The most detailed video review yet

B

BB

Experienced Member
Joined
15 August 2000
Messages
581
Location
Bellingham, WA
This is by far the most detailed review of the new NSX yet. He even shows the cup holders and all the places you can store your phone while driving. Must watch! I learned many small details that the other video reviews never bothered to cover....

 
Nice find (and REALLY detailed review), the more I see and know about this car the more I like it! Really looking forward to the comparison tests.
I guess I've come to terms that the car is "worth" $150-180k+ given the current prices of the competition. Time to mark my 2020 calendar to start looking for a lightly used one for around $100k...:frown:
 
Excellent review. Even handed to say the least, even though I don't necessarily agree with some of his assertions. I can see the track orientated tyres cutting a few tenths off the standing start numbers.
 
First time we have seen a 1/4 mile time. 11.0 at 125. I think it will be in the 10s. That's fast! Trap speed isn't that great compared to say a mclaren 570s.
 
3.3 0-60 is pretty darn competitive. I think we would all agree a sub 3.0 would be ideal or a dream. Great Video and writeup. Not at all disappointed with the numbers or overall mission. Now just put it on a well known track such as Laguna and see how she compares to the rest of the heap.

NetViper said:
First time we have seen a 1/4 mile time. 11.0 at 125. I think it will be in the 10s. That's fast! Trap speed isn't that great compared to say a mclaren 570s.
Click to expand...
 
don't some drag strips require full cage for cars in the 10's:eek:
 
N Spec said:
When was the 1/4 mile time quoted? I didn't hear that part.
Click to expand...

It was at the end, on the scrolling text. It wasn't actually mentioned in the video. Also, keep in mind that the ambient temps were high, which would increase the time for the acceleration runs. I know that Car and Driver normalizes their acceleration times to a certain ambient temp and to sea level barometric pressure, which helps when comparing acceleration times between vehicles.
 
Also, better summer only tires vs what Acura is going to sell the car with would help. I will say, the car is starting to grow on me. But for that price, I would still rather get a Viper ACR and save some cash.
 
It's unfortunate people are still interested in 0-60 times. It's such an antiquated metric. I'd much rather see 0-100 times but the data for that is less available. With that said, I thought he said the new NSX is at 3.4 secs qtr mile? It's still slower than a GTR at 3.2 secs. Though I think the car can probably achieve a sub 3sec if they really abused the drivetrain. All the videos of launch mode depicts a rather controlled, non-violent, but fast launch. No doubt, easier on the components too. So I don't think 3.4 secs in this car is a bad thing at all. I'd rather a 3.4 sec car that will last 100k miles than a sub 3 sec that will be in the shop after 10k miles.

See others here. Not sure how "official" these are... FWIW

[COLOR=#368BBB !important]Red Bull RB110-60 mph 1.7[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#368BBB !important]1994 Ford SVT [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Boss Mustang[/COLOR] 10.0L [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Concept[/COLOR]0-60 mph 1.9 | Quarter mile 10.5[/COLOR]
2002 Chevrolet Corvette (Lingenfelter 427 Twin Turbo)0-60 mph 1.97 | Quarter mile 9.1
2002 Viper Hennessey Venom 1000TT0-60 mph 2.2 | Quarter mile 9.4
2014 [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Porsche 918 Spyder0-60 mph 2.3 | Quarter mile 9.9[/COLOR]
2012 [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Ariel Atom 500 (V8)0-60 mph 2.3[/COLOR]
2011 [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Lamborghini Sesto Elemento0-60 mph 2.4[/COLOR]
2013 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport Vitesse0-60 mph 2.4 | Quarter mile 9.9
2011 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport0-60 mph 2.4 | Quarter mile 9.6
2009 Bugatti Veyron EB 16.40-60 mph 2.4 | Quarter mile 10.1
2007 Caparo T10-60 mph 2.5
2013 Caterham Seven R6000-60 mph 2.5
2012 Hennessey Venom GT0-60 mph 2.5
2015 Ariel Atom 3.5R0-60 mph 2.5 | Quarter mile 10.8
2015 Koenigsegg One:10-60 mph 2.5
2015 Bugatti Veyron Rembrandt Legends Edition0-60 mph 2.5
2010 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport0-60 mph 2.5
2015 SSC Tuatara0-60 mph 2.5 | Quarter mile 9.7
2016 McLaren P1 GTR0-60 mph 2.5
2010 Pagani Zonda R0-60 mph 2.6
2006 [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Ultima GTR 7200-60 mph 2.6 | Quarter mile 9.9[/COLOR]
2017 Audi R8 V10 Plus0-60 mph 2.6 | Quarter mile 10.6
2013 Ariel Atom 3.50-60 mph 2.6
2014 Ferrari LaFerrari0-60 mph 2.6 | Quarter mile 9.7
2013 SSC Ultimate Aero XT0-60 mph 2.6
2015 Radical RXC 500 Turbo0-60 mph 2.6
2013 Caterham Seven Superlight R500 SV0-60 mph 2.7
2014 Caterham Seven 620R0-60 mph 2.7
2013 Caterham SP300R0-60 mph 2.7
2013 Nissan GT-R Track Pack0-60 mph 2.7
2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO0-60 mph 2.7 | Quarter mile 10.8
2012 BAC Mono0-60 mph 2.7
2014 McLaren P10-60 mph 2.7
2012 Koenigsegg Agera R0-60 mph 2.7
2006 Bugatti Veyron EB 16.40-60 mph 2.7 | Quarter mile 10.7
2007 SSC Ultimate Aero TT0-60 mph 2.7 | Quarter mile 9.9
2016 Lamborghini Aventador LP750-4 SV0-60 mph 2.7
2016 Elemental RP10-60 mph 2.7
2017 Rezvani Beast0-60 mph 2.7
2009 Caparo T1 Race Extreme0-60 mph 2.8
2011 Caterham Seven Superlight R5000-60 mph 2.8
2011 Lamborghini Gallardo LP570-4 Superleggra0-60 mph 2.8 | Quarter mile 10.9
2011 HTT Plethore0-60 mph 2.8
2008 Ariel Atom 500 (V8)0-60 mph 2.8
2010 Koenigsegg Trevita0-60 mph 2.8
2012 Lamborghini Aventador LP700-40-60 mph 2.8 | Quarter mile 10.7
2013 Lamborghini Veneno0-60 mph 2.8
2015 Lamborghini Huracan LP 610-40-60 mph 2.8 | Quarter mile 10.6
2005 Ferrari FXX Enzo0-60 mph 2.8
2015 Ferrari F12 TDF0-60 mph 2.8
2016 McLaren 675LT0-60 mph 2.8
2015 Tesla Model S P85D '[COLOR=#368BBB !important]Ludicrous Speed' Upgrade0-60 mph 2.8 | Quarter mile 10.9[/COLOR]
2017 Porsche 911 Turbo S0-60 mph 2.8 | Quarter mile 11.1
2010 Noble M6000-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.9
2012 Zenvo ST10-60 mph 2.9
2009 Heffner Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-40-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.3
2012 Nissan GT-R0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.1
2014 Nissan GT-R0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.0
2011 Porsche 911 Turbo S0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.6
2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S0-60 mph 2.9
2006 Ariel Atom 20-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 12.4
2007 Ariel Atom 2 Stage 20-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.4
2009 Ariel Atom 30-60 mph 2.9
2011 Ariel Atom 3 Mugen0-60 mph 2.9
2011 McLaren MP4-12C0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.8
2013 McLaren MP4-12C Spider0-60 mph 2.9
2013 Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4 Roadster0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.8
2014 Ferrari 458 Speciale0-60 mph 2.9
2011 Ferrari 599XX0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.7
2015 McLaren 650S Coupe0-60 mph 2.9
2006 Mosler MT900 GTR0-60 mph 2.9
2003 Dodge Viper Hennessey Venom 650R0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.7
2003 Viper Hennessey Venom 650R0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.7
2011 Dodge Viper Hennessey Venom GT0-60 mph 2.9
2016 Ferrari 488 GTB0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.5
2015 McLaren 650S Spider0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.7
2016 Ferrari 488 Spider0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.6
2016 McLaren 650S Can-Am Spider0-60 mph 2.9
2015 Nissan Juke R 2.00-60 mph 2.9
2016 Lamborghini Huracan LP 610-4 Spyder0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 10.8
2017 Porsche 911 Turbo0-60 mph 2.9 | Quarter mile 11.2
2012 Lamborghini Gallardo LP570-4 Spyder Performante0-60 mph 3.0 | Quarter mile 11.1
2014 Porsche 911 GT30-60 mph 3.0 | Quarter mile 11.1
2016 Porsche 911 GT3 RS0-60 mph 3.0
2011 GTA Spano0-60 mph 3.0
2011 Gumpert Apollo Sport0-60 mph 3.0
2011 Iconic AC Roadster0-60 mph 3.0
2017 Acura NSX0-60 mph 3.0
2010 Koenigsegg CCXR0-60 mph 3.0
2011 Koenigsegg Agera0-60 mph 3.0
2011 Ferrari 458 Italia0-60 mph 3.0 | Quarter mile 11.0
2013 Ferrari F12 Berlinetta0-60 mph 3.0 | Quarter mile 11.0
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z070-60 mph 3.0 | Quarter mile 11.0
2016 Ariel [COLOR=#368BBB !important]Nomad Supercharged0-60 mph 3.0[/COLOR]
2015 Ariel Ace Motorcycle0-60 mph 3.0
2016 Caterham Seven CSR0-60 mph 3.1
2005 Saleen S7 Twin Turbo0-60 mph 3.1 | Quarter mile 10.6
2014 Mercedes CLS63 AMG S-Model0-60 mph 3.1 | Quarter mile 11.5
2004 Volkswagen Golf HPA R320-60 mph 3.1 | Quarter mile 11.4
2000 Porsche 911 GT3R0-60 mph 3.1 | Quarter mile 11.1
 
sadlerau said:
Funny, but the exterior shots in this article are some of the nicest exterior shots I've noticed so far. Is it me or are they actually different from what we've seen so far?
Click to expand...

Those are all generic press release photos that have been available for a while. You can do an internet search to find them on many sites. They are available in very high resolution if you want truly detailed photos.
 
Olyar15 said:
It was at the end, on the scrolling text. It wasn't actually mentioned in the video. Also, keep in mind that the ambient temps were high, which would increase the time for the acceleration runs. I know that Car and Driver normalizes their acceleration times to a certain ambient temp and to sea level barometric pressure, which helps when comparing acceleration times between vehicles.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see now. I flipped as soon as the review was nearing the end. I think Car&Driver's estimation of 10.8 on 1/4 mile is spot on:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2016-acura-nsx-dissected-powertrain-chassis-and-more-feature

This was last year's article with un-updated specs. I'm really surprised all of the metrics have not been measure by the others yet... I suppose Honda is still fine tuning maybe.

- - - Updated - - -

The other reviews seem to make the new NSX universally acclaimed, atleast in the execution department. Everyone is pretty convinced of the hybrid's novelty.

I am surprised that a car as low and thin as the NSX has such a low top speed even in comparison to the GTR's massive frontal area. I suppose the 500 hp ICE motor is doing everything it can tho at that point...
 
LOL....the guy talked nonstop, with hardly a stumble, during the drive also ..never stopped !

thousands of words ..how was that possible. So glad it's over.

Interior s..(edit) sorry lol.
 
Last edited:
RYU said:
It's unfortunate people are still interested in 0-60 times. It's such an antiquated metric. I'd much rather see 0-100 times but the data for that is less available. With that said, I thought he said the new NSX is at 3.4 secs qtr mile? It's still slower than a GTR at 3.2 secs. Though I think the car can probably achieve a sub 3sec if they really abused the drivetrain. All the videos of launch mode depicts a rather controlled, non-violent, but fast launch. No doubt, easier on the components too. So I don't think 3.4 secs in this car is a bad thing at all. I'd rather a 3.4 sec car that will last 100k miles than a sub 3 sec that will be in the shop after 10k miles.
Click to expand...

I think he stated quite clearly that 3.4 sec time was done at 90+ degrees and this was a repeated time.

With all the engine components at (very) high temperature, you are always losing some HP, especially in a turbo-charged engine.
Probably, doing a 0-60 run at low temp like 12-15 degrees (Celsius) will give you more HP and shorter times.

