How not to treat an NSX

Plug

Senna wrote: »

I dont think the csl would ever be classed as a supercar because of its looks, yes it is very nice, but really how much different is it from a 320d? thats the problem. A supercar has to low to the ground, normally shaped like a wedge, mid or rear mounted and unlike any average car.
You could agrue that the NSX didn't have the expense or the V8+. and that doesn't allow it the supercar term, but there is no definition of supercar (that i know of) but by my definition, coming from the early 90's when it was launched, it most defiantly does.

I know the csl is not classed as a supercar, i said that(im not getting snotty there). The NSX in my books is a great car but defiantly not a supercar. Just a sports cars. sorry.

Now to the other posts, I was not comparing it to an m3 or focus rs as a supercar, I was comparing them to the nsx for power reasons. Its got 300bhp and could be bought in a garage beside a skoda garage.

It does not handle like a super car(look at track times), it does not drive fast like a supercar and in my opinion and can only be in a persons opinion does not look like a supercar.

Saying all this I know the nsx is a good car, if I thought it was sh!t I'd say it.

Absurdum

Plug wrote: »

I know the csl is not classed as a supercar, i said that(im not getting snotty there). The NSX in my books is a great car but defiantly not a supercar. Just a sports cars. sorry.

Now to the other posts, I was not comparing it to an m3 or focus rs as a supercar, I was comparing them to the nsx for power reasons. Its got 300bhp and could be bought in a garage beside a skoda garage.

It does not handle like a super car(look at track times), it does not drive fast like a supercar and in my opinion and can only be in a persons opinion does not look like a supercar.
.

Your book is clearly wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VjgbvpyCp8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VjgbvpyCp8

DanFindy

DUBLINHITMAN wrote: »

sure the engines in the back it wouldn't cause that much damage lol

Good point lad and with an upper air intake like my uncle in the states who used to have one , and no they are not a supercar just a fairly average production sports car, no big deal if i had money to go buy a sports car an nsx would be waaaaaaaaaaaay down the list, random oul japscrap:p

Plug

Was slow on the nurburgring and top gear track compared to supercars.

Busta Hyman

the nsx was a supercar in its day. the designers had NO compromise to the materials they used it was hugely overengineered they did mental things like useing titanium bolts carbon seats and even used a milled titanium gear knob as it was lighter than the leather one they originally designed. i vagely remember someone telling me they used a titanium mesh for the gear stick gator? ( the flap of material that covers it ) to save weight over leather now thats fekkin anal and completely in the mad spirit of the supercar

Plug

Some supercars from the 90's even thouch the NSX continuted till 2005.

Jaguar XJ220:
-3.5L Twin Turbo V6
-542 HP, 475 ft-lbs
-0-60 in 3.8 seconds, top speed 217 mph
-.98 G skidpad

F50:
-4.7 Liter V12
-513 HP, 347 ft-lbs
-0-60 in 3.7 sec, top speed of 207 mph
-1.03 G skidpad


CLK-GTR:
-6.0 Liter V12
-600 HP, 516 ft-lbs
-0-60 in 3.4 seconds, top speed of 191 mph
-1.00 G skidpad


Porsche 911 GT1:
-3.6 Liter Twin-Turbo F6
-544 HP, 443 ft-lbs
-0-60 in 3.5 sec, top speed of 206 mph
-1.00 G skidpad

Just for comparising heres the NSX.
-2,977 cc V6
270 bhp, (280 N·m)
or
-3,179 cc V6
290 bhp, (304 N·m)
-0-60 in 5.2, top speed of 168mph

Now its not a supercar its a sports car.

Absurdum

Plug wrote: »

Just for comparising heres the NSX.
-2,977 cc V6
270 bhp, (280 N·m)
or
-3,179 cc V6
290 bhp, (304 N·m)
-0-60 in 5.2, top speed of 168mph

Now its not a supercar its a sports car.

except you are comparing completely different classes of cars (you forgot to include prices)

try it's most obvious rival, the Ferrari 348

DanFindy

Lads get over it it is not and never was a supercar nor was it ever termed a supercar.........end of conversation ...........

JHMEG

Plug wrote: »

Now its not a supercar its a sports car.

You don't get to decide!

That decision was made a long time ago when the world's motoring press (and pretty much everyone else) decided it was worthy of the title of supercar.

DanFindy

I think most of us can agree now its is NOT a supercar:D.........its a random mass produced japscrap sports car as common as dogs dung and usefull as an ashtray on a motorbike:rolleyes: dont hate me for sayin japscrap ive had quite a few jap sports cars, nice but ordinary common and plain

jk86

Yes, the NSX is famously common. :rolleyes:

Plug wrote: »

Some supercars from the 90's even thouch the NSX continuted till 2005.



CLK-GTR:
-6.0 Liter V12
-600 HP, 516 ft-lbs
-0-60 in 3.4 seconds, top speed of 191 mph
-1.00 G skidpad


Porsche 911 GT1:
-3.6 Liter Twin-Turbo F6
-544 HP, 443 ft-lbs
-0-60 in 3.5 sec, top speed of 206 mph
-1.00 G skidpad

Now its not a supercar its a sports car.

If only there was some level inbetween an M3 and a 911 Gt1

Graham_B18C

DanFindy wrote: »

Lads get over it it is not and never was a supercar nor was it ever termed a supercar.........end of conversation ...........

Oh you just be quiet

It is a supercar, End of conversation.

(Note the full stop rather than a trail off...)!

Senna

This is what it all comes down too, it jap, made by honda and not dear enough:rolleyes:

If it had a different badge, keeping everything else we wouldn't be having this conversation. The whole argument is pretty irrelevant anyway, it been called a supercar by people more important (in motoring circles).

Its a supercar, get over it and if your not happy spend your money on something dearer:D

DanFindy

Oh dear im so sorry for my incorrect punctuation

The Honda nsx is a sports car not a supercar and that is the end of the conversation.

Senna

DanFindy wrote: »

The Honda nsx is a sports car not a supercar and that is the end of the conversation.

So's your face






















:pac:

DanFindy

Senna wrote: »

So's your face






















:pac:

Making no sense there but il excuse your innocence:rolleyes:

omb0wyn5ehpij9

DanFindy wrote: »

I think most of us can agree now its is NOT a supercar:D.........its a random mass produced japscrap sports car as common as dogs dung and usefull as an ashtray on a motorbike:rolleyes: dont hate me for sayin japscrap ive had quite a few jap sports cars, nice but ordinary common and plain

Common? NSX? What the hell are you smoking? :rolleyes:

DanFindy

Well they were mass produced so id hardly term them as rare

unkel

A lot of people ganging up on Plug here, who seems one of the few to not let emotion cloud his judgement. Of course the NSX was a unique car with supercar looks and supercar handling. Obviously most special was the link with Senna.

That said, the car was just not powerful or fast enough to be called a supercar in its day, the 90s. Even in the 80s, most supercars had more poke. It is absurd and unfair to compare it to todays cars, but yes, todays hottest hatches are more powerful and faster than a 90s NSX - even 'round a racetrack. That's called progress and thanks to the motoring gods for it

And since nobody has pointed this out - the NSX did not weigh just a tonne, it was nearly 1400kg - only about 200kg short of an entry level BMW 7-series tank of the same era.

Alanstrainor

DanFindy wrote: »

Oh dear im so sorry for my incorrect punctuation

The Honda nsx is a sports car not a supercar and that is the end of the conversation.

This is a forum, if you want to "end" the conversation, you can leave. Otherwise people are entitled to their opinion, just the way you are. Ever here of agreeing to disagree?

No can we stop the bickering please?

HashSlinging

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NSX

"The result of Honda's second NSX-R effort was a vehicle that could challenge the latest sports car models on the track, despite having a base design that was more than 15 years old. For example, noted Japanese race and test driver Motoharu Kurosawa piloted a 2003 NSX-R around the legendary Nurburgring road course in 7:56, a time equal to a Ferrari F360 Challenge Stradale.[10] The NSX-R accomplished this feat despite being out-powered by the Ferrari by nearly 100 bhp (75 kW) and weighing almost 100 kg (220 lb) more than the track-oriented Ferrari (at 1180 kg)."

Faccking super car..

DanFindy

unkel wrote: »

A lot of people ganging up on Plug here, who seems one of the few to not let emotion cloud his judgement. Of course the NSX was a unique car with supercar looks and supercar handling. Obviously most special was the link with Senna.

That said, the car was just not powerful or fast enough to be called a supercar in its day, the 90s. Even in the 80s, most supercars had more poke. It is absurd and unfair to compare it to todays cars, but yes, todays hottest hatches are more powerful and faster than a 90s NSX - even 'round a racetrack. That's called progress and thanks to the motoring gods for it

And since nobody has pointed this out - the NSX did not weigh just a tonne, it was nearly 1400kg - only about 200kg short of an entry level BMW 7-series tank of the same era.

Well said;)

Atomic Pineapple

I think the fact that different people have different opinions of what a supercar are, some want all out power, some want them to be exclusively expensive, some just want it to appeal to there eyes and handle nicely, this means that this thread is only ever gonna go in a roundabout with different people voicing the same opinion against others over and over again.

