New NSX
01-13-2007, 12:19 PM
#276
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: The same place Max slept in The Road Warrior
Posts: 1,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Mr Hammond)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr Hammond »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Five years of the same **** will do that to you.</TD></TR></TABLE>
i have been around here all of that long, but i cant break a thread down like that. i knew there was going to be bashing but you broke it down to a new level.
i have been around here all of that long, but i cant break a thread down like that. i knew there was going to be bashing but you broke it down to a new level.
01-13-2007, 12:40 PM
#277
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
who compares 91 NSX's to C6 vettes? more like 03 NSX to a C5 Z06. just because it was designed before that doesnt give it an excuse to not hang with the newer cars sold while it was still being produced. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I guess you didn't do well in math. I said 10 years over a 91 NSX, thus a 2001 Corvette Z06, if it was even available then. As for comparing a 03 NSX to a C5 Z06, it's really no different since there is no change in the NSX.... albeight a 6-spd transmission and .2L for 20 more whopping hp. So it's funny to take a new car to the market (03 Z06 that just hit the market) and put it up against a car with a 12 year old design & powerplant. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
who compares 91 NSX's to C6 vettes? more like 03 NSX to a C5 Z06. just because it was designed before that doesnt give it an excuse to not hang with the newer cars sold while it was still being produced. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I guess you didn't do well in math. I said 10 years over a 91 NSX, thus a 2001 Corvette Z06, if it was even available then. As for comparing a 03 NSX to a C5 Z06, it's really no different since there is no change in the NSX.... albeight a 6-spd transmission and .2L for 20 more whopping hp. So it's funny to take a new car to the market (03 Z06 that just hit the market) and put it up against a car with a 12 year old design & powerplant. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
01-13-2007, 12:45 PM
#278
EPIC TUNING
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 10,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (RVD)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RVD »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I guess you didn't do well in math. I said 10 years over a 91 NSX, thus a 2001 Corvette Z06, if it was even available then. As for comparing a 03 NSX to a C5 Z06, it's really no different since there is no change in the NSX.... albeight a 6-spd transmission and .2L for 20 more whopping hp. So it's funny to take a new car to the market (03 Z06 that just hit the market) and put it up against a car with a 12 year old design & powerplant. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If it is produced in the same year, they can be compared. just because one has been around for 12 years doesnt make it exept from comparison. someone earliar compared a 91 NSX to a 91 Vette. that is a perfectly ok comparison since they are the same MY vehicles. like I said tho, I could use this rame ricer logic and say "oh well the C4 vette has been around since 1982" so youd be comparing a 9 year old design vette to a cutting edge NSX. is it a fair comparison? absolutely. its not hondas fault that the C4 was 9 years old upon its introduction, nor is its chevys fault that the NSX was 12 years old upon the C5 Z06 introduction. do you understand what I mean? just because it is outdated doesnt make it exempt from comparison.
Clearly, comparing a C6 Z06 to any year NSX is an unfair comparison. but a C5 Z06? absolutely
I guess you didn't do well in math. I said 10 years over a 91 NSX, thus a 2001 Corvette Z06, if it was even available then. As for comparing a 03 NSX to a C5 Z06, it's really no different since there is no change in the NSX.... albeight a 6-spd transmission and .2L for 20 more whopping hp. So it's funny to take a new car to the market (03 Z06 that just hit the market) and put it up against a car with a 12 year old design & powerplant. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
If it is produced in the same year, they can be compared. just because one has been around for 12 years doesnt make it exept from comparison. someone earliar compared a 91 NSX to a 91 Vette. that is a perfectly ok comparison since they are the same MY vehicles. like I said tho, I could use this rame ricer logic and say "oh well the C4 vette has been around since 1982" so youd be comparing a 9 year old design vette to a cutting edge NSX. is it a fair comparison? absolutely. its not hondas fault that the C4 was 9 years old upon its introduction, nor is its chevys fault that the NSX was 12 years old upon the C5 Z06 introduction. do you understand what I mean? just because it is outdated doesnt make it exempt from comparison.
