Funny, a stock Z06 slaloms at a higher speed, lateral skidpads over 1G and has shorter stopping distances so i guess that means it has more sheer straight line speed AND better handling right?

People buy NSX's for the hand built quality and exclusivity as well as just having a fun all around car. Sure the NSX is aluminum frame but the vette is fiberglass also not some sheet metal tank like everyone wants to think. In the end in terms of pure performance a Z06 will still tear it a new one in every aspect. Now quit being another honda fanboy like half the people on this board and give props where they are due.

FYI i drove a turbo civic before as you probably know so i'm every bit as partial to honda but the facts don't lie. Either way, you will never own either car so you probably shouldn't worry.

 

:woopdee****indoo:
There are many reasons to buy an NSX over a 'Vette and many to buy a 'Vette over an NSX. But it would be ignorant to say a Z06 is a better car because it has a .2 sec faster quarter mile time or because it can go around a cone .1 mph faster. This arguement is as old as the NSX itself. I'm not a typical Honda fanboy as you call it, and I give respect where it is due. The Z06 is a great performer at almost half the price of an NSX. But it's still not an NSX. Whether the Acura is worth the cost is up to the buyer.

 

You can't say you're not a fanboy and then say "But it's still a NSX" The argument here isn't about which is a better car, it's about performance. Hands down the Z06 is a better performer with equal drivers. The worth of any car is up to the buyer, just about the only thing the NSX has going for it is exclusivity, hand built quality and fun to drive. As a raw sports car the 10 year old design just doesn't cut it in performance figures.

 

actaully the nsx was only 1 second slower around laguna seca then a z06, these are stock cars, whihc 1 sec isn't much when the zo6 completlly kills it on the straights that proves the nsx's handeling abillity even with a 1989 design.

 

Sure I can. Just like I can say an NSX isn't a Ferrari 360 even though the magazine numbers are about the same.

 

honestly I find the this to be quite funny. The corvette is the best buy for your money. But when they are comparing the cars are they comparing the nsx or the nsx-r? just out of curiosity

 

1 second on a road course is a pretty big deal. You've probably never taken a car you owned on any sort of road course so I guess you'd think 1 second isn't a big deal. I'm not arguing the NSX isn't a great handling car, but as a whole package PERFORMANCE wise it doesn't stack up to a Z06.

g2tegls, you're an even bigger fanboy if you want to compare a NSX to a ferrari 360 and ESPECIALLY by saying "ACCORDING TO MAGAZINE TIMES" Jesus Christ, I highly doubt you've driven a NSX much less SAT IN a 360. I've driven both and I can tell you they're worlds apart. It's like comparing your 12 year old 2nd gen integra LS to a JDM DC5 type R. Even NSX owners admit the Z06 has better performance hands down, how much more evidence do you need?

 

jesus, so many ignorant people are posting and forced this thread off-topic. They're both great cars for different reasons.

 

That's what "fanboys" do - whether they're "honda fanboys" or "vette fanboys" or "1/4 mile time fanboys". They waste time arguing "my car is better than your car blah blah blah", instead of appreciating each car for what it is.

If you want to read comments about both of these cars from drivers with various levels of experience (who are NOT "fanboys"), you can read this article from Road & Track (March 2002).

 

I wanted an NSX for a long time. But I got a twin turbo Supra. I still want an NSX also but later. Anyways, corvettes are nice too. They look like NSX's to boot.