NSX

[KLEEMANN]

Actually, the turbo version had 290 hp. The other, NA version, had 240 hp and I hung with one in my v6 firebird a few years back up in Lubbock.

Turbo? They never made a FI version of the NSX....they were all produced with a N/A V6 ranging from 260 - 290 Hp. The 290 Hp version was a mid/low 13 sec car. In its day, it was pretty quick & it handles well (and ther were built extremely well to boot).

[N20LT4]

Turbo? They never made a FI version of the NSX....they were all produced with a N/A V6 ranging from 260 - 290 Hp. The 290 Hp version was a mid/low 13 sec car. In its day, it was pretty quick & it handles well (and ther were built extremely well to boot).

NSX's are a rip-off. Period. 290hp for close to $100k? Please. That was one of the reasons why sales were so low for that car.

[KLEEMANN]

NSX's are a rip-off. Period. 290hp for close to $100k? Please. That was one of the reasons why sales were so low for that car.

There is more to a car than HP. The car was entirely built from aluminum & was built for the race track (it would NOT break, handled & braked extremely well, & was built as well as a Ferrari. It actually impacted Ferrari's introduction schedule for the F355 as the Italians became concerned the Japanese were going to start taking market share). NSX production was kept low for multiple reasons (hint - it was not the HP to dollar ratio you mentioned....besides, I wouldn't be talking about low production numbers - the Z28/Firebird/Camaro car has been dead for a few years just like the NSX).

Different people just have differing value sets than you so they chose a car that has the attributes they want (a T/A would not have the same track durability of an NSX & would be in the NSX's rear view mirror...the T/As brakes would fade after about 2 laps of hard driving at Laguna Seca).

[1 RedHot TransAm]

There is more to a car than HP. The car was entirely built from aluminum & was built for the race track (it would NOT break, handled & braked extremely well, & was built as well as a Ferrari. It actually impacted Ferrari's introduction schedule for the F355 as the Italians became concerned the Japanese were going to start taking market share). NSX production was kept low for multiple reasons (hint - it was not the HP to dollar ratio you mentioned....besides, I wouldn't be talking about low production numbers - the Z28/Firebird/Camaro car has been dead for a few years just like the NSX).

Different people just have differing value sets than you so they chose a car that has the attributes they want (a T/A would not have the same track durability of an NSX & would be in the NSX's rear view mirror...the T/As brakes would fade after about 2 laps of hard driving at Laguna Seca).

sure you dont own an NSX? cause your pretty defensive about it LoL....this is a LS1 site dont act so surprized that people are not impressed by the NSX cause our values are not based on the Leguna Seca, your preaching to the wrong crowd, im not saying its not a nice car but your just preaching to the wrong crowd IMO...

[N20LT4]

....besides, I wouldn't be talking about low production numbers - the Z28/Firebird/Camaro car has been dead for a few years just like the NSX).

Ha! Funny you had to throw that one in there. It's ironic that you even mention a $20-$30,000 car in the same context as one that cost over $80,000. If you wan't a real comparison, try a Corvette Z06...the other Chevy

[knoll5150]

Holy crap this is turning into a firestorm! I'm a working stiff like most people here, and am lucky enough to own a nice muscle car (Camaro SS vert, slp car), that being said, high end sports cars are different beasts...vehichles bulit on exotic designs and limited production...for the a-holes we work for! Hmmmm, so much for keeping the peace...damn Absolut Vodka!

[big hammer]

Ha! Funny you had to throw that one in there. It's ironic that you even mention a $20-$30,000 car in the same context as one that cost over $80,000. If you wan't a real comparison, try a Corvette Z06...the other Chevy

oh yes.. what about that z06... no wait it's still cheaper. an nsx is more comparable to a zr1.....

[N20LT4]

oh yes.. what about that z06... no wait it's still cheaper. an nsx is more comparable to a zr1.....

Yeah your right. From a price perspective it is. Funny how he chose to compare it to a pony car though. lol

[knoll5150]

Aughh, If I was rich SOB, the only car to me that is worthy of being the KING is the Porsche 959.
Sorry, that car is badass!

[N20LT4]

Aughh, If I was rich SOB, the only car to me that is worthy of being the KING is the Porsche 959.
Sorry, that car is badass!

The 959 is bad. I like the ZR1 over all right now!

[knoll5150]

Well, the "new" ZR1 (if Nancy "crackhead" Pelosi lets it come out) will pretty much destroy everything...but if you're comparining the old ZR-1 (with the mercury marine engine) to the 959...I don't know... I love both of thos cars alot, the Z-R1 for it's legendary engine, and the 959 for being....well, so badass! I think performance wise the 959 beat the vette in the late 80's. Although, I think this was agains't a weaker 375hp version of the Z-R1. Man! Wish I would of held on to my older copies of "Car and Driver" and "Moter Trend"!

[N20LT4]

Well, the "new" ZR1 (if Nancy "crackhead" Pelosi lets it come out) will pretty much destroy everything...but if you're comparining the old ZR-1 (with the mercury marine engine) to the 959...I don't know... I love both of thos cars alot, the Z-R1 for it's legendary engine, and the 959 for being....well, so badass! I think performance wise the 959 beat the vette in the late 80's. Although, I think this was agains't a weaker 375hp version of the Z-R1. Man! Wish I would of held on to my older copies of "Car and Driver" and "Moter Trend"!

I was referring to the new ZR1. But the old ones hauled well. You can still find vintage ZR-1 road tests on the net. The 1990-1992 375hp versions were solid low 13-second cars with some dipping in the 12's. 12's were seen more often in the '93-95 405-horse versions. The drivetrain in those cars weren't geared for quarter-mile, but rather top speed.

[KLEEMANN]

sure you dont own an NSX? cause your pretty defensive about it LoL....this is a LS1 site dont act so surprized that people are not impressed by the NSX cause our values are not based on the Leguna Seca, your preaching to the wrong crowd, im not saying its not a nice car but your just preaching to the wrong crowd IMO...

I'm not preaching to anybody - I'm mentioning there are other attributes to cars that are superior to those of an F body & people are willing to pay more for those particular attributes (neutral handling, better baraking, better build quality, blah blah... ;o) I'm not trying to be nasty - it's just the truth - some people place a higher value on difering attributes (the NSX was just as quick as any F-Body with a 0-60 time of 4.8 sec & a 1/4 @ ~ 13.3 sec @ 106 mph so it was hardly "slow"?). The car may have cost more money but the "Buyer'" had more of it to spend on the traits THEY appreciated more than maybe a typical F body guy - it's no big deal - just different preferences).

[KLEEMANN]

Ha! Funny you had to throw that one in there. It's ironic that you even mention a $20-$30,000 car in the same context as one that cost over $80,000. If you wan't a real comparison, try a Corvette Z06...the other Chevy

What does the price of a mass produced sports car have to do with production coming to a halt? Multiple cars "died" during the same time frame - the Supra, the RX-7, the GT3000, Lotus Elise, Porsche 928 GTS, The F cars, etc....they were largely replaced buy the SUV market - sports cars took a "back seat" to the vastly faster growth & larger market segment (maybe the guys that owned all these sports cars got laid, had kids, ditched the sport car & bought an SUV).

BTW, the Z06 was out only a few years near the end of the NSX's production runs. When the Vette was put up against the NSX when it first came out, it bettered the C4 in many aspects so again, different strokes - different folks (the C4/C5 built quality never measured up to that of an NSX & neither does a C6, but then again a C6 will wax the floor with an NSX but it's been dead for years before the C6 even came out - apples-to-oranges due to the timeframe delta).

