The NSX is making a return...

  • Thread starter Brend
  • 1,074 comments
  • 94,297 views
Acura NSX II concept
acura-nsx-ii-concept--2013-detroit-auto-show_100416027_l.jpg


acura-nsx-ii-concept--2013-detroit-auto-show_100416029_l.jpg


acura-nsx-ii-concept--2013-detroit-auto-show_100416031_l.jpg



More pics HERE
 
I love that interior. The styling isn't bad, but I do get the "generic mid-engine supercar" feeling from it.

I wish They would show us the final prototype of the previous, V10 NSX project a sa consulation for getting our hopes up a few years ago. That thing looked awesome.
 
Don't get excited by the way it looks, the interior looks nice with a centre console that slightly resembles the original NSX but the exterior looks like an Audi R8 reinterpretation with fuzzy and contrived detailing.

I just wish they'd went for an understated yet elegant design like the original NSX, the thinking man's sportscar or something more bold instead like the thoroughly Japanese-looking GT-R and LFA (or the 2006 Civic-hatchback in fact, that one really raised my hopes for future Honda-designs).

This just seems like they couldn't choose between those approaches and as a result it appears middle of the road to me.
 
I'm gonna throw this out there - the original NSX was never anything other than fairly generic to look at. And not even slightly nicely detailed, since Japan didn't know how to do nice detailing until about three years ago.

The original NSX was always important for what it was, rather than what it looked like.

Sure, you can jazz it up a bit with nice wheels, and it does look tidy in late-model Type R spec, but it's no design classic and certainly no more stand-out in its day than the new NSX is now. And the interior was an Aladdin's cave of shiny black plastic. Methinks there's a lot of rose-tinted spectacles being worn when discussing the original car...

Oh, and for the record: Yes, of course I'd still have an original NSX :D And Cody should definitely impulse-buy one, since I can't...
 
The original NSX was perfect for what it was: An affordable high performance sports car that stepped on the toes of the super car back then. Unfortunately super cars had the habit of increasing price tags to go along with the increasing performance. Honda can only keep increasing the price of the NSX for so long before people start having trouble plopping almost 6 figures for one.

When they first came out in 1991, they went for like $75-$80,000 right? I remember walking into a Acura dealer in 2002 because my dad was shopping around, and I gawked at the NSX in the showroom until I saw the price tag, which was $105,000. Granted, dealers do mark up low run cars like these.

A Nissan GT-R in a local Tampa dealer had a sticker price of $90,000 for the 2009 model, and it was already sold by the time I came across it.
 
I'm gonna throw this out there - the original NSX was never anything other than fairly generic to look at. And not even slightly nicely detailed, since Japan didn't know how to do nice detailing until about three years ago.

The original NSX was always important for what it was, rather than what it looked like.

Sure, you can jazz it up a bit with nice wheels, and it does look tidy in late-model Type R spec, but it's no design classic and certainly no more stand-out in its day than the new NSX is now. And the interior was an Aladdin's cave of shiny black plastic. Methinks there's a lot of rose-tinted spectacles being worn when discussing the original car...

Yes, you're absolutely right but at least it was understated perhaps due to being a bit generic, it was the engineering and handling which made a huge impact (and the pricing to an extend), it made more exotic cars archaic in an instance (especially a certain Modena-based firm) but that approach perhaps won't succeed these days with an ever growing emphasis on styling, I just wish it would've looked a lot more original or at least coherent.
 
I'm gonna throw this out there - the original NSX was never anything other than fairly generic to look at. And not even slightly nicely detailed, since Japan didn't know how to do nice detailing until about three years ago.

The original NSX was always important for what it was, rather than what it looked like.

Sure, you can jazz it up a bit with nice wheels, and it does look tidy in late-model Type R spec, but it's no design classic and certainly no more stand-out in its day than the new NSX is now. And the interior was an Aladdin's cave of shiny black plastic. Methinks there's a lot of rose-tinted spectacles being worn when discussing the original car...

I see your point on this, but for me there's a whole bunch of Japanese cars from what I'd call the Gran Turismo 1 era that aren't design classics, they're not necessarily sexy, pretty or mean looking, but I think they're simple good looks are above the norm and are aging well... cars I'd include in that are the NSX, the R33, the W20 MR2, the RD RX-7, and the MkIV Supra.

Personally I like the NSX concept here. Looks miles better than the R8, which I'm sure it's squarely up against --- see the Twitter war!!!
 
I agree with both of you. All those vehicles are important for what they are (like the NSX), rather than necessarily how they looked.

Which is why I feel it might be a little unfair saying the new one looks a bit bland. Surely, like the original NSX, it's the clever engineering electrickery beneath the surface that makes it a true NSX... the styling is just a shell to work their magic beneath.
 
Here we go with the "....it looks like such and such car." comments. C'mon, yall. The car is mid-engined, and of course will bare a passing similarity to any others out there. But other than that, they don't look like copies of one another. And I don't think even the least educated will assume it's an R8, even at first glance, thanks to Audi's unique front and rear lamp designs.
 
Which is why I feel it might be a little unfair saying the new one looks a bit bland. Surely, like the original NSX, it's the clever engineering electrickery beneath the surface that makes it a true NSX... the styling is just a shell to work their magic beneath.

What I meant was that they could have used this opportunity to do both this time, I gave the example of the 2006 Civic (not the current one and only the hatchback) to show they are capable of doing innovative styling as well, this NSX clearly still has some of the same styling cues introduced since that Civic but doesn't take it to the next stage (no current Honda seems to do though, apart from the CR-Z) or makes it its own (and yes, I do think the overall dimensions and proportions resemble an R8 which a lot of other mid-engined cars don't).

You can simply say the NSX wasn't about that and it shouldn't be important how it looks but if this car succeeds or not depends as well on how people perceive its looks (now perhaps much more than in the early nineties when they perhaps had to be a bit conservative to establish the NSX or Acura as a brand, copying familiar aspects of other mid-engined cars in its styling).
The supposed NSX-successor, the cancelled front-engined HSV-concept looked great, that's why I'm surprised this NSX ended up looking like it does.

It isn't that it's bland or vaguely resembles other cars, it's just that it appears to me to be a bit inbetween styling directions, on the one hand a safe (dare I say 'me too') overall shape with some odd and awkward angles and lines added which suggests an attempt to make it look different or daring.
At least the original NSX was coherent yet a bit dull and its single unique design element (the long rear overhang) was due to practical concerns (to fit a set of golfbags in the booth...).
 
Here we go with the "....it looks like such and such car." comments. C'mon, yall. The car is mid-engined, and of course will bare a passing similarity to any others out there. But other than that, they don't look like copies of one another. And I don't think even the least educated will assume it's an R8, even at first glance, thanks to Audi's unique front and rear lamp designs.

It would seem on Twitter Audi are the ones spreading the word that this concept looks like an R8. But that's the kind of childishness I expect from Audi.
 
What I meant was that they could have used this opportunity to do both this time, I gave the example of the 2006 Civic (not the current one and only the hatchback) to show they are capable of doing innovative styling as well, this NSX clearly still has some of the same styling cues introduced since that Civic but doesn't take it to the next stage (no current Honda seems to do though, apart from the CR-Z) or makes it its own (and yes, I do think the overall dimensions and proportions resemble an R8 which a lot of other mid-engined cars don't).

You can simply say the NSX wasn't about that and it shouldn't be important how it looks but if this car succeeds or not depends as well on how people perceive its looks (now perhaps much more than in the early nineties when they perhaps had to be a bit conservative to establish the NSX or Acura as a brand, copying familiar aspects of other mid-engined cars in its styling).
The supposed NSX-successor, the cancelled front-engined HSV-concept looked great, that's why I'm surprised this NSX ended up looking like it does.

It isn't that it's bland or vaguely resembles other cars, it's just that it appears to me to be a bit inbetween styling directions, on the one hand a safe (dare I say 'me too') overall shape with some odd and awkward angles and lines added which suggests an attempt to make it look different or daring.
At least the original NSX was coherent yet a bit dull and its single unique design element (the long rear overhang) was due to practical concerns (to fit a set of golfbags in the booth...).

I agree that they should have stuck with the previous V10 Concept NSX styling, but it was a departure from the previous model (engine placement, etc). So I can understand the change, I suppose.
 
I agree that they should have stuck with the previous V10 Concept NSX styling, but it was a departure from the previous model (engine placement, etc). So I can understand the change, I suppose.

Yes, ofcourse they had to design a completely new car since they decided to go mid-engined instead, but the HSV looked unique and they could've done the same with this.
This one just seems generic with splashes of current Honda-cues added, the 2006 Civic hatch and the CR-Z are more original, coherent and daring than their supposed flagship.
 
Pictures can be deceiving, but it looks compact which is a good characteristic to begin with.

I wasn't expecting it to look groundbreaking, it has to look relatively clean and age well if the design ethos of the old NSX is to be considered.
 
When they first came out in 1991, they went for like $75-$80,000 right? I remember walking into a Acura dealer in 2002 because my dad was shopping around, and I gawked at the NSX in the showroom until I saw the price tag, which was $105,000. Granted, dealers do mark up low run cars like these.
No, because in 1991, that could have covered 3/4 of the cost of the 348. The NSX was priced around $55-60,000 when it arrived.
 
Yeah, I remember the MSRP being around $60,000. As the styling of the original NSX goes, I couldn't disagree more with the opinion that NSX was somehow average looking sports car. I still remember seeing the design of the first gen Miata & the NSX in a car mag back in '89. We were blown away. Entry level exotics, at least to me, seemed tiring & outdated back then. When NSX finally came out, all the kids wanted one, and not just because of the mid engine, or the aluminum body. It looked beautiful.

P.S. New NSX reminds me of R8(and not necessarily "new") more than NSX as well.
 
Back