the NSX's deadly rivals

[fastaussie]

I guess you were so focused on the emotional tone of the reviewer that you missed all the negative things he said....

1. It makes a worse daily driver than the NSX

"getting in and out of this car is not exactly easy"

So a fully optioned 570S will cost about $50,000 more than the NSX and it will have slower lap times. But the 570S provides more emotional appeal.

oh no, i didn't miss a thing.

it was obvious the reviewer, like many others were left similarly unimpressed with the NSX. while at the end of the McLaren review, he was giddy to get back in the car and it rip it for more laps. for me, that's the biggest statement off all.

i don't desire a Supercar for buying groceries and running to the post office. and you know what, my Dad hates how low my current NSX sits and thinks it's ridiculous. so to him it isn't that easy to get in and out of. and virtually every passenger i've ever had didn't find it simple to get in and out of either. buy hey, it's a damn Supercar isn't it? by it's very purpose and design it's not supposed to be as easy to get into as an SUV. so it seems pretty ridiculous to complain about it.

you guys seriously crack me up with all your talk of which Supercar is the better daily driver as a basis for comparison. may as well start talking about which minivan has the best boat towing capacity. i find it comical that your needs in a Supercar aren't very Supercar related. some people may actually choose their Supercar based on its practicality, but don't pretend it's any more than a small single digit percentage (away from this website). if it was, the original NSX would've sold a lot more cars, instead of dealers having to give them away for over $10,000 below MRSP, while still being half the price of a technically inferior, less reliable yet more emotionally appealing Ferrari.

I agree. In fact, I posted similar observations a couple of days ago and, in response, I was told that I should buy a Buick (the exchange was deleted).

Every car has certain compromises in order to achieve the balance desired by the particular manufacturer. That's because buyers seek different balances. There is no absolute correct balance. Rather, there are only subjective preferences. If a buyer seeks a looser, tossable car that is more fun to drive on the track (and perhaps also spirited canyon driving) by someone with superlative driving skills, and the buyer is not dissuaded by difficult ingress/egress, nor meaningful turbo lag, nor the other identified shortcomings, the 570s is likely as great option. I personally am looking for a slightly different balance. I prefer precise, planted and predictable over loose and tossable, less turbo lag, and manageable ingress/egress (not necessarily sedan ingress/egress, but not back breaking ingress/egress). I am looking for a sports car/supercar/whatever label you prefer that I can comfortably drive every day. I am willing to make certain compromises to achieve this balance (although for me, the lack of turbo lag and lack of propensity to "go sideways" are not compromises, but rather, improvements). For some, my compromises go too far, and reflect a dilution of what a supercar/sports car/whatever you call it should be. So be it. I respectfully disagree

With the NSX, Acura sought a particular balance. This balance is not for everyone. If you want a loose, tossable car -- with meaningful turbo lag -- that is more fun for a highly skilled driver who is comfortable and capable of pushing a car to its limits on a track, the NSX is not the best option. Rather, a 570s appears to be a better option.

first of all, before you get too carried about with all your millions of excuses of why the NSX is the best car in the world bar nothing before or after, do remember how many excuses some of you boys are constantly making. and then ask yourself why you have to make so many excuses repeatedly. i have yet to hear anyone make an excuse about a 458, or GT3?

Ferrari has purposely altered the power curve of the 488 engine for one specific reason, to make the car more exhilarating to drive. only in top gear do you get full torque. and they've purposely left that intense sensation of turbo rush in the experience, just like Porsche has for ages. they could tune it out, so why don't they? because it's heaps more fun and exciting with it left in.

why has McLaren designed the 570 to be a bit more "loose" and "tossable", more alive on the edge instead of completely muted? because it's bloody fun as hell that way. if it scares the pants off you, leave the traction control on! that's what it's made for, and i'm positive that's why it's called "traction control"?

the electronics systems are so good on any modern Supercar these days that any chimp can drive them sideways and never lose the car. try the GT3 or 458 in "sport" and "race" modes. it'll blow your mind how incredible of a driver you'll think you are. then, if you dare, turn it off and find out for real.

Audi and Lamborghini still use V10's because they sound like a ridiculous Supercar should. no excuses.

i still think the best car for you is one of those supercharged Buicks if they still make those. nice easy ingress/egress, not too scary, all the stuff previously mentioned. and i didn't delete the response, the moderator did.

for me, and probably most, if i'm gonna buy a sporting car i do so in order to drive it with some sporting intent. or for some, they're just a poser who wants everyone to see them in their shiny sporty car?

i want to drive a performance car for the performance it offers, not ease of the navigation system or number of cup holders. that's the point, i see no reason to do it any other way...


- - - Updated - - -

So what's the final verdict?

NSX wins: comfort, stability, acceleration, track times, reliability, price

570S wins: style, fun, prestige

which one do you think most people are most interested in owning/driving?

the more comfortable, reliable and cheaper Supercar?

or the more stylish, prestigious and fun one?

