|
|
|
|
 |
NSXman
 |
|
Sigh...
Now I wait for someone to tell me the Insight has a soul.
|
NickDC5
|
|
NSXman wrote:
Sigh...
Now I wait for someone to tell me the Insight has a soul.
|
MPGs sure thrill me hard...
Killing their next supercar is the greatest crime Honda has ever committed. :( Come on, Honda, make us a new performance car so the Civic Si doesn't become the flagship performance model anymore...
|
JMU R1
|
|
The crime was making the next supercar an overweight luxo GT. I was disappointed that it got cancelled, but I was much more disappointed when I learned it wasn't going to be a light, mid-engined, RWD true NSX successor.
Here's to hoping we still get a new S2K!
|
NSXman
|
|
JMU R1 wrote:
The crime was making the next supercar an overweight luxo GT. I was disappointed that it got cancelled, but I was much more disappointed when I learned it wasn't going to be a light, mid-engined, RWD true NSX successor.
Here's to hoping we still get a new S2K!
|
As much as the non-turbo purists hate it when I say this, I would be 100% behind a an S2000 with the RDX motor. Anymore, how can small engines with redlines in the stratosphere keep up with the torque the turbo-4 cylinders or the larger 6 cylinders that the competition has.
Especially with the new 370Z the S2000 would be in competition with. That whole Honda is more reliable statement only gets you so far, especially with a performance car. And I am not going to be convinced that the S2000 in its current form gets typical 4-cylinder gas mileage (nor does the Si for that matter). I don't see the point in continuing the high hp/displacement motors that just have no torque. The high hp/displacement discussion is only a talking point anyway and helps one brag about the great engineering of the car. Ratios don't make cars perform.
|
NickDC5
|
|
^My thoughts exactly on ratios in regard to performance. Dollar/horsepower, horsepower/weight, none of these ratios necessarily mean FAST or GOOD.
JMU R1 wrote:
The crime was making the next supercar an overweight luxo GT. I was disappointed that it got cancelled, but I was much more disappointed when I learned it wasn't going to be a light, mid-engined, RWD true NSX successor.
Here's to hoping we still get a new S2K!
|
A true NSX successor to me is a top of the line Honda worldbeater that uses high modern technology to accomplish this. Not nearly as many people complained then the new M3 got a V8, or when the GT-R losts its RB26. Why is it that so many people were devastated to find out that the successor to the NSX would be twice as good as the old one and just as competitive? I can't believe people could be unhappy with a 500+ horsepower tiny 2-seater SH-AWD car from Honda, but somehow people found something to complain about. Honda even said it was focused on keeping the weight down, but before people even know how much it weighed it was "It's a 2934290432 pound GT that nobody will buy and I guarantee the pricetag is 2390929023 Imperial credits!!"
And then people hated the way it looked as well.
Plus, the successor to the NSX was intended to carry the Acura brand across the world, meaning it had to be big, boastful, and above all luxurious. It was about brand and bragging rights, that's why it was lapping the Nurburgring. But Honda slowed or stopped the Acura worldwide advancement. Honda probably was desperate to cancel it because no matter what it kept getting them negative press.
Well I don't know about you, JMU R1, but I was at least willing to give it a chance.
|
JMU R1
|
|
NickDC5 wrote:
Well I don't know about you, JMU R1, but I was at least willing to give it a chance.
|
Well, I softened from outright hostility to maybe indifference but it seemed like the approach to the new car was just wrong. Yeah it would've had more power and SH-AWD but even from Honda people's mouths they were saying it wasn't going to be light.
I suppose I could have grown to like it but the beauty of the NSX was that it was elegant and purposeful. It was the pure distillation of what a sports car should be. Yeah Acura wanted the new car to be luxurious and all but I think they could've stuck to the NSX formula (while adding 2 or 4 cylinders) and had a world-beater.
But who knows, it's all academic now. As I said, I just hope we still get another S2000.
|
Honda-D
|
|
I haven't had a Honda as background for a while.
I think the new NSX has missed the boat. Even AMG has admitted the days of high displacement big power days are over.
I think a twin-turbo mid engine V6 would be awesome too.
|
NickDC5
|
|
They say that, just after they release their newest forced-induction V12...
This is a car that should be coming out just now, with a proper supercar's engine, a high-revving low-displacement V10. Do you guys seriously think 4.5-5.5 liters is a big engine? And do you honestly think it's big for a V10? It's a pretty tiny V10.
Plus, this is Honda, who understands the importance of getting n/a power instead of f/i power. No way they'd make a 3.5 liter TT V6 with turbo lag to carry their Acura brand.
Honda got scared of the markets and overcompensated by throwing tons of r/d money out the window. Then on top of that they failed to launch Acura worldwide and the successor to the NSX couldn't serve its purpose anymore.
Why do you guys want a MR vehicle so badly btw? It seems like Honda should be doing whatever makes the car fastest, and can make Honda the most money. If Honda's trying to sell SH-AWD to the public, putting it in a Lamborghini destroyer seems like the move to me. SH-AWD is a brilliant technology that is both fuel-efficient and can be performance oriented.
What is the single thing people complain about with the NSX and S2000 today? Power. That's the only problem people have with them. It's not hard to add power, but everybody refuses to ask for it. Sorry, but 400 horsepower doesn't mean as much today as it did in 1993.
And did you guys see how little that car was that Honda had running around the 'Ring? It was absolutely minuscule, yet already people said it would have some outrageous weight. Now you've got Honda afraid of its own shadow. No wonder a 2.2 liter n/a I4-powered roadster is their sportiest car.
Honda's willing to fight the horsepower war with the Accord and TL, but when push comes to shove with sports cars you guys cry MPG? Nobody here is complaining about how much horsepower the TL SH-AWD has compared to its competitors, are they? But with the supercar you actually want LESS power? I just can't figure it out...
|
CarPhreakD
|
|
|
I was wondering when this kind of topic would crop up.
|
NickDC5
|
|
|
Well, I've been crying about the TSX coupe for almost a year, so I'll just add this to the list of things I'll never let go.
|
JMU R1
|
|
I'm certainly not saying the car needed to have less horsepower. I didn't really have a problem with the V10 to be honest.
And maybe I'm wrong but as I said, directly from a Honda employee that was fairly high up on the food chain we heard that the new car was not going to be light. Now maybe he meant it would be 3400 lbs or 3200 lbs or whatever, so maybe it would not have been bad. But I would've liked to see them make something as light or lighter than the NSX.
As for why it should be MR, it is the optimum engine placement. End of story. It also immediately puts the car in much more exclusive territory than the F-AWD set-up did. With that drivetrain it was inevitably going to be compared more to the GTR than the 430.
Maybe the car would have wowed and surprised everyone. But I just wasn't that excited about the direction they took with the car.
|
Nick GravesX
|
|
Honda might have been better to develop the NSX along the lines of the 911.
The car could easily handle more power than it had. But bugger all happened after the 3.2 a decade ago.
The hacks seemed to dismiss the HSC as too little too late. Which it probably was by then, yet it seems so right for the current era.
I liked the idea of the GT5000 (Honda, please) but I can see that financially, it was a very bad idea.
Hopefully, the lessons learned won't be.
|
Honda-D
|
|
JMU R1 wrote:
As for why it should be MR, it is the optimum engine placement. End of story. It also immediately puts the car in much more exclusive territory than the F-AWD set-up did. With that drivetrain it was inevitably going to be compared more to the GTR than the 430.
|
Bingo. Unless you're planning your platform for a sedan conversion, MR is where the world's exotics are at.
430
Enzo
Zonda
R8
Mercielgo
Gallardo
It's not bedroom poster worthy unless it's MR.
|
NickDC5
|
|
I think it had loftier goals, ie. the 599 and Z06/ZR1. They're considered "GT" cars too, but they're arguably two of the best cars on the road and ever, the 599 unquestionably. For Honda to build a smarter 599 killer would be a dream come true.
MR is cool, but what does it offer to the Acura brand? Not a platform, nor with RWD would it have the same halo effect as an SH-AWD-driven car. Plus that V10, if Honda had some guts, could've found its way into a Type-S Acura flagship sedan too.
I'll give you exotic, but you guys forget that Honda is a business that wants to make money. There are benefits and costs to be weighed. I still think the benefits outweigh the costs of producing a supercar, and I think that the best way to get those benefits would be with a powerful, sexy, luxurious supercar.
Plus, 3100-3400 pounds is EXTREMELY light for any non-FWD vehicle. Less than an STi, less than a 350Z, less than a 3-series, less than the GT-R, the list goes on. Even if it topped out way up at 3650 it would still be a relatively nimble car. As far as looking for exotic goes, V10s are a lot more exotic than V8s and V6s...
|
JMU R1
|
|
NickDC5 wrote:
I think it had loftier goals, ie. the 599 and Z06/ZR1. They're considered "GT" cars too, but they're arguably two of the best cars on the road and ever, the 599 unquestionably. For Honda to build a smarter 599 killer would be a dream come true. |
The 599 is not a particularly remarkable car as supercars go. It is a fast GT but it doesn't really set the agenda for supercars and it is certainly not considered one of the best cars on the road. Same with its predecessor. I'll give you the ZR-1, but it's still just a juiced up version of a potent but not necessarily exotic sports car.
