 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Acura Cars / April 2008Cars are getting bigger, heaver, uglier and consumes more gas.
The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX." But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph on the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both in styling and fuel efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg. That's what my kid gets on his Civic Si. A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with performance like this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were they talking about? I agree. I own a 1997 NSX and consider it to be the best car ever built. It was hand built with matched components and delivers over 20 mpg in average driving. Its performance is extraordinary and I also agree that these 500+ hp cars are overkill. The NSX was the first production car to have titanium connecting rods and an 8000 rpm redline. With its mid-engine handling, it was used as the model for the McClaren F1. In fact, Honda was the first choice for the engine builder, but Honda refused. BMW was the second choice. The new NSX will be much more conventional, not hand built and front engined. It is an economic business choice by Honda. I've read Honda never made money on the NSX. It just cost too much to build. The assembly-line new NSX will have a profit margin. My advice is to buy a nicely preserved original NSX. It is the most dependable super car ever built. - Russ in Santa Barbara > The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX." > But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were > they talking about? > The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine > "NSX." But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and > over 200mph on the street? I would prefer the old mid-engine NSX both > in styling and fuel efficiency with a combine city/highway of 18mpg. > That's what my kid gets on his Civic Si. He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that car, then. > A few years back Acura was talking about the new "NSX" with > performance like this but with a fuel efficiency of something like > 40mpg. What were they talking about? No idea. Maybe a hybrid version? If you don't like gas swilling behemoths, you can always buy a Fit. Nobody's forcing anybody to buy a V10. And it's not a question of "need".If we were reduced to buying things only on the basis of "need", all the things that make life fun would be gone. The things that make life fun satisfy our /desires/. I find it interesting that the V10 is happening considering Honda's previously-stated intention to never build anything bigger than a V6, because anything bigger wouldn't be "green" enough (that's why the Ridgeline only has a V6 in a market dominated by V8s). There is some merit to the concept of a V10 of moderate displacement: Smaller cylinders mean better control over emissions, which dovetails nicely with Honda's core philosophies.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that car, > then. Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20% highway. >> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that car, >> then. >> > Most of the driving is in San Francisco. Something like 80% city, 20% > highway. He may have a point - unless he's driving totally leadfooted the whole time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My rsx, which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg. Signature----------------------------- I only talk like that in the movies >>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that >>> car, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > time, which is a possibility, he should be doing better than that. My rsx, > which is almost totally leadfooted city driving gets around 25 mpg. Thanks. No, he doesn't have a lead foot. My other son does and redline it all the time on his 98 GSR and still gets 32mpg. (80% highway, 20% city) Go figure! Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look at the gas consumption too. >>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that >>>> car, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look at > the gas consumption too. It could be something as minor as underinflated tires - I was having exceptionally bad mileage for a while, and although they looked fine, one of the tires was about 8 lbs low, which was causing my mileage to drop to an average of 22 mpg. So if there are several in this state, you could get down to 18 pretty quickly... Signature----------------------------- I only talk like that in the movies >>>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that >>>>> car, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > an average of 22 mpg. So if there are several in this state, you could get > down to 18 pretty quickly... Tire pressure should be ok as it was checked a month ago. (It was low but that was before the bad mileage was noticed, will check pressure again) Car is in the dealer now and they said nothing could be done about the bad mileage unless the check engine light comes on. >>>> He gets 18mpg from a Civic Si? There's something very wrong with that >>>> car, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Anyway taking the Civic Si to the dealer on a recall and have them look at >the gas consumption too. My 94 GSR gets about 22 in city driving driven very hard. The Si would be heavier, and has about the same power. Still 18 seems pretty low. > The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX." > But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph on [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this but with a fuel efficiency of something like 40mpg. What were they > talking about? While the old NSX was a fine car, my 2003 Corvette 6-speed manages to eek out 27 mpg when used for my daily commute (mostly highway). It gets about half that when I drive it for "pleasure." I've had one mechanical issue with the car that was taken care of by Chevy at zero cost to me. Certainly, the Corvette handles much differently than the NSX but there's no doubt that it is faster around any racetrack, costs much less to buy and apparently is more fuel efficient. I hear the 2008 Corvette, despite making 430 HP (vs 350 HP in my 2003) is even more fuel efficient, handles better and is a more comfortable car. True, not the snob appeal, excuse me - exclusivity, of the NSX but GM has shown some dedication to the sports car while Honda let both the NSX and S2000 die slow and agonizing deaths. Unlike Honda, GM is building its sports car to become lighter weight, more powerful, better handling and consume less fuel. While I think the Honda Accord is the best, low-cost family sedan available