Ricer argument, and NO ONE cares.
Try Hp/pound.

 

Well, there's no sense in arguing with you, since you are the typical disdainful, arrogent moron who buys Camaros, Trans Ams, and Mustangs (Mr. "Detroit muscle car guy"). So mabe I was a few digits off here and there with my comparisons, I'm sorry I don't have files of stats sheets in front of me. The facts remain that no matter how much you try to update the 350, it's still a 350, ancient technology for close minded muscle car "tuff guys" like you. You can question my automotive prowess all you want. I've yet to see a Camaro in mint condition over 50,000 miles and I've been working on cars since you were going out with cheerleaders. Honda is so far ahead of GM in extruding power from engines they'll be playing catch-up forever. But that's beside the point. Point is, you tell me not to spew my mouth, then you turn around and do the same thing, only you have even less of a clue about Honda. Don't come to HAN acting like God's gift from Detroit. You can talk your smack all you want at a Camaro SS site. Untill you learn about Hondas, don't do it here. Read some of the other posts in other forums. We actually make fun of the ricers, since people who buy Hondas, now more than ever, look for reliability among other things. You need to get your facts straight!

 

OK. Boy, you sure showed me.
You countered every single fact I have stated.... wait... no, you didn't, did you?
You instead babbled on with assumptions about me, a few stereotypes, some mis-information (my engine is 346 ci, thanks), and ZERO FACTS.
I would rather have somebody with a little competance try to refute me... instead, I get this. Nice comeback. I sure am a 'disdainful, arrogant moron'. Later.

 

Here's my $.02. I'm an avid fan of all cars, from the single cylinder Benz tricycle of the 1880s to the newest hybrid Civics. In my opinion, it's a matter of mentality.

There has always been the school of high-performance, many-cylindered engines = great acceleration, with some sacrifice of handling, refinement, etc. Ferrari's SOHC V12 (the "Colombo"), Aston Martins, Jensens, the old Detroit muscle (Hemi 426, Magnum 440 from Mopar, Ford's 427, 428 Cobra Jet and 429, Chevy's 302, 402 and 454, et. al.), the old Lamborghini V12s..... as far back as the REALLY old eras, where sports cars like the Bugatti, Cord, Dusenberg, Ford V8, etc. etc. followed this idea. The newer Camaros, Trans Ams, Corvettes follow this line of thought.

The other school of thought, dating back equally far, is that smaller engines + light body = excellent performance plus nimble handling. This philosophy is just as old, and can trace its roots all the way back to the old Delahayes, Delages, MGs, some Ferraris (the Dino 246GT comes to mind), up through Porsche, Lotus, BMW, Datsun (the 240Z), et. al. All of these cars are either fours or sixes. It's from this branch that Honda/Toyota/Nissan/etc. draws from - relatively lightweight cars which have performance anywhere from brisk to searing, and handle very well. Great examples of this are the Supra Turbo, the 300ZX, the RX-7, the WRX STi, Evo, etc.

Of course, I'm generalizing tremendously. Some companies sit on both sides of the fence, like Jaguar, whose E-Type came in both sixes and twelves, or Mercedes with the 300SL and SLK, and also the SL500, SL600... and some transformed themselves from one to another, like Ferrari from their early sixes to their monster twelves. Lotus, king of the lightweights, had the turbo V8 Esprit for a while. But I really think these two philosophies dominate auto history. Shelby tried to take the best of both worlds with his monster AC Cobras, light-weight AND huge engine - and even though they went 0-100-0 in 14 seconds, the handling was notoriously piss-poor, even the in 289. Likewise, lots of people complained about the famous slant six from Chevy, even though it got great mileage, because it could barely climb hills in the huge cars they put it in.

So the NSX and Corvette are natural "enemies." Honda isn't interested in enlarging the six to even out the performance difference, and they're not going to switch to an eight - it's against their line of thinking. I doubt they even compare the two cars. But they do even the score in other ways - with outstanding, hand-built quality, exclusivity/rarity, advanced suspension and a marvelous, refined, gem of an engine. Yet the price is a big problem - for that price, you could almost get two Z06s, which shares some of the same qualities. To me, it seems that Honda is following the old mantra "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Naturally, people who favor the small-engine, light-car philosophy want the NSX to compete with the less expensive, higher-performing cars now out (some with the same exclusivity appeal like the Viper), and want Honda to update their design, and consider their competition. Yet with a 200-per-year production, I doubt Honda is looking to outperform anybody - they are making a simple, handsome sports car which is perfect for what it is. They're not trying to beat the Z06 or anyone else - the NSX, to them, is fulfilling its destiny nicely.