Otherwise, I agree about your statement. 0-60 times are nearly useless on the street. With modern launch controls it is simpler than it every was, but it's always hard on your drive components.
 
kookoo4nsx said:
3.3 0-60 is pretty darn competitive. I think we would all agree a sub 3.0 would be ideal or a dream. Great Video and writeup. Not at all disappointed with the numbers or overall mission. Now just put it on a well known track such as Laguna and see how she compares to the rest of the heap.
Click to expand...

All the other reviews have claimed a 0-60 time of either 2.9 or 3.0 secs. Although I have always suspected they were told those numbers verbally by Honda as opposed to actually performing their own tests.

The only known track time so far is at Thermal Club with Honda's Indy car driver behind the wheel. It was the 5th fastest lap time recorded there. The only faster lap times have been: 918, LaFerrari, P1, and Viper ACR. The NSX was almost exactly the same time as the ACR. Impressive when you consider that the NSX is a comfortable luxury GT car while the ACR is a street legal race car.
 
3.3-3.4 would be INFERIOR for a all wheel drive car in this category, that's it.
One note though: he stated 'repeated'. After the 3rd or so pull you've drained the battery. You'll see better times with a completly full battery but you only have one shot.
0-60 times are not irrelevant: I guess some guy are buying a Tesla due of it's funny ludicrous mode. :)
 
Why have you drained the battery after the third pull?

According to the descriptions, the battery only does it thing for torque fill before the engine does its thing. That suggests it will be at full battery drain mode until beyond its useful rpm range.

Assuming that you do actually have to brake to zero in order to do a second run, isn't it feasible that while aggressive acceleration might drain the battery the motors only contribute 20% of the tractive effort, yet if you gently slow down from 60mph, the motors might be able to regenerate just as much by being responsible for 100% braking (or close) to zero.
 
I've not read about the electric motors ONLY torque filling the gas engine. In SH-AWD they don't either. So in a launch control scenario it can be expected that they contribute to acceleration by at least to some extend.

The efficiency of one cycle is 70-80% at best but only if you drive it like a hypermiler (not using the brake pedal at all) and give things their time. Driving like an maniac the value is (much) lower as things heat up and heat is waste of energy. Unlike a Tesla, the battery in this car is very small just to provide torque filling and torque vectoring mainly and some acceleration as well. So my guess as an enthusiastic and experienced hybrid driver is that after 3 pulls the battery is low and you 0-60 times start to raise.

The other interesting thing he mentioned is the times without the idiot modus (LC): 0.4 sec. higher. That would result in 3.7-3.8 which would be as far behind like the first Gen of the NSX was at his time (no tomatoes please :D).
 
In the Track modes, the car is supposed to aggressively recharge the battery. Presumably, as soon as you get off WOT, the car's rear electric motor will apply load to the ICE and parasitically charge (i.e., burn extra gas specifically to make more power for charging, not for acceleration).

My guess is the HEAT would be the cause of any reduction in performance from repeated 0-60 runs (without adequate cool-down driving between runs). The heat would be in batteries, motor controller and heatsoak in the turbos.

I wouldn't worry about an informal 0-60 run of 3.3 seconds. Lots of factors that could make the car slower than its peak performance.

I hope that the car is competitive with the gold standard in consistent launch control (911TT doing 50 in a row):

 

Similar threads

mskrotzki
  • Locked
****NOT AVAILABLE*** 1993 Black/Black 5sp
Replies
4
Views
2K
Honcho
Honcho
J
2002 Acura NSX Targa - Red/Black, 65,4XX miles, 6MT
Replies
1
Views
3K
jhowardstl
J
Track Addict
NSX Giant For Sale Post ***NSX Garage Clearance sale!***
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
Elnoyl
E
LooseNut
  • Locked
SOLD! 1994 NSX For Sale 66k miles 2 owners Comptech SC
Replies
2
Views
3K
LooseNut
LooseNut
J
  • Locked
***SOLD*** 1991 NSX 5-MT, Red/Ivory, 64k miles, clean title, major maintenance complete
Replies
8
Views
4K
JRitt
J
Back
Top