NSX

[KLEEMANN]

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.

Dude, you have a scary fukin' Avitar.

[KLEEMANN]

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!

Sure, I can mention the more limited NSX's than ran 12.4x (NSX Type Zero, etc). I can also say ZR1's were marked WAY up by the trusty Chevy Dealers - they NEVER went for MSRP (neither did the Viper RT10 when it came out (since you decided to bring up a car that had nothing to do with the F body, NSX, or C4 Vette discussion in this particular thread)- the RT10 had a $100K Dealer mark up in '92 when it was released - talk about "rip off"!)

I think everyone that has an F car (as in Ferrari), a P car (Porsche), or any other sports car needs to run out & sell it so they can become proud F-body car owners since its "such a great deal"! Are you guys f-ing kidding me?

Last point - if low 13s is "pitiful acceleration", then I suppose that means the F body cars were "pitiful" as well since that is what the LS1 cars ran?

People have different tastes - get used to it - not everybody wants an F-body.

[N20LT4]

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 ).

I am very complimented that you compare a $60,000, $80,000, or whatever it may be car to my F-body. I'm delighted. If you think the NSX deserves legendary status because it was able to run neck and neck with a car a fraction of it's price, than all power to you. I think Wesman pretty much put it all in perspective.

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

That's the base LT1 - Not the ZR-1 that was available that year. And in case you didn't notice, the Corvette in that article ran faster than the NSX in the slalom, and the freakin' RX-7 had the fastest lateral acceleration time out of all the cars. Am I missing something, what's the big deal?

And for the record, by 1997 the NSX was staring $100,000 right in the face with a $88,725 price tag. For comparison, you could of had a 1995 ZR-1 with 405-hp, 0-60 times in the 4-second range, 13.1 seconds at 112mph in the quarter, handling that matched or exceeded the NSX, for about $20,000 less. All in all, a car with much more balls than the overpriced, overly-hyped, and undersold NSX.

Link: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ance_data.html

People have different tastes - get used to it - not everybody wants an F-body.

You must have a taste for F-bodies, being that you are here on this site. But that's a whole nother story.

[blackSS01]

NSX.......two words. Fucking junk. Biggest pile of crap on the planet. Honda engineers should be lined up in a execution style line up, and shot.

[Eric1987]

NSX.......two words. Fucking junk. Biggest pile of crap on the planet. Honda engineers should be lined up in a execution style line up, and shot.

Wow you're a very ignorant person...Probably the most I've ever encountered in my 21 years of life.

[Camarofan]

Dude, you have a scary fukin' Avitar.

Yeah, it's one to wonder about? The person looks troubled ya think?

[blackSS01]

Wow you're a very ignorant person...Probably the most I've ever encountered in my 21 years of life.

Good, piles of crap. Thats why I fought for my country, so I can piss people off and say what I feel and want.

[blackSS01]

Oh and for the record, how is a NSX not a pile of crap. Almost $100,000 and won't beat half the cars in the world in Autocross, 1/4, or reliablity. If it smells like crap, looks like crap, and feels like crap, then guess what...........its crap.