Rich

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. They probably will add significant power in the redesign, but I claim that it is possible to achieve supercar performance with 300 hp or under in a car with day to day drivability. I don't quite see how one can really believe that 400 hp is absolutely necessary, and that seems to be what you're claiming. The Elise is relevent because it shows that supercar performance is possible with under 200 hp. True, it is not a civilized car, but I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to make a car with similar performance with 100 hp more and add in civility. The MR2 and Miata have plenty of civility for me, and they both weigh in below 2500 pounds (well below for the MR2).

I do admit a bias that is every bit as strong as yours is. I absolutely *love* the way lightweight cars drive. I've had the opportunity to drive some fantastic vehicles at their limits on the autocross course (I'm not a street or track racer, although I'd like to get into racing on the track), and every time I come away more and more impressed with the magic of light weight. To me, there's a synergy with the vehicle that absolutely no heavy cars can match, no matter what the numbers say. Given a choice between two cars of equal performance, I'll take the lighter one every time. To me, 2600 lbs. is about the maximum that a car can be and still stick a huge grin to my face repeatedly. True, there are plenty of exotics out there that weight more than that that I would probably enjoy, but they have a tall hurdle to overcome. If the next NSX can get the civility and performance to the levels it needs to be, I would prefer they do it with the lightest weight and lowest horsepower method necessary. I truly believe that it is possible to achieve that with less than 400 HP, and on that we'll just have to disagree.

pelucidor

It's interesting that I, for one, would MUCH rather have a vehicle that has barely improved in 12 years (the NSX) than a new Corvette. I am old enough to remember the absolute 'shock and awe' this vehicle caused the automotive industry in the early 90's (more than the Mclaren F1 or Enzo when they were released in later years). It is a legend that sadly never got updated. I am not sure what 0-60 time a car needs to be called 'exotic' in your opinion, but I hope some Ferraris and Porsches make it in there.

Car and Driver in their August 98 issue did a timed comparison of 0 to 150 mph to 0. In the stock class, the Acura NSX came in second to the Dodge Viper GTS. The 97 NSX managed a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of 12.9 seconds. The 0-150-0 was 35.9 seconds in 5191 feet. Five years later this may not be as good as a Z06 but it's good enough for me, plus sublime handling, stunning looks (except for the new headlights), all aluminium construction, and rarity together with utter civility and reliability.

When Honda totally renews the NSX (probably with an NA 3.5 liter V6) I doubt it will have as much as 400hp unless it really is a dual-note (perhaps 350-380 without dual-note - just a guess), but it will probably lose some weight to get performance up a little (without resorting to a plastic body like the Corvette which is not an elegant solution IMO). And they will sell every one they make even if the C6 Corvette is faster and cheaper.

Just a question - which would you rather have: a Ferrari 360 Medena or a Z06 Corvette (remember the Z06 is faster and a third the cost)....

Schneegz

Rich:

You're still bringing up irrelevant points.

Yes, the Elise offers exotic car performance. So what? It's not civil or comfortable to drive every day.

Yes, the Miata and MR2 are light and sporty and comfortable to drive every day. So what? They don't offer exotic car performance.

The NSX used to do both. It does not do both anymore. The Z06 does. The NSX needs to both again.

In order for a car to offer ALL the luxuries and ameneties today's drivers demand of an $80K vehicle, AND offer exotic car performance, AND be mass-produced, AND cost less than $100K, AND meet all current safety and emissions standards, it will HAVE to weigh about 3,000lb.

If you think a car can do everything I listed above AND weigh less than 3,000lb factory stock, then name one.

Sure, there will always be some people who will buy a slower 2-seat sports car that doesn't handle as well or stop as fast AND costs $38K more, but I'll never understand why.

Rich

Well, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think those points demonstrate that it may possible to have civility, performance, and a sub-3000 lbs. weight. Heck, the RX-8 shows it as well. It's about 2900 lbs. and could obviously lose a few (4?)hundred just from losing the back seats and adding aluminum in many places. Bump the power to 300 hp and spend $40,000 on the suspension and I think you could definately do it. I realize that this is somewhat of a strawman argument, but it's somewhat illustrative.

Just because the example doesn't yet exist doesn't mean it's not possible. That's my whole point. As I said in my previous post, I truly believe that it's possible to have a car with supercar performance with daily drivability and less than 400 hp. You and I will probably never agree on that, and I think that's really the fundamental block to any benifit to continuing this conversation. Based on the arguments you have presented so far, I believe that you will never convince me that 400 hp is necessary to accomplish this goal. Based on your replies to my arguments it's clear that I will never convince you that it is possible. Therefore, it seems to me this is at a dead end. I'm willing to just shake hands and agree that we disagree.

Well, I certainly can understand why if by "handling" you mean numberical values measured by a magazine. Some people actually buy cars because they enjoy how they drive. Shocking, I know, but there are a few of us out there. If someone enjoys the way an NSX drives more than they enjoy a Z06 and can afford both, they should buy the NSX. The person who cares which one produces numbers over which car they actually enjoy driving more is the person *I* don't understand. Yet that's how the majority of people buy cars, IMHO. When looking for a car to purchase, I initially narrowed my list to 3 cars, with the S2k first, the MR2 second, and the Miata third. This was based primarily on the performance numbers. I drove 3 S2000s, a handful of MR2s, and over a dozen Miatas. Price wasn't really a big concern. At the end of the test drives, I was in awe of the S2000, impressed with the MR2, and in love with the Miata. It was the one that put the biggest smile on my face, and the one that gave me the feeling that I was dancing with the car. I have heard from lots of people that I should have bought either of the other cars, but I know I found the one that resonated with me, even though it has the worst "performance" of the three. I wanted to buy a car to drive, not one whose stat sheet I could post on my wall. I realize that's hard for most people to understand, but hey, what can I say, I'm wierd. :D

zoom44

you always end up making the most convincing posts! i definely belive that last line

it's good to see you posting rich.

i think you both make excellent points in your posts but have 2 different ideas of what performance means to you. at least you both are talking about making a car better and not trashing one.

Schneegz

Rich:

The NSX WAS a great car back when it was introduced. I'd like to see it become great once more. It's not like Honda to sit on their duffs for so long and let a great car become so outdated. I don't understand why they've done so in the case of the NSX

I mean, really, what does the NSX do to justify LESS performance AND a price tag almost $40K OVER that of the Z06? Does it give you road head on demand, or what?

So, Rich, we'll agree to disagree. But still, I'd like to know what you would do to improve the next generation NSX.

I'd like to see the Dual Note system installed. Honda's engineers have already proven that they can build a reliable, practical, useful hybrid drivetrain... twice! Yes, it's unorthodox. Yes, it's a whole lot of techno trickery. But NSX drivers have never been, shall we say, orthodox.

Besides, those electric motors would generate enough instantaneous torque to put '60s muscle cars to shame, making the torque vs. hp debate obsolete.

Rich

Agreed. The NSX was the car that got me interested in cars. I wouldn't be on this board if it wasn't for the NSX.

Never having driven one, I have no idea. I think I've heard that the sales of the NSX are in the low dozens a year, while I would guess that the Z06 is in the hundreds or thousands (wild guess). Obviously, for the vast majority of people, the answer is "nothing". Not having driven an NSX, I would tentatively agree that the Z06 seems to offer more for less. If (and I'm only saying IF) it was more fun to drive than the Z06 and I were in the market for such a beast, I would consider it. Of course, I would have to be wealthy enough that the fun factor was worth the vast price difference. I figure if I could afford an NSX, a bit more fun would be worth that amount of money. But I have no idea, the Z06 could certainly be more fun to drive. In that case it's really an easy decision. Save money, get better performance, and a more fun car. Simple.

I think I already said above, but if not (I don't feel like re-reading) I'd drop the weight to ~2400-2600 lbs., ensure that it meets the reliability and drivability standards that people expect from an Accord, and make sure it has supercar performance. It should either win or be competetive in a competition for the best handling car in the world, since that's really the performance area that the old NSX always excelled at. Acceleration needs to be in the ballpark of the other exotics. The F360 and Z06 both have nearly identical power to weight ratios of 7.66 lbs. per HP. So, if they could get the weight to 2400, that would mean a 315 hp engine. But most importantly, it needs to be really fun to drive. I don't care if they use dualnote technology or a V8 or magic fairy dust, I'm concerned with how the car drives, not how they get it to do what it does. For me, fun to drive outweighs any other factor, and that's something numbers just don't convey. Nonetheless, if a car costs that much it should have numbers that roughly match the competition. 5.0 seconds to 60 just doesn't cut it any more in the $100k area unless there's some other overwhelming factor.

Of course, I suspect that market forces will ensure that the next NSX *does* have 400 HP. Even the supercar market is competetive, and HP numbers rule in the marketplace. That kind of power requires more weight, so it will probably end up just shy of 3,000 lbs. That will just help me to convince myself not to lust after it. Not that I'll ever be able to afford one, of course. Heck, I can't even afford the car I really want, which is the Elise, and it's only supposed to be around $40-50k. mmmm...1700 lbs...

Rich

Agreed. I appreciate the ability to disagree without either side resorting to too much incivility. Auto enthusiast boards are know for that, and this board isn't as bad as most.

And thanks zoom44. I'm back on the road after about 6 months at home, so I need to find some way to amuse myself. Weekends are for driving, washing the car or racing, and weekdays are for trolling around the various sites I frequent. No family obligations for a few more months.

gord boyd

In the hybrid new system controls, the RPM of the engine is dialed in (and increased beyond what would be normal at lower speeds), by the Generator (capable of 10,000 RPM's), in order to exact efficiency. Another unique feature is use of vvt-i to
arrive at High expansion ratio cycle (lower) pumping loss
vs. normal. The timing for closing the intake valve is delayed, and in the initial stage of compression stroke (when the piston begins to ascend), part of the air that has entered the cylinder is returned to the intake manifold, in effect delaying the start of compression. In this way the expansion ratio is increased.
RESULT: the most thermally efficient gas engine in the world.

The 1.5L (system)TORQUE is rated 478 N.m vs. 216 N.m for RX-8.

neit_jnf

Mazda already did this a long time ago (maybe not so long) with the Miller Cycle Millenia. It has something like a 8:1 Compression ratio and a 10:1 Expansion ratio with a Lysholm supercharger to aid in filling and minimize the lost intake charge.

gord boyd

Because the engine has no transmission, with the System Control,
driving power seamlessly responds.
Example:from cruising with a low power rqt to full-throttle acceleration (TORQUE-on-demand).

The Generator stops crank at same position each time and starting engine, after vehicle is already moving, takes 40% less time.

gord boyd

I was reading VTEC.NET, and here is a quote about Renesis.
"Some would even say they're a 3.9!!" L. eng. by notyper
under an 'Awards' thread.

Supercharger

Car&Driver top gear acceleration test

_________________ 30-50mph ______ Engine

Acura TSX __________ 10.2 s ______ 200 hp NA I4

Dodge Neon SRT-4 ___ 10.7 s ______ 215 hp I4-Turbo

Mazda RX-8 _________10.8 s ______ 250 hp NA 2-rotor

Subaru WRX STi ______10.9 s ______ 300 hp F4-Turbo

Mitsubishi Evo _______ 11.7 s ______ 271 hp I4-Turbo


All the cars have manual gearbox.

The Acura TSX has more low-end torque than other cars in the table.

fishsauce

I don't know much about 30-50 testing procedures, but were all cars in second gear or third or were they different from car to car?

edit: woops, I didn't read the first line.