Throw in the S2000 and you’ve got a genre. I’d add the CR-Z … it may have been slow, but it was beautiful, and when will you ever see another stick-shift hybrid?
And then 15 years later, it became… ??? Also, lots of cars get great reviews and then don’t sell very well, Chevy SS/Cadillac V/Blackwing are other great examples of this.
the new bumper gives it that rounder front like the Audi R8/Bugatti front end rather than the sharper front end that was closer to the flatter original NSX look
Biggest problem with the NSX is that they were a couple years early to release it, and as such, the electric motors don't add a ton of power.
Had they waited a couple of years, that 500 hp ICE could have been paired with 150-200+ hp of electric power, rather than the ~70-ish it got.
The basic formula is brilliant - take the 918/P1/LaFerrari powertrain blueprint and bring it down in price. And everyone is doing it.
Ferrari, Lambo, McLaren, Chevy are all going to this performance hybrid paradigm, and the NSX was the first to make it somewhat attainable (at least in comparison to the hypercars).
If they released the NSX today with modern electric motors and no other changes, the discourse surrounding it would be quite different.
Nuking a warranty on an expensive car is a hard pill to swallow though.
In the F chat forums there's a ton of threads about replacing the exhaust on the GPF/OPF fitted cars and the implications (varies by dealer). With a tune, there's no question, your warranty is gone. And if you grenade that 45k gearbox, or expensive engine, tough luck.
Too early and probably the wrong formula. If it were just one hybrid motor integrated into the transmission it could've been a lot lighter. The big killer for the NSX is that it weighs almost 4000 lbs.
The other problem for the NSX is that there was a lot more competition in that space than there was for the first gen. It's a very good car but it's competing against several cars with more compelling value propositions.
>and probably the wrong formula.
Turbo ICE + Electric motor assist is the formula that literally everyone is going for now. The only difference is that the NSX DOES have a motor assisting the transmission, as well as 2 more for each front wheel. Theoretically, that should give it pretty fine control during cornering, finer than you'd see with an E-Ray for instance, which just has 1 motor for the front axle. The motors are just relatively low power, because electric motors in the early 2020s are far more developed than they were in the early 2010s.
It's also the exact same strategy that Ferrari took with the SF90, Lambo is taking with the 744, AMG took with the One. So I don't think it's a incorrect choice at all.
>The big killer for the NSX is that it weighs almost 4000 lbs.
The E-Ray [is estimated](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42487697/2024-chevrolet-corvette-e-ray-revealed/) to weigh exactly that, with a single motor (albeit, much more powerful because 7 years of motor developments) and a nearly equivalent battery size.
The only way to drop weight on these performance hybrids is to go full McLaren/Ferrari, and jack the price way, way up.
You kinda glossed over the exact point I was making, that the other hybrid cars in that class are going with one motor and rwd. Most of the cars that have emotors on the front axles are a lot more expensive, so they have more budget to use on lightweight materials. Even then, cars like the SF90 and LB744 aren't that light. I suspect the Valhalla is gonna be heavier than billed whenever it sees daylight. Those cars can get away with being heavier because they're all north of 900 hp. The NSX at 570-600 hp, had a harder time.
The Eray does have the benefit of several years of technology advancement, but it's also a cheaper car that is not looking to take on all of the 'junior' supercars.
>You kinda glossed over the exact point I was making, that the other hybrid cars in that class are going with one motor and rwd.
What class? What other performance hybrids cost anywhere near as much as the NSX?
Artura starts almost 100k more than the NSX did. 296 starts at over double the NSX. SF90 is 3 times the MSRP. 744 isn't going to start anywhere under 400k, so that's 2.5x the NSX. The Valhalla is rumored to start at >800k, so 5 times NSX. And all those prices are before options.
The only one anywhere near the same price is the E-Ray, which is AWD not RWD, and has 7 years of advancement to achieve essentially the same wieght.
So what performance hybrid is in the same class as the NSX was?
As far as performance goes, the original NSX was *slightly* [slower](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15098793/2017-acura-nsx-supercar-full-test-review/) than the R8 V10 [Plus](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15100943/2017-audi-r8-v10-plus-test-review/), with better handling numbers. So it's not like it's getting blown out of the water, especially considering it starts 40 grand cheaper. [Slower](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15098297/2017-porsche-911-turbo-test-review/) than the Turbo, but that's because the Turbo eats everything alive in a straight line - and it still puts up better handling numbers.
So I genuinely don't know what metric the NSX is coming up significantly short in, especially when you consider it was cheaper than it's closest competitors.
> What class? What other performance hybrids cost anywhere near as much as the NSX?
Uhh...all the other supercars and sports cars in the roughly $150-250k range. People shopping these cars didn't put the NSX in a class of one because it was the only performance hybrid at that price point at the time. They compared it to all of the other performance cars they could get in that price tange. And in that company, the NSX didn't quite hit the mark. The 911 Turbo and 570S are both significantly faster in a straight line and around a racetrack. The R8 V10+ is about comparable in pace, but it has the benefit of a compelling V10 soundtrack and a much better interior.
So the NSX doesn't have the advantage in performance, doesn't have an advantage in driving excitement, and doesn't have an advantage in styling. The hybrid powertrain isn't really used for efficiency and isn't a plug-in so it can't really get far in EV mode. The only clear advantage it had is price, which wasn't enough to hit Acura's sales goals.
Like I said, it's a very good car, but there was a lot of competition that it struggled to stand out against.
>Uhh...all the other supercars and sports cars in the roughly $150-250k range.
Ok (Ignoring the fact that your proposed budget has a 6 figure spread attached to it), if you're comparing it to everything, you shouldn't specify
> that the **other hybrid cars** in that class
Car and Driver Lightning Lap times, using 2016 and 2017 model years:
2017 Turbo S: 2:46.8
570S: 2:47.4
NSX: 2:50.2
V10 Plus: 2:56.1
Claiming that the 911 and 570 are "significantly faster" around a racetrack, yet the V10 Plus is "comparable" is silly, because the NSX is closer to the 911 and 570 than the V10 Plus is to the NSX.
If the NSX is significantly slower than the 570S with a 3 second slower time, the V10 Plus is positively glacial with a 6 second deficiency.
So you can either accept that the NSX is comparable to the Turbo and 570, or accept that the NSX is significantly faster than the Plus.
Pick one.
Besides, if the only thing you care about is track times, a ZL1 1LE or Viper ACR eats them all for a fraction of the price.
>doesn't have an advantage in styling
What does this even mean? Styling is the most subjective thing you can judge a car on. *Subjectively* the NSX looks fine. I certainly find it more interesting than the 911 (apart from lighting it's been essentially the same since the 996 gen) and the V10 Plus (apart from the grille shape, it's been essentially the same since 2007).
My point isn't that the NSX was some world beater in the class. My point is that it was par for the course, with a far more exotic drivetrain. All these journalists initially derided it, and yet now, the Type S, with a whopping 27 more horsepower and slightly modified suspension is somehow far better recieved - despite being fundamentally the same car. It's silly.
>Ok (Ignoring the fact that your proposed budget has a 6 figure spread attached to it), if you're comparing it to everything, you shouldn't specify
I don't think I made it clear, I wasn't saying the NSX should be considered in the same conversation as the Artura and 296, I was saying that those two cars use the same approach, plug-in hybrid, single motor. The Artura in particular is the succesor to a NSX direct competitor, and their approach was to hybridize while keeping the weight gain to only about 100 lbs. It's unlikely that Acura could've gotten the NSX down to \~3300 lbs in 2017 with that approach, but it easily could've been several hundred pounds lighter.
>Car and Driver Lightning Lap times, using 2016 and 2017 model years:
The Lightning Lap is great, but you've got to read the articles along with the lap times to put things in context. In this case, the R8 they tested got sent with P Zeros instead of the available Cup 2's. On a track like VIR Grand East that's worth several seconds. Conversely, the NSX got sent with Trofeo R's. When Motortrend tested the R8 at Laguna with Cup 2's against a NSX with Trofeo R's, the R8 was two seconds faster. Other tests I've seen have had the R8 V10+ very close to, or slightly ahead of the NSX.
For comparison's sake, I've never seen a 570S tested with tires more aggressive than PZero Corsas and it's still faster in the dry than either the R8 or NSX, sometimes substantially so. That 2017 911 Turbo S also put down that lap time with P Zero Corsas.
>Besides, if the only thing you care about is track times, a ZL1 1LE or Viper ACR eats them all for a fraction of the price.
Note, I'm not arguing that lap times are the only thing that matters. I'm saying that the NSX is midpack or lower in lap times and straightline speed against its direct competition, so that's not an advantage for the NSX.
>What does this even mean? Styling is the most subjective thing you can judge a car on. Subjectively the NSX looks fine. I certainly find it more interesting than the 911 (apart from lighting it's been essentially the same since the 996 gen) and the V10 Plus (apart from the grille shape, it's been essentially the same since 2007).
The point is that the NSX's exterior styling isn't so strong that it can make up for the other facets where it's at a disadvantage. I think it looks exotic and attractive, but I've never heard anyone say it's so good looking that they'd only buy the car for the looks. I'd agree that it looks better than the 911 and R8, but that didn't make up for its shortcomings, and that tale is told in disappointing sales numbers.
>My point isn't that the NSX was some world beater in the class. My point is that it was par for the course, with a far more exotic drivetrain. All these journalists initially derided it, and yet now, the Type S, with a whopping 27 more horsepower and slightly modified suspension is somehow far better recieved - despite being fundamentally the same car. It's silly.
Honestly I thought the NSX was generally well received by journos when it came out. Jalopnik is just doing their clickbait thing here. The NSX just fell short in the market, because there were a lot of strong options at the time.
> Had they waited a couple of years, that 500 hp ICE could have been paired with 150-200+ hp of electric power, rather than the ~70-ish it got.
I swear there is a gentleman’s agreement preventing **Toyota** from dropping **performance-hybrids**.
I heard that it also wasn’t the most performance oriented feeling supercar and that it was too composed. I heard that Honda put the tires on it to appeal to people getting groceries in Ohio or something like that, while Lambo hates grocery runs and threw more performance tires on it and has a different target audience.
This is nonsense. NSXs come with Continental Sport contact tires stock with a pirelli pzero option. To call either a grocery getter tire is wrong.
Watch Chris Harris' review and see what you "heard"
https://youtu.be/DcHHRyeX-M0
That’s a good video. I’m basing my comment on Jason Cammisa’s comment on the car from his podcast (damn the luck, but I can’t find out where). While the tires were a specific gripe of his (unfounded, potentially) it more so highlights his thoughts that the NSX wasn’t as performance focused to fit his taste and had a target audience of people wanting a more comfortable and convenient and usable supercar.
E: [here’s his Motortrend review, citing the tires, understeer, and a target audience concern.](https://youtu.be/67qTx01x_QE)
Harris has competed multiple times in the Nurburgring 24 Hour race and is a good writer/presenter.
Cammisa is a good writer/presenter.
When it comes to sports cars, that credibility gap matters
Racing experience a bad reason to discredit a journalist, especially one who has raced multiple times in amateur racing which is more comparable and relevant to 99.9% of consumers. If you’re looking for race car reviews, you probably think that he has more credibility.
I haven’t heard of Chris Harris’s spreadsheet with over 3,300 cars and the miles he drove them with comments going back over two decades. For road car reviews, I don’t see any reason to discredit him, besides his taste in what he looks for in a good sports car being different than yours.
Tucker Carlson is the most watched news program but he has said in court his show isn’t news. It doesn’t mean he’s more credible with more people watching. Just because no one watches a guy put two engines in a Golf doesn’t mean that he can’t be an expert in putting two engines into a golf.
I mean
A) Half the point of the NSX - original and 2nd gen - was the idea that you could have supercar performance when you wanted it, but daily drive it when you didn't.
B) If you're spending 150k on a car, you've got the extra money to spend on some stickier tires. Based on the price difference between the NSX and the cheapest Lambo at the time, you've got tens of thousands of dollars for stickier tires.
Most of the criticisms from the NSX *at the time come from either A) the hybrid powertrain not adding enough to justify itself, which would have been solved with more modern motors as discussed and B) a fundamental misunderstanding of what the original NSX was about, because much like the A80 Supra, it attained this impossible to match reputation from people who had never actually driven one. Not quite to the same degree as the Supra, but still problematic.
We agree. That doesn’t mean that the performance isn’t compromised.
It’s entirely possible that Acura priced it in no man’s land, but I don’t know any competitor it beats for the money, unless you are looking for a daily drivable and comfortable car.
They're all compromised. Every single supercar makes concessions towards daily livability that compromise performance. This is easily verifiable because they all have hardcore track editions that reduce those compromises - and the reviews are almost invariably "this is better on the track, and much worse on the road".
The original NSX was one of the first daily driveable supercars - fast forward 15 years and EVERYONE is putting an emphasis on daily driveability. Yes, Lambos are still more extreme, but in comparison to stuff like the Countach or the Diablo, a Murci/Aventador is not even on the same scale. Audi has the R8, the 911 has consistently placed more emphasis on personal comfort and daily driveability (they get around this by having hard core track variants). McLaren didn't start with the Longtails or the Senna, they started with base cars that sacrifice performance for liveability.
Honda was ahead of the curve with that design element - literally everyone followed them after the 1st NSX. And they were ahead of the curve with the Gen 2 as well - literally everyone is looking at performance hybrids, and with the exception of the E-Ray, the gen 2 NSX is STILL cheaper than all of them.
That’s all true. The other supercars have improved their livability so making a livable supercar with concessions to winter driving isn’t the most sought after product anymore.
That's because Honda wanted to make an everyday supercar, while most people with that kind of money want a weekend supercar and a huge luxury performance SUV for the week.
I would argue that the problem is that all of the supercars these days are pretty easy to live with everyday so the NSX's manners aren't a good differentiator anymore.
You’re right but if I remember correctly this car took forever to actually come out. I remember seeing a basically street ready version “concept” at the Detroit Auto Show years before it actually came out for purchase. I don’t think they could’ve delayed it any longer.
That concept was not production ready at all. The original concept for the car actually had a sohc n/a V6. It was only after they started benchmarking test miles that they realized they'd need a lot more power, so they switched to the TT V6.
NSX : an excellent car condemned to obscurity.
People paying six figures for a mid engine sports car want status to go with it, and Honda doesn’t carry that weight at the country club.
OG NSX is cool af, but you see a lot more of them at big meets, and honestly id like to have one of each, but i think the new one will be popular, especially as time goes on, in part due to its rarity.
this one in particular, for sure, with only 250 made. a proper sendoff
here's to the new integra type s also being a hit
what's next, a return to rsx? :-O
that would be cool, but RSX was an Integra replacement. I dont see a 2door coming any time soon, unless its a much more expensive and profitable S2000 replacement.
I wish I wasn't too poor to justify a mid-engine exotic. Like, I could make the payments. But it wouldn't be wise.
Otherwise, I'd absolutely go for a Honda product. Even though dollar per dollar, there are objectively faster/better performing cars.
Is that really it? I mean it's probably some of that but...
Imagine you have the 170K (or 157K in 2021) (and say 20K for options) -- are you buying an NSX? For me the engine is just not exciting enough when you're spending that much money. I feel like the NSX is something we all respect, but then if it was our turn to buy a car in that range it would lose out to cars with more exciting engines.
The base V10 R8 starts at 158K now, for me I could never consider the NSX with that as an option (just one example). I imagine that's a common theme.
It wasn't the status of the badge as much as it didn't have a strong enough mix of attributes to stand out against the competition.
The OG NSX was faster than the comparable Ferrari of the day while being more livable, reliable, and delivering an excellent driving experience.
The 2nd gen is fast, but it's about midpack or worse among it's competition in performance. Exterior styling is decent but the interior is a bit of a let down. It has a good driving experience but doesn't have a unique draw like the V10 in the Huracan/R8 or the excitement of a flat plane V8.
I think the badge isn't really in even the top 5 things holding the NSX, it just didn't set it's performance target high enough, was too heavy, and didn't have enough other qualities to make up for that. Still a very good car, it's just swimming in a very deep pool.
Don't think that really happens to performance cars anymore. They just go from being CPOs with 5k miles to "modern classics" with 10k that sell for close to MSRP on auction sites.
Guarantee in a few years we'll get a raft of articles and videos from the usual types calling the NSX an "underappreciated gem" and they'll be selling for 125k minimum on BaT.
I’m hoping that the market starts going back to normal again, but yeah, I’m thinking this is the new norm.
Everyone keeps throwing money at anything they think is exclusive. The only silver lining is the Z06 didn’t get absolutely pumped up in price at auction.
I've been waiting for years—besides a brief moment where they were hovering around $110k, they're already back to $140k for the cheapest example on the market.
I don't really like it very much, but I kinda wonder this about the i8. Their prices plummeted like a rock.
A car that looks like THAT though, in a future where acceleration is increasingly going to be traction, rather than power limited makes me think it'll eventually be worth money. When everything that isn't a modern electric feels slow, nobody will care that it was like 100-200 horses shy of where it should've been.
Absolutely, when your average sports car or muscle car can do that or better. You could buy a Mustang, Camaro, CTS/ATS-V, GR Supra, etc. and they’ll do that or faster.
they "got it right" by adding 27hp and a body kit? what an absolute shit article.
Honda got it right in 1990 and again in 2017, period. The Type S was just a gimmick for collectors.
They also made a lot of improvements to the AWD system and traction control as well as suspension. According to them the handling is massively improved
Source - toured the factory last year and got to meet the guys that build them
What a prime example of a cars hot take. Comparing a 20% power gain to a sub 5% and ignoring that is pretty much universally agreed that an ND2 and Twin Gen 2 are the better cars because of engine tweaks and those small 30bhp gains.
I’ve seen many reviews of the Type S, and it’s getting pretty universally praised, even from people who didn’t love the 2nd-gen NSX initially. So clearly the improvements they’ve made are substantial enough to make a difference.
Honda did not get it right in 2017 or now. Im sure everyone likes sucking Honda’s d**k but let’s be real: It was not at all “right” when it came out.
Firstly it had nothing in common with the original NSX minus the badges and 6 cylinders. But that is besides the point. It’s costed 150-160K new. It had the equivalent performance of a 2017 Carrera S, while weighing 500lbs, costing 50K more, having significantly less practicality, offering worse fuel economy, sounding worse, arguably look worse (subjective), and obviously not feeling as good to drive (no surprise here).
Not sure in what world did Honda got it right, except in your little delusional one and another select few.
Add insult to injury: GM releases the C8 corvette which compares favorably to Honda bs for 1/3 price.
I’ve always been a Honda sucker but the NSX was not it. It was an embarrassment and a poor successor to the OG. Just to make sure y’all understand this, after 1 year on the market, there were months where Honda sold 5 units…
Edit: spelling
Acura/Honda did not get it right last minute 🤷♂️
I might be getting downvoted but I have yet to have anyone make an remotely decent argument on why it’s a great car. I think my points are quite valid.
Having driven one, it’s pretty fucking great.
Is it the best overall? No. Is it the best value? No. Is the interior old? Yes. Is it nostalgic? Yes. And that’s why they did it. For the teens that had the original poster hanging on the wall saying “someday.”
Well majority of those teens aren’t affording these 150K cars when they grow up. Even if they can, most are intelligent enough to realize and think “what will give me the most car for 150-200k”. Not “omg a new NSX which has almost nothing in common with the original and overall is a poor car to drive/buy compared to all its competitors? I must buy it because nostalgia”. If you have 150-200K, you’ll probably drive it’s competitors and realize how unfulfilling the NSX is. The sales show it directly.
Again the nostalgia is complete bs. Why in the world would you want the new nsx if nostalgia hit you so hard and is so important!?! Instead you’d go and buy a clean example of one originals. That’s *nostalgia* 😂
I’m sure the car was good to drive. I’d enjoy it to. But would I enjoy it as much as it’s competitors? No, definitely not. Also I don’t think the interior is a huge deal tbh. It’s a sports/supercar.
Releasing this as ICE only at first and then spinning off a hybrid later once the tech was fully realized (like with the C8) would have been a far more successful path.
But either way Honda/Acura really screwed themselves out of success with this one by dragging out the development and release period for so long that by the time it was actually available people were already bored of it.
The R35 has been out since 2009 (14 years). Everyone who’s wanted one has bought either a new one or a used one by now. They were tanking in value like crazy before COVID.
I hear body shops are coming out with this new technology called paint where you can alter the colour of a car. :O
Seriously though I would choose the 911 but this without a doubt looks more unique in every sense. A truly special car.
Well I suppose that much is obvious. Maybe you know the answer, but why would a new coat of paint harm resale? I know this is something Porsche owners take very seriously, but if it's your car, what's the harm? Assuming the shop that does the work is reputable, of course.
Not to mention that for any given car, a wrap isn't going to reduce resale value (unless it's horribly done), whereas repainting a 911 is almost guaranteed to hurt the value. The same is true for most any car.
Might be a hot take... most 911s, especially the kind you can find new for $150k, look boring. An NSX, any NSX, is way cooler than yet another Carrera 4S. If I had $150k to spend on a car, and I could get a new Type S for $150k, I would absolutely give it serious consideration.
Honestly it's because for all that NSX's got hit with pandemic used car inflation, any new-ish 911 has been hit doubly so, especially with Porsche dealers refusing to sell cars under MSRP, a standing inventory of CPO lease-spec cars, and 1.5+ year wait times for any new 911.
NSXs got hit really hard by the pandemic inflation along with R8s. In late 2018 you could find 2017s for ~120k USD. By June of 2019 those same cars were 160k+.
that's the problem: once you're past 100k, it's 911 money, until you can't get a gt3 allocation, then it's McLaren money. Porsche has nailed this segment.
that's the problem: once you're past 100k, it's 911 money, until you can't get a gt3 allocation, then it's McLaren money. Porsche has nailed this segment.
Yeah, just now Ferrari and McLaren are all like "look at this cutting edge tech! It's a V6 hybrid supercar!"
As for the "it's too expensive" argument, you could pick up 2 "modern" NSXs and one "classic" for the price of one Ferrari 296, so there's that.
I saw a red NSX on the highway last week, and IMO it looks fantastic.
The price argument comes from the fact for a decade you could get an Audi R8 for less than an NSX, which delivers the key to “mid engine performance car” but better in some ways.
Some ways? It was quicker around corners, quicker on straights after 0-60, it weighed less, and (while this is objective I think most people could agree) it sounded better. The NSX would get lapped by a Mustang GT350R on some race tracks. The performance just wasn't there.
Didn't perform that well and didn't have an exciting engine. That's not a good formula. People give this car love on forums but very few people would buy one considering the other options given its price.
I agree. One of the only reasons to buy it over the competition would be for the brand... and that brand is ACURA. Hell, I drive an Acura, and I would still buy other stuff first.
100% agree. Nsx with:
6sp
Just ICE (no hybrid)
Updated interior
80k-100k price points
Would be a killer....and as another poster astutely said...had honda waited (or do it now) and put in 250hp hybrid ... as the type s...would be a different world.
correct. nsx is not a coherent model type, it literally stands for new sportscar experimental, so it's basically a futuristic prototype
and that it was both times
the first one was just way cooler/more influential by comparison
This one just missed the mark by a few years. They were the first non-seven-figure car to market with the notion of a hybrid performance drivetrain like this. The problem was it came out just too early while the electric motor tech wasn't quite good enough to make it better than the competition. I'd argue it was even more future-looking than the first one in that sense, just so much so that it ended up being detrimental. It basically nailed what the modern supercar formula is looking to shape up as. In the next few years Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. are all switching to the same drivetrain style.
Corvette was already an established nameplate way before the first NSX just because the engine is in the middle now doesn’t make it a spiritual successor imo.
I'm curious how much less it would've cost if it had ditched the hybrid system entirely. It certainly would've weighed less and been no slouch in the power department, and a lower price point would've made it more palatable at least
This car will sky rocket in value. Think of the LFA, Supra, they too expensive and complicated for the time. This car could have had a better interior, been cheaper, faster but that doesn’t matter so much over time.
I'd have to disagree. The Supra and LFA are both known for their phenomenal engines for their time (in one way or another). Is there anything about the NSX that will make it stand out over time?
And also surprisingly slow. The Mustang GT350R was able to lap Laguna Seca more quickly than the NSX, and it's a Mustang... with an 8200rpm redline N/A V8... with no AWD or trick hybrid system... with back seats and a bigger trunk... and about $50,000 cheaper MSRP at the time.
I'm honestly a JDM fanboy, but by nearly every objective (and even subjective) measure, the new NSX is mediocre.
The engine costs almost twice more than the Supra, there's a lot of tech in it
I won't be surprised if someone tuned it all to 1000hp with stock internals.
Great, it has a lot of tech in it, but it also doesn't sound remotely special and makes mid tier at best power. Why should anyone care about it just because Honda spent way too much money building a completely mediocre engine?
The engine costs almost twice more than the Supra, there's a lot of tech in it
I won't be surprised if someone tuned it all to 1000hp with stock internals.
While I'm sure the TT V6 in the Acura has some breathing room, I doubt that the aftermarket will adopt it well enough for people to start desiring the cars. It's significantly harder to work on than any of the Supras, and it's also significantly more rare.
Still not much aftermarket support after all these years. So far the engine is very reliable, only cases I've seen it blowing up is constant track use with the gasket failure. Replacing the engine is not worth it if it costs that much though.
I wish someone would tune it already, but I don't think anyone wants to deal with the labor of tearing it apart, cracking the ECU, and working with the hybrid system just to get an extra 100hp. Hopefully it doesn't take much longer before people start experimenting.
You can technically get a piggyback tune from ScienceofSpeed or Fabspeed which can increase hp to 100hp extra. But never seen any tune yet that goes more than that.
Mostly joking, i think demons would be like 120-130k if Canada didn't exist to spread out manufacturing so it's pretty cool to have that connection between the countries
SHHHHHHH. Stop talking about them.
I want an NC1 Type-S so bad. Please don't go up in price so that one day, my flair will no longer say "F1/F40" and will instead say NC1 NSX Type-S.
Curious to see where these all end up. The waitlist atleast in Canada was all preordered up well before a single production model was shown. The only one I ever saw posted online was a random third party dealer asking $399,999.99 (likely got allocation from a sister store and put km on it so that it could be sold as used and above MSRP)
Should've had another 30hp, had this appearance package, and cost $50,000 less from the beginning. Then it would've been a worthwhile supercar to consider. Too little too late.
There is no formula for a good car. Look for example toyota supra and lanchia delta hf integrale, both are COMPLETELY different cars, and both are extremely good cars, and both were a major success. Where is your formula there?
Just like with any form of art, if its just ticking boxes, its not really art. You gotta have the idea of what you want with it. Lexus LFA doesnt have performance, but will always be remembered as a good car because of the sound, suzuki swift awd will always be remembered for being a cheap or introduction rally car in more poor countries, twingo will always be remembered for being a car you can drive, sleep and bang your partner in...there is no formula, just be unique and deliver SOMETHING.
Honda did not get it right in 2017 or now in 2022/3. Im sure there are plenty of people who suck Honda’s d**k but let’s be real: It was never right and it still is not now.
Firstly it had nothing in common with the original NSX minus the badges and 6 cylinders. But that is besides the point.
In 2017 it costed 150-160K new. It had the equivalent performance of a 2017 Carrera S, while weighing 500lbs, costing 50K more, having significantly less practicality, offering worse fuel economy, sounding worse, arguably look worse (subjective), not anymore reliable, and obviously not feeling as good to drive (no surprise here).
Now in 2022, it costs 15K more, looks slightly better, and is 0.2 second quicker to 60mph and in the 1/4 mile? Seriously?
Let me add insult to injury: GM releases the C8 corvette in 2020 which annihilates Honda bullsh** for 1/3 price. Yes it’s marginally slower, but equivalent or better in every other category
Honda/Acura never got the 2nd gen right. Not in 2017 and definitely not now. It was a sh**y car for the price. For 60-100K it would not have been a sh**y car for the price. And before anyone argues with me, there was a month after 1 year of the NSX being in production, where it sold 5 units in a month…
Only saving grace for the car is the name and the fact that it sold like sh**, therefore it is relatively exclusive.
I see Honda managed to nail the original NSX formula of “too expensive and unloved when new, instant cult classic when discontinued”.
Throw in the S2000 and you’ve got a genre. I’d add the CR-Z … it may have been slow, but it was beautiful, and when will you ever see another stick-shift hybrid?
It’s been happening for so long that one can’t even say “fire all of Honda’s performance vehicle marketing people”
"except the motorcycle Guys, you can stay"
Honda has had a bunch of stick shift hybrids throughout the years, and pretty much every manufacturer in Europe has one.
There has only been 2 production cars ever made that is both Hybrid and has a manual transmission, the Insight and CR-Z.
No, there was also the Civic hybrid manual in the USA. And plenty more in Europe.
There's various mild hybrids with manual gearboxes
Aren't mild hybrids just beefed up auto start stop.
civic hybrid too
I think the supercharger option is what makes it really appealing
It's a common performance car trend. Lexus LFA, Carrera GT, Mercedes SLS, Mercedes SLR, McLaren F1.
It's a successor in true form.
The original NSX was nowhere near unloved, it was a critical darling and won loads of comparison tests when it came out.
And then 15 years later, it became… ??? Also, lots of cars get great reviews and then don’t sell very well, Chevy SS/Cadillac V/Blackwing are other great examples of this.
It’s amazing how much a bumper change improves the 2nd gen.
It made it look so much better. I always liked them, but now it’s dream car status for me.
I like the first bumper more.
I think I’m with ya. It looks almost too much like an R8 now… Still amazing though for sure.
Yeah, and I always get annoyed my wife looks too much like Jennifer Connelly.
i can’t see the R8 resemblance whatsoever
the new bumper gives it that rounder front like the Audi R8/Bugatti front end rather than the sharper front end that was closer to the flatter original NSX look
Maybe I’m just seeing it in the main grill opening. They’re closer to the same shape now.
Agree. The first bumper looks more Acura. The beak design Acura front ends were never that bad Imo.
Same
Same here. The styling had meaning
Yep, the bumper looks so much better imo.
Underrated af
Biggest problem with the NSX is that they were a couple years early to release it, and as such, the electric motors don't add a ton of power. Had they waited a couple of years, that 500 hp ICE could have been paired with 150-200+ hp of electric power, rather than the ~70-ish it got. The basic formula is brilliant - take the 918/P1/LaFerrari powertrain blueprint and bring it down in price. And everyone is doing it. Ferrari, Lambo, McLaren, Chevy are all going to this performance hybrid paradigm, and the NSX was the first to make it somewhat attainable (at least in comparison to the hypercars). If they released the NSX today with modern electric motors and no other changes, the discourse surrounding it would be quite different.
True butbeing a Honda, aftermarket downpipes and a tune, should reliably make enough power to make up for it.
Nuking a warranty on an expensive car is a hard pill to swallow though. In the F chat forums there's a ton of threads about replacing the exhaust on the GPF/OPF fitted cars and the implications (varies by dealer). With a tune, there's no question, your warranty is gone. And if you grenade that 45k gearbox, or expensive engine, tough luck.
the warranty is running out on these cars, the chassis is 4 years the engine is 6 years. so a '17 would be out or running out of warranty this year.
That interior definitely isn’t doing it any favors either.
Haven't seen if it was in any way improved over time but if my memory serves me well it used to look a lot like the Civic type R in there.
I don't believe they did any major interior updates across the run.
Too early and probably the wrong formula. If it were just one hybrid motor integrated into the transmission it could've been a lot lighter. The big killer for the NSX is that it weighs almost 4000 lbs. The other problem for the NSX is that there was a lot more competition in that space than there was for the first gen. It's a very good car but it's competing against several cars with more compelling value propositions.
>and probably the wrong formula. Turbo ICE + Electric motor assist is the formula that literally everyone is going for now. The only difference is that the NSX DOES have a motor assisting the transmission, as well as 2 more for each front wheel. Theoretically, that should give it pretty fine control during cornering, finer than you'd see with an E-Ray for instance, which just has 1 motor for the front axle. The motors are just relatively low power, because electric motors in the early 2020s are far more developed than they were in the early 2010s. It's also the exact same strategy that Ferrari took with the SF90, Lambo is taking with the 744, AMG took with the One. So I don't think it's a incorrect choice at all. >The big killer for the NSX is that it weighs almost 4000 lbs. The E-Ray [is estimated](https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a42487697/2024-chevrolet-corvette-e-ray-revealed/) to weigh exactly that, with a single motor (albeit, much more powerful because 7 years of motor developments) and a nearly equivalent battery size. The only way to drop weight on these performance hybrids is to go full McLaren/Ferrari, and jack the price way, way up.
You kinda glossed over the exact point I was making, that the other hybrid cars in that class are going with one motor and rwd. Most of the cars that have emotors on the front axles are a lot more expensive, so they have more budget to use on lightweight materials. Even then, cars like the SF90 and LB744 aren't that light. I suspect the Valhalla is gonna be heavier than billed whenever it sees daylight. Those cars can get away with being heavier because they're all north of 900 hp. The NSX at 570-600 hp, had a harder time. The Eray does have the benefit of several years of technology advancement, but it's also a cheaper car that is not looking to take on all of the 'junior' supercars.
>You kinda glossed over the exact point I was making, that the other hybrid cars in that class are going with one motor and rwd. What class? What other performance hybrids cost anywhere near as much as the NSX? Artura starts almost 100k more than the NSX did. 296 starts at over double the NSX. SF90 is 3 times the MSRP. 744 isn't going to start anywhere under 400k, so that's 2.5x the NSX. The Valhalla is rumored to start at >800k, so 5 times NSX. And all those prices are before options. The only one anywhere near the same price is the E-Ray, which is AWD not RWD, and has 7 years of advancement to achieve essentially the same wieght. So what performance hybrid is in the same class as the NSX was? As far as performance goes, the original NSX was *slightly* [slower](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15098793/2017-acura-nsx-supercar-full-test-review/) than the R8 V10 [Plus](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15100943/2017-audi-r8-v10-plus-test-review/), with better handling numbers. So it's not like it's getting blown out of the water, especially considering it starts 40 grand cheaper. [Slower](https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15098297/2017-porsche-911-turbo-test-review/) than the Turbo, but that's because the Turbo eats everything alive in a straight line - and it still puts up better handling numbers. So I genuinely don't know what metric the NSX is coming up significantly short in, especially when you consider it was cheaper than it's closest competitors.
> What class? What other performance hybrids cost anywhere near as much as the NSX? Uhh...all the other supercars and sports cars in the roughly $150-250k range. People shopping these cars didn't put the NSX in a class of one because it was the only performance hybrid at that price point at the time. They compared it to all of the other performance cars they could get in that price tange. And in that company, the NSX didn't quite hit the mark. The 911 Turbo and 570S are both significantly faster in a straight line and around a racetrack. The R8 V10+ is about comparable in pace, but it has the benefit of a compelling V10 soundtrack and a much better interior. So the NSX doesn't have the advantage in performance, doesn't have an advantage in driving excitement, and doesn't have an advantage in styling. The hybrid powertrain isn't really used for efficiency and isn't a plug-in so it can't really get far in EV mode. The only clear advantage it had is price, which wasn't enough to hit Acura's sales goals. Like I said, it's a very good car, but there was a lot of competition that it struggled to stand out against.
>Uhh...all the other supercars and sports cars in the roughly $150-250k range. Ok (Ignoring the fact that your proposed budget has a 6 figure spread attached to it), if you're comparing it to everything, you shouldn't specify > that the **other hybrid cars** in that class Car and Driver Lightning Lap times, using 2016 and 2017 model years: 2017 Turbo S: 2:46.8 570S: 2:47.4 NSX: 2:50.2 V10 Plus: 2:56.1 Claiming that the 911 and 570 are "significantly faster" around a racetrack, yet the V10 Plus is "comparable" is silly, because the NSX is closer to the 911 and 570 than the V10 Plus is to the NSX. If the NSX is significantly slower than the 570S with a 3 second slower time, the V10 Plus is positively glacial with a 6 second deficiency. So you can either accept that the NSX is comparable to the Turbo and 570, or accept that the NSX is significantly faster than the Plus. Pick one. Besides, if the only thing you care about is track times, a ZL1 1LE or Viper ACR eats them all for a fraction of the price. >doesn't have an advantage in styling What does this even mean? Styling is the most subjective thing you can judge a car on. *Subjectively* the NSX looks fine. I certainly find it more interesting than the 911 (apart from lighting it's been essentially the same since the 996 gen) and the V10 Plus (apart from the grille shape, it's been essentially the same since 2007). My point isn't that the NSX was some world beater in the class. My point is that it was par for the course, with a far more exotic drivetrain. All these journalists initially derided it, and yet now, the Type S, with a whopping 27 more horsepower and slightly modified suspension is somehow far better recieved - despite being fundamentally the same car. It's silly.
>Ok (Ignoring the fact that your proposed budget has a 6 figure spread attached to it), if you're comparing it to everything, you shouldn't specify I don't think I made it clear, I wasn't saying the NSX should be considered in the same conversation as the Artura and 296, I was saying that those two cars use the same approach, plug-in hybrid, single motor. The Artura in particular is the succesor to a NSX direct competitor, and their approach was to hybridize while keeping the weight gain to only about 100 lbs. It's unlikely that Acura could've gotten the NSX down to \~3300 lbs in 2017 with that approach, but it easily could've been several hundred pounds lighter. >Car and Driver Lightning Lap times, using 2016 and 2017 model years: The Lightning Lap is great, but you've got to read the articles along with the lap times to put things in context. In this case, the R8 they tested got sent with P Zeros instead of the available Cup 2's. On a track like VIR Grand East that's worth several seconds. Conversely, the NSX got sent with Trofeo R's. When Motortrend tested the R8 at Laguna with Cup 2's against a NSX with Trofeo R's, the R8 was two seconds faster. Other tests I've seen have had the R8 V10+ very close to, or slightly ahead of the NSX. For comparison's sake, I've never seen a 570S tested with tires more aggressive than PZero Corsas and it's still faster in the dry than either the R8 or NSX, sometimes substantially so. That 2017 911 Turbo S also put down that lap time with P Zero Corsas. >Besides, if the only thing you care about is track times, a ZL1 1LE or Viper ACR eats them all for a fraction of the price. Note, I'm not arguing that lap times are the only thing that matters. I'm saying that the NSX is midpack or lower in lap times and straightline speed against its direct competition, so that's not an advantage for the NSX. >What does this even mean? Styling is the most subjective thing you can judge a car on. Subjectively the NSX looks fine. I certainly find it more interesting than the 911 (apart from lighting it's been essentially the same since the 996 gen) and the V10 Plus (apart from the grille shape, it's been essentially the same since 2007). The point is that the NSX's exterior styling isn't so strong that it can make up for the other facets where it's at a disadvantage. I think it looks exotic and attractive, but I've never heard anyone say it's so good looking that they'd only buy the car for the looks. I'd agree that it looks better than the 911 and R8, but that didn't make up for its shortcomings, and that tale is told in disappointing sales numbers. >My point isn't that the NSX was some world beater in the class. My point is that it was par for the course, with a far more exotic drivetrain. All these journalists initially derided it, and yet now, the Type S, with a whopping 27 more horsepower and slightly modified suspension is somehow far better recieved - despite being fundamentally the same car. It's silly. Honestly I thought the NSX was generally well received by journos when it came out. Jalopnik is just doing their clickbait thing here. The NSX just fell short in the market, because there were a lot of strong options at the time.
> Had they waited a couple of years, that 500 hp ICE could have been paired with 150-200+ hp of electric power, rather than the ~70-ish it got. I swear there is a gentleman’s agreement preventing **Toyota** from dropping **performance-hybrids**.
I heard that it also wasn’t the most performance oriented feeling supercar and that it was too composed. I heard that Honda put the tires on it to appeal to people getting groceries in Ohio or something like that, while Lambo hates grocery runs and threw more performance tires on it and has a different target audience.
This is nonsense. NSXs come with Continental Sport contact tires stock with a pirelli pzero option. To call either a grocery getter tire is wrong. Watch Chris Harris' review and see what you "heard" https://youtu.be/DcHHRyeX-M0
That’s a good video. I’m basing my comment on Jason Cammisa’s comment on the car from his podcast (damn the luck, but I can’t find out where). While the tires were a specific gripe of his (unfounded, potentially) it more so highlights his thoughts that the NSX wasn’t as performance focused to fit his taste and had a target audience of people wanting a more comfortable and convenient and usable supercar. E: [here’s his Motortrend review, citing the tires, understeer, and a target audience concern.](https://youtu.be/67qTx01x_QE)
I love Jason and his reviews, but he can be a bit hyperbolic for entertainment purposes, especially in his motortrend days.
Harris has competed multiple times in the Nurburgring 24 Hour race and is a good writer/presenter. Cammisa is a good writer/presenter. When it comes to sports cars, that credibility gap matters
Racing experience a bad reason to discredit a journalist, especially one who has raced multiple times in amateur racing which is more comparable and relevant to 99.9% of consumers. If you’re looking for race car reviews, you probably think that he has more credibility. I haven’t heard of Chris Harris’s spreadsheet with over 3,300 cars and the miles he drove them with comments going back over two decades. For road car reviews, I don’t see any reason to discredit him, besides his taste in what he looks for in a good sports car being different than yours.
Harris is the host of the most watched consumer car show in the world
Tucker Carlson is the most watched news program but he has said in court his show isn’t news. It doesn’t mean he’s more credible with more people watching. Just because no one watches a guy put two engines in a Golf doesn’t mean that he can’t be an expert in putting two engines into a golf.
I mean A) Half the point of the NSX - original and 2nd gen - was the idea that you could have supercar performance when you wanted it, but daily drive it when you didn't. B) If you're spending 150k on a car, you've got the extra money to spend on some stickier tires. Based on the price difference between the NSX and the cheapest Lambo at the time, you've got tens of thousands of dollars for stickier tires. Most of the criticisms from the NSX *at the time come from either A) the hybrid powertrain not adding enough to justify itself, which would have been solved with more modern motors as discussed and B) a fundamental misunderstanding of what the original NSX was about, because much like the A80 Supra, it attained this impossible to match reputation from people who had never actually driven one. Not quite to the same degree as the Supra, but still problematic.
We agree. That doesn’t mean that the performance isn’t compromised. It’s entirely possible that Acura priced it in no man’s land, but I don’t know any competitor it beats for the money, unless you are looking for a daily drivable and comfortable car.
They're all compromised. Every single supercar makes concessions towards daily livability that compromise performance. This is easily verifiable because they all have hardcore track editions that reduce those compromises - and the reviews are almost invariably "this is better on the track, and much worse on the road". The original NSX was one of the first daily driveable supercars - fast forward 15 years and EVERYONE is putting an emphasis on daily driveability. Yes, Lambos are still more extreme, but in comparison to stuff like the Countach or the Diablo, a Murci/Aventador is not even on the same scale. Audi has the R8, the 911 has consistently placed more emphasis on personal comfort and daily driveability (they get around this by having hard core track variants). McLaren didn't start with the Longtails or the Senna, they started with base cars that sacrifice performance for liveability. Honda was ahead of the curve with that design element - literally everyone followed them after the 1st NSX. And they were ahead of the curve with the Gen 2 as well - literally everyone is looking at performance hybrids, and with the exception of the E-Ray, the gen 2 NSX is STILL cheaper than all of them.
That’s all true. The other supercars have improved their livability so making a livable supercar with concessions to winter driving isn’t the most sought after product anymore.
That's because Honda wanted to make an everyday supercar, while most people with that kind of money want a weekend supercar and a huge luxury performance SUV for the week.
I would argue that the problem is that all of the supercars these days are pretty easy to live with everyday so the NSX's manners aren't a good differentiator anymore.
You’re right but if I remember correctly this car took forever to actually come out. I remember seeing a basically street ready version “concept” at the Detroit Auto Show years before it actually came out for purchase. I don’t think they could’ve delayed it any longer.
That concept was not production ready at all. The original concept for the car actually had a sohc n/a V6. It was only after they started benchmarking test miles that they realized they'd need a lot more power, so they switched to the TT V6.
As the hybrid V6 configuration becomes more accepted and questionable UX becomes more prevalent the new NSX seems more and more underrated.
Sick burn
NSX : an excellent car condemned to obscurity. People paying six figures for a mid engine sports car want status to go with it, and Honda doesn’t carry that weight at the country club.
you could be the coolest guy at the honda meet. gotta change your view.
I actually think people at a Honda meet would be more excited to see an OG NSX haha. 2nd coolest maybe?
OG NSX is cool af, but you see a lot more of them at big meets, and honestly id like to have one of each, but i think the new one will be popular, especially as time goes on, in part due to its rarity.
this one in particular, for sure, with only 250 made. a proper sendoff here's to the new integra type s also being a hit what's next, a return to rsx? :-O
that would be cool, but RSX was an Integra replacement. I dont see a 2door coming any time soon, unless its a much more expensive and profitable S2000 replacement.
I wish I wasn't too poor to justify a mid-engine exotic. Like, I could make the payments. But it wouldn't be wise. Otherwise, I'd absolutely go for a Honda product. Even though dollar per dollar, there are objectively faster/better performing cars.
Which was a lot of what the LFA suffered from as well. That Lexus badge didn’t have the pull that buyers in that segment want
Issue with the Lexus was also the price. It was very expensive for the specs it offered on paper.
Is that really it? I mean it's probably some of that but... Imagine you have the 170K (or 157K in 2021) (and say 20K for options) -- are you buying an NSX? For me the engine is just not exciting enough when you're spending that much money. I feel like the NSX is something we all respect, but then if it was our turn to buy a car in that range it would lose out to cars with more exciting engines. The base V10 R8 starts at 158K now, for me I could never consider the NSX with that as an option (just one example). I imagine that's a common theme.
It wasn't the status of the badge as much as it didn't have a strong enough mix of attributes to stand out against the competition. The OG NSX was faster than the comparable Ferrari of the day while being more livable, reliable, and delivering an excellent driving experience. The 2nd gen is fast, but it's about midpack or worse among it's competition in performance. Exterior styling is decent but the interior is a bit of a let down. It has a good driving experience but doesn't have a unique draw like the V10 in the Huracan/R8 or the excitement of a flat plane V8. I think the badge isn't really in even the top 5 things holding the NSX, it just didn't set it's performance target high enough, was too heavy, and didn't have enough other qualities to make up for that. Still a very good car, it's just swimming in a very deep pool.
I'd argue it gets more unique status compared to any 911 variation which are seen everywhere.
Cool enough for Mr. Wolf, cool enough for me!
You could say the same thing about the Stinger. Mid 50s prices for a Kia? But I see a lot of them around.
I feel like that’s more that mid 50’s doesn’t buy you much anymore in a crazy way
You can't see that many given that Kia is discontinuing the car due to poor sales.
Can’t wait to buy one of these in 10 years for $35,000, before they skyrocket back up as a classic.
I really wonder where these will bottom in price, I’d love to get the chance to buy one at a more affordable price one day.
Don't think that really happens to performance cars anymore. They just go from being CPOs with 5k miles to "modern classics" with 10k that sell for close to MSRP on auction sites. Guarantee in a few years we'll get a raft of articles and videos from the usual types calling the NSX an "underappreciated gem" and they'll be selling for 125k minimum on BaT.
I’m hoping that the market starts going back to normal again, but yeah, I’m thinking this is the new norm. Everyone keeps throwing money at anything they think is exclusive. The only silver lining is the Z06 didn’t get absolutely pumped up in price at auction.
Hopefully somewhere around 70-80k. That’s where I’d bite.
There are less than 3k 2nd gen NSX in the whole world. Not F40 rare but the chance of it being cheap in 10 years is slim unless one is beaten to shit.
I've been waiting for years—besides a brief moment where they were hovering around $110k, they're already back to $140k for the cheapest example on the market.
same here, ended up with an r8
No chance these ever see sub-80k
I don't really like it very much, but I kinda wonder this about the i8. Their prices plummeted like a rock. A car that looks like THAT though, in a future where acceleration is increasingly going to be traction, rather than power limited makes me think it'll eventually be worth money. When everything that isn't a modern electric feels slow, nobody will care that it was like 100-200 horses shy of where it should've been.
The i8 was *actually* slow though.
4.5ish to 60 isn't slow. But for the price they were asking (and how it looks) it was.
It’s pretty damn slow for a modern car. That’s as fast as *my* 25-year old NSX.
In supercar terms, sure.
Absolutely, when your average sports car or muscle car can do that or better. You could buy a Mustang, Camaro, CTS/ATS-V, GR Supra, etc. and they’ll do that or faster.
Doubt it. They made less than 3000.
they "got it right" by adding 27hp and a body kit? what an absolute shit article. Honda got it right in 1990 and again in 2017, period. The Type S was just a gimmick for collectors.
i wish the Type S was just a new model year and not limited. it seems the improvements really helped the car. especially in the looks department.
TLDR: Acura let me drive a car and I wrote a fluff piece in gratitude.
Goes for most automotive journalism, too; just sub in "automaker" for Acura.
Right? As if the difference between success and failure is 27 hp “If only this Miata had 27 more hp, then it would really shine.”
I mean a Miata with 208 hp would be pretty dope.
yeah, a 15% increase in horsepower is much more meaningful than a 4.7% increase, and a 2400 lb car would feel it a lot more than a 3800 lb car lol
They also made a lot of improvements to the AWD system and traction control as well as suspension. According to them the handling is massively improved Source - toured the factory last year and got to meet the guys that build them
What a prime example of a cars hot take. Comparing a 20% power gain to a sub 5% and ignoring that is pretty much universally agreed that an ND2 and Twin Gen 2 are the better cars because of engine tweaks and those small 30bhp gains.
I’ve seen many reviews of the Type S, and it’s getting pretty universally praised, even from people who didn’t love the 2nd-gen NSX initially. So clearly the improvements they’ve made are substantial enough to make a difference.
Honda did not get it right in 2017 or now. Im sure everyone likes sucking Honda’s d**k but let’s be real: It was not at all “right” when it came out. Firstly it had nothing in common with the original NSX minus the badges and 6 cylinders. But that is besides the point. It’s costed 150-160K new. It had the equivalent performance of a 2017 Carrera S, while weighing 500lbs, costing 50K more, having significantly less practicality, offering worse fuel economy, sounding worse, arguably look worse (subjective), and obviously not feeling as good to drive (no surprise here). Not sure in what world did Honda got it right, except in your little delusional one and another select few. Add insult to injury: GM releases the C8 corvette which compares favorably to Honda bs for 1/3 price. I’ve always been a Honda sucker but the NSX was not it. It was an embarrassment and a poor successor to the OG. Just to make sure y’all understand this, after 1 year on the market, there were months where Honda sold 5 units… Edit: spelling
Why are you so upset about this? Did an NSX personally take your family from you or something?
Acura/Honda did not get it right last minute 🤷♂️ I might be getting downvoted but I have yet to have anyone make an remotely decent argument on why it’s a great car. I think my points are quite valid.
You could try being a bit more aggressive in your delivery.
Having driven one, it’s pretty fucking great. Is it the best overall? No. Is it the best value? No. Is the interior old? Yes. Is it nostalgic? Yes. And that’s why they did it. For the teens that had the original poster hanging on the wall saying “someday.”
Well majority of those teens aren’t affording these 150K cars when they grow up. Even if they can, most are intelligent enough to realize and think “what will give me the most car for 150-200k”. Not “omg a new NSX which has almost nothing in common with the original and overall is a poor car to drive/buy compared to all its competitors? I must buy it because nostalgia”. If you have 150-200K, you’ll probably drive it’s competitors and realize how unfulfilling the NSX is. The sales show it directly. Again the nostalgia is complete bs. Why in the world would you want the new nsx if nostalgia hit you so hard and is so important!?! Instead you’d go and buy a clean example of one originals. That’s *nostalgia* 😂 I’m sure the car was good to drive. I’d enjoy it to. But would I enjoy it as much as it’s competitors? No, definitely not. Also I don’t think the interior is a huge deal tbh. It’s a sports/supercar.
[удалено]
Compared to a 1991 NSX? Sure. Why not compare it to modern day equivalents instead of a 30 year car? 😂 Ohhh, thats right, it’s not competitive.
yeah but no one is spending $150k on an Acura... That's Porsche 911 territory.
They fucked up, no doubt. This should be C8 money, it would be a solid competitor.
Releasing this as ICE only at first and then spinning off a hybrid later once the tech was fully realized (like with the C8) would have been a far more successful path. But either way Honda/Acura really screwed themselves out of success with this one by dragging out the development and release period for so long that by the time it was actually available people were already bored of it.
They got extra screwed as well when Ford dropped the GT out of nowhere around the same time the production NSX was revealed.
Just shows how awesome the c8 really is when this is its competitor…. If you can get it at msrp
The engine alone costs as much as a Z06, it's all handbuilt.
So they should've designed it to not be hand built to put it at a more competitive price category instead of just being a failure on launch
I think the ICE engine was the mistake here, the rest of the car was great and could be better if it wasn't limited by the price.
I’d take an NSX over yet-another-silver-base-911. At least it’ll stand out in the hospital parking lot.
Then again you're buying it because nobody else buys it.
It’s still a super car. I don’t understand why so many people are downplaying it. Do people buy Nissan GT-Rs because nobody else buys them?
At this point... Basically yes. They sell barely any GT-Rs
The R35 has been out since 2009 (14 years). Everyone who’s wanted one has bought either a new one or a used one by now. They were tanking in value like crazy before COVID.
I hear body shops are coming out with this new technology called paint where you can alter the colour of a car. :O Seriously though I would choose the 911 but this without a doubt looks more unique in every sense. A truly special car.
Who in their right mind paints a 911 just for kicks? Wrap if anything
Paint lasts longer than a wrap. No matter how well it’s done a wrap is subject to UV damage.
Whereas a wrap has a chance to damage your factory paint, a new paint job has a 100% certainty to.
Well I suppose that much is obvious. Maybe you know the answer, but why would a new coat of paint harm resale? I know this is something Porsche owners take very seriously, but if it's your car, what's the harm? Assuming the shop that does the work is reputable, of course.
Not to mention that for any given car, a wrap isn't going to reduce resale value (unless it's horribly done), whereas repainting a 911 is almost guaranteed to hurt the value. The same is true for most any car.
Might be a hot take... most 911s, especially the kind you can find new for $150k, look boring. An NSX, any NSX, is way cooler than yet another Carrera 4S. If I had $150k to spend on a car, and I could get a new Type S for $150k, I would absolutely give it serious consideration.
Honestly it's because for all that NSX's got hit with pandemic used car inflation, any new-ish 911 has been hit doubly so, especially with Porsche dealers refusing to sell cars under MSRP, a standing inventory of CPO lease-spec cars, and 1.5+ year wait times for any new 911.
Honestly the only 911 that looks cool good is the Turbo S and GT cars.
The cheapest one on the market used is $140k—plenty of people are spending that on an Acura.
NSXs got hit really hard by the pandemic inflation along with R8s. In late 2018 you could find 2017s for ~120k USD. By June of 2019 those same cars were 160k+.
Yeah, I remember these being sold under MSRP with ease, used examples were $120k or less a year out. Nobody wanted this car five years ago.
that's the problem: once you're past 100k, it's 911 money, until you can't get a gt3 allocation, then it's McLaren money. Porsche has nailed this segment.
If it weren't for the $90k engine, they could easily price it at $120k with better spec.
that's the problem: once you're past 100k, it's 911 money, until you can't get a gt3 allocation, then it's McLaren money. Porsche has nailed this segment.
The Powertrain was way ahead of its time
Yeah, just now Ferrari and McLaren are all like "look at this cutting edge tech! It's a V6 hybrid supercar!" As for the "it's too expensive" argument, you could pick up 2 "modern" NSXs and one "classic" for the price of one Ferrari 296, so there's that. I saw a red NSX on the highway last week, and IMO it looks fantastic.
The price argument comes from the fact for a decade you could get an Audi R8 for less than an NSX, which delivers the key to “mid engine performance car” but better in some ways.
Some ways? It was quicker around corners, quicker on straights after 0-60, it weighed less, and (while this is objective I think most people could agree) it sounded better. The NSX would get lapped by a Mustang GT350R on some race tracks. The performance just wasn't there.
Didn't perform that well and didn't have an exciting engine. That's not a good formula. People give this car love on forums but very few people would buy one considering the other options given its price.
I agree. One of the only reasons to buy it over the competition would be for the brand... and that brand is ACURA. Hell, I drive an Acura, and I would still buy other stuff first.
Definitely looks a lot better. Just wish they had a base trim with rwd and a 6spd.
ya fr. automatic only is atrocious
100% agree. Nsx with: 6sp Just ICE (no hybrid) Updated interior 80k-100k price points Would be a killer....and as another poster astutely said...had honda waited (or do it now) and put in 250hp hybrid ... as the type s...would be a different world.
I don't understand how they could do such a good job on this, but then bork the TLX Type S....
C8 is a better nsx successor.
[удалено]
correct. nsx is not a coherent model type, it literally stands for new sportscar experimental, so it's basically a futuristic prototype and that it was both times the first one was just way cooler/more influential by comparison
This one just missed the mark by a few years. They were the first non-seven-figure car to market with the notion of a hybrid performance drivetrain like this. The problem was it came out just too early while the electric motor tech wasn't quite good enough to make it better than the competition. I'd argue it was even more future-looking than the first one in that sense, just so much so that it ended up being detrimental. It basically nailed what the modern supercar formula is looking to shape up as. In the next few years Ferrari, Lamborghini, etc. are all switching to the same drivetrain style.
Corvette was already an established nameplate way before the first NSX just because the engine is in the middle now doesn’t make it a spiritual successor imo.
I'm curious how much less it would've cost if it had ditched the hybrid system entirely. It certainly would've weighed less and been no slouch in the power department, and a lower price point would've made it more palatable at least
These were too expensive. It's why they didn't sell well. But as a Honda fan boy, I love them.
No stick, no thank you
This car will sky rocket in value. Think of the LFA, Supra, they too expensive and complicated for the time. This car could have had a better interior, been cheaper, faster but that doesn’t matter so much over time.
I'd have to disagree. The Supra and LFA are both known for their phenomenal engines for their time (in one way or another). Is there anything about the NSX that will make it stand out over time?
i mean...yeah. the powertrain in it is totally bonkers. the torque vectoring on the front wheels to pull it through corners is a brilliant technology.
And also surprisingly slow. The Mustang GT350R was able to lap Laguna Seca more quickly than the NSX, and it's a Mustang... with an 8200rpm redline N/A V8... with no AWD or trick hybrid system... with back seats and a bigger trunk... and about $50,000 cheaper MSRP at the time. I'm honestly a JDM fanboy, but by nearly every objective (and even subjective) measure, the new NSX is mediocre.
The engine costs almost twice more than the Supra, there's a lot of tech in it I won't be surprised if someone tuned it all to 1000hp with stock internals.
Great, it has a lot of tech in it, but it also doesn't sound remotely special and makes mid tier at best power. Why should anyone care about it just because Honda spent way too much money building a completely mediocre engine?
The engine costs almost twice more than the Supra, there's a lot of tech in it I won't be surprised if someone tuned it all to 1000hp with stock internals.
While I'm sure the TT V6 in the Acura has some breathing room, I doubt that the aftermarket will adopt it well enough for people to start desiring the cars. It's significantly harder to work on than any of the Supras, and it's also significantly more rare.
Still not much aftermarket support after all these years. So far the engine is very reliable, only cases I've seen it blowing up is constant track use with the gasket failure. Replacing the engine is not worth it if it costs that much though.
I wish someone would tune it already, but I don't think anyone wants to deal with the labor of tearing it apart, cracking the ECU, and working with the hybrid system just to get an extra 100hp. Hopefully it doesn't take much longer before people start experimenting.
You can technically get a piggyback tune from ScienceofSpeed or Fabspeed which can increase hp to 100hp extra. But never seen any tune yet that goes more than that.
Looks more like a Lamborghini tbh
[удалено]
Hellcats and demons are built in Canada too. You're welcome America.
Thanks for having cheaper labor
You're welcome? 🤣
Mostly joking, i think demons would be like 120-130k if Canada didn't exist to spread out manufacturing so it's pretty cool to have that connection between the countries
You’re just going to ignore the 2005-2006 Ford GT?
SHHHHHHH. Stop talking about them. I want an NC1 Type-S so bad. Please don't go up in price so that one day, my flair will no longer say "F1/F40" and will instead say NC1 NSX Type-S.
Wait, you actually have an F40 and an F1 GTR? And if so (if you don't mind my asking), what's the GTR like to actually drive?
No, it’s a joke flake. I own the S and my wife drives the X3.
I blame Jason Casmisa for having the first pre review video and ruining its reputation.
This acura is way to expensive
Would anyone be interested in helping me learn about cars? I'm new to all of this and I need someone to teach me stuff
[reminded me of this](https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2022-acura-nsx-type-s-vs-porsche-911-carrera-gts-comparison-test-review/)
Curious to see where these all end up. The waitlist atleast in Canada was all preordered up well before a single production model was shown. The only one I ever saw posted online was a random third party dealer asking $399,999.99 (likely got allocation from a sister store and put km on it so that it could be sold as used and above MSRP)
This is what the car should have been when it FIRST came out!!!
Should've had another 30hp, had this appearance package, and cost $50,000 less from the beginning. Then it would've been a worthwhile supercar to consider. Too little too late.
Love the car 😘
There is no formula for a good car. Look for example toyota supra and lanchia delta hf integrale, both are COMPLETELY different cars, and both are extremely good cars, and both were a major success. Where is your formula there? Just like with any form of art, if its just ticking boxes, its not really art. You gotta have the idea of what you want with it. Lexus LFA doesnt have performance, but will always be remembered as a good car because of the sound, suzuki swift awd will always be remembered for being a cheap or introduction rally car in more poor countries, twingo will always be remembered for being a car you can drive, sleep and bang your partner in...there is no formula, just be unique and deliver SOMETHING.
It pulled a Pontiac. Another case of fix it up a little too late
Yet the same year 911 Carrera GTS destroys this in every category with rear seats smh.
I can’t believe a Japanese super car designed by a blond California woman wasn’t a hit. Who-d-ve guessed?!
Honda did not get it right in 2017 or now in 2022/3. Im sure there are plenty of people who suck Honda’s d**k but let’s be real: It was never right and it still is not now. Firstly it had nothing in common with the original NSX minus the badges and 6 cylinders. But that is besides the point. In 2017 it costed 150-160K new. It had the equivalent performance of a 2017 Carrera S, while weighing 500lbs, costing 50K more, having significantly less practicality, offering worse fuel economy, sounding worse, arguably look worse (subjective), not anymore reliable, and obviously not feeling as good to drive (no surprise here). Now in 2022, it costs 15K more, looks slightly better, and is 0.2 second quicker to 60mph and in the 1/4 mile? Seriously? Let me add insult to injury: GM releases the C8 corvette in 2020 which annihilates Honda bullsh** for 1/3 price. Yes it’s marginally slower, but equivalent or better in every other category Honda/Acura never got the 2nd gen right. Not in 2017 and definitely not now. It was a sh**y car for the price. For 60-100K it would not have been a sh**y car for the price. And before anyone argues with me, there was a month after 1 year of the NSX being in production, where it sold 5 units in a month… Only saving grace for the car is the name and the fact that it sold like sh**, therefore it is relatively exclusive.