No problem. I waive the white flag. You are absolutely right. The car I want -- a good looking, good handling, decidedly fast sports car that can be driven comfortably every day -- is abhorrent and reprehensible to any and all legitimate sports car enthusiasts. Thank you for further reinforcing that fundamental truth. I look forward to enjoying my new NSX notwithstanding your condescending opinion of me and my car purchasing decisions.

no need to wave any flags. i just don't think a Supercar should be demeaned for actually being a Supercar. regardless of what you, i, or anyone else thinks, the decider of who has the best approach to the modern Supercar formula will be the Exotic Supercar purchasing public. so whenever this car is finally released, we shall see then how it's accepted relative to its rivals. the people shall decide...

 

[N Spec]

To me, if I spend $150K+ or some even $40K on a car, I would want to drive it at as much as possible reliably and practically as I paid good money for it.

The general masses that buy Ferraris, drive like ~1K miles a year and consider a 15K Ferrari/Lambo higher mileage. This logic eludes me. Sure the Lambo and Ferrari have the art and fashion branding command along with expected performance, but why spend so much money for a garage queen? So you can show up to 1 or 2 social events and say look at me, look what I've got.

So the whole idea of driving a "Ferrari" on the weekend (because of maintenance costs or reliability issues) is the most inefficient thing to do with your money IMO. Who says a supercar can't compete with the rivals and drive comfortable to work or grocery stores? I take my NSX anywhere with decent infrastructure....

If and when I buy my supposed 458 in the distant future , I'm going to average atleast 3K miles per year and it's that low because I generally have multiple vehicles in the lineup.

 

[G.Irish]

if it was, the original NSX would've sold a lot more cars, instead of dealers having to give them away for over $10,000 below MRSP, while still being half the price of a technically inferior, less reliable yet more emotionally appealing Ferrari.

That's a rather interesting reading of history. Dealers didn't have to discount NSX's when the competition was the 348 and 964. The problem is that the game moved on and the NSX largely did not. Had an all new NSX debuted along with the F355, maybe it would've been a different story.

first of all, before you get too carried about with all your millions of excuses of why the NSX is the best car in the world bar nothing before or after, do remember how many excuses some of you boys are constantly making. and then ask yourself why you have to make so many excuses repeatedly. i have yet to hear anyone make an excuse about a 458, or GT3?

If you don't hear the excuses for those cars you're not really listening. For the 458, people make excuses as for why a 12C can blow it away on the racetrack while simultaneously being more comfortable and livable on the street. Or how the 458 doesn't have the power of the 12C. Or how customer Ferraris mysteriously fail to match performance put down by Ferrari press cars. Or how the 458 is several seconds a lap slower around a racetrack than the Z06. "It's slower, but, but it's a Ferrari!"

At the end of the day, each car comes with its mix of qualities and compromises, it just comes down to preferences. For some supercar buyers something like a 675LT or 458 Speciale is too stiff, loud, and difficult to live with. There are some that won't like the relative lack of torque in something like a GT3. There'll be still others who put a premium on 0-60 and quarter mile times, and would look at something like a 570S and scoff, "What, this isn't even as fast as a GT-R???" None of those cars is all things to all people.

The NSX will be fast, easy to live with, and hopefully reliable. May not be a oversteering roller-coaster ride and the TT V6 won't satisfy those who love high rpm music but it's got plenty to like and hopefully it'll make plenty of people happy.

 

[nsx#fan]

^ Good point. I thought the Huracan had more torque. I also thought Audi intentionally kept the R8 slower than the Huracan. Apparently that is no longer the case.

The R8 is heavier than the Huracan, hence it's slower.

 

[Bosscobra]

so what's the criteria for the new NSX being a hit?showroom sales of the allotted amount diminished? or universal acclaim from the automotive press? or both, or something else?

One that has my ass glued into it

 

[fastaussie]

The general masses that buy Ferraris, drive like ~1K miles a year and consider a 15K Ferrari/Lambo higher mileage. This logic eludes me. Sure the Lambo and Ferrari have the art and fashion branding command along with expected performance, but why spend so much money for a garage queen? So you can show up to 1 or 2 social events and say look at me, look what I've got.

So the whole idea of driving a "Ferrari" on the weekend (because of maintenance costs or reliability issues) is the most inefficient thing to do with your money IMO. Who says a supercar can't compete with the rivals and drive comfortable to work or grocery stores? I take my NSX anywhere with decent infrastructure....

that's all relative, because i know people with NSX's who don't drive them at all. and i also have mates with 355's and 360's who have 60,000+ miles on their cars and they're full on daily drivers, every day.

the reason as you full well know and stated below, is that people who can afford to spend that much money on a Supercar (let's say $150,000+) can also afford to buy a nice, roomy, 4-door luxury sedan with much easier ingress/egress, better trunk space, softer suspension, etc.

as we all know, but some like to pretend we don't, Supercars aren't practical. i don't care what the brand is. don't slow down for the speedbumps in the grocery store car park next time and see how practical your Supercar is...

If and when I buy my supposed 458 in the distant future , I'm going to average atleast 3K miles per year and it's that low because I generally have multiple vehicles in the lineup.

thanks for helping me answer your contradicting statement...

That's a rather interesting reading of history. Dealers didn't have to discount NSX's when the competition was the 348 and 964. The problem is that the game moved on and the NSX largely did not. Had an all new NSX debuted along with the F355, maybe it would've been a different story.

ok, but what's your point? it's factual, not interesting. and yet another excuse.

has Ferrari ever had to discount a model?

If you don't hear the excuses for those cars you're not really listening. For the 458, people make excuses as for why a 12C can blow it away on the racetrack while simultaneously being more comfortable and livable on the street. Or how the 458 doesn't have the power of the 12C. Or how customer Ferraris mysteriously fail to match performance put down by Ferrari press cars. Or how the 458 is several seconds a lap slower around a racetrack than the Z06. "It's slower, but, but it's a Ferrari!"

well, that news is all very interesting to me, because i certainly haven't heard any of those "excuses". and not only do i listen, i have also driven those cars back-to-back on track. and while the 12C is definitely quicker in a straight line, i would have to say it absolutely does not blow a 458 away on a race track.

here, watch this video with the Speciale and 650S, and let me know if you still hold that opinion:

https://youtu.be/0aODISxOHiI

different cars, different days, different tracks, different drivers, different weather conditions, different styles will all change the possible outcome of any comparison. regardless, i don't know where you're getting your facts.

The NSX will be fast, easy to live with, and hopefully reliable. May not be a oversteering roller-coaster ride and the TT V6 won't satisfy those who love high rpm music but it's got plenty to like and hopefully it'll make plenty of people happy.

it should, never said it wouldn't. eventually it'll come out, so time will tell...

 

[Superfluous]

the reason as you full well know and stated below, is that people who can afford to spend that much money on a Supercar (let's say $150,000+) can also afford to buy a nice, roomy, 4-door luxury sedan with much easier ingress/egress, better trunk space, softer suspension, etc. as we all know, but some like to pretend we don't, Supercars aren't practical. i don't care what the brand is.

The fact that someone can afford two cars -- one sedan and one sports car -- does not mean that is preferable or desirable. I tried the two car approach -- it didn't work for me. I found myself always driving the sports car -- even to the post office -- while the purported "daily driver" sedan gathered dust. Therefore, I abandoned that model. Now, I daily drive my sports cars and keep a SUV for specific circumstances. Therefore, I want an undeniably fast, good looking sports car that can be daily driven (e.g., reliable and not wildly uncomfortable). I fully recognize that it will not be as comfortable as a sedan. On the other hand, it will be a ton more fun to drive . . . perhaps not as white knuckle fun as a 570S driven to the edge, but nevertheless plenty fun for me. And that is ultimately the only litmus test that matters: what is fun to ME.

I suspect that what is fun driving for me is rather banal driving for you. So be it. You clearly seek something different in a sports car/supercar. Fortunately, there are other cars that better suit your preferences (e.g., the 570S). We are living in a wonderful time with respect to high performance sports cars. The options are endless, and there is something for everyone. Ain't life grand. No need to demean someone for making choices that best suit their unique preferences. Instead, exalt our differences and the countless choices we have to satisfy these differences.

First world problems indeed.

 

[fastaussie]

No need to demean someone for making choices that best suit their unique preferences. Instead, exalt our differences and the countless choices we have to satisfy these differences.

First world problems indeed.

i'm not talking about you, or any other specific person on an NSX forum. where even here a lot of previous model NSX lovers don't like the new one.

i'm talking about the Supercar buying public. they're the one's who have to be convinced...

p.s. based on what you've seen and read, do you think American Acura has done enough?

 

[Superfluous]

even here a lot of previous model NSX lovers don't like the new one.

For a variety of reasons, current owners of a particular car model are often the most critical of a new model. Therefore, current NSX owners are not the best gauge of widespread appeal.

i'm talking about the Supercar buying public. they're the one's who have to be convinced...

Again, the word "supercar" is vague and ambiguous. I doubt Acura is going to convert (or convince) many owners of P1s, 918s or La Ferraris. IMHO, the target market is likely owners of Porsches (excluding 918s), Audis, BMWs and Mercedes.

So far, initial demand appears to be high for the new NSX. Of course, the real test will be in two years.

p.s. based on what you've seen and read, do you think American Acura has done enough?

Interesting question. Perhaps not. The new NSX remains an enigma to the vast majority.

The NSX needs to find its niche. That can only happen after the car is released, real people perform real world testing, and word of mouth spreads. The GTR and R8 both found their niche and flourished despite the ever-present industry/segment leaders. Only time will tell if the NSX can do the same.

 

[fastaussie]

For a variety of reasons, current owners of a particular car model are often the most critical of a new model. Therefore, current NSX owners are not the best gauge of widespread appeal.

in my opinion, that's who will make up the larger majority of NSX buyers. definitely not R8, 911, Ferrari or Lamborghini owners...

Again, the word "supercar" is vague and ambiguous. I doubt Acura is going to convert (or convince) many owners of P1s, 918s or La Ferraris. IMHO, the target market is likely owners of Porsches (excluding 918s), Audis, BMWs and Mercedes.

you know what a Supercar is, everybody does. the first cars you mentioned are Hypercars. everyone knows that and understands the difference also. no need to pretend...

So far, initial demand appears to be high for the new NSX. Of course, the real test will be in two years.

Interesting question. Perhaps not. The new NSX remains an enigma to the vast majority.

The NSX needs to find its niche. That can only happen after the car is released, real people perform real world testing, and word of mouth spreads. The GTR and R8 both found their niche and flourished despite the ever-present industry/segment leaders. Only time will tell if the NSX can do the same.

an enigma, or people just don't even care about it? i think enigma is the wrong word. nothing mysterious about the car, people are just over it already for being the car that was long promised and still hasn't arrived.

the R8 already had a niche to fall into, and it fit in perfectly. a huge success. GTR, same story even though it isn't a very highly regarded car by most enthusiasts and drivers alike. it's a techno wonder car, and in that realm, it also succeeds massively.

the NSX has a niche too, it's an established, heralded and beloved car with a storied history. so we'll see how it goes...

 

[Superfluous]

in my opinion, that's who will make up the larger majority of NSX buyers.

Disagree. While I have no empirical data to support my supposition, I suspect that most current NSX owners purchased their cars used and spent less than $80,000 on their NSX. It is a mighty big jump from $50-80,000 to $160-180,000.

If Acura is relying on current NSX owners for the majority of NSX 2.0 buyers, the new NSX will surely fail. Acura MUST bring new buyers to the fold. I am the perfect example of the type of buyer Acura needs to convert . . . 996TT, 997TT, GT-R, M6 and other similar cars.

you know what a Supercar is, everybody does. . . . . no need to pretend...

Your demeaning tone is really off-putting and dilutes other aspects of your message.

No pretending here. I genuinely do not understand the demarcations you apparently take for granted. That said, the label really doesn't matter.

GTR, same story even though it isn't a very highly regarded car by most enthusiasts and drivers alike.

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Among my many car enthusiast friends, the GT-R is very highly regarded.

My wife is getting pissed, so I need to give her some attention. Ill be back later.

 

[N Spec]

Superfluous, you are definitely the target demo Acura wants to tap into. There are others, maybe not up here that want to post, but they exist. I believe the new NSX will sell just fine as long as they update every few years. They learned their lesson and are limiting the supply per year instead of selling the bulk couple of thousands first year back in 1991.

- - - Updated - - -

that's all relative, because i know people with NSX's who don't drive them at all. and i also have mates with 355's and 360's who have 60,000+ miles on their cars and they're full on daily drivers, every day.

I'm not calling BS on it, but I haven't seen any Ferrari reach that on the east coast. Most owners I meet generally only take it out to cars and coffee and such. Maybe on the west coast it's a little different and they enjoy their cars more.

 

[G.Irish]

That's a rather interesting reading of history. Dealers didn't have to discount NSX's when the competition was the 348 and 964. The problem is that the game moved on and the NSX largely did not. Had an all new NSX debuted along with the F355, maybe it would've been a different story.

ok, but what's your point? it's factual, not interesting. and yet another excuse.

has Ferrari ever had to discount a model?

The point is that the NSX slowed down in sales because they never updated it, not because it was more practical than the competition of the day. If Ferrari tried to sell the 348 for 17 years they absolutely would've been forced to discount them too, although I suspect they would've gone out of business before that point.

as we all know, but some like to pretend we don't, Supercars aren't practical. i don't care what the brand is. don't slow down for the speedbumps in the grocery store car park next time and see how practical your Supercar is...

Yet, we see a number of supercars offer features like front axle lift systems, 18 way power seats, heated seats, different suspension modes, etc. Those are all features aimed at making the car more livable and practical for driving on the street. It's only the hardcore limited edition models like the 675LT, GT3 RS, and Speciale that eschew most concessions to comfort and practicality. McLaren has outright said that they engineered the tub in the 570S to be lower to ease ingress/egress. Practicality is absolutely a major factor in supercars, otherwise everyone would be making 1500 lbs Radical competitors. "Practical" for a supercar obviously doesn't mean the same thing as "practical" for a family sedan but clearly the average supercar buyer does not want a truly hardcore car.

well, that news is all very interesting to me, because i certainly haven't heard any of those "excuses". and not only do i listen, i have also driven those cars back-to-back on track. and while the 12C is definitely quicker in a straight line, i would have to say it absolutely does not blow a 458 away on a race track.

here, watch this video with the Speciale and 650S, and let me know if you still hold that opinion:

Wow, way to move the goal posts. Rather than comparing the 12C/650S to the regular 458, you jumped straight to the Speciale to try to prove your point. The competition for the Speciale is the 675LT, if you need the Speciale to beat a 650S that kind of says that is tacitly admitting that the regular 458 is not up to snuff.

Multiple outfits have tested the 12C and 650S on track versus the 458. You could look at the C&D's Lightning Lap where the 458 is about 4 seconds a lap slower than a 650S Spyder, in addition to being outpaced by the Z06 and Viper TA. Or when Top Gear tested the 12C and it bested the 458 by about 3 seconds. Evo tested both cars and end up with the 458 at 6 tenths faster.

Then again, there's also the time Autocar attempted to do a track comparo between the Speciale and 650S and Ferrari refused for some reason...

http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/anyt...be-ferrari-458-speciale-vs-mclaren-650s-video

So at worst, the 12C is definitely quicker than the 458 in a straightline, and is about as quick or quicker around a racetrack. And by at least one measure the 458 is shaded by both the Viper TA and Z06. Not saying the 458 isn't a phenomenal car, it clearly is. But there are plenty of excuses that people make for that car as well. When Ferrari themselves don't want to let journos do straight-up track comparos with their car without having time to pre-prep, that is the biggest excuse of all. You don't see Porsche, McLaren, or Chevrolet trying so desperately to control when, where, and how people evaluate their cars.

 

[fastaussie]

If Acura is relying on current NSX owners for the majority of NSX 2.0 buyers, the new NSX will surely fail. Acura MUST bring new buyers to the fold.

i know for a fact that i have typed this very statement many times...

Your demeaning tone is really off-putting and dilutes other aspects of your message.

No pretending here. I genuinely do not understand the demarcations you apparently take for granted. That said, the label really doesn't matter.

if you don't understand the general meaning of a Supercar, perhaps you shouldn't be commenting here? we're talking about comparing Supercars,
that's what this thread is about, so i think the label does matter. if you don't understand the conversation, how can you be a part of it?

the basic Supercar description, it's pretty simple really.

it should be expensive and beyond the financial reach of the average person, a "dream machine" if you will. it should be a poster on the bedroom walls of boys aged 4 to 20. it should sit low, go fast, sound ridiculous and make ordinary people stare at it like its an alien spacecraft being driven by the abominable snowman. that's more or less it...

Again, we will have to agree to disagree. Among my many car enthusiast friends, the GT-R is very highly regarded.

the GTR while it has some of these attributes, doesn't tick enough boxes, sorry...

The point is that the NSX slowed down in sales because they never updated it, not because it was more practical than the competition of the day. If Ferrari tried to sell the 348 for 17 years they absolutely would've been forced to discount them too, although I suspect they would've gone out of business before that point.

check the numbers, first year NSX sales were excellent. almost 3200. in 1992, much less than half. in 1993, half of that again. i don't think the NSX was completely outdated in a short 3 years. if anything the novelty just wore off quickly. your above argument makes no sense at all and doesn't apply to this debate...

Yet, we see a number of supercars offer features like front axle lift systems, 18 way power seats, heated seats, different suspension modes, etc. Those are all features aimed at making the car more livable and practical for driving on the street.

well, by your last statement, Supercars don't sound very practical if all of this work is being done to make them more practical. they sound quite impractical to me based on what you've just said. can you take all your kids to soccer practice in your new NSX?

Wow, way to move the goal posts. Rather than comparing the 12C/650S to the regular 458, you jumped straight to the Speciale to try to prove your point. The competition for the Speciale is the 675LT, if you need the Speciale to beat a 650S that kind of says that is tacitly admitting that the regular 458 is not up to snuff.

i chucked that video link in for two reasons. first of all, it was the last one i saw comparing a 458, a McLaren and a GT3. secondly, the 650S is a very upgraded car from the 12C. it is much faster, and much better in every way. so i consider it a fair comparo. the Speciale is an upgraded 458, the 650S is an updated 12C. see where i'm going with this?

have you driven a 458, 650S, any of these cars?

 

[G.Irish]

check the numbers, first year NSX sales were excellent. almost 3200. in 1992, much less than half. in 1993, half of that again. i don't think the NSX was completely outdated in a short 3 years. if anything the novelty just wore off quickly. your above argument makes no sense at all and doesn't apply to this debate...

You could say the exact same thing of several supercars in that time period. The 964 Turbo sold around 4300 units in '91, 1145 in '92, and 650 in '93. I've never seen a breakout for 348's by year, but Ferrari's total volume in 1991 was about 4500 units, by 1993 it was 2300. So several of the NSX's contemporaries experienced a precipitous decline in sales when initial demand was met, the NSX was no different.

Your original argument was that Acura had to discount the NSX heavily because it was the 'practical' supercar. If you're talking about the first few years of the NSX, the sales decline isn't much unlike its competitors. If you're talking about deeper into the NSX's production run, clearly the fact that it never had a full model change put it at a huge disadvantage. Either way you haven't made the case that that practicality vs the competition is why sales slowed down dramatically.

well, by your last statement, Supercars don't sound very practical if all of this work is being done to make them more practical. they sound quite impractical to me based on what you've just said. can you take all your kids to soccer practice in your new NSX?

Again, missing the point. Practicality is obviously a concern for a supercar, just not to the same degree as a mass-market car. A supercar's goals might be 80% performance, 10% style/fun, and 10% practicality whereas a minivan might be 90 % practicality, 5% style, and 5% performance.

A supercar that is all performance is something like a BAC Mono. Something like a Ferrari California puts more emphasis on style, fun and practicality than something like a Speciale. The NSX puts more emphasis on ease of use and drivability than a 458/488 and some drivers will like that, some drivers won't care. As long as the NSX is as fast or faster than the cars in its segment, and can provide driving enjoyment when the driver wants it, it should do just fine.

i chucked that video link in for two reasons. first of all, it was the last one i saw comparing a 458, a McLaren and a GT3. secondly, the 650S is a very upgraded car from the 12C. it is much faster, and much better in every way. so i consider it a fair comparo. the Speciale is an upgraded 458, the 650S is an updated 12C. see where i'm going with this?

You're being deliberately obtuse if you think the 650S is supposed to match up to the Speciale. That would be like comparing the Mustang GT350R to the Camaro SS or a 911 GT3 to a Corvette Stingray. The Speciale does not replace the 458, it is sold alongside it as a special trim level, the same way the 675LT is sold next to the 650S. I suspect we won't see a 675LT vs Speciale comparo but if we do it'll be interesting to see the result.

Anyway, a more apt comparison will be the 488 vs the 650S, which I would expect the 488 to win handily, until the P14 comes out.

have you driven a 458, 650S, any of these cars?

I'll get back to you after the embargo.

 

[BATMANs]

F458 Special is on my collector car list being the last all engine F car with the most power/liter.

The sound....

 

[liftcontrol]

As long as the NSX is as fast or faster than the cars in its segment, and can provide driving enjoyment when the driver wants it, it should do just fine.

That is the $200,000 question, isn't it:smile:

But, I think being fast is not the key.
It is being fast enough, while providing the joy of driving as did the 1st Gen, that is the key.

From the initial impressions however, and I hope that changes with the final production model, driving enjoyment was not the first or most important consideration in the development of the 2nd Gen.

If HONDA wants a super car it has to forego all other considerations and make a super car.
A super car by definition is irrational, over achieving, loud, extroverted and a bit dangerous. It is a wild animal, a wolf, not a domesticated puppy.

If it wants a sports car that makes allowances in the name of comfort and convenience and being polite to the neighbors, then it will be another HONDA product with great reliability but it will be closer to a perfect appliance than a machine with a soul.

 

[fastaussie]

well, i can already tell this will be the never ending argument...

Your original argument was that Acura had to discount the NSX heavily because it was the 'practical' supercar.

you don't seem to be paying attention. my original argument was that, if people hold practicality in their Supercar purchase as the number one priority above all else, Acura wouldn't have had to give them away at huge discounts. if, as you seem to think and suggest, practicality matters most (above acceleration, exclusivity, a roaring exhaust note, a prancing horse or raging bull nameplate, etc.), NSX's would have be selling like hotcakes the entire run. because they were certainly the most practical of all Supercars in the 90's by a very long way. so clearly your hypothesis is completely wrong. therefor one can only deduce that the market buys their Supercars based on emotion to a significant extent more than practicality. end of story on this one.

You're being deliberately obtuse if you think the 650S is supposed to match up to the Speciale. That would be like comparing the Mustang GT350R to the Camaro SS or a 911 GT3 to a Corvette Stingray. The Speciale does not replace the 458, it is sold alongside it as a special trim level, the same way the 675LT is sold next to the 650S. I suspect we won't see a 675LT vs Speciale comparo but if we do it'll be interesting to see the result.

Anyway, a more apt comparison will be the 488 vs the 650S, which I would expect the 488 to win handily, until the P14 comes out.

i'd pit, and i'm sure every online and print magazine publication on earth will also, the 488 against the 675 for now. because those are the top two cars for each respective manufacturer in that market segment. it's a pretty simple formula...

I'll get back to you after the embargo.

no need, i've already run hundreds of laps in each. i know exactly what i'm talking about...

- - - Updated - - -

But, I think being fast is not the key.
It is being fast enough, while providing the joy of driving as did the 1st Gen, that is the key.

From the initial impressions however, and I hope that changes with the final production model, driving enjoyment was not the first or most important consideration in the development of the 2nd Gen.

If HONDA wants a super car it has to forego all other considerations and make a super car.
A super car by definition is irrational, over achieving, loud, extroverted and a bit dangerous. It is a wild animal, a wolf, not a domesticated puppy.

If it wants a sports car that makes allowances in the name of comfort and convenience and being polite to the neighbors, then it will be another HONDA product with great reliability but it will be closer to a perfect appliance than a machine with a soul.

this guy clearly gets it... :biggrin:

 

[G.Irish]

That is the $200,000 question, isn't it:smile:

But, I think being fast is not the key.
It is being fast enough, while providing the joy of driving as did the 1st Gen, that is the key.

That's certainly true. It has to be competitive in the segment on speed, while also being enjoyable to drive, good looking, well-put-together, etc. It could be the outright fastest car in the segment but if its boring to drive except while in track mode at 9/10ths it's going to be somewhat of a failure.

From the initial impressions however, and I hope that changes with the final production model, driving enjoyment was not the first or most important consideration in the development of the 2nd Gen.

It sounds like the gripes most fo the press had with the pre-prod cars can be solved with software updates. They need to make sport plus mode more aggressive so people driving on the street can get more out of the car without having to resort to track mode.

If HONDA wants a super car it has to forego all other considerations and make a super car.
A super car by definition is irrational, over achieving, loud, extroverted and a bit dangerous. It is a wild animal, a wolf, not a domesticated puppy.

If it wants a sports car that makes allowances in the name of comfort and convenience and being polite to the neighbors, then it will be another HONDA product with great reliability but it will be closer to a perfect appliance than a machine with a soul.

I think what we see now is that more than a few supercars have a dual nature, and that's what Acura was aiming for with the NSX. Looking at McLaren's trick hydraulic swaybars and adjustable shocks, they can provide very good ride comfort when someone wants to drive on the street, and still deliver a sharp-handling weapon on the track. Other cars do this to a lesser degree with just the magnetorheological shocks, different engine mappings, and shift programs.

The dangerous aspect is all but extinct for a lot of these cars with all of the electronic nannies. It enables poor drivers but at the same time it means less destroyed cars. In theory that should mean that guy with a supercar and no skills can trade that car in one piece on the next latest and greatest, meaning more money for the manufacturer.

I think a big challenge for a lot of upcoming supercars is how to deliver that visceral exhaust noise with a turbocharged engine. McLaren seems to do okay with the 12C/650S but nothing really beats a high rpm n/a wail.

- - - Updated - - -

you don't seem to be paying attention. my original argument was that, if people hold practicality in their Supercar purchase as the number one priority above all else, Acura wouldn't have had to give them away at huge discounts. if, as you seem to think and suggest, practicality matters most (above acceleration, exclusivity, a roaring exhaust note, a prancing horse or raging bull nameplate, etc.), NSX's would have be selling like hotcakes the entire run. because they were certainly the most practical of all Supercars in the 90's by a very long way. so clearly your hypothesis is completely wrong. therefor one can only deduce that the market buys their Supercars based on emotion to a significant extent more than practicality. end of story on this one.

If your argument is that practicality is not the first factor for a supercar, that should be fairly obvious, otherwise why spend the money. The point is that it is a consideration for these cars, just no the first one as I explained later in my post.

You tried to make your argument based on sales, where you were wrong in the short term and wrong in the long term. Maybe I've been misreading others, but it doesn't seem like anyone thinks the NSX or any other car in this segment is about 'practicality first', that's a rather flimsy strawman.

i'd pit, and i'm sure every online and print magazine publication on earth will also, the 488 against the 675 for now. because those are the top two cars for each respective manufacturer in that market segment. it's a pretty simple formula...

Well now that Ferrari doesn't make the 458 anymore, they may in fact go that route. Still doesn't change the fact that the Speciale vs the 650S is not an apples to apples comparison, and really constitutes you making excuses for the regular 458.

 

[Hothonda]

Here's what $100K (1/19/16) gets you from Lotus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1pU_tfMAUY

 

[liftcontrol]

if, as you seem to think and suggest, practicality matters most (above acceleration, exclusivity, a roaring exhaust note, a prancing horse or raging bull nameplate, etc.), NSX's would have be selling like hotcakes the entire run. because they were certainly the most practical of all Supercars in the 90's by a very long way.

Bingo! This is a fact that is difficult to argue with.

 

[Superfluous]

This debate is going no where fast. Super car . . . . sports car . . . . fun . . . . driving enjoyment . . . . . these are all entirely subjective terms that mean very different things to different people.

But, I think being fast is not the key. It is being fast enough, while providing the joy of driving

“Joy of driving” for who? That’s the real question. “Joy of driving” for a track focused owner that has no intention of daily driving the car? OR, “joy of driving” for an owner who intends to daily drive the car and will probably never take the car to a track? “Joy of driving” is wildly subjective and entirely dependent on personal preferences. The new NSX may not provide the “joy of driving” that you, FA or certain reviewers seek (of note, FA and the reviewers are focused on track attributes). On the other hand, I strongly suspect that the new NSX will provide the “joy of driving” that the target market seeks. The NSX target market is not track junkies. Rather, the target market is someone like me – someone who wants an undeniably fast, high performance, good looking, good handling, reliable, relatively comfortable sports car that can be driven every day, is “fun” to drive every day on the street and provides “joy of driving” during daily street driving . . . someone who finds certain compromises not only acceptable, but desirable in order to achieve the foregoing balance . . . someone who has no interest in an uncomfortable, pure track car.

driving enjoyment was not the first or most important consideration in the development of the 2nd Gen.

