what if the ascc peforms.... REALLY performs?

[ChrisK]

They made little upgrades to car that was ahead of it's time constantly. I can't understand why you people even bought an NSX if it was so flawed!

It is not that the car is flawed, just that if Honda were really interested in selling NSX for profit they needed to keep updating it to keep up with the market. I don't really understand where you are getting the idea they we think the NSX sucks or anything like that. The Ferrari went through the 348, 355, 360, and 430 all while the NSX stayed with the same basic car. NA1 and NA2 don't really count as a new generation. As far as I recall, the only major updates where the T top in 95, the 3.2 and 6-Speed in 97, and the head lights and slight redesign of rear valance and side skirts. I'm not taking about the updated window regulators, or the drive by wire, or the thinner aluminum panels.

Anyway, I don't believe in any perfect car. NSX is a great car, but not perfect. The Enzo is a great car, but not perfect. I still really like the NSX. So much that I'm still trying to buy another one.

To be honest as why I bought an NSX? Well, after researching it and owning it I realize how great a car it is. However, if I had the money, I'd be buying a Ferrari F430 or Lamborghini. I bought the NSX is because it is the next best thing to the Italian mid engine exotics that I could afford.

 

[Ski_Banker]

Sigh! Ski_Bankers post just proves the current saying that......"Cocaine is a hell of drug" LoL. We have to get him some help ,but that's hard because he has to want help. Please "Ski" let us help you to help you help yourself!!! put the pipe down buddy and leave the "lines" alone:wink:

Haha I thought it was very witty and creative. No?

 

[MoreRPMs]

Honda's cars tend to be lighter than their competitors so once again lets wait and see.

I just saw a thread in Off Topic titled "TL, G35, IS350 ?" where someone added a page of the curb weights of all 3 cars. Yes, the Acura comes in some 90 pounds lighter than the other two. But, the competitors are rear-wheel drive and the driveshaft by itself equals at least 200 hundred pounds. So then, apple for apple the Acura is most certainly not lighter. In my opinion, every one of those cars is grossly obese; the front-driver TL comes in over 3700 pounds for cryinoutloud! I shudder to think of what's in store for the flagship of Honda's line when utilizing this same sort of innovative "technology". Actually, anyone with half a brain can ascertain that they've long since thrown up their arms in surrender to Ferrari (how sad) and instead are planning on competing with overweight crap box GT cars.

 

[H-carWizKid]

I just saw a thread in Off Topic titled "TL, G35, IS350 ?" where someone added a page of the curb weights of all 3 cars. Yes, the Acura comes in some 90 pounds lighter than the other two. But, the competitors are rear-wheel drive and the driveshaft by itself equals at least 200 hundred pounds.

That would be one heavy drive shaft, 200lbs? Are you sure? Have you lifted 200lbs recently?

I'd like to see an actual weight to justify this figure.

Philip

 

[satx]

and the driveshaft by itself equals at least 200 hundred pounds.

sorry but there is no way the driveshaft weighs that much. MAYBE if it was made of lead.......MAYBE.

 

[Ponyboy]

Actually, anyone with half a brain can ascertain that they've long since thrown up their arms in surrender to Ferrari (how sad) and instead are planning on competing with overweight crap box GT cars.

Actually, Ferrari are very heavy into GT cars (have always been) and are even readying an awd version of the 599.

 

[NSXGMS]

Actually, Ferrari are very heavy into GT cars (have always been) and are even readying an awd version of the 599.

True but up until the 599 their GT cars were nothing but fat, slow pigs. The Testarossa was the worst of all...a stock NA1 NSX would surely beat it around virtually any track.

The 550/575 & 456/612 are never going to be accused of being agile. The 599 is light-years ahead of anything else in their GT stable. And it's still not going to be much, if at all, faster than a ZO6.

Competing with Ferrari in the GT department is truly pointless. I doubt anyone who buys a 612 or 599 would ever have even considered something else. OK, maybe a Vanquish. But in truth those particular Ferraris embody the power of badging and brand loyalty more than anything. The 599 and 612really don't ever have to perform. The demand for those cars is so high they could handle like a Suzuki Samurai and people would line up out the door. As long as it's got some power they'll have buyers.

 

[H-carWizKid]

True but up until the 599 their GT cars were nothing but fat, slow pigs. The Testarossa was the worst of all...a stock NA1 NSX would surely beat it around virtually any track.

The 550/575 & 456/612 are never going to be accused of being agile. The 599 is light-years ahead of anything else in their GT stable. And it's still not going to be much, if at all, faster than a ZO6.

Competing with Ferrari in the GT department is truly pointless.

Actually- competeing in the mid-engine market that Ferrari practically established would seem more absurd to the casual observer wouldn't it?

Honda did it, and they did it well.

I understand. You don't like the FR layout, but really, these arguments are grasping at straws. This thread is all theoretical, "what if the ascc peforms.... REALLY performs? The folks opposed to the ASCC are obviously theorizing the worst, and justifying their theories any way possible. This is a pretty fair example of blink reaction, and the arguments are paper thin.

The S2000 is a FR car- It performs.

Ask yourself a question- do you REALLY think Honda is going to put a 100k+ pricetag on a car that doesn't handle, doesn't accelerate, and has no curb appeal?

Unlikely.

Will you like it? Up to you. I am going to wait and see.

BTW- The Testarossa was a MR car- where does it fit in with the "GT" segment you are so haplessly bashing?

Philip

 

[Ponyboy]

True but up until the 599 their GT cars were nothing but fat, slow pigs.

Not really. The slowest of the GT group, the 456, you mention does 0-60 in 5.1 sec. It's replacement, the 612, does it in 4.2. Man, that's slow!

The 550/575 & 456/612 are never going to be accuseOtherwise the 612 is an impressive machine. It seemingly shrinks around you on sinuous roads, becoming more sports car than GT. The body control is excellent, the ride firm but not uncompromising, and the steering light and directd of being agile.

Hmm..simple Google search produced, from Auto Express:

"...the 612 is an impressive machine. It seemingly shrinks around you on sinuous roads, becoming more sports car than GT. The body control is excellent, the ride firm but not uncompromising, and the steering light and direct"

The 599 is light-years ahead of anything else in their GT stable. And it's still not going to be much, if at all, faster than a ZO6.

You're right. Ferrari should do away with the 599 altogether. Z06 FTW!

Competing with Ferrari in the GT department is truly pointless.

And yet, Honda and Toyota are going to do exactly that. Coincidentally, most said the same thing about the NSX, and yet you bought one. Most said the same thing about Europe's hold on the luxury car segment too.