NSX [Official] Acura NSX (NC1)

[hoffmeister_fan]

Either way it is still a botched launch. Ok so they showed a concept car in 2012, they showed a production car in 2015, they're still over a year away from the car going on sale. Again, no one I can think of has shown a production cars (2015) only to delay the car another year because of something as serious as engine layout change. In those four years you and I agree on for those other cars, this Acura still won't be on sale. The launch has been botched. Porsche did it in 3 years with the 918, far more sophisticated car. Honda is in over its head here and this bumbling around proves it. If you're making a bespoke sports car, and all your other cars use a family sedan V6, then they should have developed a bespoke V6 from the start. Sorry man, but you're just making excuses for them.

M

It's your perogative to assume I am making excuses. Rest assure that I have nothing to gain directly or indirectly from defending Honda (but I do have a tendency to root for the underdog).

I am merely stating that Honda's elapsed time from concept to production build is comparable to many other cars within and above its class. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the 918 is inherently more complex, but we don't assuredly know as many key details are still unknown regarding the NSX. They are both high perfomance AWD sports cars with DCT and electric motors up front with different calibrated driving modes. The 918, from concept to build, was done just under 4 years. The 4.6L V8 was based on the 3.4L in the RS Spyder racer that's been in use since 2005. And, of course, they are Porsche; sports cars are their bread-and-butter since the marque's inception.

According to the updated timeline, taking into account the delay, that puts Honda approximately seven months over Porsche's development time for a Spring 2016 release. And that's having to change the chassis for a longitudinal layout and a change to the engine for a bespoke Cosworth unit midway through its development. The delays suck and Honda's marketing did not account for fatigue among enthusiasts, but in the context of development times of other comparable cars, it's still within the realm of a reasonable development time.

At this point, what you call "excuses" I call reasonable reasons for delays. If development time exceeds 5 years (or if perfomance is sub-par, or reliability even slightly sub-par), then I'll join you and echo what a ridiculous amount of time they are taking.

 

[Merc1]

It's your perogative to assume I am making excuses. Rest assure that I have nothing to gain directly or indirectly from defending Honda (but I do have a tendency to root for the underdog).

I am merely stating that Honda's elapsed time from concept to production build is comparable to many other cars within and above its class. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the 918 is inherently more complex, but we don't assuredly know as many key details are still unknown regarding the NSX. They are both high perfomance AWD sports cars with DCT and electric motors up front with different calibrated driving modes. The 918, from concept to build, was done just under 4 years. The 4.6L V8 was based on the 3.4L in the RS Spyder racer that's been in use since 2005. And, of course, they are Porsche; sports cars are their bread-and-butter since the marque's inception.

According to the updated timeline, taking into account the delay, that puts Honda approximately seven months over Porsche's development time for a Spring 2016 release. And that's having to change the chassis for a longitudinal layout and a change to the engine for a bespoke Cosworth unit midway through its development. The delays suck and Honda's marketing did not account for fatigue among enthusiasts, but in the context of development times of other comparable cars, it's still within the realm of a reasonable development time.

At this point, what you call "excuses" I call reasonable reasons for delays. If development time exceeds 5 years (or if perfomance is sub-par, or reliability even slightly sub-par), then I'll join you and echo what a ridiculous amount of time they are taking.

You're missing the point, reasonable delays are one thing, but having them played out in public is another. All of this could have gone on behind the scenes, but no Acura is showing a car on TV (production or not, who does that?) and then shows the final version and then has to change the engine layout?! They're hapless. It isn't in the realm of reasonable development time, 4 years will have elapsed since the car was shown and it still won't be on sale and you're already giving them 5 years. You just gave them their out (EXCUSE) lol. Why not 6 years?

M

 

[Monster]

Alright guys, both of you have made valid points. For Honda's sake I really hope the car is worth the wait.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

You're missing the point, reasonable delays are one thing, but having them played out in public is another. All of this could have gone on behind the scenes, but no Acura is showing a car on TV (production or not, who does that?) and then shows the final version and then has to change the engine layout?! They're hapless. It isn't in the realm of reasonable development time, 4 years will have elapsed since the car was shown and it still won't be on sale and you're already giving them 5 years. You just gave them their out (EXCUSE) lol. Why not 6 years?

M

I get the point quite well. I just don't see how changes in development, which is common when developing a high-tech car and will yield a better car, yet is done within a reasonable amount time is a terrible thing. Whether it happens behind the scene or on some mythical reality TV is inconsequential.

Their initial projected timeline was overly ambitious and the commercial was silly, but Acura has to generate some awareness because, well, they don't offer anything else worthy of awareness. Does Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. need to generate awareness like Acura? No, so what better stage than the Super Bowl?

Now regarding the 5 year "limit"... call it an excuse if you want, but we are currently looking at a 4.5 years total. Which is comparable to the other aforementioned cars' development time. I was saying that if Honda significantly exceeds Porsche's or Audi's comparable development time that's just woeful. So how is it that marques that are part of the VAG colossus that have considerable and continuous experience building road-going sports cars are exempt from scrutiny?

BTW, I don't think Honda is going to cite a lowly forum member as a way to get any additional time. But for poops and giggles, I am going to have some fun...."I decree thee Honda to spend another 18 months and replace the Cossie V6 with a plutonium reactor for I require 1.21 gigawatts to power my flux capacitor!" Honda, the ball is in your court...make it happen.

Alright guys, both of you have made valid points. For Honda's sake I really hope the car is worth the wait.

LOL! Aaaaww, we are just chatting. But fair enough, I am done...for now.

 

[Merc1]

I get the point quite well. I just don't see how changes in development, which is common when developing a high-tech car and will yield a better car, yet is done within a reasonable amount time is a terrible thing. Whether it happens behind the scene or on some mythical reality TV is inconsequential.

Their initial projected timeline was overly ambitious and the commercial was silly, but Acura has to generate some awareness because, well, they don't offer anything else worthy of awareness. Does Audi, Porsche, Ferrari, etc. need to generate awareness like Acura? No, so what better stage than the Super Bowl?

Now regarding the 5 year "limit"... call it an excuse if you want, but we are currently looking at a 4.5 years total. Which is comparable to the other aforementioned cars' development time. I was saying that if Honda exceeds Porsche's or Audi's comparable development time that's just woeful. So how is it that marques that are part of the VAG colossus that have considerable and continuous experience building road-going sports cars are exempt from scrutiny?

BTW, I don't think Honda is going to cite a lowly forum member as a way to get any additional time. But for poops and giggles, I am going to have some fun...."I decree thee Honda to spend another 18 months and replace the Cossie V6 with a plutonium reactor for I require 1.21 gigawatts to power my flux capacitor!" Honda, the ball is in your court...make it happen.

You can't say you get the point if you don't see it lol. That is the whole point, you advertise on the biggest stage possible, 4 years too early and you still don't have the car ready to go = FAIL.

M

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

You can't say you get the point if you don't see it lol. That is the whole point, you advertise on the biggest stage possible, 4 years too early and you still don't have the car ready to go = FAIL.

M

And you saying that I don't get the point when I get the point doesn't hold water either. Especially when you are getting the dates mixed up.

You're missing the point, reasonable delays are one thing, but having them played out in public is another. All of this could have gone on behind the scenes, but no Acura is showing a car on TV (production or not, who does that?) and then shows the final version and then has to change the engine layout?! They're hapless. It isn't in the realm of reasonable development time, 4 years will have elapsed since the car was shown and it still won't be on sale and you're already giving them 5 years. You just gave them their out (EXCUSE) lol. Why not 6 years?

M

I forgot to address this so let me timeline this...

Jan 2012 - concept NSX shown at NAIAS; super bowl commercial
Late 2013, Early 2014 - Layout changed, new engine with turbos added
Jan 2015 - Production model shown at NAIAS with new layout
Aug 2015 - Delayed announce because more due diligence/testing needed, production begins in Spring 2016 instead of Fall 2015.

I think I am going to actually heed Monster's advice and really call it a night on this.

 

[Merc1]

And you saying that I don't get the point when I get the point doesn't hold water either. Especially when you are getting the dates mixed up.

No I'm not, they showed the car, production or not in 2012, by January of 2016 the car still won't be on sale. That is 4 years. Your excuses are what don't hold water.

M

 

[KiwiRob]

I just read the block and heads come from Cosworth, the NSX gets better and better.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/374307/honda-nsx-v6-uses-cosworth-block-and-heads/

 

[Centurion]

Come spring, the car will still be relevant. I can't see any other mid-engined car on the horizon that offers the same performance.

