RE: Honda NSX vs McLaren 570GT
Discussion
E65Ross said:
big_rob_sydney said:
E65Ross said:
Ah, the car with 4WD is quicker to 62mph..... the stopwatch doesn't lie on the 0-200 or 0-300 where the GTR is slower....that must seriously confuse you, Rob?
Again, the straw man fallacies know almost no bounds.Since we are talking about road cars, just how often do you really think you'll be able to run that 0-200 or 0-300?
Come back to the real world, once you've stopped sniffing the petrol.
And while speaking in vague terms about how people have missed your vague point, you have completely failed to answer a direct question. By all means, let me know how many times you managed to do 0-200 and 0-300 last week. I wont hold my breath, because you're clearly grasping at straws.
As for how many threads I've been "called out" on, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but plenty of people like to ponce around as if theircar is the best thing since sliced bread, and seem, for some strange reason, to get offended when told they will only see the tail lights of a faster cheaper car. It's quite simply that when you question a persons choices, you question their intelligence, and some people are so small minded, they can't get past that.
Again, let me know how frequently you managed 0-200 or 0-300 in your fantasy world in your road car.
And, for the other poster, believe it or not, 0-62 happens often. More often than, say, 0-200 or 0-300...
rtz62 said:
Be interesting to see which ACTUALL retains most value after 3 years. Ok, neither are mainstream bolides that the normal rules apply to, but I really do wonder how they will be viewed on the 2nd hand market, and how they stack up on reliability over that period.
As an aside, I wonder which Paul Newman would have chosen (I'm alluding to a famous comment he made concerning why his marriage was one of the strongest and longest lasting in the film business).......
Yes , that would be fascinating ! any other accountants getting excited ?As an aside, I wonder which Paul Newman would have chosen (I'm alluding to a famous comment he made concerning why his marriage was one of the strongest and longest lasting in the film business).......
as for Newman , the steak would have to be a Mclaren ?
big_rob_sydney said:
E65Ross said:
big_rob_sydney said:
E65Ross said:
Ah, the car with 4WD is quicker to 62mph..... the stopwatch doesn't lie on the 0-200 or 0-300 where the GTR is slower....that must seriously confuse you, Rob?
Again, the straw man fallacies know almost no bounds.Since we are talking about road cars, just how often do you really think you'll be able to run that 0-200 or 0-300?
Come back to the real world, once you've stopped sniffing the petrol.
And while speaking in vague terms about how people have missed your vague point, you have completely failed to answer a direct question. By all means, let me know how many times you managed to do 0-200 and 0-300 last week. I wont hold my breath, because you're clearly grasping at straws.
As for how many threads I've been "called out" on, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but plenty of people like to ponce around as if theircar is the best thing since sliced bread, and seem, for some strange reason, to get offended when told they will only see the tail lights of a faster cheaper car. It's quite simply that when you question a persons choices, you question their intelligence, and some people are so small minded, they can't get past that.
Again, let me know how frequently you managed 0-200 or 0-300 in your fantasy world in your road car.
And, for the other poster, believe it or not, 0-62 happens often. More often than, say, 0-200 or 0-300...
Firstly....hardly anyone EVER uses launch control and does a full-bore standing start, most harder accelerations are done whilst already on the move, thus traction is less of an issue. the fact that the McLaren is quicker from 0-200 yet slower from 0-100 just shows how much faster it is when "on the move".
I saw them both at the FOS last week and I must say to my eyes the NSX seemed to have more presence and a better interior.
One thing that nobody seems to have picked up on is that in the US the NSX is cheaper than a 911 Turbo, whereas in the UK its more expensive than a Turbo S - at c125k I would be very interested but at 150+ options its too rich for me, albeit the tech is impressive and the (US) reviews have been very positive.
I need to try a 570 out as I really want to like McLaren but I just struggle a little.
One thing that nobody seems to have picked up on is that in the US the NSX is cheaper than a 911 Turbo, whereas in the UK its more expensive than a Turbo S - at c125k I would be very interested but at 150+ options its too rich for me, albeit the tech is impressive and the (US) reviews have been very positive.
I need to try a 570 out as I really want to like McLaren but I just struggle a little.
The Surveyor said:
Not in the GT-r, given all the storys about warranty claims being rejected for destroyed gearboxes, you'd be a braver man than most to do repeated 0-60 launches in the Nissan.
You get what you pay for. How a 911 Turbo deals with multiple launches:https://youtu.be/A5DRCTW-Q7o
E65Ross said:
big_rob_sydney said:
E65Ross said:
big_rob_sydney said:
E65Ross said:
Ah, the car with 4WD is quicker to 62mph..... the stopwatch doesn't lie on the 0-200 or 0-300 where the GTR is slower....that must seriously confuse you, Rob?
Again, the straw man fallacies know almost no bounds.Since we are talking about road cars, just how often do you really think you'll be able to run that 0-200 or 0-300?
Come back to the real world, once you've stopped sniffing the petrol.
And while speaking in vague terms about how people have missed your vague point, you have completely failed to answer a direct question. By all means, let me know how many times you managed to do 0-200 and 0-300 last week. I wont hold my breath, because you're clearly grasping at straws.
As for how many threads I've been "called out" on, well I'm sorry to disappoint you, but plenty of people like to ponce around as if theircar is the best thing since sliced bread, and seem, for some strange reason, to get offended when told they will only see the tail lights of a faster cheaper car. It's quite simply that when you question a persons choices, you question their intelligence, and some people are so small minded, they can't get past that.
Again, let me know how frequently you managed 0-200 or 0-300 in your fantasy world in your road car.
And, for the other poster, believe it or not, 0-62 happens often. More often than, say, 0-200 or 0-300...
Firstly....hardly anyone EVER uses launch control and does a full-bore standing start, most harder accelerations are done whilst already on the move, thus traction is less of an issue. the fact that the McLaren is quicker from 0-200 yet slower from 0-100 just shows how much faster it is when "on the move".
1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
This is the problem. People like you want to play top trumps, and quote things that are almost completely ridiculous and useless in the real world. If someone actually tried to do 200-300 in the UK, they would go to prison, unless they were on some sort of track day. And for the vast majority of people, their road cars spend time on the road.
So while I advocate performance within the NSL, you advocate some fantasy land performance, and yet have the gall to say actual real world is "arbitrary".
Do they have unicorns in your world? Put down the crack pipe.
big_rob_sydney said:
Totally arbitrary numbers, eh? Ok then. A simple question for you. How frequently in the last month have you taken your road car between:
1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
This is the problem. People like you want to play top trumps, and quote things that are almost completely ridiculous and useless in the real world. If someone actually tried to do 200-300 in the UK, they would go to prison, unless they were on some sort of track day. And for the vast majority of people, their road cars spend time on the road.
So while I advocate performance within the NSL, you advocate some fantasy land performance, and yet have the gall to say actual real world is "arbitrary".
Do they have unicorns in your world? Put down the crack pipe.
Seriously, do you not understand how much work the word 'indicative' is doing when everyone (apart from you) has been talking about performance?1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
This is the problem. People like you want to play top trumps, and quote things that are almost completely ridiculous and useless in the real world. If someone actually tried to do 200-300 in the UK, they would go to prison, unless they were on some sort of track day. And for the vast majority of people, their road cars spend time on the road.
So while I advocate performance within the NSL, you advocate some fantasy land performance, and yet have the gall to say actual real world is "arbitrary".
Do they have unicorns in your world? Put down the crack pipe.
big_rob_sydney said:
Totally arbitrary numbers, eh? Ok then. A simple question for you. How frequently in the last month have you taken your road car between:
1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
In terms of full-bore acceleration runs, I have done neither in the last five years and I suspect the huge majority of other sports-car owners would say the same. The point of these figures is to provide a rough approximation of how the car will perform in a variety of different real-world situations, not that people will regularly be doing exactly those acceleration runs. 1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
If you want to look at things people actually do do, 80-120kph (roughly 50-75mph) is probably a fairly typical overtaking sprint on a national speed limit road... the Mclaren does that in 1.5 seconds, the GTR in 1.9. Once the initial traction phase is out of the way, the Mclaren is in a different league in terms of performance than the GTR (and indeed than the Honda).
Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th July 09:09
kambites said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Totally arbitrary numbers, eh? Ok then. A simple question for you. How frequently in the last month have you taken your road car between:
1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
In terms of full-bore acceleration runs, I have done neither in the last five years and I suspect the huge majority of other sports-car owners would say the same. The point of these figures is to provide a rough approximation of how the car will perform in a variety of different real-world situations, not that people will regularly be doing exactly those acceleration runs. 1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
If you want to look at things people actually do do, 80-120kph (roughly 50-75mph) is probably a fairly typical overtaking sprint on a national speed limit road... the Mclaren does that in 1.5 seconds, the GTR in 1.9. Once the initial traction phase is out of the way, the Mclaren is in a different league in terms of performance than the GTR (and indeed than the Honda).
Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th July 09:09
shirt said:
M-SportMatt said:
dotgillingham said:
Why don't McLaren build their own F1 engines? Not all that easy, I admit, but no one seems to be asking this question. Nice article, BTW. NSX for me.
Why dont they build their own road car engines too for that matter rather than subbing it out to RicardoWhat I can't get my head around is a 150k Honda or any kind. Can't see them selling many
Nice article but tbh neither really float my boat. Neither are exactly pretty and hence fail the first rule of supercars which is that they should make you weak at the knees before you even get in. Also while I applaud Honda for trying to bring hypercar EV tech to a lower price-point, I don't think it quite works. One of the other important metrics of a supercar is weight. Weight effects almost every aspect of the car, handling, braking, acceleration, it's just basic physics and the Honda is far too heavy. Not so important in an SUV or big saloon but absolutely essential in a supercar. It's a shame because the previous NSX was a game changer and while the hybrid tech is interesting, I don't think this one has quite the same impact.
Therefore If I had to choose I'd pick the Mclaren but tbh I'd be walking past both and making straight for the Lambo or Ferrari showroom instead.
Therefore If I had to choose I'd pick the Mclaren but tbh I'd be walking past both and making straight for the Lambo or Ferrari showroom instead.
E65Ross said:
kambites said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Totally arbitrary numbers, eh? Ok then. A simple question for you. How frequently in the last month have you taken your road car between:
1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
In terms of full-bore acceleration runs, I have done neither in the last five years and I suspect the huge majority of other sports-car owners would say the same. The point of these figures is to provide a rough approximation of how the car will perform in a variety of different real-world situations, not that people will regularly be doing exactly those acceleration runs. 1. 0-62 and
2. 200-300
If you want to look at things people actually do do, 80-120kph (roughly 50-75mph) is probably a fairly typical overtaking sprint on a national speed limit road... the Mclaren does that in 1.5 seconds, the GTR in 1.9. Once the initial traction phase is out of the way, the Mclaren is in a different league in terms of performance than the GTR (and indeed than the Honda).
Edited by kambites on Thursday 6th July 09:09
I think you guys may be better served over at www.knitting.com
big_rob_sydney said:
Yes, come onto a car website, talk about hard core sports cars, and then tell us all how its normal to not drive a car hard off the line. Yep, makes COMPLETE sense in this company...
I think you guys may be better served over at www.knitting.com
Never in the history of forum conflict has the point been missed by so far, so embarrassingly, by so few.I think you guys may be better served over at www.knitting.com
Rawwr said:
big_rob_sydney said:
Yes, come onto a car website, talk about hard core sports cars, and then tell us all how its normal to not drive a car hard off the line. Yep, makes COMPLETE sense in this company...
I think you guys may be better served over at www.knitting.com
Never in the history of forum conflict has the point been missed by so far, so embarrassingly, by so few.I think you guys may be better served over at www.knitting.com
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff