silvrevo

iTrader: (6)

Your all way too wrapped up in performance,, its ok thou.

There is no doubt the first nsx was leaps and bounds above anything at that time.

Looks wise,,, it stoped people in thier tracks.

WestSideBilly

iTrader: (1)

Why else would you spend $160k on a sports car?

VincentX

^+1 to that.

CAD EVO

iTrader: (22)

160k price tag is incredibly disappointing.

I would much rather see a 70-80k model with 400-500 hp

Que the z06 goons.

fullracehonda

iTrader: (1)

yeah the 160k is hopefulley a little bit higher than itll msrp for, and yes the gtr better watch its back since honda said they wouldnt release it until it beat a gtr on the nurburg(sp?)

and the nsx namesake is just that i guess, a namesake from honda/acuras performance/racing/engineering abilitys, the key thing to the regular nsx's is its aluminum construction, mid engine, and those trade mark tail lights!



and yes the nsx was leaps and bounds above everything in its category when it came out, it was more comfortable, more street freindly, more tame, more reliable(by alot!) and faster than the 911's and 348 ferraris, msrp was 69k in 91 so i guess with inflation that does equal somewhere over 100k


when they origionaly came out msrp was close to the new gtr, and the where selling for as much as the ridiculous mark ups over 100k on the new gtr's

Hannibalzero

Pretty much my thoughts as well. While the 90's NSX looks dated, I'd say it is still a much better looking car. I wouldn't go as far as to call this one ugly, there are many cars I would rather have that cost much, much less than $160k. The V10 is an impressive engine though - shame its placed in the front of the car.

jmartinez1170

iTrader: (21)

trash