[KLEEMANN]

Yeah your right. From a price perspective it is. Funny how he chose to compare it to a pony car though. lol

The OP ran one - it's the title of this thread.

[N20LT4]

What does the price of a mass produced sports car have to do with production coming to a halt? Multiple cars "died" during the same time frame - the Supra, the RX-7, the GT3000, Lotus Elise, Porsche 928 GTS, The F cars, etc....they were largely replaced buy the SUV market - sports cars took a "back seat" to the vastly faster growth & larger market segment (maybe the guys that owned all these sports cars got laid, had kids, ditched the sport car & bought an SUV).

BTW, the Z06 was out only a few years near the end of the NSX's production runs. When the Vette was put up against the NSX when it first came out, it bettered the C4 in many aspects so again, different strokes - different folks (the C4/C5 built quality never measured up to that of an NSX & neither does a C6, but then again a C6 will wax the floor with an NSX but it's been dead for years before the C6 even came out - apples-to-oranges due to the timeframe delta).

It doesn't take a C6 to 'wax' an Acura NSX. The LT4-powered Base C4's, LT4 CE's, and Grand Sport Corvettes were in the 12's with good drivers at 107-109. Let's not even mention the ZR-1, which was still roughly $20k cheaper than the NSX, or the Dodge Viper for that matter, which were both built in the same time frame as the NSX. A Dodge Viper GTS would outperform a NSX both on the autocross and the drags for roughly $15-30,000 less. Now that was value. Low 13's @ 106-mph performance is not even worth noting when it has a price tag attached to it that's in excess of 100-large. For that kind of cost I would only hope it was built someone right and dependable (duh?). Still, in my opinion, that car was a total rip-off. Anytime you could pay that kind of money and not get better acceleration than that is not exceptional. Just as you mentioned in your earlier post, the power-to-cost ratio did infact effect sales.

This isn't the first time i've had this debate. Every NSX fan always brings up it's handling and durability to cover up the pitiful straightline acceleration. 13.30's for $80k? Ha, i'll pass!

[Wesman]

What does the price of a mass produced sports car have to do with production coming to a halt? Multiple cars "died" during the same time frame - the Supra, the RX-7, the GT3000, Lotus Elise, Porsche 928 GTS, The F cars, etc....they were largely replaced buy the SUV market - sports cars took a "back seat" to the vastly faster growth & larger market segment (maybe the guys that owned all these sports cars got laid, had kids, ditched the sport car & bought an SUV).

BTW, the Z06 was out only a few years near the end of the NSX's production runs. When the Vette was put up against the NSX when it first came out, it bettered the C4 in many aspects so again, different strokes - different folks (the C4/C5 built quality never measured up to that of an NSX & neither does a C6, but then again a C6 will wax the floor with an NSX but it's been dead for years before the C6 even came out - apples-to-oranges due to the timeframe delta).

What is all this about build quality?? Look at the interior of the NSX, its garbage by today's standards, and its not nearly as nice as the C6.

And where is the specs that say the chassis is more rigid than a C6?? I don't buy that for one minute. I think you're just hooked on the propoganda that people use to try and justify the ridiculous price tag of the NSX, when in reality it was no better than even a C5 Corvette.

Not only that, but the NSX has all kinds of transmission problems. Durability?? Haha, Honda sucks at building manual transmissions, hence the recent recall of brand new Civic Si's grinding into 3rd gear with only 2K miles on them. Its actually been on the national news frequently. Same problem with the RSX, S2000, and NSX. Just search the forums and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Basically the NSX is a waste of money. You can try and justify it with all kinds of reasons, but the bottom line is it gets beat by a $25,000 F-body in a straight line and gets waxed by a $45,000 Corvette in both the straights and the corners. The car is nothing more than a status symbol, I don't understand why people feel the need to try and justify its price tag for something so ridiculous.

[N20LT4]

What is all this about build quality?? Look at the interior of the NSX, its garbage by today's standards, and its not nearly as nice as the C6.

