RE: PH Heroes: Honda NSX
Discussion
Dagnut said:
It's kind of an intangible we are arguing, I could be completely wrong, but I just don't go on the word of a race car designer and journalists...if a Ferrari or Porsche engineer came out and said the NSX changed the way we designed cars that would be good enough for me...I just think there's a lot of romantic nostalgia wrapped up with this car because it's so rare and will never be repeated.
The NSX was a brilliant all rounder, but it didn't move the game on in any specific area enough to be a game changer, IMO.
I'll leave with that won't waste any more of your time.
Ok, let's leave it at this.The NSX was a brilliant all rounder, but it didn't move the game on in any specific area enough to be a game changer, IMO.
I'll leave with that won't waste any more of your time.
Just remember that at least the designer of the McLaren F1 has admitted publicly that he threw away all his previous benchmark Ferrari's and Lambo's when looking for a design goal and started using the NSX instead.
So, without the NSX, the McLaren F1 might not have been the spectacular car that it proved to be.
mvm said:
the McLaren F1 might not have been the spectaular
That is up for debate as well..try reading some owner reviews..no down force, crap brakes questionable chassis."The chassis stinks, there’s no downforce and the brakes are terrible. But it’s got a great engine!"
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2047...
Dagnut said:
That is up for debate as well..try reading some owner reviews..no down force, crap brakes questionable chassis.
"The chassis stinks, there’s no downforce and the brakes are terrible. But it’s got a great engine!"
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2047...
Maybe they should have just put the BMW engine into the back of the Honda then. "The chassis stinks, there’s no downforce and the brakes are terrible. But it’s got a great engine!"
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2047...
Dagnut said:
That is up for debate as well..try reading some owner reviews..no down force, crap brakes questionable chassis.
"The chassis stinks, there’s no downforce and the brakes are terrible. But it’s got a great engine!"
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2047...
Well, after reading the link you posted, it's obvious that the owner was being sarcastic, since that new-to-the-F1 driver managed to lap that particular track faster than an Enzo Ferrari."The chassis stinks, there’s no downforce and the brakes are terrible. But it’s got a great engine!"
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/cargrouptests/2047...
BTW, the brakes on the F1 are not terrible, they are just NON-assisted which is what everyone nowadays is used to. Which means that you really have to push those pedals to get some decent decelleration.
mvm said:
Well, after reading the link you posted, it's obvious that the owner was being sarcastic, since that new-to-the-F1 driver managed to lap that particular track faster than an Enzo Ferrari.
BTW, the brakes on the F1 are not terrible, they are just NON-assisted which is what everyone nowadays is used to. Which means that you really have to push those pedals to get some decent decelleration.
That was tongue in cheek I know the owner is a member on here.BTW, the brakes on the F1 are not terrible, they are just NON-assisted which is what everyone nowadays is used to. Which means that you really have to push those pedals to get some decent decelleration.
Dagnut said:
The NSX was a brilliant all rounder, but it didn't move the game on in any specific area enough to be a game changer, IMO.
Name a contemporary supercar that did, F1 excepted.I would suggest the NSX 'moved the game on' not dynamically (although it was and is still very good there) or in on-paper stats (I think we'll all agree there), but in terms of materials, chassis stiffness, and ergonomics. And in the first and the last it's still among the best.
I would also add that all three of those can be felt tangibly when you drive one. There is a lack of inertia to the way the car moves and 'breathes' with the road, and a 'oneness' to the chassis that contemporary cars don't tend to have. That it could still cut-it (with minimal changes) against the 996 - a car a generation-and-a-half past the NSX - surely says as much?!?
havoc said:
Name a contemporary supercar that did, F1 excepted.
I would suggest the NSX 'moved the game on' not dynamically (although it was and is still very good there) or in on-paper stats (I think we'll all agree there), but in terms of materials, chassis stiffness, and ergonomics. And in the first and the last it's still among the best.
I would also add that all three of those can be felt tangibly when you drive one. There is a lack of inertia to the way the car moves and 'breathes' with the road, and a 'oneness' to the chassis that contemporary cars don't tend to have. That it could still cut-it (with minimal changes) against the 996 - a car a generation-and-a-half past the NSX - surely says as much?!?
First for Vtech wasn't it? no one really did variable valve timing back then, first for titanium conrods, first aluminium production car.. the aqueduct?I would suggest the NSX 'moved the game on' not dynamically (although it was and is still very good there) or in on-paper stats (I think we'll all agree there), but in terms of materials, chassis stiffness, and ergonomics. And in the first and the last it's still among the best.
I would also add that all three of those can be felt tangibly when you drive one. There is a lack of inertia to the way the car moves and 'breathes' with the road, and a 'oneness' to the chassis that contemporary cars don't tend to have. That it could still cut-it (with minimal changes) against the 996 - a car a generation-and-a-half past the NSX - surely says as much?!?
MattOz said:
The NSX is simply the most accessible supercar that I've had the pleasure of driving. It's way more involving than any 911 I've driven and certainly more engaging than a 355, 360 or 550M, all of which I've spent time piloting.
True, the dashboard is terrible and at 6ft3 I'm a little too tall for the cabin. As a car to enjoy punting round "Evo Triangle" type roads I'd take it over its direct competition every day of the week.
I tend to lean the seat back slightly to improve headroom.True, the dashboard is terrible and at 6ft3 I'm a little too tall for the cabin. As a car to enjoy punting round "Evo Triangle" type roads I'd take it over its direct competition every day of the week.
yonex said:
DanS said:
RESSE said:
There is an article in Classic & Sportscar (February 2011) on buying/owning the NSX.
A very good read.
Theres a coincidence... A very good read.
It just conjours up images of PH staffers lying about in leather jackets munching pies and drinking beer like the school bullies of haymarket, only raising from the sofa occasionally to cross the office to the diligent teams producing other Haymarket titles to steal some copy and a few pics from the weedy kids in the corner, probably nicking a kitkat and throwing in a Chinese burn for a laugh...
Harry Monk said:
This is an interesting watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUCudgQ3Mus
Best Motoring: Tsukuba 1995
NSX
NSX-T
RX7
MR2 GTS
993
Supra TT
R33 GT-R
Prace your bets.
I wasn't expecting that!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUCudgQ3Mus
Best Motoring: Tsukuba 1995
NSX
NSX-T
RX7
MR2 GTS
993
Supra TT
R33 GT-R
Prace your bets.
Thought I'd dig this old photo out.
We drove these cars at Spa, Colmar-Berg and the Nurburgring and had Matt Becker from Lotus do th performance testing. The NSX was the slowest and the least accomplished handler according to Becker, who drew up a massive list of what was wrong with the tyres, the suspension, the weight distribution and so on. I realise there's an element of 'well, he would' given there's a Lotus and VX220T in the mix, but his findings were sound. This was 2004 and the NSX felt as if its sell-by date had passed.
That said, if you gave me the choice to take any of these cars for a blast up the road from Adenau to Hohe Acht, I'd unhesitatingly pick the Honda. And I can't put my finger on why.
Harry Monk said:
Thought I'd dig this old photo out.
We drove these cars at Spa, Colmar-Berg and the Nurburgring and had Matt Becker from Lotus do th performance testing. The NSX was the slowest and the least accomplished handler according to Becker, who drew up a massive list of what was wrong with the tyres, the suspension, the weight distribution and so on. I realise there's an element of 'well, he would' given there's a Lotus and VX220T in the mix, but his findings were sound. This was 2004 and the NSX felt as if its sell-by date had passed.
As for the weight distribution, may I be the first to say "pot/kettle" at Mr Becker - the Elise chassis is very accomplished but to some degree this is despite the weight distribution...and the same with the 996. And suspension? I'd wager a tidy sum the NSX was the most supple of all 5 cars...
Harry Monk said:
That said, if you gave me the choice to take any of these cars for a blast up the road from Adenau to Hohe Acht, I'd unhesitatingly pick the Honda. And I can't put my finger on why.
If it was a lap of the 'ring itself I'd probably pick the Exige, but for anything else round there I'd agree with you.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff