Pricing is supposed to be starting in the mid-$150k range, so $160k+ after taxes.I think what people are missing here is that Acura has gone about building a practical, everyday, pseudo-supercar. More or less, exactly what they set out to do with the first one. Its never going to be as hard-edged as the original. Safety equipment, modern technology, and the demands of luxury buyers would all but eliminate the car from being anywhere near a consideration these days. Dictations on size and comfort also write off a lot of what made the first car so great. But everyone's looking at the old NSX (just the same, the Supra, et al) with the kind of rose tinted glasses that'll never allow for progress.
Personally, I really like this new NSX. It looks great, sounds great, and overall seems to have the kind of approachable appeal that a lot of cars in its class lack. The clever Quiet Mode is a nice touch for people who live in the city and want to max out eco driving, or have fussy neighbors who complain about the number of clippings on their lawn. The overall capability of the car seems to be quite good, and the idea of the car steadily letting you do more and more as you step it up is good, too. Although I'd certainly echo C/D's concern over the lack of a "full control" mode, I'd certainly expect something like that down the road with a Type-S or Type-R. Acura wants to sell usable cars, not hard-edged track toys. I guess to me, it seems like they're going after the "Playstation Kid" group that fawns over the R35 GT-R, and honestly, the NSX comes off as a much better day-to-day option.
Everyone else who wants a pure performance car can keep waiting for the Civic Type-R, or whatever that smaller sporty coupe is. Until then, at the very least, we're getting a goddamn NSX.
Pricing is supposed to be starting in the mid-$150k range, so $160k+ after taxes.
Exactly. The original NSX was all about pushing available technology to the limits. If you were to make the new NSX "retro," it would mean betraying the spirit of the original.Why do things have to be retro? Why does it have to be exactly like the original? What I think they did was great with the car. Instead of making things now that are based on the past, people should make new outrageous things that will become retro in the future.
I don't remember the NSX being that advanced, could you elaborate?Exactly. The original NSX was all about pushing available technology to the limits. If you were to make the new NSX "retro," it would mean betraying the spirit of the original.
It was advanced in the fact that it was light, comfortable, reliable, and boasted excellent driving dynamics for a price way less than that of a Ferrari.I don't remember the NSX being that advanced, could you elaborate?
Him and Nakajima.thanks to Senna's involvement as well.
Nakajima was more involved in the chassis tuning, not the suspension as I said.Him and Nakajima.
Huh, I thought he was involved with the handling. Nevermind what I said then.Nakajima was more involved in the chassis tuning, not the suspension as I said.
I don't remember the NSX being that advanced, could you elaborate?
That's just a concept car, to be fair. Road tests and concept cars tend to occupy different spaces in car magazines.Honda/Acura has had terrible timing with this car. The final production version was first shown when the spotlight was squarely on the new Ford GT and now the media reviews will have to compete with the Mazda RX-Vision's press attention.
^ As an Acura dedicated car, while this should be an exclusive Honda product (without the EV-doodads & AWD).They should've made the HSV-10 instead
Yeah. Apparently a V10 is going to be relevant in the future because there is no such thing as CO2 anyway.Rose-Tinted glasses still on I see.
Nakajima was more involved in the chassis tuning, not the suspension as I said.
Well, it is what it exactly says on the tin.This can be an arguement about : is this really an NSX?