So why is 290hp not enough nowadays ?
- Thread starter nsxsimon
- Start date
I agree with your disagreement.
Back OT, albeit briefly?
Because Ford makes pick-ups with a twin turbo V-6 that makes 365 horsepower at 5,000 rpm on regular fuel, 420 lb.-ft. of torque at 2,500 rpm and up to 90 percent peak torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm.
The NSX is a sweet-a$$ car. Kudos to the folks that brought this great vehicle to market in the early 1990's and it's still a fantastic car today. Timeless beauty and great engineering.
272/290 was an OK number in the last millennium (remember that our cars were not designed and built in the current millennium) but it is simply underpowered by today's standards.
Even a small HP increase through I/H/E changes the car appreciably. I'm not saying that you have to go BIG HP to make a profound change in the NSX's dynamics because when mine was a BBSC it was more than acceptable and many owners are content with just I/H/E.
I love my NSX and I get that purists don't see that it is what it is: time has passed <300 HP by, even in a 3000 lb package.
I don't think that adding HP detracts from the experience at all; you create your own experience in the moment with the throttle and at 272 HP you don't have the option to expand that experience at all.
Because Ford makes pick-ups with a twin turbo V-6 that makes 365 horsepower at 5,000 rpm on regular fuel, 420 lb.-ft. of torque at 2,500 rpm and up to 90 percent peak torque available from 1,700 rpm to 5,000 rpm.
The NSX is a sweet-a$$ car. Kudos to the folks that brought this great vehicle to market in the early 1990's and it's still a fantastic car today. Timeless beauty and great engineering.
272/290 was an OK number in the last millennium (remember that our cars were not designed and built in the current millennium) but it is simply underpowered by today's standards.
Even a small HP increase through I/H/E changes the car appreciably. I'm not saying that you have to go BIG HP to make a profound change in the NSX's dynamics because when mine was a BBSC it was more than acceptable and many owners are content with just I/H/E.
I love my NSX and I get that purists don't see that it is what it is: time has passed <300 HP by, even in a 3000 lb package.
I don't think that adding HP detracts from the experience at all; you create your own experience in the moment with the throttle and at 272 HP you don't have the option to expand that experience at all.
fastaussie
Suspended
this comment is so absolutely wrong, all the while being so absolutely right! except you forgot to mention that legally all Corvette owners have to drive 10 mph under at all times on the highway...
- Joined
- 25 February 2012
- Messages
- 2,165
Hmm, ask the BRZ/FR-S or the Alfa 4C or even the base model Cayman about that... all three of those are *true* driver's cars and two of them are even mid-engined. 270-290 is very competitive for a driver's car in 2013.
Enjoying this thread. Can there really be a universal answer to whether 270-290 is enough? I generally agree with bngl3rt and find that 270hp is perfect/enough for me. I think that's because of my usage (pleasure car and not for any type of racing or extreme use), the fact that I feel I got good value for what I paid, and the fact that I could care less what ANYONE says about the NSX vs. power (re: the OP's first post regarding flack from others that he smartly brushes aside). Seems like the answer is individual and all up to one's preferences & usage style & budget & willingness to not care what others think?
In the Ferrari 360/NSX thread, maintenance costs keep coming up in every 3rd post but costs/value has only come up once or twice in this thread, but I really wonder how much the value proposition matters here too? Ignoring the 22 year difference for a sec, $52k for a base cayman in 2013 dollars is around $30k in 1991 dollars. Or $66k for a '91 NSX in 1991 dollars is ~$113k in 2013 dollars...a 270hp Cayman does seem like a better value on paper at least to the casual observer, and the majority of criticisms I often hear or read about the NSX by magazines or car TV shows or 'know it all car people' is that $70-90k was a lot to spend for such little power... Makes me wonder if generally it's easier for those who paid $30-40k for their NSX in the past 5 years to be generally happier than those who paid $45-60k+ for theirs? Just a thought!
Also (honest question) is there truly such a thing as "just enough" power? It always sounds to me like the majority of car owners feel their car has too little power or too much that they'll never use and might secretly scare some of them (have heard Jezza say that on more than one occasion).
http://www.topgear.com/uk/jeremy-clarkson/Jeremy-on-too-much-power-2013-09-16
"Well, it's time they started paying attention, because when the horsepower race ends - which it must - the new trend will be for lightness and delicacy. For the re-emergence of the true sports car."
That last part sounds like an NSX to me!
fastaussie
Suspended
what makes you think the horsepower race will end?
as long as there is ego/competitiveness there will always be Hp wars.Think about this ,the average nsx driver aroung town is most likely short shifting say at 6k..thus only using about 240-250 hp.....to actualy get our max 270-290 you need to get it to the redline.I would assume that some folks want more power at lower rpm and hate to not be able to shake off many other cars on the highway.Luckily we have many FI options.
back to the OP, if you had to ask this 270/290 question, you don't know what you are buying and Gordon Murray will kick you $ss.
if you drive in vtec on the street, it will surely land you in jail quick or the car in salvage yard.
if you drive in vtec on the street, it will surely land you in jail quick or the car in salvage yard.
I agree with docjohn that the ego/competitiveness wars will never end, just like narrow minded thinking by mankind across any subject will never go away. Thirty minutes ago my brother-in-law called to talk used car shopping. Since cost/value is one of their top priorities with 4 growing boys to feed, I suggested he look at the the edmund's TCO true cost to own tool as at least one way to compare his options. Out of curiosity I googled "true cost to own nsx" and the first link that came up was:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/t139116-why_would_you_want_to_buy_an_nsx_seriously_.html
From 2003. It honestly hurt my brain to read some of the comments from all the Beavis's and Buttheads purely focused on price and 0-60, 1/4 mile, max g's....all the extreme things most drivers do relatively rarely...while picking "better" faster options than the NSX while completely ignoring driving experience and other big picture considerations. Regardless of the likelihood that many of the contributors were under probably under 16 years old, once Meeyatch jumped in and kept things real with his low-key earnestness, some less narrow-minded contributors piped up and things got little more interesting.
You'd have to ask Jezza. He wrote that, not me. :smile:
http://www.automotiveforums.com/t139116-why_would_you_want_to_buy_an_nsx_seriously_.html
From 2003. It honestly hurt my brain to read some of the comments from all the Beavis's and Buttheads purely focused on price and 0-60, 1/4 mile, max g's....all the extreme things most drivers do relatively rarely...while picking "better" faster options than the NSX while completely ignoring driving experience and other big picture considerations. Regardless of the likelihood that many of the contributors were under probably under 16 years old, once Meeyatch jumped in and kept things real with his low-key earnestness, some less narrow-minded contributors piped up and things got little more interesting.
You'd have to ask Jezza. He wrote that, not me. :smile:
+1 to all, esp. the last.
Interesting. I've seen so many threads here about the NSX being a supercar or an exotic that I never thought of it relegated to a driver's car (Miata) or expected that it would be grouped in with a Subaru, a Toyota, vapor and a base model anything. But here we are after 23 years. I have not driven the BRZ/FRS siblings but virtually everything that I have read basically says great, cute car (s) and a lot of fun... but could use more power. The Cayman (a Porsche) has the advantages of being: well, a Porsche, the beneficiary of about 20 years of extraordinarily rapid advances in technology as well as being a model that has been continuous developed during it's relatively short lifetime. The Alfa, can we even get that here? I thought that is pre-order for the 86K cost of entry and will surely have a premium tacked on so call it 100K.
He apparently had an genuine affinity and appreciation for the (his) NSX but the car that he built while inspired by his NSX has considerably more power.
Don't get me wrong, I love my car- it just used to be a little slow. It's awesome now. :smile:
Good thread!
exactly...from my anemic 265 whp to FX TA mega hp car, without a great chassis, its not possible. Not many would call the Senna Suzuka test drive video is slow or boring....well, maybe, if you can go quicker than him.
fastaussie
Suspended
what if someone asked Senna at the time if he thought 270hp was enough for the NSX?