Clearly, comparing a C6 Z06 to any year NSX is an unfair comparison. but a C5 Z06? absolutely
01-13-2007, 01:40 PM
#279
Painting Masterpieces
Re: New NSX (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">...Clearly, comparing a C6 Z06 to any year NSX is an unfair comparison. but a C5 Z06? absolutely</TD></TR></TABLE>
No.
The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.
No.
The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.
01-13-2007, 04:50 PM
#281
Don't Trust Anyone
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 7,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (FUCATYPR)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by FUCATYPR »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">90 NSX>90 Vette</TD></TR></TABLE>
It never changed so yes comparing a New car against a 1991+ NSX works.
It never changed so yes comparing a New car against a 1991+ NSX works.
01-13-2007, 05:11 PM
#282
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Ponyboy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ponyboy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.</TD></TR></TABLE>
egg-zackly
The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.</TD></TR></TABLE>
egg-zackly
01-13-2007, 06:04 PM
#284
Painting Masterpieces
Re: (Mr. Furley)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Mr. Furley »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Price wise you could compare a 2005 NSX to any Z06. If you want to compare power wise compare it to the Saturn Sky Redline.</TD></TR></TABLE>
?
A Saturn Sky Redline has 260hp. A '91 NSX has 270. And an 89 930 Turbo had 285. Nice point.
?
A Saturn Sky Redline has 260hp. A '91 NSX has 270. And an 89 930 Turbo had 285. Nice point.
01-13-2007, 06:10 PM
#285
Don't Trust Anyone
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 7,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Ponyboy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ponyboy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Same as yours.
Same as yours.
01-13-2007, 06:43 PM
#286
Honda-Tech Double Platinum Member
Re: New NSX (RVD)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RVD »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I guess you didn't do well in math. I said 10 years over a 91 NSX, thus a 2001 Corvette Z06, if it was even available then. As for comparing a 03 NSX to a C5 Z06, it's really no different since there is no change in the NSX.... albeight a 6-spd transmission and .2L for 20 more whopping hp. So it's funny to take a new car to the market (03 Z06 that just hit the market) and put it up against a car with a 12 year old design & powerplant. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I dont see why people are arguing with this. I think its admirable that a car that was built 16yrs ago can even be in the same category as a sports car that was built 4-5yrs ago. People like to hate on the NSX because its made by Honda. The car was built for one purpose, its a cheap "supercar" that drives like a civic on the streets and a ferrari on the track...and it did that better than basically any other car.
I guess you didn't do well in math. I said 10 years over a 91 NSX, thus a 2001 Corvette Z06, if it was even available then. As for comparing a 03 NSX to a C5 Z06, it's really no different since there is no change in the NSX.... albeight a 6-spd transmission and .2L for 20 more whopping hp. So it's funny to take a new car to the market (03 Z06 that just hit the market) and put it up against a car with a 12 year old design & powerplant. But hey, whatever makes you sleep better at night.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I dont see why people are arguing with this. I think its admirable that a car that was built 16yrs ago can even be in the same category as a sports car that was built 4-5yrs ago. People like to hate on the NSX because its made by Honda. The car was built for one purpose, its a cheap "supercar" that drives like a civic on the streets and a ferrari on the track...and it did that better than basically any other car.
01-13-2007, 07:34 PM
#287
EPIC TUNING
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 10,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Ponyboy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ponyboy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
No.
The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.</TD></TR></TABLE>
NSX = 90k
base C5 =45k
Z06 (C5) = 60k
so you are are saying Hondas "supercar" only competes with a base model corvette?
in 2003, id say the Z06 and NSX are comparable even though the NSX outprices the C5 Z06 by THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
No.
The correct comparision would be a generic C5 vs. an NSX. Comparision w/ a C5 Z06 would require an NSX-R.</TD></TR></TABLE>
NSX = 90k
base C5 =45k
Z06 (C5) = 60k
so you are are saying Hondas "supercar" only competes with a base model corvette?
in 2003, id say the Z06 and NSX are comparable even though the NSX outprices the C5 Z06 by THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.