So I doubt this will happen, because they only need to sell 200 a year, and apparently they're doing so, so there's no need. They're not trying to outrun the Z06 or 360 Modena or 911 Carrera - it's not their goal. They ARE trying - and succeeding - to build a car which has remained excellent in build quality and reliability for years, and will continue to be great for years to come. The sticker price is part of this - how many NSX owners are going to heap the abuse on them that lots of Z06s see?

Nathan1234, I think the whole thread is sort of pointless because the two schools of thought are so different. Honda isn't inclined to change its working formula, while the Corvette Z06 is challenging the Viper for the premier American sports car, and continues to evolve, since a lot of its respect depends on its performance. Unless Honda decides to begin changing the NSX - which it won't, since there's no pressure - the NSX will continue to slowly lose ground as a premium sports car, while gaining ground as an exclusive, refined, unusual exotic. Instead, it seems they continue to experiment with other platforms like the S2000, Civic Type R, RSX-S, etc. etc. - because they feel high pressure to keep sales up.

There's tons more to bring up, but I'm tired... maybe I'll post more later. Anyway, I hope that's more what you were looking for as far as a complete answer goes.

 

hmmmm....very in depth. that sounds like it was out of a proffessional article. nicely put too.

 

thank god someone finally was able to write something like that down. i prefer the light weight little cars over big muscel but that doesn't make me talk trash about those muscel cars. take them what they are for and quit bashing a car just because you don't understand why someone would want a car like that take the car for it's worth

 

DelSolSIinMD,
Thanks for they well thought out post. I can see where you are coming from and agree with most of what you've said.... except for the part about the Supra and 300ZX being 'lightweight', and the Z06 not.
Anyway, good points, man. Anyone else?

 

why do u think that the zo6 handels better then the nsx? u also say it handels better then the 360 ferrari and car and driver motor trend etc. say that the 360 is the best handeling car they have ever tested. Don't get me wrong the zo6 ahndels real well probablly better then any other american car at the moment but it does not stand up to a 360 ferrari or the nsx

 

Why? I've driven a '96 NSX and an '01 Z06. I believe the Z06 handles signifigantly better.
If you'd like some backup on that, look here:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ber=1&preview=
This is the '01 Z06. It beats every car except for the 360 on this course. It lost by under a second to the 360. The '02 Z06 has 20 more Hp and is lighter, which will give it a slight advantage (very slight) over the current 360 on many courses.
But the question of whether it handles better than the NSX? You decide.

 

This post illustrates an all-too-common lack of understanding of what variable valve timing accomplishes.

The first misunderstood fact is that acceleration is a function of torque at the wheels, which is engine torque times gearing, less any drivetrain losses.

The second misunderstood fact is that variable valve timing does not increase torque (or, as a result, acceleration) at higher revs. Its objective is to prevent torque from dropping as revs increase. When you look at the torque curve for a VTEC car like the NSX:



you can see that it's quite flat from roughly 3500 RPM to about 7500 RPM, and there is no huge increase above the VTEC crossover point of 5800 RPM.

The advantage of a wider, flat torque curve like this is in gearing. Cars without VTEC would be forced to upshift by around 6000 to 6500 RPM for optimal acceleration, and when they upshift, they lose acceleration because of the loss in gearing. This is why VTEC cars are so much faster than their torque numbers would imply - because they gain an acceleration advantage from their ability to stay in a lower gear before upshifting.

If you would like a more lengthy explanation, including how horsepower numbers reflect this, read this excellent article about the difference between torque and horsepower, and how gearing comes into play.

Actually, a better article, one that instead shows a direct comparison between these two cars, is this one:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1

The Z06 may post performance numbers in some categories that are ever so slightly better, but you can tell from this article that these two cars (and the 911, which was also compared) are clearly in the same league, with similar capabilities.