 

[Bucketslash11]

when will we see a launch control video? it claims to be the fastest accelerating from 0-60mph out of japan beating the GT-R, yet we've seen some pathetic attempts at accelerating or launching the car from a standstill

 

[JHF]

2017 Acura NSX has 573 bhp, 476 lb-ft and weighs 3,803 lbs

2017 Acura NSX has 573 bhp, 476 lb-ft and weighs 3,803 lbs
The final numbers are in for Acura’s much-awaited (and belated) second generation NSX hybrid supercar.

Honda-owned Acura unveiled the all-new NSX back in January at NAIAS in Detroit, but it’s only now that we find out all the juicy details we’ve been waiting for. At its heart is a purpose-built twin-turbo V6 3.5-liter engine developing 500 bhp (373 kW) and 406 lb-ft (550 Nm) of torque and with a 7,500 rpm redline. Sitting behind the combustion engine is a rear assist motor good enough for an extra 47 bhp (35 kW) and 100 lb-ft (135 Nm) while behind that is the dual-clutch 9-speed gearbox.

A pair of 36 bhp & 54 lb-ft electric motors (Twin Motor Unit - TMU) sits in between the front wheels and works with the lithium-ion battery pack wedged between the engine and seats. With a combined output of 573 bhp (427 kW) and 476 lb-ft (644 Nm), the Acura NSX sprints to 60 mph (96 km/h) in approximately three seconds and has a top speed of 191 mph (307 km/h). It tips the scales at a rather hefty 3,803 lbs (1,725 kg), but given the performances of the sophisticated SH-AWD setup this should still feel like a properly quick machine. For the sake of comparison, a standard R8 V10 Coupe weighs 3,593 lbs (1,630 kg).

It’s set to go on sale next spring as a 2017 model year, but there’s still no exact word about its price tag just yet. However, it’s estimated to start at around $170,000 before you add any optional equipment such as a carbon fiber roof, engine cover, rear spoiler or a tech package featuring a premium sound system and navigation.

http://www.worldcarfans.com/1151026100424/2017-acura-nsx-has-573-bhp-476-lb-ft-and-weighs-3-803-lbs

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[DjordjeC63]

1700kgs, that's too much.

 

[Merc1]

It's finally going to happen this time!!! That price though and Acura has ZERO under this car that would make anyone looking at an NSX buy something else they sell.

M

 

[Monster]

This one, with the Honda badge at the front.

 

[Rolf]

It looks great, I really like it alot, but am shocked about the weight. 1725kg is really heavy for a sports car, especially when the Honda lead engineer said it will be one of the lightest cars in its segment. Okay we can say at least 100 to 150kg could be battery weight, but its still very heavy. Heavier than nearly all its major rivals. It would be interesting to know how its driving experience compares to the best cars in this class, Porsche 911 Turbo S, McLaren 650S, Lamborghini Huracan and Ferrari 488 GTB.

 

[JHF]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[rollo]

It does look great but if it really does start at $170K in the states, not good. When you start getting close to $200K, the crowd thins out quite a bit and those that can afford that kind of scratch usually prefer italian exotics.

 

[Yaz]

Seinfeld be like: Leno can have it.

Mic drop.

 

[Centurion]

It does look great but if it really does start at $170K in the states, not good. When you start getting close to $200K, the crowd thins out quite a bit and those that can afford that kind of scratch usually prefer italian exotics.

A well specced Italian is significantly more than 270k. The NSX brings the tech seen in the LaFerrari, 918 and P1 down to very reasonable price tag. It's not just a fast car, but it's exceptionally cutting edge while the 488 is just a Ferrari with a more powerful engine than yester-year.

 

[rollo]

A well specced Italian is significantly more than 270k. The NSX brings the tech seen in the LaFerrari, 918 and P1 down to very reasonable price tag. It's not just a fast car, but it's exceptionally cutting edge while the 488 is just a Ferrari with a more powerful engine than yester-year.

I understand that it still is lower priced then Ferrari's and Lambo's. But once you get into that $200K range, it's not the discriminator. And most that buy the exotic italian's are more interested in status, appearance and that wonderful engine note. This NSX will not sell well at that number in the states, my opinion. I would buy a 911 or R8 over it in a heartbeat.