01-13-2007, 07:53 PM
#288
Painting Masterpieces
Re: New NSX (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">so you are are saying Hondas "supercar" only competes with a base model corvette?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Are you saying that GM's supercar only competes with a base model NSX? If you don't understand how the highest designation for a given model compares with the highest designation of another model than the discussion is lost altogether.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ewok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">in 2003, id say the Z06 and NSX are comparable even though the NSX outprices the C5 Z06 by THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.</TD></TR></TABLE>
And the difference for an F355 is even more...even used. Coincidentally, a few months ago I was offered 35k for my '91 (even w/ a busted engine). Guess how much an 02-03 Z06 goes for...
Are you saying that GM's supercar only competes with a base model NSX? If you don't understand how the highest designation for a given model compares with the highest designation of another model than the discussion is lost altogether.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ewok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">in 2003, id say the Z06 and NSX are comparable even though the NSX outprices the C5 Z06 by THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS.</TD></TR></TABLE>
And the difference for an F355 is even more...even used. Coincidentally, a few months ago I was offered 35k for my '91 (even w/ a busted engine). Guess how much an 02-03 Z06 goes for...
01-13-2007, 07:59 PM
#289
EPIC TUNING
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 10,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Ponyboy)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Ponyboy »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Are you saying that GM's supercar only competes with a base model NSX? If you don't understand how the highest designation for a given model compares with the highest designation of another model than the discussion is lost altogether.
And the difference for an F355 is even more...even used. Coincidentally, a few months ago I was offered 35k for my '91 (even w/ a busted engine). Guess how much an 02-03 Z06 goes for...</TD></TR></TABLE>
compare a "top of the line" NSX to a Z06, sure. why are you talking about used resale values now?
I brought that point up because he said an NSX only compared with a "generic" C5, which doesnt make any sense since the C5 is half the price of an NSX. I think its fair to compare a Z06 to an NSX, base model or not.
just because your 91 NSX goes for the same price as a Z06 doesnt make it better.
and like I said over and over again, a 1991 NSX was a GREAT CAR that model year.
Are you saying that GM's supercar only competes with a base model NSX? If you don't understand how the highest designation for a given model compares with the highest designation of another model than the discussion is lost altogether.
And the difference for an F355 is even more...even used. Coincidentally, a few months ago I was offered 35k for my '91 (even w/ a busted engine). Guess how much an 02-03 Z06 goes for...</TD></TR></TABLE>
compare a "top of the line" NSX to a Z06, sure. why are you talking about used resale values now?
I brought that point up because he said an NSX only compared with a "generic" C5, which doesnt make any sense since the C5 is half the price of an NSX. I think its fair to compare a Z06 to an NSX, base model or not.
just because your 91 NSX goes for the same price as a Z06 doesnt make it better.
and like I said over and over again, a 1991 NSX was a GREAT CAR that model year.
01-13-2007, 08:33 PM
#290
Painting Masterpieces
Re: New NSX (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">compare a "top of the line" NSX to a Z06, sure. why are you talking about used resale values now?</TD></TR></TABLE>
I realized you were especially cost conscious and thought it applicable.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just because your 91 NSX goes for the same price as a Z06 doesnt make it better.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well, I guess you aren't so "cost conscious" after all. I wonder how much a regular 02-03 C5 goes for?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and like I said over and over again, a 1991 NSX was a GREAT CAR that model year. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Where? Cuz all I read are comments like this
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> umm overpriced fanboy cars FTW</TD></TR></TABLE>
And some general LSx/Z06 fanboy comments.
I realized you were especially cost conscious and thought it applicable.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">just because your 91 NSX goes for the same price as a Z06 doesnt make it better.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Well, I guess you aren't so "cost conscious" after all. I wonder how much a regular 02-03 C5 goes for?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">and like I said over and over again, a 1991 NSX was a GREAT CAR that model year. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Where? Cuz all I read are comments like this
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> umm overpriced fanboy cars FTW</TD></TR></TABLE>
And some general LSx/Z06 fanboy comments.
01-13-2007, 08:46 PM
#291
B*a*n*n*e*d
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bouncing off of the city bus in Saigon
Posts: 11,712
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
ummm....LSx > all V8's. honda would not be able to make a V8 to compete with an LS-anything. you can have all the overhead cams and VTEC you want, but the raw power of the pushrod LSx will still eat it alive.</TD></TR></TABLE>
what the fudgesicke you talking willis? Honda has this uncanny ability to squeeze out serious hp out of a specific displacement without using forced induction.
GM 3.0L never made it to 240HP
GM does not have a 3.2L that can crank out 260 or 270 or even 258hp
GM does not have a 3.5L that can even crank out 286HP
I am not gonna say anything until I see it but GM wasn't squeesing this kind of power out of a 5.0L naturally asperated V8............
ummm....LSx > all V8's. honda would not be able to make a V8 to compete with an LS-anything. you can have all the overhead cams and VTEC you want, but the raw power of the pushrod LSx will still eat it alive.</TD></TR></TABLE>
what the fudgesicke you talking willis? Honda has this uncanny ability to squeeze out serious hp out of a specific displacement without using forced induction.
GM 3.0L never made it to 240HP
GM does not have a 3.2L that can crank out 260 or 270 or even 258hp
GM does not have a 3.5L that can even crank out 286HP
I am not gonna say anything until I see it but GM wasn't squeesing this kind of power out of a 5.0L naturally asperated V8............
01-13-2007, 08:59 PM
#293
EPIC TUNING
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: WA
Posts: 10,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (YeuEmMaiMai)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YeuEmMaiMai »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what the fudgesicke you talking willis? Honda has this uncanny ability to squeeze out serious hp out of a specific displacement without using forced induction.
GM 3.0L never made it to 240HP
GM does not have a 3.2L that can crank out 260 or 270 or even 258hp
GM does not have a 3.5L that can even crank out 286HP
I am not gonna say anything until I see it but GM wasn't squeesing this kind of power out of a 5.0L naturally asperated V8............</TD></TR></TABLE>
are you really going to break out the HP/Liter argument? GM never used their 3.8 based engine for a "supercar" therefore this argument is pointless.
now many times do I have to say it:
NSX ARE GREAT CARS.
however, a C5 Z06 DOES COMPARE TO IT. it was produced the same MY, and can be compared. I really dont know why you are arguing this. Yes, a 91ish NSX outperforms a 91 Vette. nobody is arguing that. I am just stating that if you are going to use that comparison, dont go ahead and try to handicapp the NSX and say it has 10 year old technology to a Z06, as the 91 NSX had a 10 year advantage to a C4 Vette. that is just silly. they were available the same year, therefore they are comparible. that is all i am trying to say.
HP/LTR is irrelivant.
what the fudgesicke you talking willis? Honda has this uncanny ability to squeeze out serious hp out of a specific displacement without using forced induction.
GM 3.0L never made it to 240HP
GM does not have a 3.2L that can crank out 260 or 270 or even 258hp
GM does not have a 3.5L that can even crank out 286HP
I am not gonna say anything until I see it but GM wasn't squeesing this kind of power out of a 5.0L naturally asperated V8............</TD></TR></TABLE>
are you really going to break out the HP/Liter argument? GM never used their 3.8 based engine for a "supercar" therefore this argument is pointless.
now many times do I have to say it:
NSX ARE GREAT CARS.
however, a C5 Z06 DOES COMPARE TO IT. it was produced the same MY, and can be compared. I really dont know why you are arguing this. Yes, a 91ish NSX outperforms a 91 Vette. nobody is arguing that. I am just stating that if you are going to use that comparison, dont go ahead and try to handicapp the NSX and say it has 10 year old technology to a Z06, as the 91 NSX had a 10 year advantage to a C4 Vette. that is just silly. they were available the same year, therefore they are comparible. that is all i am trying to say.
HP/LTR is irrelivant.
01-13-2007, 09:01 PM
#294
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 888
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (YeuEmMaiMai)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YeuEmMaiMai »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
what the fudgesicke you talking willis? Honda has this uncanny ability to squeeze out serious hp out of a specific displacement without using forced induction.
GM 3.0L never made it to 240HP
GM does not have a 3.2L that can crank out 260 or 270 or even 258hp
GM does not have a 3.5L that can even crank out 286HP
I am not gonna say anything until I see it but GM wasn't squeesing this kind of power out of a 5.0L naturally asperated V8............</TD></TR></TABLE>
heh, nice analogy
How often do you see a domestic auto manufacturer's motor pump out a lot of HP with a small displacement like a Japanese or European auto manufacturer? The 'bigger is better' rule obviously doesn't apply here.
what the fudgesicke you talking willis? Honda has this uncanny ability to squeeze out serious hp out of a specific displacement without using forced induction.
GM 3.0L never made it to 240HP
GM does not have a 3.2L that can crank out 260 or 270 or even 258hp
GM does not have a 3.5L that can even crank out 286HP
I am not gonna say anything until I see it but GM wasn't squeesing this kind of power out of a 5.0L naturally asperated V8............</TD></TR></TABLE>
heh, nice analogy
How often do you see a domestic auto manufacturer's motor pump out a lot of HP with a small displacement like a Japanese or European auto manufacturer? The 'bigger is better' rule obviously doesn't apply here.
01-13-2007, 09:19 PM
#295
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 8,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Lewie)
the NSX aka ASC Concept
this is what the NSX will be modeled after with some changes, like adding door handles and other asthetics that wont be as radical as this prototype
this is what the NSX will be modeled after with some changes, like adding door handles and other asthetics that wont be as radical as this prototype
01-13-2007, 11:55 PM
#296
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 3,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (Hites...)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hites... »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">engine in the front ftl.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I think Enzo would disagree.
I think Enzo would disagree.
01-14-2007, 12:00 AM
#297
B*a*n*n*e*d
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bouncing off of the city bus in Saigon
Posts: 11,712
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: New NSX (Hites...)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Hites... »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">engine in the front ftl.</TD></TR></TABLE>
front engine rear drive usually results in pretty close or 50/50 weight distribution
front engine rear drive usually results in pretty close or 50/50 weight distribution
01-14-2007, 12:12 AM
#298
B*a*n*n*e*d
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bouncing off of the city bus in Saigon
Posts: 11,712
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: (E-Rok)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by E-Rok »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
are you really going to break out the HP/Liter argument? GM never used their 3.8 based engine for a "supercar" therefore this argument is pointless.
now many times do I have to say it:
NSX ARE GREAT CARS.
however, a C5 Z06 DOES COMPARE TO IT. it was produced the same MY, and can be compared. I really dont know why you are arguing this. Yes, a 91ish NSX outperforms a 91 Vette. nobody is arguing that. I am just stating that if you are going to use that comparison, dont go ahead and try to handicapp the NSX and say it has 10 year old technology to a Z06, as the 91 NSX had a 10 year advantage to a C4 Vette. that is just silly. they were available the same year, therefore they are comparible. that is all i am trying to say.
HP/LTR is irrelivant.</TD></TR></TABLE>
no, it's not you just WISH GM could do what Honda can with a SOHC V6 and GM has to use at least 5.7L to get 400HP
5.7L
LS1 was rated between 288 and 350 hp
LS6 was rated between 388 and 405 hp
6.0L
L76 348 hp
L98 372 hp
LS2 400hp
The closest is the LS4 at 5.3L and 303 HP
7.0L
LS7 505 hp
Now you are stating that HP/L does not mean anything?
Honda is going to pop out a 4.5L V10 that just literally puts the smack down in terms of performance as quoted earlier 410 kW = 561.7 hp
lol talk about getting owned 2.5L LESS and 56.7 MORE HP
are you really going to break out the HP/Liter argument? GM never used their 3.8 based engine for a "supercar" therefore this argument is pointless.
now many times do I have to say it:
NSX ARE GREAT CARS.
however, a C5 Z06 DOES COMPARE TO IT. it was produced the same MY, and can be compared. I really dont know why you are arguing this. Yes, a 91ish NSX outperforms a 91 Vette. nobody is arguing that. I am just stating that if you are going to use that comparison, dont go ahead and try to handicapp the NSX and say it has 10 year old technology to a Z06, as the 91 NSX had a 10 year advantage to a C4 Vette. that is just silly. they were available the same year, therefore they are comparible. that is all i am trying to say.
HP/LTR is irrelivant.</TD></TR></TABLE>
no, it's not you just WISH GM could do what Honda can with a SOHC V6 and GM has to use at least 5.7L to get 400HP
5.7L
LS1 was rated between 288 and 350 hp
LS6 was rated between 388 and 405 hp
6.0L
L76 348 hp
L98 372 hp
LS2 400hp
The closest is the LS4 at 5.3L and 303 HP
7.0L
LS7 505 hp
Now you are stating that HP/L does not mean anything?
Honda is going to pop out a 4.5L V10 that just literally puts the smack down in terms of performance as quoted earlier 410 kW = 561.7 hp
lol talk about getting owned 2.5L LESS and 56.7 MORE HP
01-14-2007, 12:32 AM
#299
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Antelope/Sacramento, CA
Posts: 659
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: New NSX (YeuEmMaiMai)
The ASC is not the new NSX in my book. Putting the picture of the original F1 inspired NSX behind the concept was disgracing to the NSX. The ASC better not carry the NSX name unless it's MR. If it continues with its FR layout, give it another name and don't call it a successor but rather a new car.
As for the original NSX, it might not have the amazing power of the new cars, but you will not get the driving experience it give for a price range of 100k. There is no other car that it can be compared to when talking about all of these factors: reliability, exoticness, performance, and price.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YeuEmMaiMai »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">front engine rear drive usually results in pretty close or 50/50 weight distribution</TD></TR></TABLE>
This becomes irrelevant when the engine is midship. Nothing beats an MR setup. 50/50 weight distribution on an FR layout is just the best set up you can have...for an FR layout. Put the engine behind the cabin and it's a whole other feel.
As for those who keep trying to put down a car that is a worthy mention in the auto hall of fame, try and be a true car enthusiast and not be so naive and narrow minded. Thanks to the NSX we now have such great cars like the F430 and 360CS. The NSX isn't about raw power, it's about balance and refinement. Some people like power, some like overall feel and balance. Everyone has their own preference so why put it down?
I'm not a GM guy, but i respect the Z06, so all the GM fanboy's should show the same courtesy.
This thread was to discuss the new ASC (I'd hate to refer it as the NSX successor), so let's please keep it as a discussion on the ASC.
I will start by this:
I think the new ASC has a potential in being a great FR car. I'm disgusted by the looks so far, but let's hope that's not the way it'll hit the showroom floors. 500bhp in a 3500lbd car with AWD should make it a top contender in the GT class comparisons (Ferrari 599, Aston Martin, Z06, SRT10, IS-F, GTR, and M3).
As for the original NSX, it might not have the amazing power of the new cars, but you will not get the driving experience it give for a price range of 100k. There is no other car that it can be compared to when talking about all of these factors: reliability, exoticness, performance, and price.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by YeuEmMaiMai »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">front engine rear drive usually results in pretty close or 50/50 weight distribution</TD></TR></TABLE>
This becomes irrelevant when the engine is midship. Nothing beats an MR setup. 50/50 weight distribution on an FR layout is just the best set up you can have...for an FR layout. Put the engine behind the cabin and it's a whole other feel.
As for those who keep trying to put down a car that is a worthy mention in the auto hall of fame, try and be a true car enthusiast and not be so naive and narrow minded. Thanks to the NSX we now have such great cars like the F430 and 360CS. The NSX isn't about raw power, it's about balance and refinement. Some people like power, some like overall feel and balance. Everyone has their own preference so why put it down?
I'm not a GM guy, but i respect the Z06, so all the GM fanboy's should show the same courtesy.
This thread was to discuss the new ASC (I'd hate to refer it as the NSX successor), so let's please keep it as a discussion on the ASC.
I will start by this:
I think the new ASC has a potential in being a great FR car. I'm disgusted by the looks so far, but let's hope that's not the way it'll hit the showroom floors. 500bhp in a 3500lbd car with AWD should make it a top contender in the GT class comparisons (Ferrari 599, Aston Martin, Z06, SRT10, IS-F, GTR, and M3).
01-14-2007, 12:45 AM
#300
B*a*n*n*e*d
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bouncing off of the city bus in Saigon
Posts: 11,712
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: New NSX (Freshazzburu)
each layout has it's drawbacks and I was just pointout that you can acheive nearly perfect weight distrobution. puttin' too much weight on either end of the car is not a good thing... I think the NSX did wonders for the sports car world and I think that if the pull that HP figure out of such a small displacement, it will make others take notice........