RE: Honda NSX: PH Heroes
Discussion
Ozzie Osmond said:
Oh, it was also so wonderful 20 years ago.... Except it wasn't. Dreaming of some imaginary golden era makes no sense to me. Back in the 90's they were probably saying the same thing about the 70s - a golden era before the world was ruined by fuel injection, catalysts and power steering!
There are some truly great cars on sale today. It's simply a matter of looking forwards instead of backwards.
Different people value different things in cars so they like cars from different eras. I'm sure some people in the 90s were saying the same about the 70s but I'm sure those people still think the 70s was the best era. There are some truly great cars on sale today. It's simply a matter of looking forwards instead of backwards.
For me, drivers' cars peaked in the 60/70s although obviously cars have improved massively as means of transport since then.
Ozzie Osmond said:
RobM77 said:
I see the mid 90s as a peak moment before things like drive by wire throttles and ePAS starting ruining cars - the point where the full benefits of advancing technology were felt in a positive way before the negatives started flooding in. Evo call it the end of the 'analogue' era and the start of the 'digital' era of cars.
Oh, it was also so wonderful 20 years ago.... Except it wasn't. Dreaming of some imaginary golden era makes no sense to me. Back in the 90's they were probably saying the same thing about the 70s - a golden era before the world was ruined by fuel injection, catalysts and power steering!There are some truly great cars on sale today. It's simply a matter of looking forwards instead of backwards.
Personally, I'm not a luddite by characteristics and I embrace new technology, but I do keep my head screwed on and if something's worse, then I'll stick with the old. I do regard the 'analogue' era of cars as far superior to their cantankerous modern equivalents with their odd steering geo, ePAS, DBW etc. The key word in my post was 'peaked' - I preferred 80s cars to 70s cars (who didn't?!) and 90s cars to 80s cars, so there was an improvement generation on generation, but other than for notable exceptions, that's where it stopped for me; that's where it reached a peak.
I don't think many people would argue that 99% of DBW throttle systems are utter crap compared with their cable equivalents from a driving point of view - 99% of ePAS systems are worse than hPAS systems from a driving point of view - traditional linear steering geo is better for a keen driver than this jumpy about the straight ahead nonsense that we get in modern 'sporty' hatches, etc etc. There are exceptions - turbocharging for instance has got much better and lag has been all but removed, but in the main, no, I prefer 90s cars.
The secondhand sports/classic car market seems to agree with me, so I know I'm not alone.
kambites said:
For me, drivers' cars peaked in the 60/70s although obviously cars have improved massively as means of transport since then.
I think this is a key point, and perhaps my post wasn't clear enough. I've no doubt that the vast majority of people would rather drive the new Ford Ka than the original but personally I'd be far happier in the original. My wife feels the same, and hung on to her Mk1 Ka for years until it finally died, and the genuine reason was that she thinks modern cars are rubbish. Some car companies buck this trend, Lotus for example: Whilst I feel that the V8 Esprit of the mid 90s was wonderful, I do prefer the Evora S. For most cars though, there's no question I'm happier in the 90s version, at that peak of development before DBW and ePAS etc came in. I've put my money where my mouth is too - I 'upgraded' from an E36 to an E46 many years ago, and hated the E46 so much that I reverted to an E36 and kept it until it emptied my wallet every month and sadly had to go (like my wife's Ka). I also bought an Elise S2 111S back when values were identical to the S2 111R, because I preferred the brake pedal feel of the older car.kambites said:
Different people value different things in cars so they like cars from different eras. I'm sure some people in the 90s were saying the same about the 70s but I'm sure those people still think the 70s was the best era.
This is another good point. The key thing though is that it's different people saying it, it's not the same people eulogising about the 'good old days'. Everyone has their own criteria of what's good and bad about cars and therefore different eras will appeal to them over others. Personally, I love driving and I'm in favour of the improvements in damper and tyre technology over the years, as well as engine technology that's given us lag free turbos and made 100bhp+/litre n/a engines commonplace, however I don't like laggy throttles, lifeless non-linear steering and a high centre of gravity. It therefore makes sense that the era I like the most is as late as possible, but just before cars become laggy, high up and woolly to drive.To get this back on topic, the NSX was a car made right at this turning point. It actually had some of these nasty elements of modern cars, such as lifeless power steering, but whichever side of the peak it sits, it's still close to the peak imho and it was all downhill from there. The new NSX with its apparently effortless performance and 1700kg+ kerb weight does, on paper at least, seem to be quite a way down that hill, but I will obviously reserve judgement until I've driven one as otherwise it's an unfair comparison.
Edited by RobM77 on Friday 18th December 10:58
Ozzie Osmond said:
IMO the internet is full of these kind of myths. There are loads of great cars out there today.
I think even using the term "great car" is misleading in this context. Clearly there's loads of cars you like, which for you is the same thing but for someone else is not. There are actually lots of sports cars out there which I like at the moment, but they're all produced by small companies - the likes of Ginetta, Caterham, etc. In general, I find the offerings of the mainstream manufacturers like Porsche deeply impressive but not remotely desirable. The NSX is the opposite - hugely desirable but not particularly impressive on paper.
Edited by kambites on Friday 18th December 11:11
Ozzie Osmond said:
RobM77 said:
99% of DBW throttle systems are utter crap.
IMO the internet is full of these kind of myths. There are loads of great cars out there today. RobM77 actually said:
I don't think many people would argue that 99% of DBW throttle systems are utter crap compared with their cable equivalents from a driving point of view
So what I'm saying is that subjectively, people like me (of which I know many) find the vast majority of DBW systems in modern cars utter crap and not fit for purpose.stephen300o said:
Drive by wire throttles would be fine if they just moved the throttle directly by what the pedal was doing.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
Some are fine of course, which is why I said 99%. All F1 cars are DBW, as are many of the lower formulae. My SVA Lotus 2-Eleven was too and the throttle response was fine. I think the mk2 NSX may have even been actually! However, yes, the overwhelming majority of cars have a lag and as far as I'm concerned that rules them out immediately.RobM77 said:
stephen300o said:
Drive by wire throttles would be fine if they just moved the throttle directly by what the pedal was doing.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
Some are fine of course, which is why I said 99%. All F1 cars are DBW, as are many of the lower formulae. My SVA Lotus 2-Eleven was too and the throttle response was fine. I think the mk2 NSX may have even been actually! However, yes, the overwhelming majority of cars have a lag and as far as I'm concerned that rules them out immediately.stephen300o said:
RobM77 said:
stephen300o said:
Drive by wire throttles would be fine if they just moved the throttle directly by what the pedal was doing.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
Some are fine of course, which is why I said 99%. All F1 cars are DBW, as are many of the lower formulae. My SVA Lotus 2-Eleven was too and the throttle response was fine. I think the mk2 NSX may have even been actually! However, yes, the overwhelming majority of cars have a lag and as far as I'm concerned that rules them out immediately.
(much criticised at the time). As I said previously though, there are exceptions to every rule, plus the NSX was just so damn good in all other areas that overall it was an amazing car. For these reasons, I think the NSX was probably just beyond the peak we talked about earlier, but still much closer than your typical modern 'sports' car.RobM77 said:
stephen300o said:
RobM77 said:
stephen300o said:
Drive by wire throttles would be fine if they just moved the throttle directly by what the pedal was doing.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
But manufacturers take this opportunity to fiddle with what happens between input and output, to make it all Woody and disconnected.
Some are fine of course, which is why I said 99%. All F1 cars are DBW, as are many of the lower formulae. My SVA Lotus 2-Eleven was too and the throttle response was fine. I think the mk2 NSX may have even been actually! However, yes, the overwhelming majority of cars have a lag and as far as I'm concerned that rules them out immediately. (much criticised at the time). As I said previously though, there are exceptions to every rule, plus the NSX was just so damn good in all other areas that overall it was an amazing car. For these reasons, I think the NSX was probably just beyond the peak we talked about earlier, but still much closer than your typical modern 'sports' car.I totally agree with your perspective though:-
- a GOOD HPAS system is a thing of beauty - ease/rapidity of inputs without stealing much feedback (Mk1 Focus, DC2 ITR, 306GTi-6...), but I've yet to find an ePAS system that measures up (Evora comes close but still a little artificial-feeling). Unassisted steering still makes sense in a lighter car, esp. lighter and mid-engine'd, but otherwise wider/stickier rubber has increased input effort too much for most machinery...
- ABS is a godsend for almost every driver, whether they admit it or not.
- DBW isn't bad tech, but is badly implemented by engineers who think they know best and who want to improve emissions.
- ...and a low CoG makes such a difference...shame everything now has to meet crash-regs!
* Blame 7-8 degrees castor for that almost as much as the ePAS - Honda wanted dynamic camber at the front, but the side-effect is heavier and less textured steering.
What is an NA1.2?
NA1 3.0
NA2 3.2
Never noticed any issues with the throttle either. The steering was quite slow and not the cars strongest point. Luckily it was really strong in other areas. I loved the seating position and the comfort. It was as very easy to drive and made the most amazing array of noises inside the cabin.
NA1 3.0
NA2 3.2
Never noticed any issues with the throttle either. The steering was quite slow and not the cars strongest point. Luckily it was really strong in other areas. I loved the seating position and the comfort. It was as very easy to drive and made the most amazing array of noises inside the cabin.
yonex said:
What is an NA1.2?
(my) Colloquial reference to the changes they made in 1994 (and a true expert will probably be along soon to tell me some were made sooner):-- Shorter 1st and 2nd gear ratios to improve acceleration/driveability
- DBW throttle
- EPAS made standard
- Change to 16"/17" wheels in the multispoke design not the original flat-fives that were an inch smaller.
...plus probably some other tinkering.
For clarity, the NA2 refers to the 3.2* engine / 6sp gearbox combination in late-97 - the 2002 facelift is by the same measure an "NA2.2" (headlights, 17" front wheels in slightly different design, perforated leather interior).
As for other significant changes, I'm not sure when the upgraded ABS came in but I think the caliper/disk change was in 1997, and I believe there were minor chassis changes (slight stiffening/lightening) at some point also. And if it's a JDM import then things are different again, e.g. the shorter ratios were in JDM cars from the start.
* ...autos from 97 (F-matic by then) retained the original 3.0 in auto-box 252bhp trim...but I couldn't swear if they were old NA1 spec or were NA2s with an NA1 powertrain...
kambites said:
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with DBW throttles. The issue is that they give manufacturers the ability to do stupid things with throttle response in order to improve emissions and economy figures, the "default" implementation will be every bit as quick as a cable throttle.
Plenty are absolutely fine, like my former Lotus 2-Eleven for example (which was SVA...). Most implementations though are for me almost undriveable - I feel like I have no control over the car, and what's the point in that if it's a sports car?Mark Wibble said:
Are the comments on the auto box entirely fair? Agreed it may not stand up to latest auto boxes or dual-clutches these days, but was it not the best of its type at the time? I certainly remember a what-would-you-buy-for-the-cost-of-a-McLaren-F1 article (Car or Autocar) and the author included both a manual and auto NSX. My hardly-exhaustive comparison is a circa 90s Civic auto within the same era, best auto box I drove for many years- by todays standards I suppose it was clunky, but at the time it was well-tuned and nicely predictable.
Anyone who would specify and automatic transmission on a car like this is an idiot.Baryonyx said:
Mark Wibble said:
Are the comments on the auto box entirely fair? Agreed it may not stand up to latest auto boxes or dual-clutches these days, but was it not the best of its type at the time? I certainly remember a what-would-you-buy-for-the-cost-of-a-McLaren-F1 article (Car or Autocar) and the author included both a manual and auto NSX. My hardly-exhaustive comparison is a circa 90s Civic auto within the same era, best auto box I drove for many years- by todays standards I suppose it was clunky, but at the time it was well-tuned and nicely predictable.
Anyone who would specify and automatic transmission on a car like this is an idiot.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff