: better reliability. better quality materials. Lighter-weight body. Looks like a Ferrari rather than a Celica with a body kit (ie - the Supra). Mid-engine layout which makes for a very fun-handling car. Exclusivity. The only sports car ever to have been awarded a J.D.Power & Associates award. Etc. Perhaps not worth $50K more, but a good $20K to $30K more than a Supra, easily.

:
: The civic with NOS is not a stock civic. I was comparing STOCK FOR STOCK the Supra Versus The NSX.

: You were comparing a forced-induction vehicle to a normally aspirated one...as much of a fallacy as comparing a modding car to a stock car.

:
: I give respect to the NSX when it first came out but it is in no way worth $90k anymore. Not even close.

: Personally, I never thought the NSX was worth $90K, even when it first came out. $60 to $70 is more like it. However, you can pick them up used for half their brand-new cost. Considering that Acura was trying to make a Japanese Ferrari when they created the NSX, unless Ferrari has released a bargain-car over the past ten years that I'm not aware of, $90K is still $40K less than its competition.

:
: It competes with cars like the C5, the Viper, and cars of that caliber which may not have the overall refinement of the NSX, but refinement is not worth the extra $20,000 you pay over a Viper.

: Drive around in a Viper for a few weeks, and you most certainly will think that you'd rather have spent another $20K and gotten a more refined car. The Viper is a good, no, great, 0-60 car. Aside from that, they are junk. The quality of the interior is reprehensible in a $75K car, and it's so rough and unsophisticated in it's performance that it'll knock your fillings loose while driving around town.

: I don't think what I said was that hard to understand, and I cannot grasp why you people have a hard time getting what I say. It's simple.

: I agree. It is simple. You are making an unfair and illogical analogy, hence, why people do not understand what you are trying to convey.

:
: The Toyota Supra costs $40,000 brand new,...

: Point A) - You cannot get the Supra brand new any more.
: Point B) - A brand new Supra cost $45K+. It was only in the very last year of production (1997) that they slashed the price to $40K.

:
: ...comes with twin turbos...

: Which will help to kill the engine faster...

:
: ...handles better,...

: According to whom? Certainly not Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Road and Track, Sport Compact Car, Max Speed Magazine, etc, etc, etc. Do a little research before making bold-faced lies...it destroys any and all credibility you may have once possessed.

:
: ...and is faster,...

: 0-60, the Supra is faster, but you have to realize that the NSX's V-tec system makes the NSX a highway screamer. The NSX was not built to impress the Ford v. Chevy or Honda v. Toyota drag strip crowd. It was built to be a sports car, in the most pure definition of that word, while at the same time having the reliability of a Honda Accord, and the luxury and amenities of any Acura vehicle. If all you care about is impressing some slack-jawed yokels at the drag strip, buy a Civic and slam a turbo and NOS kit into it.

:
: ...than the $90,000 NSX, which is supposed to be an extremely fast superexotic car. What a joke.

: It is an extremely fast superexotic car. Just because there are other cars faster or more exotic than it doesn't dilute its' status. The Porsche 911 Twin-turbo is faster than the Supra...does that mean the Supra is no longer a Sports Car? A Bentley is more luxurious than a Mercedes...does that mean that a Mercedes is no longer luxurious? There are many flaws in the way you present your arguments. You start out complaining about "A", but then conclude by saying "B", rather than saying "A+1", if you catch my drift.

: ...and again, I ask, what on earth does this have to do with BMW or the E46 ///M3?

: asaf