“Driving enjoyment” undeniably was an important consideration. However, it was not the only consideration. Rather, Acura sought to balance “driving enjoyment” against other important considerations for the target market (and the target conditions -- daily street driving). You, FA and others plainly don’t like the other considerations addressed by Acura and the resulting balance. That doesn’t mean Acura ignored “driving enjoyment.” Rather, it simply means that Acura provided a different type of “driving enjoyment” for a different type of driver and a different purpose.

If HONDA wants a super car it has to forego all other considerations and make a super car.

Thankfully, Acura did not “forego all other considerations.” If Acura proceeded in this manner, they would have produced a car with a very narrow target market, that is undesirable for most people. There are very few cars that “forego all other considerations,” and they appeal to a very narrow segment. Acura elected to make a car that appeals to a broader segment . . . a car that takes into account “other considerations.” I applaud Acura’s approach.

If it wants a sports car that makes allowances in the name of comfort and convenience and being polite to the neighbors, then it will be another HONDA product with great reliability but it will be closer to a perfect appliance than a machine with a soul.

“Soul” . . . yet another wildly subjective and amorphous reference. Does a car really have to be uncomfortable, inconvenient and unreliable in order to have “soul”? Again, I disagree. The NSX can be reliable and (relatively) comfortable, but still have plenty of “soul.” These are not mutually exclusive considerations.

Acura clearly has not made a “super car” according to your definition (Google “super car” and check out the myriad of diverse definitions). That’s ok. You and FA appear to be fixated on the “super car” label. I do not share your fixation. Whether it qualifies as a “super car,” or merely a "sports car,” the NSX provides the balance of power, performance, speed, handling, style, looks, fun, driving enjoyment, comfort, convenience, and reliability that I desire in a car. That’s all I care about.

 

[JD Cross]

Acura clearly has not made a “super car” according to your definition (Google “super car” and check out the myriad of diverse definitions). That’s ok. You and FA appear to be fixated on the “super car” label. I do not share your fixation. Whether it qualifies as a “super car,” or merely a "sports car,” the NSX provides the balance of power, performance, speed, handling, style, looks, fun, driving enjoyment, comfort, convenience, and reliability that I desire in a car. That’s all I care about.

I applaud your mature view of the new NSX.

It appears to me that Honda took the best features of the original NSX, studied the current and future offerings from the competition, and chose a path for the new NSX.
There's always a tendency to slot a new car offering into some category and endlessly compare it's apparent shortcomings against the perceived competition.

I think we'll find over time that the NSX is in its own category, will do everything my original NSX can do, only better, and that's all it has to be.

 

[Hothonda]

Superfluous ↑↑↑ You say Acura has elected to appeal to a broader market.....OK how big is the market for $157K (or probably closer to $170K w/options) + TTL performance cars anyway?

Acura has two products in their lineup that sell well....the rest are not big movers. The most expensive (RLX) has an MSRP of about $60K..... I don't get it.

 

[fastaussie]

you don't seem to be paying attention. my original argument was that, if people hold practicality in their Supercar purchase as the number one priority above all else, Acura wouldn't have had to give them away at huge discounts. if, as you seem to think and suggest, practicality matters most (above acceleration, exclusivity, a roaring exhaust note, a prancing horse or raging bull nameplate, excitement, etc.), NSX's would have be selling like hotcakes the entire run. because they were certainly the most practical of all Supercars in the 90's by a very long way. so clearly your hypothesis is completely wrong. therefor one can only deduce that the market buys their Supercars based on emotion to a significant extent more than practicality. end of story on this one.

Bingo! This is a fact that is difficult to argue with.

yet somehow he does?

If your argument is that practicality is not the first factor for a supercar, that should be fairly obvious, otherwise why spend the money. The point is that it is a consideration for these cars, just no the first one as I explained later in my post.

You tried to make your argument based on sales, where you were wrong in the short term and wrong in the long term. Maybe I've been misreading others, but it doesn't seem like anyone thinks the NSX or any other car in this segment is about 'practicality first', that's a rather flimsy straw man.

Well now that Ferrari doesn't make the 458 anymore, they may in fact go that route. Still doesn't change the fact that the Speciale vs the 650S is not an apples to apples comparison, and really constitutes you making excuses for the regular 458.

wow, completely and totally clueless. i have nothing more for you...

“Soul” . . . yet another wildly subjective and amorphous reference. Does a car really have to be uncomfortable, inconvenient and unreliable in order to have “soul”? Again, I disagree. The NSX can be reliable and (relatively) comfortable, but still have plenty of “soul.” These are not mutually exclusive considerations.

Acura clearly has not made a “super car” according to your definition (Google “super car” and check out the myriad of diverse definitions). That’s ok. You and FA appear to be fixated on the “super car” label. I do not share your fixation. Whether it qualifies as a “super car,” or merely a "sports car,” the NSX provides the balance of power, performance, speed, handling, style, looks, fun, driving enjoyment, comfort, convenience, and reliability that I desire in a car. That’s all I care about.

been over this a few times. clearly you don't get it either...