RE: Honda NSX vs McLaren 570GT
Discussion
'Saying one is 'better' than the other would be like asking respective fans to choose between Apple and Android. Or, to put it another way, two identical burgers made from prime beef cooked to absolute perfection. If the McLaren is enjoying the subtle flavours and quality with the minimum of garnish the Honda is the same but packed with all the trimmings. Blue cheese. Bacon. Onion rings. Gherkins. The lot. Nothing wrong with either approach. And satisfying in their own way. But appealing to different tastes.'
Loving the burger analogy here, a very good unbiased article, well done!
Loving the burger analogy here, a very good unbiased article, well done!
GranCab said:
McLaren ... rattly, unreliable and boring - yes a clear winner ...
Rattly? In what way? I've been in 2 and haven't noticed anything rattle?Unreliable? Not sure.
Boring....All the reviews of the latest cars seem to suggest they're absolutely great to drive (isn't that what it's all about....the thrilll of driving?)
E65Ross said:
GranCab said:
McLaren ... rattly, unreliable and boring - yes a clear winner ...
Rattly? In what way? I've been in 2 and haven't noticed anything rattle?Unreliable? Not sure.
Boring....All the reviews of the latest cars seem to suggest they're absolutely great to drive (isn't that what it's all about....the thrilll of driving?)
I've been privileged to drive both of these cars. They're very similar in many ways and very different in others. My first observation is that they're both absolutely fantastic sports cars with thrilling performance and extremely balanced handling.
It all really boils down to how you want to use them.
The McLaren - even though it's the "GT" version - is an extremely focussed, direct and needle-sharp drive. It feels stiff, light and accurate with extremely sensitive steering that constantly feeds back every tiny imperfection on the road surface. Turn-in is immediate and precise and you can lean very hard on it in the corners without ever losing confidence.
Downsides? The brakes don't inspire confidence the first time you press them (I thought I was going to run into the car in front the first time I set off in traffic), but with a good, firm shove, they're actually hugely effective. And I just cannot get on with the GT seats - it might just be me, but I could never get fully comfortable in the McLaren & always developed lower back pain after 10-15 minutes of driving.
It's the sort of car you'd happily drive on high days and holidays, but even in GT spec, I felt it was a little too sharp to use every day. Driving it tired me out. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
The Honda, by comparison, is much more complex than the McLaren, but also much broader in it's range of abilities. It's far more comfortable (in my opinion, of course), and easier to use in normal driving & in traffic. I also remember thinking that it had an oddly-shaped and quite ugly steering wheel which actually turned out to be possibly the nicest-feeling wheel I've ever used.
Although the performance is very similar to the McLaren, it's delivered in a hugely different manner & the different driving modes almost make it feel like a totally different car at the flick of a switch (as opposed to the McLaren, whose modes seem much more subtly different).
It's just as epically fast as the McLaren when you're committed & in all respects is just as quick and competent, but it's also more usable in a wider range of driving situations than the Mac. More relaxing if you're not quite in the mood for a blast.
It's a car you could, quite literally, drive every day if you wanted to. Whereas you need to be in the mood to drive the Mac. Don't get me wrong - I'd be in the mood very often if I owned one, but there would be odd days when I couldn't be bothered, whereas those days wouldn't really crop up if I owned the Honda.
Which is best? Both are equally fantastic, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd take the NSX.
But neither - in my personal opinion - are quite as good as a 911 Turbo S...
It all really boils down to how you want to use them.
The McLaren - even though it's the "GT" version - is an extremely focussed, direct and needle-sharp drive. It feels stiff, light and accurate with extremely sensitive steering that constantly feeds back every tiny imperfection on the road surface. Turn-in is immediate and precise and you can lean very hard on it in the corners without ever losing confidence.
Downsides? The brakes don't inspire confidence the first time you press them (I thought I was going to run into the car in front the first time I set off in traffic), but with a good, firm shove, they're actually hugely effective. And I just cannot get on with the GT seats - it might just be me, but I could never get fully comfortable in the McLaren & always developed lower back pain after 10-15 minutes of driving.
It's the sort of car you'd happily drive on high days and holidays, but even in GT spec, I felt it was a little too sharp to use every day. Driving it tired me out. Perhaps I'm showing my age.
The Honda, by comparison, is much more complex than the McLaren, but also much broader in it's range of abilities. It's far more comfortable (in my opinion, of course), and easier to use in normal driving & in traffic. I also remember thinking that it had an oddly-shaped and quite ugly steering wheel which actually turned out to be possibly the nicest-feeling wheel I've ever used.
Although the performance is very similar to the McLaren, it's delivered in a hugely different manner & the different driving modes almost make it feel like a totally different car at the flick of a switch (as opposed to the McLaren, whose modes seem much more subtly different).
It's just as epically fast as the McLaren when you're committed & in all respects is just as quick and competent, but it's also more usable in a wider range of driving situations than the Mac. More relaxing if you're not quite in the mood for a blast.
It's a car you could, quite literally, drive every day if you wanted to. Whereas you need to be in the mood to drive the Mac. Don't get me wrong - I'd be in the mood very often if I owned one, but there would be odd days when I couldn't be bothered, whereas those days wouldn't really crop up if I owned the Honda.
Which is best? Both are equally fantastic, but if I had to choose between the two, I'd take the NSX.
But neither - in my personal opinion - are quite as good as a 911 Turbo S...
I'm just astonished at the weight of the NSX. They've really made a monumentally bloated, fat b
d of a 'sports car'. 1,836kg with driver!
All the derision poured over the weight of the F-type, GTR, XE Project 8 here should be returned ten fold over this NSX, especially when it has just 2 seats and started with a clean sheet design.
d of a 'sports car'. 1,836kg with driver!All the derision poured over the weight of the F-type, GTR, XE Project 8 here should be returned ten fold over this NSX, especially when it has just 2 seats and started with a clean sheet design.
vz-r_dave said:
big_rob_sydney said:
It just surprises me that neither car can outrun a GTR, despite costing around twice as much. Never mind the Litchfield version with warranty as well.
And considering the domestic competition in Japan between Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, having taken what seems like an eternity to see the light of day (with the NSX), its current model cant keep up with a GTR that is around a decade old...
Too little, too late.
Fail.
Stop being so narrow minded, Honda have a much broader criteria with the NSX, it's not just about who's the fastest anymore. You could pose the same question to the European manufacturers in regards to the GTR being a quicker car. And considering the domestic competition in Japan between Nissan, Toyota, and Honda, having taken what seems like an eternity to see the light of day (with the NSX), its current model cant keep up with a GTR that is around a decade old...
Too little, too late.
Fail.
It's not too little too late by any means and certainly not a fail.
As such, I measure these cars against other, similarly fast cars.
And I guess its the "measurement" bit that gets peoples noses out of joint, because they stick to their pretentious and overpriced badges as a measure of their jumped-up social climbing, as opposed to the brutal truth of the stopwatch.
I don't take much notice of our american cousins, but one they I do agree with them on; when the flag drops, the bulls
t stops.Cue the childish retorts.
Agent XXX said:
£3500 - £4800 for paint jobs on cars that already cost £150,000 ????? Struth.
Bargain for bankers. Be able to get one with there bonus that Joe public paid for because that's the only kind of people who will pay this kind of money for a Honda. People with more money than sense.Iceicebaby1980 said:
Bargain for bankers. Be able to get one with there bonus that Joe public paid for because that's the only kind of people who will pay this kind of money for a Honda. People with more money than sense.
Honda are just 'palying the game'. Make up a figure, add a couple of extra 0's and people will pay for it.Remember when 911 turbo's were under 100k?
big_rob_sydney said:
Look at the intended function.
I don't really get your point... I don't believe the intended function of either of these cars is to be as fast as possible for the money.I'm also not sure by what definition the GTR is faster than the Mclaren? As far as I can see, despite the Nissans traction advantage, the Mclaren is 1.7 seconds faster to 200kph over 10 seconds(!) faster to 300.
E65Ross said:
ambuletz said:
tomcrowther said:
In a world where a Civic Type R starts at £30k~, how would Sir propose they bring a new Integra out for £18k?
ok, put it at £35k (coupe premium) and the S2000 a similar price. The S200 just needs to be a regular fun car, nothing not a serious type r nurburg weapon.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff