Edmunds: Acura NSX around $160k, V10 with 600hp
Jul 30, 2008, 07:28 AM
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmunds: Acura NSX around $160k, V10 with 600hp
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=129976
Edmunds claims to have "insider sources" that confirm the following specs for the upcoming 2011 Acura NSX.
Edmunds claims to have "insider sources" that confirm the following specs for the upcoming 2011 Acura NSX.
- V10 with up to 600hp and 433tq
- 3256lbs curb weight
- MSRP ~ $160,000
Originally Posted by Edmunds
Honda thinks that the zebra-pattern camouflage we saw at Germany's Nürburgring in June will disguise the new look of its V10-powered Acura NSX replacement. But our sources in Japan, using some insider hints, have disrobed Honda's flagship sports car more than two years ahead of its unveiling.
Given what we see in these renderings, the grand tourer is neat but not gorgeous, and follows the 2007 Detroit Auto Show concept car's lines closer than first thought. And that's a shame, because the two-seater Acura's expected price tag of $160,000 will place it right on top of much prettier rivals in the Aston Martin V8 Vantage, Maserati Gran Turismo and Jaguar XKR.
Like the Nissan GT-R, the new Acura V10 has left inspired styling behind and instead has opted for a more practical aerodynamic exterior. The car's upslanting keyhole-shaped headlights and narrow grille seem somewhat ordinary sitting above a huge gaping airdam and ducts to channel gulps of cool air to the engine and brakes.
Our insider explains that Honda has employed as much F1 design as possible to generate maximum downforce and straight-line stability. That is why the NSX replacement was able to turn up at the Nürburgring and rattle off a red-hot lap time of 7 minutes, 37 seconds on its first attempt, and without any cumbersome rear wings. Our source predicts that when Honda returns to the 'Ring for the autumn testing season, it will almost certainly post a time under 7:30, giving the GT-R a real run for its money.
In contrast to Nissan and Lexus, which have used heavy rear transaxles in their GT-R and LF-A supercars to deliver equal front-rear weight distribution, Honda's trick for generating stability and downforce is pure aerodynamics. The Acura supercar will tip the scales at around 3,256 pounds, more than 550 pounds lighter than the GT-R. A quick look at the camouflaged test mule reveals extra-heavy padding around the C-pillar, which our insider hints is hiding F1-inspired design.
The secret: The whole rear section of the coupe is like one big rear wing.
Fitted with a 5.5-liter V10 generating upwards of 600 horsepower and 433 pound-feet of torque, the future Acura produces a thrilling exhaust note. And when speed is not the issue, the V10 deactivates five cylinders to save fuel and lower emissions. The V10 is bolted to a quick-shifting six-speed dual-clutch transmission driving the rear wheels, while a revised version of Honda's Super Handling AWD system generates the car's prodigious grip levels, enabling such a quick 'Ring lap time.
Given what we see in these renderings, the grand tourer is neat but not gorgeous, and follows the 2007 Detroit Auto Show concept car's lines closer than first thought. And that's a shame, because the two-seater Acura's expected price tag of $160,000 will place it right on top of much prettier rivals in the Aston Martin V8 Vantage, Maserati Gran Turismo and Jaguar XKR.
Like the Nissan GT-R, the new Acura V10 has left inspired styling behind and instead has opted for a more practical aerodynamic exterior. The car's upslanting keyhole-shaped headlights and narrow grille seem somewhat ordinary sitting above a huge gaping airdam and ducts to channel gulps of cool air to the engine and brakes.
Our insider explains that Honda has employed as much F1 design as possible to generate maximum downforce and straight-line stability. That is why the NSX replacement was able to turn up at the Nürburgring and rattle off a red-hot lap time of 7 minutes, 37 seconds on its first attempt, and without any cumbersome rear wings. Our source predicts that when Honda returns to the 'Ring for the autumn testing season, it will almost certainly post a time under 7:30, giving the GT-R a real run for its money.
In contrast to Nissan and Lexus, which have used heavy rear transaxles in their GT-R and LF-A supercars to deliver equal front-rear weight distribution, Honda's trick for generating stability and downforce is pure aerodynamics. The Acura supercar will tip the scales at around 3,256 pounds, more than 550 pounds lighter than the GT-R. A quick look at the camouflaged test mule reveals extra-heavy padding around the C-pillar, which our insider hints is hiding F1-inspired design.
The secret: The whole rear section of the coupe is like one big rear wing.
Fitted with a 5.5-liter V10 generating upwards of 600 horsepower and 433 pound-feet of torque, the future Acura produces a thrilling exhaust note. And when speed is not the issue, the V10 deactivates five cylinders to save fuel and lower emissions. The V10 is bolted to a quick-shifting six-speed dual-clutch transmission driving the rear wheels, while a revised version of Honda's Super Handling AWD system generates the car's prodigious grip levels, enabling such a quick 'Ring lap time.
Jul 30, 2008, 11:03 AM
#4
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Big Red Country
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why call that a NSX?
They did a much better job on the first one,,, this is,,,,,, kinda like the new Huynudia Genesis coupe., with the poor IS-F pipes.....
I feel bad for them,, cause I know they really tired ,,,, IMHO,, they whiffed.
They did a much better job on the first one,,, this is,,,,,, kinda like the new Huynudia Genesis coupe., with the poor IS-F pipes.....
I feel bad for them,, cause I know they really tired ,,,, IMHO,, they whiffed.
