NSX vs. Supra

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  NSX vs. Supra

Hey what do you think is better. A tight ass supra or a mid engine NSX. I like the NSX better it looks cooler.

posted by  JDMprelude92

nsx by far

posted by  Import-tuner

No matter what way you look at it, the NSX comes on top.

posted by  thunderbird1100

If you are talking about LOOKS alone...then yes the NSX and it gets the nod in terms of being a better handling car...but when it comes to power, acceleration, HP potential, aftermarket, top end, top speed...the Supra TT owns

I'll take the Supra since I could make it into a track beast if I wanted to but I could definitely own the streets w/it

posted by  NISSANSPDR

No, not looks alone. The NSX has a higher top speed (people think the crown of the highway is the Supra....they havent seen an NSX), gets through the 1/4 mile faster, has just a big aftermarket (ever been to Scienceofspeed.com?). Sure the Supra edges out the NSX in power by a whopping 10-20hp, but it achieves that through a Twin turbo 3.0L six while the NSX has the near exact power through a N/A 3.0/3.2L six and is much more of a race bred engine (the fastest import drag car (DriverFX Civic) runs a C32 NSX engine now pushing over 1400hp at the rear wheels. PLus, with the NSX, all you need is a Supercharger and some bolt ons to achieve 400rwhp and it cant be touched around a road course by Supra with even 600hp.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I havent heard of any NSX's pushing 1000rwhp on stock internals

posted by  NISSANSPDR

You're correct in that assumption. But I havent heard of any 2jz powered anythings pushing 1400+rwhp and running 6.50's in the 1/4.

The stock internals (for the most part) in the NSX are built for an N/A application, afterall, the NSX is N/A....therefore it would have generally weaker internals than a factory turbo motor. Common sense tells you that. Although I'd like to see someone melt a titanium piston :mrgreen:

posted by  thunderbird1100

what?? u gonna compare NSX with supra?? dude NSX is a more exotic car!! NSX is a viper, corvette and ferrari class! and supra is in 300zx,3000gt class!

posted by  BigBadBrat

First off...the NSX is only exotic due to it's price...sure it was hand built but it's not on the same level as a Ferrari...the F360 or F430 can BOTH whip up on the USA's NSX.

Second...the Viper beats it in pretty much all ways...

The ZO6 Vette beats it also in all ways as well

So it's not in the same class...the NSX is an overpriced relic...we should have gotten the NSX Type R...which in my book is the best version of it ever...and if the price was lowered to around 50k...that would definitely make me interested

But a 30k NSX and a 30k Supra TT...both used...I'd take the Supra TT anyday...for the simple fact it will be faster everywhere minus the road course...nothing some Ohlins coilovers couldnt fix and some sticky tires

posted by  NISSANSPDR

Actually, the NSX runs a faster 1/4 mile (12.9), and has a higher top speed (180).

posted by  thunderbird1100

NSX running 12.9??? wtf have been smoking???? geeez, a superpowered NSX with the miracle invisible AWD system!

the NSX runs around 13.7's or so (u can check it out urself)


also, the NSX tops out at 175mph (u can happily check the acura website). the supra, without the limiter which MANY cars have, tops out at 186mph.

posted by  Inygknok

something else for thunderbird

never seen a 2jz doing 6.7s on the 1/4mile??


u have never seen the professionals racing at the NHRA and such have u?


just look for the professional purple Street Glow Solaras that are 2jz powered. they both run mid-6's in the quarter mile.

posted by  Inygknok

12.9?

BAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

OMG that was so funny...

Not the US NSX...definitely more high 13's than high 12's

posted by  NISSANSPDR

Actually no, the AUTOMATIC C30 (91-96) NSX's run high 13s. Dont even try and magazine time or internet time me on what NSXs can and cant do. I've driven them down a strip and around Road Atlanta. I know personally 6 NSX owners and keep track with all their their cars. Worked on a few of them with the owners. If there's ONE car I know more about than all others, it's the NSX... On our 1/4 mile day we spent one weekend at Atlanta dragway and the guys with C30 5spd NSXs were averaging 13.3-13.4s or so while the guys with 6spd C32 NSXs were pulling *on average* 13.1-13.3s. Fastest time of the day (by a stock NSX, well it DID have a K & N filter worth all of 1hp) was pulled by a 6spd C32 99 NSX {12.96 @ 109.73mph}. They are 12.9 capable cars once you remove the magazine driver and put in someone who knows how to drive it. Even vtec.net got 13.30s out of a C32 6spd on two bad launches.

The C30 5spd NSXs topped out at 175, the C32 6spd will go a little above that (according to the speedo, speedo could be wrong at that high of a mph though). We're talking stock vs. stock, a speed governor removed is NOT stock.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I know all about the Solara that runs 6.70s (best)...Maybe you missed in my post *6.50s* like the C32 powered DriverFX civic did.

posted by  thunderbird1100

And Again, wrong you are. :banghead:

posted by  thunderbird1100

In terms of reliability and build quality: NSX
In terms of performance and upgradability: Supra

posted by  ThirdeYe

Just b/c ONE guy ran a 12.96 doesnt mean that everyone can...generally speaking the average must be taken not the best time...and average I mean the average of a good driver...not some shmuck who sucks at driving

I mean lets take for instance...the 300ZX TT

The 0-60 times have been rated anywhere from 5.2-6.0 so there's alot of factors and discrepencies. Now...am I going to say that the 300ZX TT runs a 5.2 0-60? When I have only seen that number once out of all the magazines, internet sites, data etc.??? No...that would be saying...well if you and your brothers (lets say there's 7 of you) all have blue eyes and only one has green eyes...that you're offspring will have green eyes...that's kinda of a false based statement...you gotta take into account all the factors.