| MR is cool, but what does it offer to the Acura brand? Not a platform, nor with RWD would it have the same halo effect as an SH-AWD-driven car. Plus that V10, if Honda had some guts, could've found its way into a Type-S Acura flagship sedan too. |
You have a point on the platform sharing but if y ou start a supercar program with platform sharing in mind you've already compromised it. As for AWD, it's great on paper but the fact is that it adds weight, complexity, cost, and it means that you've got to strengthen the entire drivetrain which adds even more weight. See exhibit A: GTR. They're having transmission problems because of the stress on the drivetrain creating by forcing all of that power through awd (and because of overzealous launch control usage but anyway).
| I'll give you exotic, but you guys forget that Honda is a business that wants to make money. There are benefits and costs to be weighed. I still think the benefits outweigh the costs of producing a supercar, and I think that the best way to get those benefits would be with a powerful, sexy, luxurious supercar. |
I'd agree but by making a 'me-too' GT like the GTR and moribund LFS Acura was consigning themselves to make less money not more. Of course everyone has their own opinion so who knows how it would've turned out.
All I know is that there was universal disappointment in the automotive press when Acura unveiled their plan for their 'super' GT. And among those were a lot of people who loved the NSX. That says a lot in my book. Then again maybe they all would've been turned into believers when the car was finished *shrugs*
| Plus, 3100-3400 pounds is EXTREMELY light for any non-FWD vehicle. Less than an STi, less than a 350Z, less than a 3-series, less than the GT-R, the list goes on. |
True though that may be, none of those cars are considered exotic. The new car should be better than all of those no sweat.
|
NickDC5
|
|
Perhaps we don't quite see eye-to-eye on halo cars. They aren't vehicles that make sales themselves. It isn't like Honda could EVER expect people to flock to their supercar from Lamborghini or Ferrari or even Aston Martin. You don't build a halo car because you want more halo car sales. You build it to get people to buy other cars from that brand. It's a controlled crash landing, where you just try to lose as little money as possible on producing the vehicle in the hope that you will gain as much money as possible from other vehicle sales. Then if it boosts the brand image well enough you can make more money from it. It's an investment.
I mean if you go to a bank and they go "Hey, give me 500 dollars!" you'd think they're complete idiots if you didn't know that they will give you interest, that's why it's an investment. You lose a little now, you get more in the long run, and both parties benefit. That's what a halo car is, and that's what the old NSX was and so too the newest supercar from Honda would be. You can't expect sales from the supercar to ever pay for itself, which is why you have to look at the big picture- how many SLRs do you think Mercedes-Benz produces every year?
I don't like AWD more than RWD, or even MR more than FR, but again HONDA IS A BUSINESS. They need a vehicle that carries their technology, VTEC, SH-AWD, and carries their badges to make people buy other cars. They would build the GT5000 to sell RLs, TLs, and TSXs, not to sell GT5000s. Plus, SH-AWD is as capable as the ATESSA-ETS by all means, except SH-AWD is more fuel efficiency oriented, which would be perfect for the green image Honda wants to give Acura.
The reason why I named all those other cars is that those are pretty fast cars, but they ALL weigh at least 3400 pounds, some much much more. And look at how huge they are. The successor to the NSX was a very very tiny little car. Can you imagine the performance specifications of a 500-550 horsepower car that small with SH-AWD? I wasn't at all surprised to see its outrageously fast Nurburgring lap times.
This is why I'm so sad that Honda's killing it: It was a hell of a vehicle, like its name or its characteristics, it was fast. Period. It was extremely fast. It wasn't even finished and it was fast. It would help the brand of Acura, something that shrinks more and more every single month, and has continued downhill for a very very long time. Acura DESPERATELY needed some spicing up. They have 2 SUVS and 3 sedans. And aside from the RDX, they're all boring or kind of ugly. The RDX is the most exciting vehicle Acura has to offer, imo. It's the only tight and lively vehicle they've got! Audi made the R8 and look at what it's done for them as a brand.
I mean we can say "I wish this" and "I wish that" but the smart business decision for Honda here was to 1. build an FA vehicle that had looks, power, and prestige in the least expensive way possible (both in terms of cost of production and which would cost the company long term the least money) 2. not cancel it after spending this amount of resources on it already 3. use the car as very serious marketing to firmly break into tier 1.
But it's dead now. And I won't know where I can get a reliable coupe that is faster than my current reliable Honda coupe, since I was really hoping that the longitudinally-mounted Front-engine SH-AWD layout would carry over to a sub-NSX or even just an Acura 2-door coupe, because right now Acura doesn't have a sports car or coupe. How much longer will that gap stay open? It's nice that SH-AWD finally trickled down to the TL, and may eventually make its way to the TSX. But what about a coupe with SH-AWD or a sports car?
This is why I say it was a bad business decision to axe the successor to the NSX. It could've been extremely profitable to Honda, but they got scared of the market. Here's to hoping it'll rise from the ashes one day.
|
80honda
|
|
NSXman wrote:
Sigh...
Now I wait for someone to tell me the Insight has a soul.
|
Define soul as it relates to an automobile!
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
