[jkrig]

Don't care for the new series much but when I heard Chris Harris would review the NSX figured I'd check it out.....he really liked the car and (this is the kicker) it beat the 2012 GTR's time on the top gear test track 1:17.6 vs 1:17.8.....not to shabby, noteworthy competitors:

AMG GT S 1:17.5
Audi R8 V10 Plus 1:15.7 *at 189k msrp you will more than likely pay over 200k for one of these

[VRG_135]

I never saw an R8 in my life till I was buying fireworks on the 4th and one parked next to me. Then I saw another one yesterday.......And I also saw an Aston Martin on the 3rd.

[scoobysaurus]

Originally Posted by jkrig

Don't care for the new series much but when I heard Chris Harris would review the NSX figured I'd check it out.....he really liked the car and (this is the kicker) it beat the 2012 GTR's time on the top gear test track 1:17.6 vs 1:17.8.....not to shabby, noteworthy competitors:

AMG GT S 1:17.5
Audi R8 V10 Plus 1:15.7 *at 189k msrp you will more than likely pay over 200k for one of these

You forgot a competitor: Viper ACR 1:15.1

And FWIW I'm noticing horrible sales for this new R8 here in Dubai because nobody is spending Huracan money on an Audi. They're better off using a cheaper engine such as the 4.0 from the RS7 and reducing the price to AMG GTS levels from the current SLS AMG-esque pricing.

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by jkrig

Don't care for the new series much but when I heard Chris Harris would review the NSX figured I'd check it out.....he really liked the car and (this is the kicker) it beat the 2012 GTR's time on the top gear test track 1:17.6 vs 1:17.8.....not to shabby, noteworthy competitors:

AMG GT S 1:17.5
Audi R8 V10 Plus 1:15.7 *at 189k msrp you will more than likely pay over 200k for one of these

Wtf lol 2016 $200k NSX beats 2012 $100k GTR by .2 seconds. That's horrible.

[jkrig]

Originally Posted by AW335TT

Wtf lol 2016 $200k NSX beats 2012 $100k GTR by .2 seconds. That's horrible.

Performance wise the GTR has barely changed in those 3+ years, ...many have said the current year model is worse....I referenced it because many will shout "I'd just buy a GTR"

Many dismissed the NSX before it had a chance to show its mettle....clearly its capable machine, a respected enthusiast/expert seems to agree

[auf Deutsch]

I'll take Valerie Malone's NSX over this new one any day of the week.

[Mingwan]

Still can't get over how Honda had working V10 NSX which they scrapped for the V6.

LAmmmmeee

If they kept the V10 and added the e-motor to it, it would've definitely justified the price it commands now.

[MikeRR]

I would never pay 200k for a new NSX. As Harris said, if you consider it a Porsche 918 on a budget, it seems OK but I just would not pay supercar money for a Honda.
I predict they will not be selling much of these, at least in Europe.
Id rather buy Z06 + a nice classic NSX and have some spare money.

[Topspeed]

I thought it was $150 000 and that makes it slightly more expensive than the hideous i8 and significantly faster.

[OutlawX3M]

Originally Posted by MikeRR

I would never pay 200k for a new NSX. As Harris said, if you consider it a Porsche 918 on a budget, it seems OK but I just would not pay supercar money for a Honda.
I predict they will not be selling much of these, at least in Europe.
I'd rather buy Z06 + a nice classic NSX and have some spare money.

I doubt this will be a high volume or even long lived vehicle for Acura. It's a nice halo car to get some press and enthusiast attention (think JDM crowd) just like Lexus did with the LFA which has gone on to inspire their F line. But Acura doesn't have any history as a performance/enthusiast brand so I doubt that's in the goal. If you search Dupont Registry, you can find one for $400k.... for a Toyota!

I expect the same to hold true for the NSX - here for now, gone tomorrow. Great engineering experiment. Anyone can achieve success in an experiment but keep it going for 30-40 years and be considered the "standard bearer" for a category (a la BMW, Porsche), that's truly amazing.

[AW335TT]

Originally Posted by jkrig

Performance wise the GTR has barely changed in those 3+ years, ...many have said the current year model is worse....I referenced it because many will shout "I'd just buy a GTR"

Many dismissed the NSX before it had a chance to show its mettle....clearly its capable machine, a respected enthusiast/expert seems to agree

One word .. NISMO. Change is irrelevant, what's important is that, that performance was achieved 4 years ago, by a car half the price.

[jkrig]

Originally Posted by AW335TT

One word .. NISMO. Change is irrelevant, what's important is that, that performance was achieved 4 years ago, by a car half the price.

And there are competitors today that still cant achieve those numbers so ...your point is.....and you would pay nearly the same price as a base NSX for a Nismo GTR and to me, that's a stretch, 150k for a stockish GTR, I'll pass....if it were an AMS edition maybe...

[Viffermike]

Originally Posted by Outlaw M3

I doubt this will be a high volume or even long lived vehicle for Acura. It's a nice halo car to get some press and enthusiast attention (think JDM crowd) just like Lexus did with the LFA which has gone on to inspire their F line. But Acura doesn't have any history as a performance/enthusiast brand so I doubt that's in the goal. If you search Dupont Registry, you can find one for $400k.... for a Toyota!

I expect the same to hold true for the NSX - here for now, gone tomorrow. Great engineering experiment. Anyone can achieve success in an experiment but keep it going for 30-40 years and be considered the "standard bearer" for a category (a la BMW, Porsche), that's truly amazing.

Honda has way, way, way too much invested in the NSX-only PMC in Ohio for the car to be "here for now, gone tomorrow." The facility has 12 active patents for PMC-specific manufacturing techniques alone, and renovations to transform it from a logistics hub to a small-volume plant approached $100 million.

What comes out of there may not always be badged an Acura NSX ... but the facility will be building cutting-edge high-performance vehicles for several decades.

[TSM330i]

Originally Posted by Topspeed

I thought it was $150 000 and that makes it slightly more expensive than the hideous i8 and significantly faster.

For the base car. I went to the NSX "build your own" and the MSRP I came up with was $208,000. I'd sooner have a McLaren 570S.

[rjd598]

Originally Posted by jkrig

Performance wise the GTR has barely changed in those 3+ years, ...many have said the current year model is worse....I referenced it because many will shout "I'd just buy a GTR"

Many dismissed the NSX before it had a chance to show its mettle....clearly its capable machine, a respected enthusiast/expert seems to agree

Um no it hasn't? The gtr has changed every year since that.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by rjd598

Um no it hasn't? The gtr has changed every year since that.

In the same way I've changed. Little greyer, little fatter.

[rainfall]

Originally Posted by TSM330i

For the base car. I went to the NSX "build your own" and the MSRP I came up with was $208,000. I'd sooner have a McLaren 570S.

I agree. Even if we get the base model (like a bare bone stock). It's better to just get an AMG GT-S.
It might be a hair slower on a track, but it would be a freaking blast to drive