Jul 30, 2008, 12:10 PM
#7
Account Disabled
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did they fail? It looks better (IMO) and performs better than the old NSX. The old $90K NSX can easily be beaten by a $30K Evo. The old NSX is one of the biggest waste of money of a performance car I had ever known of. It sucked ***** for rocks for what you pay. When it first appeared it was a really good car for the price. As time went by Honda barely improved upon it and still kept the price the same while much better cars that cost as much or less came along. That is pure stupid. While years passed it became a more and more laughable purchase.
Trending Topics
Jul 30, 2008, 12:20 PM
#9
The first NSX was very nice back then(18 years ago) but also early in the 90s it had tough competition(Stealth R/T TT, Supra TT, 3000 GT VR4, 300 Z TT, RX7 and also the standard C4 vette).
Undoubtly the NSX had the best styling and refinement but power wise it quickly became obsolete. For a lesser price tag even other cars like the Viper or the Porsche offer a better package. The NSX second gen did some imporvements but but still wasn't that powerfull, now you had Camaros Z28's and Tran Ams that could give the NSX some battle in acceleration.
With this third gen NSX they will have tough time selling, the demand for this car will still be very narrow, the price is high and despite making some good power it is a lot of money for a Japanese import.
I'd say welcome to the market and let it prove itself against their price competitors..
Carlos
Undoubtly the NSX had the best styling and refinement but power wise it quickly became obsolete. For a lesser price tag even other cars like the Viper or the Porsche offer a better package. The NSX second gen did some imporvements but but still wasn't that powerfull, now you had Camaros Z28's and Tran Ams that could give the NSX some battle in acceleration.
With this third gen NSX they will have tough time selling, the demand for this car will still be very narrow, the price is high and despite making some good power it is a lot of money for a Japanese import.
I'd say welcome to the market and let it prove itself against their price competitors..
Carlos
Jul 30, 2008, 12:46 PM
#10
The first NSX was very nice back then(18 years ago) but also early in the 90s it had tough competition(Stealth R/T TT, Supra TT, 3000 GT VR4, 300 Z TT, RX7 and also the standard C4 vette).
Undoubtly the NSX had the best styling and refinement but power wise it quickly became obsolete. For a lesser price tag even other cars like the Viper or the Porsche offer a better package. The NSX second gen did some imporvements but but still wasn't that powerfull, now you had Camaros Z28's and Tran Ams that could give the NSX some battle in acceleration.
With this third gen NSX they will have tough time selling, the demand for this car will still be very narrow, the price is high and despite making some good power it is a lot of money for a Japanese import.
I'd say welcome to the market and let it prove itself against their price competitors..
Carlos
Undoubtly the NSX had the best styling and refinement but power wise it quickly became obsolete. For a lesser price tag even other cars like the Viper or the Porsche offer a better package. The NSX second gen did some imporvements but but still wasn't that powerfull, now you had Camaros Z28's and Tran Ams that could give the NSX some battle in acceleration.
With this third gen NSX they will have tough time selling, the demand for this car will still be very narrow, the price is high and despite making some good power it is a lot of money for a Japanese import.
I'd say welcome to the market and let it prove itself against their price competitors..
Carlos
There were always cars that offered comparable/better straightline performance at a lower price but none matched the overall package the NSX had (acceleration, handling, braking, reliability, styling [RX7 excluded here], exclusivity, etc). The Supra TT is a pig, the 3000GT/Stealth are pigs, the RX7 didn't have the power of the NSX.
Yes, Honda dropped the ball by not keeping pace with Ferrari and Porsche in the HP race between the 911 and 355/360/430. The car itself is still a very good car, a bit dated, but overall a better package than the Evo, STi, R32, et al by a wide margin. Go to a few track days and see how many NSXs are reliably running their 100th track day with 100k miles on the odometer, and passing the Evos and STis.
Of course, if your interest is modding and/or drag racing, then the NSX is a stupid platform to use...
Jul 30, 2008, 12:56 PM
#11
Account Disabled
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the Evos are a better platform for road racing than the old NSX when you start modding the both of them. It's easier and cheaper to make an Evo faster.
Last edited by VincentX; Jul 30, 2008 at 12:58 PM.
Jul 30, 2008, 01:23 PM
#12
Except for the lousy aerodynamics and high roll center... 
The only way the Evo beats the NSX on a track is by virtue of higher power (which isn't hard to do, obviously). Even at 18 years old, it still has a better (stock) power:weight, better aero, lower CG, and a better basic braking/suspension setup. Similar tires, comparable (competent) drivers, the NSX is faster.
The Evo is a much EASIER car to drive fast, however.
The only way the Evo beats the NSX on a track is by virtue of higher power (which isn't hard to do, obviously). Even at 18 years old, it still has a better (stock) power:weight, better aero, lower CG, and a better basic braking/suspension setup. Similar tires, comparable (competent) drivers, the NSX is faster.
The Evo is a much EASIER car to drive fast, however.
Jul 30, 2008, 03:52 PM
#13
Definitely at 160K, the demand for this car will not be that high. The styling is not attractive either. Not sure why Honda is going after the high end market. There's more money to be made selling 100,000+ cars then 1,000 or less cars per year. Yes, theres more profit per vehicle, but considerably less are sold. Honda makes more money selling civic's and accords, then Ferrari and Lambo.
Honda would be better off pricing it around 80K or less.
Honda would be better off pricing it around 80K or less.
Jul 30, 2008, 04:03 PM
#14
Definitely at 160K, the demand for this car will not be that high. The styling is not attractive either. Not sure why Honda is going after the high end market. There's more money to be made selling 100,000+ cars then 1,000 or less cars per year. Yes, theres more profit per vehicle, but considerably less are sold. Honda makes more money selling civic's and accords, then Ferrari and Lambo.
Honda would be better off pricing it around 80K or less.
Honda would be better off pricing it around 80K or less.