And where is the specs that say the chassis is more rigid than a C6?? I don't buy that for one minute. I think you're just hooked on the propoganda that people use to try and justify the ridiculous price tag of the NSX, when in reality it was no better than even a C5 Corvette.

Not only that, but the NSX has all kinds of transmission problems. Durability?? Haha, Honda sucks at building manual transmissions, hence the recent recall of brand new Civic Si's grinding into 3rd gear with only 2K miles on them. Its actually been on the national news frequently. Same problem with the RSX, S2000, and NSX. Just search the forums and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Basically the NSX is a waste of money. You can try and justify it with all kinds of reasons, but the bottom line is it gets beat by a $25,000 F-body in a straight line and gets waxed by a $45,000 Corvette in both the straights and the corners. The car is nothing more than a status symbol, I don't understand why people feel the need to try and justify its price tag for something so ridiculous.

Amen to that.

[Camarofan]

To me, Any car in the world. is a waste of money when you compare it to a Corvette. Corvette is all around the best buy in the world for performance and handling for the money you pay.

[KLEEMANN]

What is all this about build quality?? Look at the interior of the NSX, its garbage by today's standards, and its not nearly as nice as the C6.

And where is the specs that say the chassis is more rigid than a C6?? I don't buy that for one minute. I think you're just hooked on the propoganda that people use to try and justify the ridiculous price tag of the NSX, when in reality it was no better than even a C5 Corvette.

Not only that, but the NSX has all kinds of transmission problems. Durability?? Haha, Honda sucks at building manual transmissions, hence the recent recall of brand new Civic Si's grinding into 3rd gear with only 2K miles on them. Its actually been on the national news frequently. Same problem with the RSX, S2000, and NSX. Just search the forums and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.

Basically the NSX is a waste of money. You can try and justify it with all kinds of reasons, but the bottom line is it gets beat by a $25,000 F-body in a straight line and gets waxed by a $45,000 Corvette in both the straights and the corners. The car is nothing more than a status symbol, I don't understand why people feel the need to try and justify its price tag for something so ridiculous.

Err, no. The NSX build quality is still FAR nicer than a C6's. There is truth to why people still refer to the Vette's interior as "Fisher Price" like.

WHERE are you getting this chassis comparison you suddenly brought up? I never said anything about any car chassis being more firm than another's.

Dude, I don't know where you are getting your transmission information but you might want to do some homework. The transmission of the NSX is one of its STRONGEST points. The throws are short, extremely smooth, & the reliability is literally world class (the tranny was proven under the grueling 24 hours of Le Mans for Christ's sake - Honda races in F1 where they brought much of their racing heritage into the development of the NSX - Arten Senna helped provide input during the design of chassis). I had a friend with an NSX - the tranny was friggin' BULLETPROOF - his stock clutch lasted 92k miles! Publications still rave about the tranny & shifting of the S2000 - Hondas have extremly durable manual trannys (too soft for some but they LAST). Where are you getting your NSX tranny stats? - they are way off.

I am also curious why do you keep bring up the F body's stongest point (acceleration, where it's a mid/low 13 sec car) against the NSX when the NSX had the same low 13 sec 1/4 times? If that is the strongest point the F body has & it still doesn't win it, you resort to price. HINT: People that buy high end cars don't care as much as those with more limited means about price - they get F body acceleration along with an all Aluminum light weight chassis, an 8,000 rpm engine behind their head, superior braking, handling, exclusivity,and reliability (sorry but Honda's quality is FAR superior to that of Pontiac). Why do you think people buy Ferraris? (people will pay more for a car that has the attributes they want ).

BTW, the NSX never go waxed by the C4 Vette in the corners. In fact, when introduced, it was the other way around (and just an fyi - the car was $63k....the C4 was $40k...a whopping $23k delta). Here, an article for you:
http://www.fd3s.net/magazine_article...article02.html