Engine Type 24-valve DOHC VTEC™ V-6
Displacement 3.2 liters (3179 cc)
Bore and Stroke 3.66 in. x 3.07 in.
Compression Ratio 10.2:1
Horsepower @ rpm(SAE net) 290 @ 7100
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm) 224 @ 5500
Redline 8000 rpm
Engine Block Aluminum alloy with fiber-reinforced metal (FRM) cylinder liners
Cylinder Heads Cast aluminum alloy
Connecting Rods Titanium alloy
Ignition System Electronic direct ignition
Fuel and Induction System PGM-FI multi-point injection with Variable Volume Induction System
Exhaust emissions Low Emissions Vehicle (LEV)

 

Very Nice just needs about 100hp more......

 

And a double-DIN stereo with in-dash CD for christ's sake.

-Mike

 

yeah some more horsepower would help but that is a badass car!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Most cars with more horsepower than the NSX don't accelerate any faster, because they're heavier.

There are a few exceptions: 911 Turbo, Viper, Ferrari, Vette Z06. That's not very many.

 

Gotta love what they did with the front lights now

 

I think its about 100 times uglier then the original.

 

they did get a 12.8 for it in the 1/4 not too shabby, lets not bang on it too much

 

I dunno about that, none of the 97+ LS1's ran 0-60 in 4.9 nor the 1/4 mile anywhere in the 12's. The Ferrari 355 costs about 40 k more than the NSX, The Supra's 0-60 was what? 5.5? And the M5 costs almost the same. I also highly doubt the 1990 Firehawk was that fast, but I'm not sure about that one, nor am I sure about the Buick.

4.9 is quick. 12.8 is quick. The Corvette is probably the best example (even the Z06) that they could do it for less. A car magazine (I don't remember which) once drove the new Corvette at the time and a Ferrari. The Corvette was about as fast (maybe even a touch faster), handled the same and had similar breaking. The outcome? Is it worth 3 times the price for a car that does the same? Yes. It's not just performance you are getting, you also get craftsmanship, etc... but of course, that's just my opinion.