RE: New NSX at the 'Ring

[dinkel]

havoc said:

I don't see why everyone's so hung up on the next Honda 'supercar' being mid-engined. . . . then it'll be aimed squarely at the M6, 911, XKR, SL55, RS5 etc.

Errr, the NSX was not a supercar. And was never intended as such.

'Aimed against'? I'm pretty sure Honda doesn't aim anything . . . They have their own way of aiming . . .

stephen300o said:

S2000 is a sports car, I was hoping for a supercar not a GT.

I still like the idea of an S3500.

[stephen300o]

Certainly more super than the Ferrari 348 it killed off

[havoc]

dinkel said:

havoc said:

I don't see why everyone's so hung up on the next Honda 'supercar' being mid-engined. . . . then it'll be aimed squarely at the M6, 911, XKR, SL55, RS5 etc.

Errr, the NSX was not a supercar. And was never intended as such.

'Aimed against'? I'm pretty sure Honda doesn't aim anything . . . They have their own way of aiming . . .

stephen300o said:

S2000 is a sports car, I was hoping for a supercar not a GT.

I still like the idea of an S3500.

You get my point though...and most pundits compared the NSX to the 348/355 and 911, which were the 'supercars' of the day...combine that with it's mid-engine'd Fezza-esque looks and I think 'supercar' is a fairly good appellation for it. It's only the last 5 years where supercars have gone silly...

Oh...and as Honda are in the business to make money, you can be sure they're aiming the car at the portion of the market they perceive as most likely to be lucrative for them with this one. Which, IMHO, is the 'sporting-GT' / 'touring junior supercar' market at the moment, as defined by the 911.


S3500...nah, too heavy. S2500 or S3000 will be ample...300+ ponies in a nice straight-line (5 or 6) under the engine bay!!!

[Dpickles]

Just me or does anybody think that a S2000 with a V10 sounds like a f-ing quick, nimble, rwd track day car - if the new engine is as light as they hope they can make it?

Always liked the S2000 but it never had the power of things like the SLK AMG

[havoc]

Dpickles said:

Always liked the S2000 but it never had the power of things like the SLK AMG

I would like to say that they never released a 'high-power' version because it would affect sales of the NSX, but sales of the NSX were so bloody low it'd probably not have made any difference.

I suspect they didn't do it because they're not into FI and the expense of a whole new engine, combined with b'ggering-up the weight-distribution, wouldn't have been worth it for the relatively small sales volume.

[Miguel]

Jackass said:

andyinPembs said:

I believe they've said it'd be a 2+2.
Are there any other 2+2 mid engined cars? Can't really go by mule shots, but does seem to point to being a 2+2, maybe front engined rather than mid...

Ferrari 308 Modena GT4

Two 2+2 mid-engined cars came to mind, and the 308 GT4 was one of them, as Jackass said. The other one I can remember now is the Maserati Merak. It was mechanically similar to the Bora and also had the engine placed longitudinally, but being a V6 rather than a V8, it had room for two seats in the back for very tiny people.

Miguel

[Miguel]

Joe T said:

I think its a shame for Honda to move away from the mid engine layout, it will just get lost in all the other front engine GT cars most of which will beat this hands down, both in Styling and technology.

End of an Era

Maybe their F1 experience is frightening them off mid engine cars???

No, what's frightening them off mid-engined cars must be the sales numbers of the NSX. I think that it made the Porsche 928 look like a hot seller. The high-performance, front-engined four seater has a much wider audience.

Miguel

[stephen300o]

Trouble is, appealing to a wider audience makes for a very compromised car

[havoc]

stephen300o said:

Trouble is, appealing to a wider audience makes for a very compromised car

Because most people WANT compromises. Any car built is a compromise:-
- between grip and ride comfort;
- between NVH-reduction and weight;
- between practicality and aerodynamics, weight, and size;
- between emissions, economy, and power;
- between acceleration and economy (gearing).

etc. etc.

And building a slightly-compromised car to start with that can spawn a more hardcore, focused model is a more cost-effective route than starting with the focused model. And more likely to sell more.

Unfortunate, but true...

[stephen300o]

Well that depends, the chassis maybe designed for sharing with a future s2000 or saloon and putting four seats in is not something alot of people are after, Ferrari wouldn't replace the F430 with a front engined car with four seats, they have other gt's to fill that roll, I am hoping the car pictured is the gt and another less compromised car is in the wings, to quote evo magazine
"so imagine a small, beautiful, lightweight mid-engined car, with a charismatic 3-litre quad-cam v6 or v8 engine giving, say, 300bhp, imagine it in aluminium."
except they were refering to a possible Dino replacement, which is right Where the new nsx should be.

[dinkel]

http://www.autoblog.nl/archive/2008/06/30/spyvideo...

R&R!!!

[JensenA]

This shouldn't be called an NSX, because it isn't. The NSX is an iconic car. Low, wide, sleek, mid engined. It still looks a stunning car today. To make a front engined, Nissan 350Z look alike and call it an NSX is just plain wrong. Would Porsche make a front engined car that looks totally different from a 911 - and then call it the new 911?

They should keep the NSX as it is, dropped in the new V10, get TVR's ex-design team to sort out the interior, then stand back and watch the queues of prospective buyers form.