Turbos
- Thread starter ubersonic
- Start date
If it's the latter, Joshy is probably right in it being a generational thing. I can't imagine many people here have driven an NSX, some weren't driving when it was released and missed the spin on the car. If I posted that the GT3 was not really all that great, I'd imagine a lot of people would (correctly) step forward to put me right on that matter, 99% of whom have not driven one but rely on press, posts, folklore and figures, which is fair enough and understandable.
It wouldn't find a space in my garage but it's still a bit special.
I agree, it is a bit of a odd one. But there is some serious drivel in this thread.
As with most I've not driven one but if the Chief Engineer of the McLaren F1 says this then i'll take his word for it:
Gordon Murray said:
Almost makes the engine it ended up with seem a compromise.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I think it's a case of 'gang up on the new kid' in many cases.
To be fair he did tell somebody to die of aids.
[TW]Fox;17563301 said:
The guy is a grade a ****, however that doesn't mean that the NSX is a crap car, it's far from it. The on paper figures aren't great (but please stop quoting the 7.3sec 0-60 time, that was the auto), but it's about much more than the figures. To compare it to the 3000gt is laughable, the 3000gt is a bus in comparison....
Those people would be retarded, it was 0.1 seconds to 60 faster than the comparable Ferrari of the day (348), if people are bitching it was slower than the F40 or comparing a 20 year old supercar to the F430 or something then they need their heads examining.
Why? was it too slow? no, did it not look the part? no, the only argument you can make is that it was a Honda and therefore inferior to a Ferrari/Porsche simply because of the badge name, in which case why are the Zonda, Kurn-eggs-egg (using phonetics because I cant spell) not given the same treatment?
Your correct, assuming stock cars then over a quarter mile the NSX can just beat a 3000GT VR4 (twin turbo) and a Supra twin turbo, however it just loses to the Ferrari 355, and loses to the Porsche 911 turbo (of the day!) and the Dodge Viper GTS by a whole second.
The difference is on a track it will defeat all of the above cars.
Its the same was that the Veyron beat the McLaren F1 in a drag race however (and this is just my opinion) I think the McLaren could take the Veyron on a track just like the Zonda did.
Last edited:
If you have to explain why a car is a supercar, its not a supercar. Being a supercar is the whole package not just performance.
A Ferrari 599 or whatever needs no introduction. You just know. Whereas the NSX needs a Honda fan to explain its no ordinary Japanese coupe, and its actually brilliant to drive and how Senna himself.... etc.
I don't doubt its awesome. It's just not a supercar.
A Ferrari 599 or whatever needs no introduction. You just know. Whereas the NSX needs a Honda fan to explain its no ordinary Japanese coupe, and its actually brilliant to drive and how Senna himself.... etc.
I don't doubt its awesome. It's just not a supercar.
[TW]Fox;17563435 said:
Dude you have to explain to a 5 year old why a Ferrari is a supercar too remember, when I was a kid I knew the Countach and F40 looked special but that was it, I didn't know about their performance or what BHP was.
Absolutely no offence intended (honestly not being sarcy or anything) but just because some people on an internet forum don't think the NSX qualifies as a supercar doesn't stop it being one, its one of the most important Japanese cars ever made purely from the point that it was the first time they were ahead of Ferrari/Porsche/etc.
It was one of the first supercars you could actually drive every day without ear of it falling apart. and don't forget that the "only 280bhp" argument may well stand in 2010 but back in 1989 it was a lot and the competing Ferrari only had 270bhp.
lets review:
Faster than Ferrari in straight line? check
Faster than Ferrari on a track? check
More power than Ferrari? check
More reliable than Ferrari? check
Again im not trying to be insulting but can you please explain why exactly in your opinion the NSX isn't a true super car? the only option I can see is the "its not a Ferrari/Porsche/etc and so isn't allowed to be as good" and saying that is like saying the NES wasn't a games console because it was made by a playing card company, or that the F16 isn't a proper plane because it was made by an electric boat company...
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,852
Awesome just killed half an hour of my morning reading about how the Honda NSX is a crap car, makes you wonder if anyone on this forum has any form of clue what so ever or if the blinkers are so strong they cant see past their own opinions
What was most awesome though is that you lot are on here all night too, dont you people sleep? I get paid for posting on here, you lot do it in your free time!
What was most awesome though is that you lot are on here all night too, dont you people sleep? I get paid for posting on here, you lot do it in your free time!
You need to stop assuming things.
No-one has said that. No-one.
I commented the one smokey linked to was a heap - which it was. In fact I'm probably the biggest NSX ass kisser on the forum - I love em.
Supercar/Hypercar labels mean nothing to me - I just don't find it important what a car is classed as.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 12,852
I also ignore the Super car and Hyper car classing thing, but then someone will spin that round and say its because you like the NSX 
I just like it for what it is, there are different types as you probably well know and its funny to see one end of the argument posting the poverty spec american market version and the other end posting the last of the line NSX Type-R
I just like it for what it is, there are different types as you probably well know and its funny to see one end of the argument posting the poverty spec american market version and the other end posting the last of the line NSX Type-R
[TW]Fox;17563435 said:
To anyone who has a clue about cars, you wouldn't need to explain it.
Whether it fits into your criteria for a supercar or not, is a different ball game.
I know what I'd call a car that was consistently competitive, and in many cases better than cars in the same era, that most pedants would happily classify as supercars.
The "factory" bhp figures on NSX's are all BS. The 270bhp ones all make close to 290bhp on the dyno and the 280bhp ones 300bhp.
