- Joined
- 31 January 2008
- Messages
- 276
What the "NEW" NSX Should Have Been?
- Thread starter nastinupe1
- Start date
It's called R8.
- Joined
- 31 January 2008
- Messages
- 276
It's called R8.
Yea, both this Noble and R8 have the look that Honda should have used. Instead we get a Mini Supra.
I think It should have looked more like this. Wake up HONDA!
Last edited:
I think It should have looked more like this. Wake up HONDA!
Yea, I'll take one of those with Honda's interior, reliability and price tag.
Design-wise, the Saleen S5S gets my vote.
Design-wise, the Saleen S5S gets my vote.
+1 for sure.
+2 on that
- Joined
- 6 June 2005
- Messages
- 423
+3 thats the first one that came to mind
- Joined
- 31 January 2008
- Messages
- 276
Why are my pics always so small? 
I think that the Croc chased Honda out of the mid-engine waters for good.
$60k is a hard price to beat for a mid-engine fun sports car?
(I'm still not sure, where any of us who don't live in German, are gong to use 500hp very often? Honda? )
$60k is a hard price to beat for a mid-engine fun sports car?
(I'm still not sure, where any of us who don't live in German, are gong to use 500hp very often? Honda? )
Last edited:
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
Nope, Honda is probably not interested in competing with a:
Cheaply put together "mid" level Porksche
Which is not that much faster than the $34k FR S2000
at almost 2X the price
with higher maintenance cost
marketing to those who cannot afford a 997
but still want to be in the game
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
The Porsche Cayman is a fine car, but I just can live with myself knowing that the 997 is right there above the model line up. And since I wouldn't buy a RR car, Cayman is out of the question.
It was hilarious to see the engine bay is under s square cover inside the trunk. That alone is probably the dumbest thing a car manufacture can do. It's a Porsche, NOT a VW bus.
I'll keep my S2k CR, $5k more I can have it with CTSC and will run with the regular 997S.
Last edited:
Could have fooled me. I'm never been Porsche fan. I can make an exception for the Carrera GT though.
- Joined
- 31 January 2008
- Messages
- 276
1st off... the Cayman is not a "cheaply put together car". Porsche's build quality is higher than Honda these days. It's not 1982 anymore, wakeup.
Also, the Cayman S is much quicker AND faster AND handles better than the S2000. It's not even close anymore. It was back in 2000, but since then, the Boxster has pulled away from even being compared to the S2000 in terms of performance. Unfortunately, Honda never improved on the S2000, while Porsche has been constantly improving on the Boxster since it was first introduce in 1997.
And if you drove both the 997 and 987 you would see that they are two totally different cars that handle and feel totally different.
And by the way, I owned an AP2 with a CTSC and it still can't touch a 911S. If you looked at the numbers, you'd see that the CTSC still has basically the same 0 - 60 as a NA S2000 (~5.4 sec). A 997 C2S is like 4.6. And the 4 banger gives out around 125 MPH while the 997 will keep on pulling.
I just don't want you to get embarrassed thinking that a CTSC is going to let you run with 997's. Maybe a non-S with a bad driver who's talking on his bluetooth trying to make up with his ex girlfriend and eating a cheese burger and missed a shift while you're totally in the zone and feeling like this is your big chance to prove yourself and make perfect shifts.
- Joined
- 4 October 2002
- Messages
- 569
On numbers alone, the Cayman is within 1 mph of the NSX to the Quarter mile. It will out corner and out Slalom the NSX, NSX-T and Zanardi in any magazine test and it doesn't need to use gumball tires of the CR's RE070 to get the job done. Check the Mag test reports.
Last edited:
Are we talking about the Cayman or 997S? That's a pertty quick way to switch subject. Sorry to tell you this, I don't think Porsche's build quality is better than Honda's. I have two close friends, one with 2004 Boxter S and One with standard 2005 997. Both had their engines replaced under warrantee.
It's a Porsche, people want them, just like people still drives around their 1980 F 308 thinking they're the bomb.
Again, if I'm forced to buy a Porsche, it will not be the Cayman. Like Clarkson said, it's interesting knowing that Porsche Cayman handles better than the 997 but purposely handicap it by offering less engine.
BTW, I did not say S2k will be a Cayman, I said it is NOT THAT MUCH FASTER THAN A S2k.
Just for laughs and giggles
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z0dVtfjgWv4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z0dVtfjgWv4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
By road and track
S2000 CR MSRP $38000
0-60 5.3 seconds
1/4 mile 13.7 second @100.8
Top speed 150 mph
60-0 109 ft
80-0 204 ft
Lateral: 0.99g
700 feet slalom: 71.7 MPH
Cayman $58900
0-60 4.8 seconds
1/4 mile 13.3 second @106.2
Top speed 160 mph
60-0 110 ft
80-0 190 ft
Lateral: ?
700 feet slalom: 71.7 MPH
Pertty close????
But here is what matters, seems like every one like to use this as the bench mark:
Porsche 997 GT3 RS: 7:47
NSX NA2 R 7:56
Porsche 991 Turbo 7:56
360 CS 7:56
997 CS 7:59
996 GT3 8:03
NSX NA1 R 8:03
Porsche Cayman S 8:25
NSX NA1 Cpe: 8:38
S2k AP1: 8:39
Since Cayman S is top end model, it is fair to compare it to NSX-R since they are in the same class according to some people. Obviously it is clearly faster than AP1 S2k and NA1 NSX. Too bad they didn't test a NSX Type S (Zanardi edition), but I assumed it will be similar to the NA1 R, which beat the Cayman S by 22 seconds!!!
Last edited:
- Joined
- 4 October 2002
- Messages
- 569
If Fukui really wanted the excess of the V10,
The V10 NSX replacement should have been this LP560.
MID-Freaking-Engine Mr. Fukui!!
You want platform sharing Honda? How about what Audi / Lambo did with the V8 R8 and the V10 Gallardo using the same platform. Oh, I forget, its too late for you because Audi beats you to the market, while you were sitting in the board room with indecision and didn't have enough balls nor audacity to do what Soichiro did back in 1991.
Instead, we have a FR so called "Sports car" sharing platform with the RL replacement. And it took you almost 20 years to come up with that?
Good freaking luck!!
Now, on to some prettier pictures.
The V10 NSX replacement should have been this LP560.
MID-Freaking-Engine Mr. Fukui!!
You want platform sharing Honda? How about what Audi / Lambo did with the V8 R8 and the V10 Gallardo using the same platform. Oh, I forget, its too late for you because Audi beats you to the market, while you were sitting in the board room with indecision and didn't have enough balls nor audacity to do what Soichiro did back in 1991.
Instead, we have a FR so called "Sports car" sharing platform with the RL replacement. And it took you almost 20 years to come up with that?
Good freaking luck!!
Now, on to some prettier pictures.
Last edited:
Still can't get over it?
- Joined
- 4 October 2002
- Messages
- 569
The poll numbers says it all.
Unfortunately for those "who can't get over it," MR is NOT going to happen; the unfavorable % is shrinking.
To be fair, there are plenty of other makers out with MR format. Oh BTW, what ever happen to all those "if Honda don't replace the NSX soon, I'm buying a R8" people?
The next NSX should have been a conceptual & technical evolution of the first.
I second the above, MID-FREAKIN' ENGINE!!!!
Extensive use of carbon for the monocoque (evolution from aluminum). Yes, it's not cheap (both from manufacturing & purchasing perspectives), but neither was the original in its day. At least use some aluminum honeycomb to cut weight & increase rigidity. No carbon for body panels- too expensive to insure & repair. Target weight 2800 lbs.
V8 (with turbos or at least room to add them in a 2-3 yrs if needed to keep up with Joneses) or V10. Somewhere in the 5-6 liter displacement area. Ungodly high rev limit, some new VTEC setup, and DRY SUMP. Maybe 5 valves/cylinder like Ferrari? Use some trickle down from the now banned F1 V10. Could be made with cheaper alloys & valve train. Variable intake runners/geometry like Porsche. 500HP minimum (if you can't hang with a Z06, go home. Don't bother building the car.)
Some sort of cruise/sport switch. Cruise mode would limit boost and/or revs & allow cylinder deactivation to kick in. Hopefully, this would help MPG enough to avoid gas guzzler tax. Sport mode would have all the power all the time.
Big mofo brakes, carbon ceramic option.
Extensive carbon & light weight emphasis inside (ala' F430 Scuderia)
6 spd (maybe more?) manual, paddle shift option.
Real ground effects & front brake cooling ducts. Active aero like Mitsu had & Ferrari has.
As it is, the only cars I am considering buying that I might actually be able to afford are a used Noble M400, used C6 Z06, or a used Radical SR3.
For cars I know I can't afford, but would like to, I would consider a Rossion, Noble M600, Radical SR8, or an F360/430.
A front engined "NSX" that looks like a Supra/ Aston Martin/ GT-R ain't on the list.
I second the above, MID-FREAKIN' ENGINE!!!!
Extensive use of carbon for the monocoque (evolution from aluminum). Yes, it's not cheap (both from manufacturing & purchasing perspectives), but neither was the original in its day. At least use some aluminum honeycomb to cut weight & increase rigidity. No carbon for body panels- too expensive to insure & repair. Target weight 2800 lbs.
V8 (with turbos or at least room to add them in a 2-3 yrs if needed to keep up with Joneses) or V10. Somewhere in the 5-6 liter displacement area. Ungodly high rev limit, some new VTEC setup, and DRY SUMP. Maybe 5 valves/cylinder like Ferrari? Use some trickle down from the now banned F1 V10. Could be made with cheaper alloys & valve train. Variable intake runners/geometry like Porsche. 500HP minimum (if you can't hang with a Z06, go home. Don't bother building the car.)
Some sort of cruise/sport switch. Cruise mode would limit boost and/or revs & allow cylinder deactivation to kick in. Hopefully, this would help MPG enough to avoid gas guzzler tax. Sport mode would have all the power all the time.
Big mofo brakes, carbon ceramic option.
Extensive carbon & light weight emphasis inside (ala' F430 Scuderia)
6 spd (maybe more?) manual, paddle shift option.
Real ground effects & front brake cooling ducts. Active aero like Mitsu had & Ferrari has.
As it is, the only cars I am considering buying that I might actually be able to afford are a used Noble M400, used C6 Z06, or a used Radical SR3.
For cars I know I can't afford, but would like to, I would consider a Rossion, Noble M600, Radical SR8, or an F360/430.
A front engined "NSX" that looks like a Supra/ Aston Martin/ GT-R ain't on the list.
Last edited:
Question on this?
If we do put the Cayman into this equation as you guys have done shouldn't we be comparing the base Cayman as well since the NSX/NSX-T that we got here really was/is the base NSX. Also since there was a newer Type S with a larger wheel tire combo wouldn't that be a better comparison than the 10yr old Zanardi? We just don't have any new NSX Type S test numbers:frown:
I still see/understand why Honda wasn't looking to appease the American NSXprime crowd as all they basically bought were used cars. Even if Honda made a new NSX MR and all people here would be saying "Can't wait to buy one used" There's no encouragement to sell a new car used.
