any complaints from NSX 2.0 customers. Can you provide a link?

Reviewers are not "customers," and reviewers seeks something very different than most customers (who do not track their cars).

however it's not my expectations that need to be met, it's R8 owners, 911 owners, etc. the people who buy these types of cars.

Completely agree. And, as a long time 911 owner who knows many, many other 911 owners, I strongly believe the balance achieved by the NSX is exactly what they are looking for . . . . a car with supercar looks and performance, but sports car reliability and driveability. Of course, my speculation is exactly that -- speculation. Only time will tell.

 

[fastaussie]

Completely agree. And, as a long time 911 owner who knows many, many other 911 owners, I strongly believe the balance achieved by the NSX is exactly what they are looking for . . . . a car with supercar looks and performance, but sports car reliability and driveability. Of course, my speculation is exactly that -- speculation. Only time will tell.

Superflu, i can dig it. completely. just remember, even a Lamborghini is now a very good daily driver. my grandma could drive it as easily as a Camry...

Acura intentionally created something different. I think that is exactly what Acura was aiming for . . . a car that has the looks and performance of a supercar, with the reliability and every-day drivability of a sports-car. And, that is exactly what I want.

for sure, they obviously made what they intended to. those attributes are not solely an NSX trait however...

I don't recall reading any complaints from NSX 2.0 customers. Can you provide a link?

Reviewers are not "customers," and reviewers seeks something very different than most customers (who do not track their cars).

the first quoted text is a generalised one. meaning any company or any car. if you don't make what the customer wants, you won't sell much. that could be a minivan, pick-up truck, or Supercar.

why do you think a reviewer is seeking something different than a customer? their job is to review a product, in the capacity it is intended for, for the customer.

when automotive journalists are testing trucks they rate them based on towing capacity, chassis strength, bed space, etc. when they test minivans they measure them based on how many kids can fit in, cup holders, DVD players, etc. they should have exactly the customer's interests and concerns in mind.

by which criteria would you expect Supercars or sports cars to be judged?

 

[N Spec]

The first NSX sold for a record 1.2 million and sets the precedence for the level of seriousness the new NSX has. The ever famous Corvette was 200K shy and 458 Speciale could only muster 900K so that should be some kind of gauge already as both of those cars have been proven time and time again with multiple generations/pedigree whereas the NSX has been elusive for over a decade.

I think the limited production run will do just fine to fill the market with say another ~8,000 units of 2nd gen NSX in the US before they move onto the 3rd gen (At 800-900 units a year, it'll take probably 8 years). Expect some power gains and mid-cycle refreshes over every few years. This is my bet and hope for the 2nd gen production.

 

[G.Irish]

I think the limited production run will do just fine to fill the market with say another ~8,000 units of 2nd gen NSX in the US before they move onto the 3rd gen (At 800-900 units a year, it'll take probably 8 years). Expect some power gains and mid-cycle refreshes over every few years. This is my bet and hope for the 2nd gen production.

I think the 800-ish units was only for the first year. From talking to Ted Klaus and some of the Acura folks it sounds like they can quite a bit more once they're up to speed. Right now they're only going to be running one shift. I wanna say the 2400 unit number was thrown out there but I can't remember if that was one of the Acura people saying that or just me speculating and not getting shot down. Will ask again next month.

The other thing is that the performance center is capable of making other cars so it may also be where another sub-NSX sports car is made. Or it could mean other versions of the NSX will get made there (spyder, Type-R, etc.).