So what do I say about the 300ZX TT...either I give the range that it goes in...ie 5.2-6.0 or I say it runs on average a 5.5 or 5.6

That's the only fair way.

Now this 12.96 was BONE stock...stock tires...nothing removed from the car...etc etc etc???

posted by  NISSANSPDR

I guess it depends on what your wanting to do with the vehicle really. If you want like a good straight line car or the nice sports car look then the Supra TT would be the one to choose but if you want more of a track car, higher end looks then the NSX would be the better choice (forgive me if i'm wrong there). I personally would go for the Supra TT cause i like the looks and it just seems like an all round nice car. It also depends on what your taste is. They are both really nice cars and it'd be great to own either one but when it comes down to it, its all about numbers and performance and one will edge out the other by a small margin.

posted by  car_crazy89

I dont like NSX cuse its V6.

posted by  CarEXPERT

Notice in my post I said...

"They are 12.9 capable cars once you remove the magazine driver and put in someone who knows how to drive it."

*CAPABLE*. I was assuming the Supra is a low 13 second CAPABLE car (As they are, I've seen one or two stock passes with 13.20-13.30 slips). My WHOLE entire point is average times or fastest times, the NSX wins. I wasnt comparing the FASTEST NSX time to the 'average' Supra time. Never did. Matter fact I never even SAID in that first 12.9 post that it was an average time. I posted AVERAGE times for our day we spent at the dragway. Which was 13.10s-13.30s for 6spd C32 NSXs (which completely blows away your previous *guess* of 'more like high 13s'). Which the average MKIV Supra TT time is in the 13.50-13.70 range with a good-non magazine driver behind them (which is the the same damn time on average as my 300ZXTT, dont even bother explaining the 300ZXTT, I OWN ONE!).

Think, Type, Submit -> :banghead:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Doesn't matter if you can do it in 12.96. The car can still do it.

posted by  JDMprelude92

the solaras do have to stick with certain rules in order to compete in their class. u gotta have that straight first. else, u could look for 2jz powered machines that run even low 6's, and if im not mistaken, probably even high 5's.


next up, about the nsx doing 12.96, ok, lets get some non-average driver on the supra n lets watch him test the car all day long in different courses n lets see how he does.

we can even take up an STI and an Evo along for the ride n test them out too. everyone will be posting quicker times than wat the magazines and the net show. thats pure logic. stadistics show average times tested on specific variables.

in fact, its actually unfair of even stock cars to compete with their stock tires, since some are equipped with better tires than others, and tires do make that much of a difference.

so all in all. no matter wat kind of testing anyone does, i think its complete krap, but magazine info and net info do come quite close to having good averages based on testing with certain atmospheres and wat not.

standing side by side, same track, same tires, same skill leveled drivers, im quite sure the supra will beat the nsx on the 1/4 mile.

posted by  Inygknok

With 90k, I'd rather buy something else. Not much bang for the buck. Looks wise, I'd go Supra. I find the Supra still a bit spicy, but the NSX... dated looking in my opinion. Specifically mentioning the rear. Can't make a choice... as I also like mid engined cars. =)

posted by  ToCkS

If you like mid engine cars...for 90k you could probably pick up a Ferrari F355. Amazing car and I would take one in a heartbeat over a NSX...


http://www.autoweek.nl/images/480/1988.jpg

posted by  NISSANSPDR

First off, same tires is NOT stock. It's not Acura/Honda's fault the Supra uses different tires.

Second, SAME skill leveled drivers is impossible to measure, so why bother and speculate?

I've personally never heard or seen of a Supra breaking 12s completely stock, just like I've never heard or seen of a 300ZXTT breaking 12s or a 3000GT VR-4 breaking 12s. Which are THE two cars it's 1/4 mile time nearly exactly matches (even though the Supra is known to be the worst of the three in the 1/4 mile because of it's launches). I've SEEN an NSX go 12.9s, so their must be others out there who can run 12s in them stock. Lastly, that Driver FX Civic is in the same exact class and obides under the same exact rules as the StreetGlow Solara.

posted by  thunderbird1100

So, you're comparing a decade used Ferrari F355 to a brand new NSX? Kind of unfair... If you decide to get fair with the situation and get a 95 NSX you wont pay more than $45k. With the $45k left over for mods the F355 = PWN3D.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Um, so is the Supra.

posted by  ThirdeYe

don't mean to be picky, but its an inline 6:thumbs:

posted by  Accord_Man

i really cant remember the amount of times that, constantly, ppl in these forums have actually given examples about using drivers of the same skill levels. in fact, i do believe that there are ppl out there that can drive pretty much the same, just like some ppl can even skateboard the same, so on so on. some ppl can do some things better than others, true, but there are other things that im sure some ppl can do things on a same level (just like that one punk that could compare himself to ya at school in something).

i do believe there have been ppl using supras that have gotten even faster times in the 1/4 mile, most probably changing the tires, but that might be it.


as far as the whole ferrari ordeal goes..... well, im positive that if something happens to the ferrari, its a lot more expensive to fix than the nsx.... also, there are new models of nsx's out there. im not sure if there is a 2005 version, but the latest model is quite modern. i just prefer the older model with the flip ups. they gave too many curves to the newer model.

posted by  Inygknok

...but NSX is killer. Check this one out. Done by teamprototype.com for real cheap.
http://www.cftype.com/carbon_fiber/?nav=gallery&galId=31

posted by  streetcreeper

The nsx is by far a better performer.

posted by  99integra

There's more to comparing cars than a standing quarter mile. The NSX was developed by Ayrton Senna to ensure the car corners well. What other supercar has stayed in production for over 10 years?

Not to mention the new NSX-R which would leave a lot of cars behind.

posted by  fudge

Not to mention that V-TEC first premiered on the 91 NSX.

I've got a vid of a NSX-R taking out murcielgos, 360 challenges, gallardos, and porsche 911s. It's a track beast.


The same model? Maybe the corvette. Didn't the viper stay in for a decade, also?

posted by  Godlaus

The NSX-R is nothing but a lightened version of the regular 6spd NSX with a more aggressive suspension. No power advantage over the regular NSX (still 290hp).

I think the NSX is the most 'Unchanged' Supercar in its 15 year reign. Still uses the near exact suspension and same basic body it used in 1991. Also uses the same engine just it displaces .2L more.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Just shows how good the NSX originally is. Not bad for Japan's first supercar.

posted by  fudge

as for power mods: supra will win hands down. the 2jz gte motor by far has way more potential than the nsx motor. not only in pro drag wise but in normal street everyday cars.

i know of less than a handful of turbocharged NSX that make awesome power 750+rwhp. but their cars seem to always be down or breaking (drive train, tuning, motor).
it defintly costs a lot more to get the NSX to that level of power as well. i think i saw a quote of a turbo or twin turbo set up etc to make it 650rwhp almost $ 30-40k.

the supra 2jz-gte bone stock motor is known to get 800+rwhp without any built internals (just supporting mods- turbo, fuel etc). it would cost probably $ 15k for the supra to hit 850rwhp

nsx's are amazing cars so not putting it down by any means. if someone wants a more exotic looking/driving car/style, nsx is the better choice. nsx probably is known to handle better, but i'm sure the supra is right up there given good suspension and sticky tires (ohlins and slicks) as someone stated above :)

in the JGTC racing series, the top 5 cars in 2005 were: 350z, supra, supra, 250z, supra :)
if given 100k, i would probably still go with the supra for i know i'd want to heavily modify the car for pure performance.

posted by  suprat04r

THIS THREAD ENDED 5 MONTHS AGO. DONT REVIVE OLD THREADS.

posted by  thunderbird1100

so don't post on it if it makes you mad.....

posted by  jedimario

No matter how you look at it, the NSX is just too pricey, regardless of how good it is at the curves. Honda should have put more power on it as the years progressed while retaining its handling ability. 'Tis the only reason to take it out of the market ( I think the 1st gen NSX designs still looks modern today.

I too have videos of the NSX giving a Murcielago a lot of grief in the curves, but it just falls flat on its face in a straight line. Lets see what honda cooks up with the next gen V10 NSX.

posted by  importluva

Supra on all counts

posted by  Oomba

Hahahaha you just don't like honda do you?

posted by  GreekWarrior

Pretty much.

The only Honda I'd touch is a CRX, for V8-swapping/RWD purposes.

posted by  Oomba

Have to let nOObs know :mrgreen:

posted by  thunderbird1100

You dont even deserve a CRX.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Ooh yes, I dont deserve a car that can be found for $500 in good condition. :screwy:

posted by  Oomba

NSX is just an overpriced car...A Supra will kill it if u suit it up using as much money as u would spend just buying an NSX...

posted by  nissanTFsx

Comparing a NSX vs a supra stock theres no question... both very nice cars. But the nsx is in a different league then the supra.

posted by  A-cord

i think that the nsx is more of a dreamers car, the supra is atleast achievable for younger car enthusiast's with half decent jobs.

if an nsx was cheaper, i'm sure that it'd be a complete over-haul for honda, i don't think that they're be able to produce enough cars quick enough to suite other car enthusiast's.

personally, an nsx is my dream car, one day.. i'd LOVE to own one..

posted by  HyundaGuy

BING BING BING, you're catching on. :laughing:

posted by  thunderbird1100

Wow, you're real clever.

You deserve a stock CRX. No good cars for you.

posted by  Oomba

I would take the NSX over the Supra. The NSX should have an advantage on the 1/4, its lighter and it's mid engine layout gives the rear tires more traction. If the NSX was as cheap as the Supra, then there will be just as many NSX's in the street racing scene as the Supra. It handles better for a fact, due to its engine layout and better weight ratio. No matter what suspension or tires you put in a Supra, if you put the same amount of money into a NSX; it will handle better then the Supra. The Supra just can't overcome its front heavy characteristic, at least compared to the NSX. Plus, the NSX is much more rare, and exotic, so it would turn more heads as you're driving by.

Besides, Honda is replacing the current NSX soon. They are supposed to replace it in 2007 or 2008. It's supposed to produce upwards of 350hp. But this hp number is speculation and a rumor spread allegedly by a Honda employee. Anyways, the new NSX is based on the Honda HSC (Honda Sports Concept)

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/03/hondahsc03.jpg

http://www.rsportscars.com/foto/03/hondahsc03_04.jpg

posted by  aerith

that is the most beautiful thing i've ever seen produced by honda.... *whipes drool from mouth*...

do you think that honda will try and produce this as the first stock standard production line car capable of 200mph?, the original NSX was capable of 170mph i think it was, and that was with 276hp, so with 350hp, it should be able to reach over 200mph quite easily.

EDIT: Spelt words wrong.

posted by  HyundaGuy

I've already got two excellent cars, a great sound car that's perfectly reliable after 222k miles and nice 360+rwhp 300zxtt (Again with a good sound system).

posted by  thunderbird1100

The new NSX due out in "3-4 years" Will be V10 powered and produce "over 400hp". Those were Honda's president own words.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The 91-96 C30 270hp NSX was capable of 175mph while the 290hp 97-05 NSX is capable of close to 180mph.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Only good looking Honda I've ever seen. Still overpriced though.

posted by  Oomba

That car isnt in production so how can it be overpriced?

posted by  thunderbird1100

I'm pretty sure they arent going to lower the price from previous NSXs.

posted by  Oomba

Are you sure Honda is going to do a V10? Thats very unlike them, hell, Honda doesnt even like producing V8's. They stubbornly refuse to build a V8, due to bad efficiency and bad emission levels, and now they are planning to build a V10? But Honda does build a killer of a V10 engine for the F1 Honda 007. Althought, thats a million dollar machine.
I guess, if the Honda's president said those words, then he's really aiming at pushing the NSX as an exotic sports car and put in the same class as Ferrari F430 or 360. But if they do succeed in putting a V10 into the NSX, then it'll actually be a pretty good deal. Considering the reliability of a Honda and Ferrari-like performance. I guess, we'll just have to wait and see.



It's probaly going to stay at the same price or raise it. There's no way they are going to sell a mid-engined V10 powered all aluminum car for anything less then 90k.

posted by  aerith

Wow that car is siiick... its hard to imagine honda every producing nething like that. Just doesnt seem right... :screwy:

posted by  A-cord

They still refuse to release a V8. They said they will never build one.

posted by  Oomba

Part of the reason is for sales, at its price range the NSX MUST have more power or people won't buy it. A v10 is a good start.

posted by  importluva

Supercars have always been overpriced. Thats what makes it a supercar.

posted by  fudge

Yeah I can't see them doing a V8 let alone a V10, I bet they could achieve those numbers if not better with a very well engineered twin turbo V6. I would like to see that more, it just seems like more of an accomplishment to get the same power out of a V6 than a V10 and thats why I like Honda because they do that with all of their cars. EDIT- and if they would just make it all wheel drive, it could be the new skyline :clap:

posted by  Accord_Man

You're right, their new pricepoint is going to be "about $100,000". But the new NSX isnt going to be ANYTHING like the old one. So how can you be the judge if it's going to be overpriced or not (the new stats stand at only "at least 400hp and V10 powered"? Afterall it was the cheapest mass produced HAND BUILT exotic car of its time. Considered a bargin by all those who own it who didnt want to lay down twice the price for a 911 turbo or Ferrari 360.

posted by  thunderbird1100

It was straight from Fukui's mouth.
http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=380991

And he said if the V10 is successful in the NSX they will probably build a V8 (for the Ridgeline).

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=386801

posted by  thunderbird1100

They dont refuse to build a V8, they never needed one, and still dont to sell cars AND trucks (FYI - the Pilot/MDX sell like crazy with a V6, and the new Ridgeline seems to be right on sales target so far). And no, thats a rumor you heard from some random ass, Honda ne ver said they wouldnt build a V8...matter fact Fukui just recently said this (Honda's President)...

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=386801

In three years we could see Honda mass producing their own V8 engine... I wonder if GM will buy that V8 off them too like they did Honda's excellent J series V6.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Honda has already tested out a twin turbo V6 on their JGTC NSX and they were unsucessful. They changed back to the NA V6 and had more sucess with that.

Following JGTC(or super GT as it's not called) is interesting as car companies test out new engines on existing cars which might be used on their new lineup of sportscars and grand tourers.

posted by  fudge

Honda is actually going back to turbos for power now in the new RDX SUV coming out. Supposedly it will have a turbo K24 putting out "close to 260hp". Honda wouldnt ever build a true exotic car though with forced induction...That's out of their esque.

posted by  thunderbird1100

what about the all-wheel-drive thing though, do you think they would consider that on the new NSX.

posted by  Accord_Man

No. NSX will still be RWD. Too much more weight in an AWD powertrain. Mid-engine RWD :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

2 words. Corvette Z06.

posted by  Oomba

Honda is probaly aiming for the Corvette in straight line speed wise, the current NSX already handles better then a Z06. If the V10 actually is going to be produced, they are probaly going to produce it with the new VCM system the recently developed, Honda re-did the (Variable Cylinder Management) system. They would have to, or they would be completely go against everything Honda stands for; Good Fuel Efficiency, and Great Emission levels.

Honda sells the J series engine to other car makers? I didn't know that. To who? and which J series? J30? J32? J35? I only know about the V6 that the Saturn Vue uses. Which is quite a deal, its much cheaper then its other GM twins, yet it uses a Honda engine instead of the inferior GM V6 used in its Chevy and other counterparts.

posted by  aerith

I still dont understand why people compare a Corvette to an exotic. It may have exotic car performance but thats where the similarities stop.

An NSX is a fully hand-built exotic car, from start to finish (takes a while to build just one). Insiders say more care is taken in the building of an NSX over even $180k+ Ferraris. The engine is fully hand assembled, balanced, blue printed...the works. A Corvette, Z06 or not. Is just thrown together in a matter of a day or so, just like every other mass-produced car. The interior in the NSX is also leagues ahead and by far nicer than any Corvette I've been in. Lets not forget the main difference between an NSX and a Z06. Which is exotic car lay-out mid-engine RWD vs. the stanadard fare front engine RWD. The NSX for the longest time (And still by a lot of people) is considered the biggest bargin hand-built exotic car of all time (when it came out for the 1991 model year it had a msrp of just above $60k). Dont forget the new Z06, even with all that 505hp from it's 7.0L V8, doesnt come cheap. These babies start at $65,000 which isnt too far off form the asking price of the NSX ($89,000 currently). People who can afford a $65,000 Z06 most likely could afford an NSX. With the new V10 NSX coming out in "3-4 years" and with a pricepoint of "just under $100,000" the two are probably going to attract the same Z06/NSX buyers (Z06 will top $70k by then). Two types of people buy NSXs. The first is the person who wants a piece of an iconic exotic car for a price that doesnt break the bank. While the second buyer wants an exotic car that with a $6000 Supercharger will run with any exotic out there, and still have that exotic car status without the price of an exotic. The Z06 is a Corvette for Corvette lovers who dont want to be outgunned by a new Mustang Cobra with 400+hp stock and nearly half the price tag.

BTW - Z06 isnt a word. They call those alphanumeric sequences :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

A 250hp version of the J35 and Honda tranny is found i nthe Vue V6/Redline.

posted by  thunderbird1100

It's true. I think a more fair comparison in craftsmenship would be the Ford GT vs the NSX. Even though the GT is around 60 thousand dollars more, its probaly not as well put together as a NSX. Many Car Enthusiast magazines have problems with the GT build quality, the seals on the door aren't tight enough and water leaks in during rain.

I think that Honda might raise the price of the new NSX to about 100k. 89 is too little for an all aluminum V10 exotic sports car.

posted by  aerith

I cant talk about a GT as I've never been in one. Matter fact I've never seen one in person (other than at a car show)... do people drive these things???

The GT and NSX are a much better comparison than a Z06 and NSX. $100,000 is what Honda's president said it will cost...so im assuming he's right.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Bullshit. The Z06, before it was even finished, holds the 2nd fastest time ever set at Nurburgring, and on street tires no less. Don't try to say the Z06 doesnt handle good because its not a Honda, okay? Because Hondas are not the best handling cars out there.

And to the guy that said people who could afford a Z06 could afford a NSX, thats stupid. Thats like saying a person who can afford a Cavalier can afford a Shelby GT500. Not that anyone would want to considering the Z06 could run circles around and NSX currently on the market.

posted by  Oomba

Did you mean the old Nordschleife circuit because there are quite a few cars which have been faster like the Porsche Carrera GT and the Radical SR3.

Not to mention that the Nordschleife is a fairly high speed ciruit with a huge long straight near the end of the lap. But the Z06 is a much improved car from the previous C5 and is a serious track weapon.

I will be looking forward to the track battles between the Z06 and the NSX-R from Best Motoring Videos.

posted by  fudge

He's not talking about the NEW Z06... He's talking about the 05 DOWN Z06. In which yes, the NSX outhandles THAT Z06.

A new Z06 is $65,000...if you can afford that you can more than likely afford $89,000 for an NSX. Just because its a $34,000 spread doesnt make a $14,000 Cavalier to a $40k+ Mustang a logical comparison. Obviously some people can only afford a cheap econobox and not a $40,000 car. A lot of people who can afford a $65,000 can afford a $89,000 car. With your logic that's like saying someone who can afford a $90k Cayenne turbo cant afford a $130k 911 Turbo S (in which obviously they probably CAN). Look at the PERCENTAGE difference, not just RAW numbers (doesnt take a math major or Econ major to figure that out). Going from a Cavalier to a GT500 (Assuming it will be about $40,000) is over a 275% increase in price. While going from a Z06 to a NSX is only a 70% increase in price.

As for the new Z06 running circles around an NSX...congrats, took the Corvette 15 years to do that since the NSX design hasnt changed nearly at all in 15 years. Not to mention though...you could go out an buy a mint 97 6spd NSX for $50k-$55k spend $10k upgrading the suspension/wheels/tires and add on a Supercharger and then run circles around the new Z06 :thumbs:

posted by  thunderbird1100

I was talking about the previous Z06. I was talking about used Z06's and used NSX's. And im pretty sure the Z06 hasnt been throughly tested on the Nurburgring. Also, street tires, what tires do the Z06 come stock with? Its not fair to just classify them as "street" tires. My car comes with Potenza's, why don't you compare those to a Toyota Corolla's Good Years? Besides, the Nurburgring is a bumpy old track; so racing slicks wouldn't be too effective, and its constantly wet or moist there, so street tires are pretty damn good for the Nurburgring; that is if in fact that the Z06 did run the Nurburgring.

Also, there are people who would pay extra, just to spring for something better. I know I did, i jumped 10,000 dollars from a TSX to a TL. If the money justifies the extra cash, then i would happily spend it.

Anyways, thunderbird is right, the NSX has basically remain unchanged since its introduction. At that time, the Z06 didnt hold a candle in handling wise. And i have a feeling, the new NSX will be the same. Better weight ratio then the Z06, better engine location, lighter chassis and body panels; on paper the replacement seems pretty damn good. Although, if it does run a V10, the new NSX may not handle as well as the current one. But, no one knows how it handles yet, we'll just have to wait.

posted by  aerith

hands down a nsx ... it would kick the crap out of the supra

posted by  lamboluver

People will never spend the "extra" to buy an NSX when the C6 Z06 is the best corvette ever made. Even the C5 Z06 was an incredible bargain for the performance it delivered. The Z06 was/is meant to be a performance beast while retaining some daily drivability, it is not an exotic. It is not meant to compete with the old NSX, in fact i don't know why anyone would want to buy an NSX.

What really sets me off is that honda decides to make their flagship a V6, no turbo, make it hand-built and jack up the price a little and claim it to be some exotic. The NSX has no pedigree (compare to ferrari or porsche or even ford), no universal recognition(everyone around the world recognizes the ferrari symbol, the porsche symbol, the lambo symbol as a sign of status, wealth, and power), is made under the same brand that sells mass produced vehicles to ordinary people (outside the North America its the Honda NSX). IMO these are all shortcomings of Acura's NSX. The NSX was groundbreaking for a little while but honda made a grave mistake by not keeping up with the times.

posted by  importluva

i know i would spend the extrif i had it.Im a firm beliver anything is possible w money when it comes 2 cars. Becouse of that one of the main determining factors of me buying a car would be the looks along with weight. That is of course unless im actuall going to a track or strip where theres rules and limitations (yuck). And yes i like the NSX.

posted by  Walt

By "street tires" im talking about not supersofts or slicks.

Modified cars dont count, if you have to modify a car to make it keep up with another car, then its not that impressive.

Just because someone has money, doesnt mean they have enough for everything in the world. A person who makes 100k a year can easily afford a Z06, but probably not a NSX. Whereas a person making 150k a year can easily afford a NSX, but cant afford a Porsche Carerra GT.

I also wouldnt say the new NSX is going to have lighter chassis and body panels, considering the body panels on the Z06 are fiberglass and the chassis is made of aluminum.

posted by  Oomba

No pedigree? Wtf are you on about? If it managed to win at Le Mans then I think it deserves the respect regardless of where and how it's built. Ferrari had to build the 355 and 360 to compete with the NSX. Also after seeing the NSX-R spanking the Modena they had to also build an all out version called the Stradale.

Also you failed to realise that they have a 280hp restriction in Japan. And to have push the Ferraris and Chevrolets into building cars with over 100 more hp along with resorting to F1 technology like carbon brakes and flappy paddle shifting to compete with it isn't a bad thing either. Considering it's ONLY a NA V6 with a fully manual gearbox.

Universal recognition is the NSX's downfall. But it makes owning the NSX more exclusive. The lack of the symbol of wealth doesn't bother me at all. In fact I'd hate to have the status thats associated with owning a european supercar.

posted by  fudge

The NSX was the first production car to have a fully aluminum chassis, this was 15 years ago. Nice to see the Corvette finally catch up.

$66k and $90k arent as big of a price difference as you make them out to be for buyers in this category. I didnt say EVERYONE who can afford a Z06 can afford an NSX. But a good lot of them definatley could (probably 80%+).

posted by  thunderbird1100

Do you understand the meaning of pedigree? Do you have any idea how many times porsche and ferrari won Le Mans? Do you know how long the 911 series has survived and evolved?

"Mazda is the only Asian automaker to have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans race, which the company accomplished in 1991 with their rotary-powered 787B."
This comes from wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda#Automobile_racing). Prove to me from a reliable source that honda has won 24hours of Le Mans with the NSX.

15 years of stagnation is not at all comparable and already they have decided to discontinue the NSX.



No such restriction exists outside japan, and even then, the restriction is long since gone. 280hp for a exotic is laughable, restriction or otherwise.



You are stating your preference. The symbols bring universal respect and awe, IMO the hallmark of all exotics.

posted by  importluva

I dont see why they would want too though. The Z06 is a better performer.

posted by  Oomba

There is NO way I would take an NSX over a Z06.

posted by  nsupra27

"Handling was absolutely outstanding in the FD [RX-7], and it is still regarded as being one of the best-handling cars of all time. Acceleration was no less impressive. In fact, the track-oriented 1993 RX-7 R1 bested the Acura NSX in every performance category, while costing over US$10,000 less. The car was sold in 1992 and 1993 as model year 1993 in the USA in its 255 hp (190.2 kW) form; in 1994 the R1 was replaced by the R2 with revised suspension for more compliant off-track ride yet still retaining the R1's handling characteristics."

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_RX-7) comes from wikipedia as well...a true testament to the greatness of the FD RX-7 and Mazda's choice to stay with rotaries.

posted by  importluva

Wow, another fact to have RX-7 as my favorite car (followed by NSX) wickpedia can telll u sooo much. I got some of my info from answers.com, its probably the same thing though.

posted by  Walt

The RX-7 is also notorious for constantly needing repairs.

posted by  Oomba

Many of the people who bought it never understood what was under the hood or how to maintain it. The regular FD required some reliability mods that the R1 and R2 mostly fixed. Other than that, it is just like every other high performance machine.

posted by  importluva

Yeah and I understand how Honda won all but 1 race in a season of Formula 1 and how many single seater and touring cars championships they have taken as well. They do have a racing pedigree of their own as well.


Really? It's much longer than what any Ferrari or Lamborghini was built. They may have discontinued with the current NSX but they might bring a new generation in a few years.



This comes from the Keiichi Tsuchiya story:
http://www.driftclub.com/DriftKing.htm
1995 All Japan GT championship (Porsche911TRSR)
All Japan Touring Car championship (Honda Civic)
Suzuka 1000kms (Honda NSX)-5th overall
Tokachi 12 Hours (Honda NSX)-1st overall
Le Mans 24 Hours (Honda NSX)-1st in class

And don't start saying being 1st in class doesn't mean you won Le Mans.



This is why the NSX didn't do well. People just judge a car by how many horsepower and cylinders it's got and completely ignore other things which goes into the car. They ignore the fact that it outcorners 360's and 996's because all that matters is straight line acceleration.

And the Z06 and F430 is a better performer than the NSX-R, but it's also a newer car. The C5 abd 360Modena on the other hand couldn't keep up with a regular NSX due to it's soft suspension. I think GM made a huge improvement with the C6 Corvette and that the current NSX-R cannot compete in terms of sheer performance. But Honda will hopefully comeback with a car that can.

As for the FD3S, it's a great car until the Apex seals give way :laughing:

posted by  fudge

Honda won the GT2 class in LEMANS in 1995 with the NSX.
http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3926

(I know lame that i linked with a toy but im going for speed here).

BTW - The NSX never had 280hp. It either had 252hp, 270hp or 290hp. And the people who bought them certainly wouldnt call it a laughable exotic. Stop while you're so far behind, it's okay you dont understand why the NSX is considered in history as a great exotic, if you refuse to get it, dont bother typing up a bunch of shit you dont know anything about all over again.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well, the new Z06 will never directly compete against the NSX until they release the new NSX in 3-4 years. There is no 2006 NSX. But there is a 2005 NSX and a LS6 Z06. In which if you put the driver in the NSX who knows REALLY how to drive one (I've seen it before) the Z06 (LS6, NOT LS7) will lose to the NSX around most road courses.

posted by  thunderbird1100

That's F-in laughable. I'd love to see a 255hp FD beat even a C30 NSX around ANY road course in the world. Just for that blurb I know to never get any info. from that site ever...

posted by  thunderbird1100

I guess most of the FD owners who had apex seal problems didnt know how to maintain them...

Seriously, this argument is used way to often from people who REALLY dont know WTF they are talking about when it comes to (in specific) the 13b. Talk to ANY real rotarhead (whos actually been in experience with rotaries for a long time). They ALL say "yes, the Rotary tends to crap out faster than you standard engine". They dont use excuses like "no one takes care of them". Simple fact of the matter is they know even if you do upgrade the seals to 3mm they still stand a great chance of crapping out. My local Honda/Acura specialist place went through THREE 13b-rew's in their 1/4 mile car, all of them just crapped out after a short use. All were only SLIGHTLY modded too (basic bolt ons, exhaust and a 50 shot of nitrous). Two of the three they used were directly racing prepped with 3mm seals etc. by an outside company. They knew how to do maintainance on the 13b, afterall they are all expert mechanics. They all just said the same thing "It was a tossup everytime, we didnt know if it would blow up in 2 weeks, 2 months or 2 years, but it certainly would eventually".

posted by  thunderbird1100

What can we say about the RX-7 chris v hasent already said? And i think i already said the new nsx isnt going 2 be NSX its gonna b another car (different name), but damn, i can never refind my sources! So any ways weve compared NSX and other cars we havent compared supra w/ other cars. Would the skyline be better compared 2 the supra or NSX? Just look at the price tags.

posted by  Walt

well since we are on the subject of NSX and Supra, i went to a Honda dealership today and they had a Supra and an NSX is the showroom. The Supra was in ideal condition and cost around 28k and the NSX was in pretty good condition but i didn't check the price. :laughing:

posted by  V-Tec

personally i would take the supra
but thats just me
it seems more of a "everyday driver" to me
i cant imagine driving an NSX every day
just too racy for my liking
and the Supra definately has more aftermarket parts available

posted by  6000LE

The NSX isnt going to be getting a new name. I know plenty of NSX owners and keep in close contact with Honda news... It would be a bullet in the foot if they came out with an NSX replacement and not call it the NSX.

posted by  thunderbird1100

The NSX is actually a very easy car to drive easily. It's when you push it, it's unforgiving (Mid engine RWD). I've gotten the privledge to drive around quite a few stock and (highly) modded NSXs.

Most NSX owners dont look any farther in the aftermarket than
www.scienceofspeed.com and
Comptech

Only a few go rouge and try a twin turbo setup.

Speaking of a scienceofspeed...a few of their cars...

'99 ultra limited edition Alex Zanardi ed. NSX
http://www.scienceofspeed.com/revolutionized/ScienceofSpeed/NSX/Zanardi8/
Their highly modded '92 (Race version more than anything)
http://www.scienceofspeed.com/revolutionized/ScienceofSpeed/NSX/CWNSX/IMG_8 165%5B1%5D.jpg

'91 Carbon Fiber Spoilers and Panels
http://www.scienceofspeed.com/revolutionized/ScienceofSpeed/NSX/SRNSX/DSC_0 893%5B1%5D.jpg

posted by  thunderbird1100

well the most expensive thing i drove was a 2005 TL
mad nice

posted by  6000LE

Nice eh? Just the looks of the interior and exterior was enough to convince me to buy one.

posted by  aerith

Ok, I don't want to quote to many people so, i'll just assume everyone has read every reply on this thread and still remembers it.

The HP restriction in Japan was not bound to only Japan, it was a gentleman's agreement among all the Japanese manufacturers. They agreed to keep the horsepower below 300hp on all cars they manufacture. It was to prevent a horsepower war that has been going on among the domestics for decades now. But recently Honda and Subaru broke that agreement and now everyone is taking up arms for the upcoming HP war. Honda broke the agreement with the introduction of the RL/ Legend with 300hp and Subaru broke it with the 300hp WRX STi. So, now since the agreement is broken; get ready for some high hp imports. Its not that Asian imports want to have small engines, its they choose to. The G35 GTR is coming out soon with 437hp, Toyota is working on a super car, and Honda has the new NSX. So now the agreement is broken; the Asian big block powerplants will pump out more or the same amount of horsepower as all the steriod injected domestics are right now and probaly with better efficency to top it off. Better efficency you say? Give me a domestic car that can top the Insight in MPG, or top 120hp per litre (S2000) engine, or even come close to Honda's technology in the efficency department.

RX-7 compared to a NSX? Don't get me wrong, the RX-7 is a great car, but its no contender against a NSX. Maybe a RX-7 with a engine transplant may contend. But with the standard 13b rotary engine; it doesnt come close.

Another point; i think the NSX may actually be aiming for the Viper SRT-10 if they are planning to put a V10 in.

posted by  aerith

The Agreement was actually 280ps (or 276hp). It was known to already be readily broken when the 300ZXTT came out in 1990, they rated it at 280ps but still had the same specs as the USDM 300hp (about 305ps) version. Then the VR4 too broke that (still rated at 280ps, but was the same as the American version). Nissan had the R33 and R34 GTR rated at 280ps but both were known to put close to 320hp out. Then Honda came out with the C32 NSX in 1996 for the 1997 model year and it had the same 290hp as the USDM version but was rated at 280ps. Every japanese manufacturer broke the agreement well before 2000. Now they finally cant really be "sneaky" anymore since they are putting out vehicles well over in excess of 300hp.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well, at least the cars were officially below 300hp. But they didnt officially go beyond 298 till the last couple of years with the RL and the STi. The 1999 Skyline GTR actually dynoed to be above 276hp. But now, no more sneaking around, Honda and Subaru basically announced war on the other Japanese automakers with their recent vehicles. Inifiniti followed suit with the M45, and the Lexus IS350 has 305hp. And Honda is giving the RL a new powertrain soon to compete with the V8's in its class. Its either going to be a new V8 block or a IMA V6 putting out the same or more horsepower as its other counterparts with 8 cylinders. I think the latter is more likely.

posted by  aerith

The RL wont be getting a V8 for at least 3-4 years to see how successful the V10 NSX will be (which obviously it will be, so count a V8 around then). It's possible in the mean-time (maybe as early as 07 model year) to put an electric motor assist for the 3.5 V6 in the RL. That should bump power at least up to the 330-340hp mark. If you ask me the V6 RL competes already very well in a class of V8's (it's as quick as most of them and quicker than some), it toasts the V6 competition that the others offer.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Your Message