The NSX's Competition By The Numbers

"472CID" (472CID) 10/26/2015 at 14:00 • Filed to: None

23

100

We finally got some numbers on the lo(ooooooonnnn)ng awaited second gen NSX. We’re looking at 573hp 3,803lb and around $170,000, so where does that put the new Honda?

By power to weight (or rather lb/hp)

BMW i8 9.17
Audi R8 V10 6.80
Porsche 911 Turbo 6.76
Mercedes AMG GT-S 6.68
Acura NSX 6.64
Porsche 911 GT3 6.64
Jaguar F Type R 6.61
Aston Martin V12 Vantage S 6.50
Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat 6.47
Nissan GTR Nismo 6.43
Porsche 911 Turbo S 6.32
Audi R8 V10 Plus 6.29
Ferrari 458 Italia 5.74
Lamborghini Huracan 5.73
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 5.42
McLaren 570S 5.37(est)
Dodge Viper GTS 5.32
McLaren 650S 4.99
Ferrari 488 GTB 4.92 (probably dry weight)

By price

Chevrolet Corvette Z06 $79,000
Dodge Viper SRT $84,900
Jaguar F Type R $99,000
BMW i8 $139,500
Mercedes AMG GT-S $129,900
Porsche 911 GT3 $130,400
Nissan GTR Nismo $150,000
Porsche 911 Turbo $151,000
Audi R8 V10 153,900
Acura NSX $170,000(est)
Audi R8 V10 Plus $173,00
Aston Martin V12 Vantage S $182,400
Prosche 911 Turbo S $182,700
McLaren 570S $184,900
Ferrari 458 Italia $239,300
Lamborghini Huracan $237,300
Ferrari 488 GTB $242,700 (2017)
McLaren 650S $265,000

Yes yes yes, I know, numbers aren’t everything. But when you’re bored sitting at work it’s fun to see where everybody stands. As of right now it looks like the NSX will line up nicely against the ten cylinder R8 and the spooled up 911s. Perhaps it will defy it’s power/weight ratio like the the GTR, though that seems doubtful to me. Maybe history is repeating itself, the original NSX set out to fight the Ferrari 348 and never rose to meet the 355. This car benchmarked the 458 and MP4-12C only to find the 488 and 650S when it finally goes on sale.

HammerheadFistpunch > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:09

28

Th biggest and most pleasant shock that the NSX could deliver is if it turns out that its not all about the number for Honda. The Original NSX was well loved because it was more than the sum of its parts in terms of experience. If the NSX is fast and corners well and has nice torque fill and blah blah blah that’s one thing, if people get out of it and say “wow, what a fun drive!” that’s another.

In the same way that the LFA was kinda a disappointment (price/performance) but a total revelation to those who drove it. In the end Honda will sell all the NSX they are planning to build, so I its sales are secure, but I hope its more than just meeting a mark in terms of the value it has for the brand as a drivers car.

Rico > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:09

23

Lmfao - Sorry I’ll take an AMG GT-S or Audi R8 over this. Thanks for quantifying everything.

Milky > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:19

33

Your list is lacking some ‘Murica.

Viper 5.2 $84,995

Corvette Z06 5.47 $79,400

jariten1781 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:21

7

We’re looking at 573hp 3,803lb and around $170,000, so where does that put the new Honda?

Well outside my price bracket.

EL_ULY > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:21

5

Y NO Z06?

Arrivederci > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:25

1

This side marker just looks oddly out of place.

Naughty0ne2Pointoh > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:28

0

So, will it have a disposable gearbox like the 1st gen?

VW-Guy-R32 > EL_ULY 10/26/2015 at 14:28

4

b/c everyone knows you cant track a z0.

TheStigsGermanCousin > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:28

0

573 hp? So its with the last generation of supercars in the power department.

Doctor-G-and-the-wagen > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:29

4

My whole issue is will these numbers still be impressive 10 years from now when the car is finally at dealers?

Naughty0ne2Pointoh > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:29

0

So ... overpriced, underpowered, and over appreciated ... Yup, sounds like an NSX ...

GK27V6 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:29

0

..3800lbs? I mean, I’m not suprised by today’s standards, but, isn’t this supposed to be a sports car? And why so expensive as well? :/ I really wonder what the new NSX will have going for it... I mean the first gen was an “affordable” supercar in some way, and offered amazing handling from what I have been told. Brilliant. Now, the new one? It’s not “affordable” as was the first and has a moderate amount of HP for its class. And at 3800lbs we will have to see how the handling turns out.

tehkav > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:30

0

Frankly, the only competition that will matter is the i8 if Acura markets the car properly, and the NSX should eat that alive.

If you live in California like I’m guessing a majority of buyers will, this car will get you into the HOV lane or into the best parking spots anywhere. That’s nothing its competitors offer.

ShibbyUTman > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:30

0

Are these hellcat tails?

Naughty0ne2Pointoh > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:30

0

Every cheaper option is faster except the Benz ... No surprise ...

William Clavey > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:31

0

What’s up with the two Porsche 911 Turbos with different power to weight ratios?

Is it the “low power to weight ratio” version?

Wouldn’t be surprised to see Porsche release such a version.

Oh, and, btw, what’s a Ferrari 948?

Arjak > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:31

0

I’d be curious to see, performance-wise, where the new GT350R stacks up against this and the other $100k+ performance cars. Because right now it looks like a steal compared to these.

Doge_Supreme drives a BRZ > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:31

6

Is it just me or does the styling already seem a bit dated? This car has been in development for so long that I feel like any further delays are just going to hurt sales.

chuckjaeger > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:32

2

I obviously am not cross shopping any of these cars but when i look at that price I think, why would you choose this NSX when for less than 10% more you could be sitting in a McLaren?

Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius > HammerheadFistpunch 10/26/2015 at 14:32

14

Well said. This car like the LFA will rank more highly in the ‘experience valuation’ than in the ‘coefficient of dick-wagging’

That being said, it’s taken too freaking long for this car to arrive. I’ve made the analogy before that the NSX is like a 1970s stag film. It’s been 12 minutes of dancing and she still isn’t naked. I’m bored. Going to make some nachos.

rayJoyal > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:32

1

3800 pounds for an NSX?

Let’s see if I have this correct - a 2016 6.2L Camaro SS will weigh LESS THAN an NSX?

Or put it this way, seeing as how this is Jalopnik:
The original NSX weighed about 1.5 Miatas, the new one is almost 2 Miatas.

ghost650 > Rico 10/26/2015 at 14:32

25

Okay but I don’t see what’s so funny...

Rollk1 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:32

0

This is about 60k more than it should be. The competition isn’t the same as the early 90’s and almost as crowded and competitive as the midsize family sedan category.

There needs to be more sub-90k mid engine sports cars, that’s what the NSX should be and where it would dominate. It’s in way too tough of a scene at this price point.

RyanFrew > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:32

11

That is a long list of cars that I would buy instead of the NSX......

BrownDieselWagon > Arrivederci 10/26/2015 at 14:33

0

Why did Acura steal the ass of an Aston Martin?

Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:33

20

But the price isn’t everything.
But the power isn’t everything.
But the driving dynamics aren’t everything.
But the looks aren’t everything.
But all together...Yeah, that’s about everything.

Let’s all give Honda a collective, slow head-shake.

PatBateman > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:33

6

So, buy the McLaren 570S instead?

DONE.

Sir HoonsAlot > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:33

4

Instead of buying one of these(assuming it ever comes up for sale), I’d take my money and get one of these...

KSEGGFTW > Rico 10/26/2015 at 14:33

6

Agreed. “New” NSX is already suffering from “Old” NSX problems.

For the price range, there are far better choices.

472CID > EL_ULY 10/26/2015 at 14:34

24

The Viper, ZO6, 458, 488, 650S all have way better power/weight ratios (mid 5s lb/hp). The Americans are roughly half the price of the NSX, and the Ferrari/Lambo/Macca crew are all about $100k more.

This was just a quick n’ dirty look at the closest competitors.

My X-type is too a real Jaguar > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:34

0

The question is drivability, is this a car you can comfortably commute in? The original NSX drove comfortable enough to commute in if they have achieved that all bets are off

shurkon93 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:34

0

That car looks really good.

AudiAudiOxenFree > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:34

1

This new Integra looks great! $32k? Sign me up!! Can’t wait for the R-type!!

Edit: 3800 lbs WTF?!?!?! What does a 458 weigh 3300?

cstealth > Doge_Supreme drives a BRZ 10/26/2015 at 14:35

5

It’s not just you. It’s been previewed for so long - IIRC the superbowl commercial for it was just under FOUR years ago. I’m not sure who is going to buy this over a McLaren, Porsche, Audi or MB.

Dirka > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:35

0

Competition? Yah, how does it compare to the 2025 Audi R8 and Porsche 911.

Sorry, that was petty I should let it go.

Jimbobway > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:35

0

This car benchmarked the 458 and MP4-12C only to find the 488 and 650S when it finally goes on sale.

Boom.

Arrivederci > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:35

3

From the Autoblog article:

The NSX has a giant bag of neat tricks, but to understand them takes a lengthy explanation that starts with the Sport Hybrid SH-AWD powertrain. Behind the cockpit is a 75-degree, twin-turbocharged, 3.5-liter V6, made specifically for the NSX. On its own it puts out 500 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque. The rest of Honda’s lineup uses a 60-degree layout, but the wider angle here lowers the center of gravity. Behind the engine is the rear assist motor, with 47 hp and 100 lb-ft. Hanging off the rear of that is the nine-speed dual-clutch, developed in-house.

In between the front wheels is the Twin Motor Unit (TMU), a pair of 36-hp, 54-lb-ft electric motors that add or subtract forces to their respective sides. The Power Drive unit manages the electronics, and sits in the center spine of the car like a traditional prop shaft. A lithium-ion battery pack is behind the pair of seats, on the cold side of the firewall. Total system output is 573 hp and 476 lb-ft.

Granted I’m not in their demographic since I’m not independently wealthy and can’t afford a $170k toy, but, if I wanted a modern NSX, it seems they have the pieces they need, but just went way too far.

A 3800lb curb weight is atrocious. Give me that twin-turbo 3.5L V6 making 500hp mounted midship, RWD and a manual transmission. No dual-clutch, no batteries, no electric motors, no SH-AWD. That alone would have to save at least 300ish pounds, right? Think it would also make for a more rewarding driving experience too. As it is, it sounds like a car that can make you a driving hero, but insulated, sort of like the GTR.

1965gto > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:35

0

Looks like a 10 year old Mitsubishi something

AntiLag > Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig 10/26/2015 at 14:36

3

Good. You’re not allowed to join us in drooling over it in a couple of months when it comes out.

NasalRadiator911 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:36

0

3,800 lbs? Ugh. That’s simply terrible.

472CID > Milky 10/26/2015 at 14:37

4

Yeah this was just a quick look at the cars closest to the Honda, the Americas and Italians are on a different level both in power/weight and price.

That being said, I desperately want a comparison test with as many of these cars as possible.

RedPir8Roberts > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:38

0

F-Type R has a better power to weight??? Also no price listed for the F-Type, I believe it is significantly less expensive. That blue on the NSX is nice, reminds me of the Asterion and Ford GTs shown in a similar color. I’m sure most production cars will be gray, black, or silver.

knyghtryda > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:38

0

I think Honda lost the plot a bit with this NSX. The original NSX was a supercar for everyone. It cost a lot, but it wasn’t Ferrari money, or even Porsche 911 money (if I remember correctly the later model years were around $70k new). If a Honda is now in spitting distance of a McLaren price wise then something is very off. And no... this is no “Honda LFA” unless this has some super crazy carbon everything “we built a whole loom for this car” like the LFA (doubtful, considering just how heavy this car is). This is a really fast, really powerful and insanely expensive Honda, but it should have been a really fast, moderately powerful, and kind of expensive Honda. This means that the modern reincarnation of an NSX isn’t an NSX... its a GT-R.

barreto > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:38

0

How is it this heavy? Seems quite overweight.

Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig > AntiLag 10/26/2015 at 14:38

4

I mean, the looks aren’t horrible. That shot up there is downright hotness. But then you turn it around andBEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAK. BEAK. BEAK FOR YOU NOW.

move-over-peasant-I-have-an-M5-in-the-shop > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:39

1

I see a lot of last-gen Eclipse in the rear of this car. Also the twin "C" taillamps from the civic, just stretched out a bit.

Doge_Supreme drives a BRZ > cstealth 10/26/2015 at 14:39

4

It’s definitely not on my list, and it won’t live up to the hype.

472CID > HammerheadFistpunch 10/26/2015 at 14:40

5

How good it is to drive is the ultimate way to evaluate this or any car. Based on what I’ve read so far... I don’t think it will live up to the first gen.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > HammerheadFistpunch 10/26/2015 at 14:41

4

I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the NSX won’t sound quite as good as the LFA...

/trolling

dogisbadob > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:43

3

Overpriced. It should’ve been priced well under 150k.

A GTR is just over 100k.

Xander, Proud of BOXER > HammerheadFistpunch 10/26/2015 at 14:44

1

Reviews are saying it’s fast but dull to drive, no steering feedback.

nucciOMG > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:45

1

Ferrari 948? you mean 348?

Funktheduck > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:45

4

By the time this thing comes out we’ll have hover cars.

300hp30mpgrwdfor30k > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:46

2

One thing this car has going for it that the others on this list don’t is that it’s a hybrid. So it’s not as fast a hybrid as the P1, The TheFerrari, or the 918, but it’s way cheaper, which is where I think the story is on this car.

It’ll probably stack up against the Model S quite well for those who want electric power but not seating for 5+. It'll also probably be a very unique drive different from any other car I can think of.

Obscure Drives > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:47

0

The original was a visceral, simple mid-engined experience. That’s why it worked by “feeling” good. With a hybrid setup and all wheel drive and newfangled silly shit like that it’s just going to feel fast.

Also it's $170k. That's 40k more than an AMG-GTS. I wanted to love it. I don't. I'm disappointed so far. I just don't see where the excitement will come from.

AudiAudiOxenFree > Arrivederci 10/26/2015 at 14:47

5

Lol, that alone would save closer to 500 lbs I’d imagine. And you’d have an awesome driving machine, possibly a $150k LFA, but nooooo...

Xan1765 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:49

0

So, I’ve never been much of a supercar 6 figure kind of enthusiast (because I’ll probably never drive, let alone own any of them), but 3,800 pounds is a lot!!!! I realize this is pretty off topic, but do most supercars weigh nearly two tons!?

I generally have a 2,500 pounds or less rule on any fun cars I own (3,000 or less if it’s relatively new), but man two tons is a lot of car to try and make “spritely”

jumpjet > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:49

0

That is a CP price point IMO. The original, according to C&D, “ranged from $60,000 in 1991 to just shy of $90,000 by the time production stopped in 2005.”

Let’s do some math for the whole range here.

In 1991 dollars, a $60-90k range today is ~$105-157k. In 2005 dollars, that same range is ~$73k-109k today.

I’m sorry, but there’s no way I’d cross-shop a four year old “newcomer” (and that’s being generous) like the NSX against a comparably-priced 911 Turbo/GT3, Audi R8, or McLaren 570. Not happening.

Anthony McClinton > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:50

0

With how long it took them to finally make it to production, the design doesn’t look that great anymore. It looks like every other Honda/Acura you can buy now. This car was and still is over hyped. Plus there are so many new cars out there now that I would rather buy with my $170k. Not saying it’s a terrible car, just now there are so many new cars that are more interesting than the NSX.

wætherman > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:50

0

It’s a shame that it’s coming at the upper end of the price range for sports cars these days. Based on the original NSX price point, it seems like it should have been closer to $100,000. I think this would have done well against the 911, the GT-R and the R8, but at $170k I think it’s in a different class of car that it might not run well against.

RedWhine > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:51

0

“His keys said the Padre drove an Acura. Or at least that’s what they’re passing off as an Acura these days... Modern cars. They all look like electric shavers”

Voice of C. Montgomery Burns > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:51

0

They’ll sell, but they won’t sell fast with that price.

Freakusaurus-Rex > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:51

0

Now put those in order in which you would rather own them. . . Somewhere in there, features, looks, and rarity come into play. There are way to many GT-Rs around here and I have been seeing an increasing number of F-types, which you left off the price list. Three 911s and two R8s make your list look longer than it really is.

I think I would go with McLaren, R8 (spyder), Mercedes, Acura, Porsche, Jaguar, Nissan.

LugNutz > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:53

2

2007, 2017, same thing. I am about as excited over this as I am the new Camry.

happytobehere > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:55

4

No need to make excuses. The real reason is that no one looking at these cars are cross shoping at the Chevy dealer. Sorry, but if you have the money, you want something cool and unique, not affordable.

And for those born in the 70’s, a corvette will never be a cool car that you would ever want, let alone dream about.

LeCookieMonsieur > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:57

2

Seems like a cheaper car with better power to weight would always be a competitor? Shows how high they are punching above their class.

AntiLag > Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig 10/26/2015 at 14:57

3

I actually love every angle of this car, but looks are subjective, so to each his own. And to address your initial point; the most important aspect of a sports car is how it feels when you drive it. That’s why there are numbers cars, and there are ‘feel’ cars. The miata, the 911, the Fiesta ST, and even my personal car, a 6 speed manual 320i with a whopping 180whp, are ‘feel’ cars. They are cars that are great because of the way they feel when you drive them, not how much power-to-weight they put down or how many G’s they can pull on a skid pad.

PheeNoIVI > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:57

1

Why anyone would buy this over a GT3, or GTR, if you have to have turbos, is beyond me.

dsigned001 - O.R.C. hunter > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:57

5

Wooh, she’s a fatty. The i8 is “only” 3300.

JasonH > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 14:59

0

$170k, that’s about of money for me to save up on Forza (whichever version it finally lands in and after I’ve ponied up the DLC fee that will be required to drive this). Only then to weigh having 15 240sx riced out in different forms vs. 1 underwhelming car. Well I guess I have a bit of time to ponder life’s important decisions.

LJ909 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:02

3

It’s a great looker of a car. Hondas main problem though is that they waited too long to come back and the rest of the automotive world has either caught up or passed them for the same price or less. There’s too many other offerings out there with similar performance now to really look hard enough at the NSX. I give it two model years before its gone tops.

Pessimippopotamus > Doge_Supreme drives a BRZ 10/26/2015 at 15:04

4

It’s not just that the particular design is old (it is pretty old), the entire Acura design language could use a refresh. They’re still using the same design language previewed in like 2008.

It seems ass-backwards particularly because a halo car should herald a new design language where as the NSX is a product of an old one. See the R8 for a successful example.

Treemendous > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:05

0

It’s the Cadillac approach to failing miserably: attempt to break into a segment by offering something “about as good” for “about the same price” as the benchmarks.

Mike_Smith > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:06

1

(lb/hp times $) / 1000 (lower is better):

Jag F-Type R: 687.4

911 GT3: 863.2

AMG GT: 868.4

GTR Nismo: 964.5

570S: 993.5

911 Turbo: 1020.8

R8 V10: 1047.2

R8 V10 Plus: 1088.2

NSX: 1128.8

911 Turbo S: 1156.6

Not that price/performance is everything, but the NSX doesn’t look so good in that regard.

Gnarkiller > happytobehere 10/26/2015 at 15:06

0

Not a new one anyway.

SidewaysOnDirt still misses Bowie > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:07

2

3800 lbs? Sorry, just give me an original one.

RabidWombat88 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:08

0

It still blows my mind that they ran the first model NSX for that long. The facelift didn’t even change much. Maybe this one will have the same fate?

Spoolingturbo > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:08

0

Did I miss something? Where did these numbers come from?

Duck > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:08

0

All of those actually exist though...

crushinator321 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:09

0

I saw one. In the flesh. This weekend in Chicago. They appeared to be shooting an ad. FYI, it looks really good in red.

Rico > ghost650 10/26/2015 at 15:10

11

That price point given just how many better options exist.

Stan > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:10

0

IDK but looking at that photo above, I can’t tell if that car is coming or going. It has curves and swoops all over the place but doesn’t seem to have any actual styling. Oh well, to each his own.

hp7015ca > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:12

0

Almost 4000 lbs? Why not just put on a pickup bed?

Rico > davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com 10/26/2015 at 15:12

0

Have you heard it? It sounds terrible truth be told. That video that was posted of it revving and pulling off was not great.

mikewballou > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:14

0

ferrari 948 eh? hmmmmm....

EL_ULY > happytobehere 10/26/2015 at 15:15

13

winning races > being a smug asshole in a cool/unique car

Mark Bour > HammerheadFistpunch 10/26/2015 at 15:16

2

At 3,803 lbs, this NSX certainly is more than the sum of it’s parts. That’s a big lady.

davesaddiction @ opposite-lock.com > Rico 10/26/2015 at 15:17

0

I’m sure I’ve heard it, but it’s nothing that I’d remember (or care to). And consider that the LFA is held up as one of the best sounding cars of all time... With an “aspirational” car like this, the intangibles are very important .

Pinot007 > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:18

0

$170,000.00 for an Acura... NO!

None > HammerheadFistpunch 10/26/2015 at 15:18

6

Road & Track did an advance test and the news is not good: lack of steering feel and excessive understeer. Both can probably be improved with proper tire selection. For me, though the positioned the car over 30% higher than the original adjusted for inflation, and that will prove to be a mistake. You can buy some really outstanding cars in that price range.

jumpjet > PheeNoIVI 10/26/2015 at 15:18

0

Hell, a brand new 911 Turbo is about 20-grand less... and those are proven, viable daily-drivers, with the reliability and pedigree of Porsche.

Crack Pipe all the way.

RalphieDC > jariten1781 10/26/2015 at 15:20

1

[$]—————————————————————————> NSX

wolfenstein > happytobehere 10/26/2015 at 15:22

5

Hi, have we met? My name is OWNS 6 CORVETTES

HammerheadFistpunch > None 10/26/2015 at 15:22

2

I get that its Honda and that they are a little different, but less power and less weight would have produced a much better car than a budget hyper-car solution has(will?)...too bad no one who is buying one cares.

iceman > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:24

0

Still think I’d rather spend less money and take a pristine original NSX and drive the snot out of it

featherlite > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:25

0

Well... let’s hope that it drives spectacular... because a $170,000 Acura sounds like a tough sell.

NightDriver > EL_ULY 10/26/2015 at 15:28

3

I’ll tell you where the money and power to weight puts this new NSX: behind a Viper, behind a Z06, and most likely behind an ATS-V with a tune and downpipes. If the NSX wanted to be competitive for it’s class, I think it needed to weigh around 3300 - 3400 lbs.

bikertool > Drakkon- Most Glorious and Upright Person of Genius 10/26/2015 at 15:31

0

Now I want nachos

Mox > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:31

0

“(or rather lb/hp)“

Power-to-weight ratio = weight divided with power ... dafuq? maybe it’s just me but that seems to be absolutely asshat backwards!

NightDriver > 472CID 10/26/2015 at 15:33

0

On a side note - is it just me, or have the Japanese stopped investing in their internal combustion engines? 573 HP is the best they could do? Tadge and the ‘vette guys literally rejected an engine for the Z06 because all they could get out of it was 600 HP. Toyota/Lexus’ best V6 remains the 3.5L/305 HP unit, while GM kicks out the 3.6L LGX making 335HP and let’s not even get into what BMW and Mercedes are doing with their sixes.

I think this is what’s fueling the dominance of the Americans and Germans in (affordable) performance cars today.