The new one was reported as being just a second slower than the Nissan GTR on the Nürburgring, so we'll see how it compares to todays competitors when/if it gets released

DanFindy

Alanstrainor wrote: »

This is a forum, if you want to "end" the conversation, you can leave. Otherwise people are entitled to their opinion, just the way you are. Ever here of agreeing to disagree?

No can we stop the bickering please?

Certainly and i apologise, although i at least dont get personal unlike Senna? Anyway il leave this thread alone now. Over and out.

Btw i did really enjoy driving my uncles nsx in the states, super fun car to be honest:)

unkel

DanFindy wrote: »

Btw i did really enjoy driving my uncles nsx in the states, super fun car to be honest:)

Pics or it didn't happen!

Biro

Plug wrote: »

I know the csl is not classed as a supercar, i said that(im not getting snotty there). The NSX in my books is a great car but defiantly not a supercar. Just a sports cars. sorry.

Now to the other posts, I was not comparing it to an m3 or focus rs as a supercar, I was comparing them to the nsx for power reasons. Its got 300bhp and could be bought in a garage beside a skoda garage.

It does not handle like a super car(look at track times), it does not drive fast like a supercar and in my opinion and can only be in a persons opinion does not look like a supercar.

Saying all this I know the nsx is a good car, if I thought it was sh!t I'd say it.

It actually handled better than all other supercars in it's class, note - The Ferrari 348 and the Porsche 911. When you talk of F50's and 911 GT1's you talk of hypercars. MX5's, S2000's, 350Z's are sports cars, M3's etc are super-saloons or super-coupe's really, derived from more mundane stuff.
Forget track times, that's not what handling is about. But as you mention it, when the NSX-R was on Top Gear it was so wet you could see 2 NSX's on the track - standing water. It still lapped quicker than an E46 M3 in the dry. And a mid-engined supercar is further off it's best in the wet than a FR car would be.

Biro

DanFindy wrote: »

Good point lad and with an upper air intake like my uncle in the states who used to have one , and no they are not a supercar just a fairly average production sports car, no big deal if i had money to go buy a sports car an nsx would be waaaaaaaaaaaay down the list, random oul japscrap:p

Every one of your posts is full of crap. By the sounds of you I bet you have some form of VW TDI, think it's wonderful and can't wait till you have your 130bhp 6 speed red d red t red eye Audi A4 weapon.
Your uncle probably had the auto NSX running on the yankee slim-milk petrol. Well, more likely he probably didn't have any.
Unfortunately for you and your "opinion" however, people like Tiff Nedel and Andrew Frankel know an infinite amount more than you about cars and handling, and have driven more cars than you know exist. They have the opposite opinion of yours. Same goes for Gordon Murray, but sure what would he know? He's only some pleb who designed a few title winning Formula one cars and a road car or two. Senna is so clueless that he's dead.

DanFindy

unkel wrote: »

Pics or it didn't happen!

Il do my best to root em out and scan em and post em it was before my digital cam came along, and yes your goin to say im talking ****e but i dont brag about things that didnt happen, the only pic of a recent sports car i drove is of a 930turbo which is also a pretty dam awesome machine this one more like a 935 with lots of engine mods and tweeks, thats my L200 in the background if u dont believe me

DanFindy

Biro wrote: »

Every one of your posts is full of crap. By the sounds of you I bet you have some form of VW TDI, think it's wonderful and can't wait till you have your 130bhp 6 speed red d red t red eye Audi A4 weapon.
Your uncle probably had the auto NSX running on the yankee slim-milk petrol. Well, more likely he probably didn't have any.
Unfortunately for you and your "opinion" however, people like Tiff Nedel and Andrew Frankel know an infinite amount more than you about cars and handling, and have driven more cars than you know exist. They have the opposite opinion of yours. Same goes for Gordon Murray, but sure what would he know? He's only some pleb who designed a few title winning Formula one cars and a road car or two. Senna is so clueless that he's dead.

Hold up lad dont get me wrong i do think they are an amazing car and yes his was probably running some kinda crap petrol but it was manual and yes them guys know more than i will ever know, the only point i ever made was the fact that i wouldnt class it a supercar as this is a term much to loosely denoted to certain cars in my opinion, and the senna bit if u had read properly i was refering to another user not the legend that was Ayrton Senna.

And the diesel Golf bit a come on im not that way inclined i drive a dam slow L200 for practicality reasons at the moment, the only thing close to a sports car ive ever owned was a type ra subaru but have driven many more much more powerfull cars through the years.

unkel

DanFindy wrote: »

Il do my best to root em out and scan em and post em it was before my digital cam came along, and yes your goin to say im talking ****e but i dont brag about things that didnt happen[/IMG]

I'm only messin'

I believe ya, but we all do rather like pics around here

Biro wrote: »

It actually handled better than all other supercars in it's class, note - The Ferrari 348 and the Porsche 911. When you talk of F50's and 911 GT1's you talk of hypercars.

Ah! You're booting supercars out into their own category, called hypercars now, are you? Is there a wee sniff of backtracking in the air?

Biro

unkel wrote: »

I'm only messin'

I believe ya, but we all do rather like pics around here



Ah! You're booting supercars out into their own category, called hypercars now, are you? Is there a wee sniff of backtracking in the air?

I don't see any back tracking. This isn't the first post that I suggested this. Even today you have cars like the 911 and the F430, Gallardo etc, and then there's the Fxx, SLR 722, that sort of thing that are as far away from a 430 as a 430 is from a Hyundai coupe really in terms of rarity and price.

Biro

DanFindy wrote: »

Hold up lad dont get me wrong i do think they are an amazing car and yes his was probably running some kinda crap petrol but it was manual and yes them guys know more than i will ever know, the only point i ever made was the fact that i wouldnt class it a supercar as this is a term much to loosely denoted to certain cars in my opinion, and the senna bit if u had read properly i was refering to another user not the legend that was Ayrton Senna.

And the diesel Golf bit a come on im not that way inclined i drive a dam slow L200 for practicality reasons at the moment, the only thing close to a sports car ive ever owned was a type ra subaru but have driven many more much more powerfull cars through the years.

Common as muck japscrap isn't a way to describe it. It's exceptionally rare considering how long it was produced for. America is also the wrong place to test one. It's more of a supercar than many 911's.

DanFindy

Biro wrote: »

Common as muck japscrap isn't a way to describe it. It's exceptionally rare considering how long it was produced for. America is also the wrong place to test one. It's more of a supercar than many 911's.

I may of been a bit harsh alright, and ya the only good to test in the states are donuts:p

Absurdum

Biro wrote: »

America is also the wrong place to test one.

I dunno about that, not all their tracks are boring oval ones!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgCKaO6_O6A

Biro

DanFindy wrote: »

I may of been a bit harsh alright, and ya the only good to test in the states are donuts:p

And New York Pizza's...

Plug

unkel wrote: »

A lot of people ganging up on Plug here, who seems one of the few to not let emotion cloud his judgement. Of course the NSX was a unique car with supercar looks and supercar handling. Obviously most special was the link with Senna.

That said, the car was just not powerful or fast enough to be called a supercar in its day, the 90s. Even in the 80s, most supercars had more poke. It is absurd and unfair to compare it to todays cars, but yes, todays hottest hatches are more powerful and faster than a 90s NSX - even 'round a racetrack. That's called progress and thanks to the motoring gods for it

And since nobody has pointed this out - the NSX did not weigh just a tonne, it was nearly 1400kg - only about 200kg short of an entry level BMW 7-series tank of the same era.

Thank you:)

Biro wrote:

It actually handled better than all other supercars in it's class, note - The Ferrari 348 and the Porsche 911. When you talk of F50's and 911 GT1's you talk of hypercars. MX5's, S2000's, 350Z's are sports cars, M3's etc are super-saloons or super-coupe's really, derived from more mundane stuff.
Forget track times, that's not what handling is about. But as you mention it, when the NSX-R was on Top Gear it was so wet you could see 2 NSX's on the track - standing water. It still lapped quicker than an E46 M3 in the dry. And a mid-engined supercar is further off it's best in the wet than a FR car would be.

Not taking of hyper cars, hyper cars is a term made up by clarkson and top gear crew! Remember he was on about in the review of the LP640? A supercar is a supercar.
The m3 csl did a wet lap on slick tires on the topgear track. it got a 1.28 dead and the nsx got a 1.31.6, keep in mind the csl is far from a supercar:)

Murphy09

Supercar is a term generally used for ultra-high-end exotic cars, whose performance is superior to that of its contemporaries. It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine",[1] and stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match," "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarefied atmosphere of its own."[2] but the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar

though this might help

HashSlinging

Nevermind, the NSX is a "super" car no matter what type of category its put into.

Biro

Plug wrote: »

Thank you:)



Not taking of hyper cars, hyper cars is a term made up by clarkson and top gear crew! Remember he was on about in the review of the LP640? A supercar is a supercar.
The m3 csl did a wet lap on slick tires on the topgear track. it got a 1.28 dead and the nsx got a 1.31.6, keep in mind the csl is far from a supercar:)

I'm not saying the CSL is a bad car, (it does have the advantage of being designed 15 years later... think of how far cars have come in that time!), it's just not a car I'd compare with the NSX.
Besides, the wet laps are largely irrelevant. What's wet for example? Some days I'm driving in the rain and I have loads of grip, other days I wonder why there's practically none. If the CSL is quicker in the wet than another car is in the dry, than you can safely say that it's much quicker in the dry. However how much better depends on many variables. Some cars cope better than others in the wet, and you could go out today in the wet and get a 1:28, and then next week also in the wet and get a 1:33. Then the following week get a 1:26 in the wet.

Plug

Biro wrote: »

I'm not saying the CSL is a bad car, (it does have the advantage of being designed 15 years later... think of how far cars have come in that time!), it's just not a car I'd compare with the NSX.
Besides, the wet laps are largely irrelevant. What's wet for example? Some days I'm driving in the rain and I have loads of grip, other days I wonder why there's practically none. If the CSL is quicker in the wet than another car is in the dry, than you can safely say that it's much quicker in the dry. However how much better depends on many variables. Some cars cope better than others in the wet, and you could go out today in the wet and get a 1:28, and then next week also in the wet and get a 1:33. Then the following week get a 1:26 in the wet.

The nsx-r that done that top gear track lap came out in 02-03 roughly the same as the csl.
But the rest of your post is a good point.
Since I opened my mouth this thread has gone about 7 pages:D
Its just going to be an endless bitchy thing. I made my point that the nsx is not a supercar only a sports car.

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

A lot of people ganging up on Plug here, who seems one of the few to not let emotion cloud his judgement.

Or in other words you're going to support plug as he shares your opinion!

unkel wrote:

That said, the car was just not powerful or fast enough to be called a supercar in its day, the 90s.

As I said to others, you or I don't get to define what car is or isn't a supercar, and we certainly don't get to redefine cars long after the jury has spoken.

HashSlinging

More NSX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGco3vowTs4

unkel

JHMEG wrote: »

Or in other words you're going to support plug as he shares your opinion!

Nah. He called a spade a spade and that seemed to upset a lot of fans who feel the spade is a JCB

Seriously, if a car does not have the performance of a supercar of the same year, it simply isn't a supercar. Even if it looks like one and drives like one.

stevenmu

This isn't the most scientific test, but a quick check of NSXs on carzone indicates that I can afford each of the cars on offer (maybe with a little help from the banks). In comparison, when looking at Ferraris I can only afford replicas (i.e. MR2s with bodykits, although I've no fncking idea why they are even included in a search for Ferraris).

In short, a supercar needs to be way out of my reach. An NSX is not. Which isn't to say it's not a fantastic car, it's just not something I can only dream about.

HashSlinging

Just because a car does not do 200 mph does not mean its not a supercar, you've a very short memory if thats the case...I dont understand how a car that does 170 mph in the early 90s is not classed as a supercar in its day, the supercar category is slightly blurred here, where you have the higher end supercars with speeds of 200mph + and then the mid (911 C2) but you cannot say the NSX is in the same league as a MX5.

Check this link I think this ends the argument...hicup..

The NSX was more than a match for similar classed cars, dont forget the NSX only had a 3.0 engine, comparing that to a twin-turbo or 6.0 v12 (yeah double capacity) is retarded. ...

HashSlinging

stevenmu wrote: »

This isn't the most scientific test, but a quick check of NSXs on carzone indicates that I can afford each of the cars on offer (maybe with a little help from the banks). In comparison, when looking at Ferraris I can only afford replicas (i.e. MR2s with bodykits, although I've no fncking idea why they are even included in a search for Ferraris).

In short, a supercar needs to be way out of my reach. An NSX is not. Which isn't to say it's not a fantastic car, it's just not something I can only dream about.

Theres so many things wrong here, you've awoken some far distant relative of mine.

unkel

HashSlinging wrote: »

Check this link I think this ends the argument...hicup..

Thanks for the link

Compared to that old 911 (two steps up from a Beetle) it would surely make the NSX look like a supercar

HashSlinging

Exactly lthis was the 1990's Guns n roses were huge back then, can you imagine being at the lights in your MG "sports car" and a facking NSX comes up beside you..
Game over

argosy2006

qz wrote: »

Fcuking retards.

thats an original name for a porn movie, well done:D

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

Nah. He called a spade a spade and that seemed to upset a lot of fans who feel the spade is a JCB

Ok

Even if it looks like one and drives like one.

But it's still not one in your book. Hmmm... Ok

As I've said already, this isn't the world according to unkel. The jury have spoken.