right now, I gotta give GM credit where credit is due. From what little has been leaking to the Press regarding the next generation Corvette, it will not be a mid-engine car (too expensive) but rather the same layout as now but on a new, smaller frame. I wouldn't be surprised to see a significantly smaller base engine achieving well over 30 mpg highway. I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an NSX or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old technology, a pushrod engine, I thin it still has rear leaf springs!, it is plastic inside -- an interior similar to a Chevette. I looked at Corvettes and walked away thinking how could they sell these things. They are simply inferior to a supercar in every conceivable way. They are manufactured on an assembly line. Of course, Corvettes are noisy and relatively quick in a straight line, but at high speed, like all pushrod engines, they run out of power. My NSX would rev much higher, but the rev limiter limits rpm to a bit over 8000, and it is pulling even harder once the VTEC kicks in at around 6000 rpm. If you have never driven a true supercar, you may think a front-engine car is impressive. One drive in a mid-engine true supercar and your opinion will be forever changed. There was a test done by one of the car magazines that tested several cars including the NSX and Corvette, as well as the 911, and jokingly a Camaro. The test was 0 to 150 mph to 0. The only car that beat the NSX was a Viper. Nothing else beat the NSX. It is a true supercar, holding its value as no new Corvette does. I have owned my NSX for 5 1/2 years now, and it is worth at least as much as I paid for it. It has never been in the rain, and of course, never in snow. This is not much of a hardship here in California as it only rains perhaps 10-20 days per year. I guess it's good that more people don't comprehend the value of supercars like the NSX -- I couldn't have afforded one. Of course, now that I have one, let the prices increase! I will post the 0-150-0 in a new post. - Russ in SB On 3/28/08 4:20 AM, in article aaccb234-328c-47fe-ba0a-02e8a50c3e16@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com, "ACAR" <dimndsonmywndshld@yahoo.com> wrote: >> The Nissan GT-R is awesome and so will be the new V10 front engine "NSX." >> But do we need 500hp monsters doing 0-60mph under 3.5 sec and over 200mph on [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > see a significantly smaller base engine achieving well over 30 mpg > highway. > I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an NSX > or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old technology, > a pushrod engine, I thin it still has rear leaf springs!, snip yet the 2008 Corvette gets around a track pretty well for half the price of a NSX. some define supercar by the specifications others define it by performance >> I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an >> NSX [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yet the 2008 Corvette gets around a track pretty well for half the > price of a NSX. Corvette still use brute force? In the old days (1970s) I see the Corvette leaving the Lotus Europa in the dust on a straight runway but the Europa catches up on the curves. The Lotus has only about 130hp 4 banger and gets close to 40mpg vs. a huge block V8 on the Corvette. > some define supercar by the specifications > others define it by performance > Corvette still use brute force? In the old days (1970s) I see the Corvette > leaving the Lotus Europa in the dust on a straight runway but the Europa > catches up on the curves. The Lotus has only about 130hp 4 banger and gets > close to 40mpg vs. a huge block V8 on the Corvette. Here's a quote from an August 2007 Car & Driver article; comparison of various sports cars at Virgina Int. Raceway "LL2: 2007 Chevrolet Corvette - Feature The Lightning Lap, 2007 There were several surprises in this class--and the biggest was the astonishing performance of the base Corvette equipped with the Z51 package. The Vette was a returnee to VIR because we experienced a data problem with its quickest lap last year. We had to publish its second- quickest lap time (3:09.3) then, which we didn't think represented the car's capabilities. Those suspicions were dead on, because this time around the Z51 blazed around the course in 3:03.6, nearly six seconds quicker. That time bests those of the Audi R8 and Porsche 911 Turbo, cars that cost more than twice as much as the Z51's base price. As we've learned, Corvettes are lap dogs when it comes to obeying commands from the helm, and they have wonderful fade-free brakes and benefit from a smooth 400-hp V-8. But they initially feel spooky, partly because the steering is a bit numb. Once a driver learns to trust the Vette's chassis, the Chevy can embarrass almost any other car on the track, even if it isn't as confidence inspiring as a Porsche 911. " > I guess it's good that more people don't comprehend the value of supercars > like the NSX -- I couldn't have afforded one. Of course, now that I have > one, let the prices increase! Oh, people comprehend. There's some other reason the NSX is priced like a used car and not a Ferrari. >I will try to be as gentle as possible, but comparing a Corvette to an NSX > or any supercar is not reasonable. A Corvette uses 50-year old [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Russ in SB I owned a couple of Vettes about 35 years ago. Today, they have become relatively more expensive than the old models -- I guess technology and so forth increased the cost. My 71 454 4 speed roadster with a/c cost $6,100 back in 71. Those dollars today considering inflation equal around $33k or so. You sure can't buy a new Vette today for that today. Of course, one buy a S 2000 for that. Waiving the right to remain silent, "tww1491" <twaugh5@cox.net> said: > I owned a couple of Vettes about 35 years ago. Today, they have become > relatively more expensive than the old models -- I guess technology and > so forth increased the cost. My 71 454 4 speed roadster with a/c cost > $6,100 back in 71. Those dollars today considering inflation equal > around $33k or so. You sure can't buy a new Vette today for that today. > Of course, one buy a S 2000 for that. I owned a new 76 Corvette, and it was not their best year. They were severely underpowered during that era. Had it for 9 years, and sold it for about $1,500 less than what I paid. Held its value surprisingly well for one which wasn't very well liked. SignatureLarry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail "A lack of common sense is now considered a disability, with all the privileges that this entails." |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.