- Joined
- 25 February 2012
- Messages
- 2,165
Sure the NSX was a supercar and an exotic when it came out. Obviously the years have passed and it has nothing on a 458 today in terms of performance. Expecting it to keep pace with modern super cars is delusional.
Under the umbrella of "sports cars", however, we have "driver's cars" (focused on feedback, emotion, and handling), GT cars (comfort at high speed and over long distances), and of course Mustang-ish straight line drag race burnout monsters.
In 2013 the NSX is still well in line with the latest driver's cars. Now that's pretty magical. I found Porsche's decision with the base Cayman very telling and validating. Porsche, the keepers of the keys to the "driver's car kingdom", decided that in 2013 you can still make a fun, satisfying driver's car with an engine in the middle and 270hp. Case closed, in my opinion.
2008 Audi R8 - 12.6
2001 Dodge Viper GTS ACR - 12.6
2003 Ferrari 575M Maranello F1 - 12.6
1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C - 12.7
2005 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti - 12.8
1997 Acura NSX - 12.9
1994 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6 - 12.9
2001 Ferrari 360 Spider F1 4.6 13.2
1997 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta - 13.2
1995 Lamborghini Diablo VT - 13.2
2005 Lotus Elise - 13.2
1997 Ferrari 456 GTA - 13.3
2002 BMW M3 - 13.4
1999 Porsche 911 Carrera - 13.4
1997 Toyota Supra Turbo - 13.6
2006 Porsche Cayman - 13.6
2010 Ford Mustang - 13.6
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R - 13.8
2001 Dodge Viper GTS ACR - 12.6
2003 Ferrari 575M Maranello F1 - 12.6
1965 Shelby Cobra 427 S/C - 12.7
2005 Ferrari 612 Scaglietti - 12.8
1997 Acura NSX - 12.9
1994 Porsche 911 Turbo 3.6 - 12.9
2001 Ferrari 360 Spider F1 4.6 13.2
1997 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta - 13.2
1995 Lamborghini Diablo VT - 13.2
2005 Lotus Elise - 13.2
1997 Ferrari 456 GTA - 13.3
2002 BMW M3 - 13.4
1999 Porsche 911 Carrera - 13.4
1997 Toyota Supra Turbo - 13.6
2006 Porsche Cayman - 13.6
2010 Ford Mustang - 13.6
1995 Ford Mustang Cobra R - 13.8
Last edited:
I contacted him last night on the Weegie board and he said that he told Honda they needed a V8 and or FI and Honda said that going to RWD was already a choir.
Meaning RWD cars already sing?
Chore. I'm doing this on my smart phoney
Actually, he did comment on the Engine and the TQ on one of the Video, after driving around Suzuka....so yes
Ahh... Now that I understand!
Last edited:
Not surprising since he was accustom to the McLaren MP4/3 making up to 1500HP with a restriction of 58.8psi 1190.5lbs chassis....
- - - Updated - - -
Nothing as bad as.....
http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/16019/the-top-10-funniest-autocorrected-gifts/
You make too much sense so that can't be right:biggrin:
+1
With the popularity of the dual clutch auto, the whole involvement factor for sporty cars is changing. More performance but less involvement.
We are 'spoiled' now by torque monster forced induction engines, just step on it and haul ass in any gear. On the street, it really levels the playing field between everyday, mediocre and skilled drivers...this is just what the car makers want...broadest market for their cars.
With the popularity of the dual clutch auto, the whole involvement factor for sporty cars is changing. More performance but less involvement.
We are 'spoiled' now by torque monster forced induction engines, just step on it and haul ass in any gear. On the street, it really levels the playing field between everyday, mediocre and skilled drivers...this is just what the car makers want...broadest market for their cars.
It's not. While the Cayman may have great driving dynamics the base car is underpowered. That's why Porsche offers a Cayman S. It's also why many tuners drop in a more powerful 911 engine and differential to match the Cayman's chassis. The Cayman was neutered from the factory to prevent it from cannibalizing the 911 period.
Amen
Similar threads
- Sticky
