Good points, but misinterpreted... [more] (archive)

The complete automotive resource for buyers, sellers, and owners like you.

Says who? Like I mentioned in another post I have a video of an 800rwhp supra doing a dyno run with 100k miles on the clock. That's pretty reliable to me.

better quality materials. Lighter-weight body. Looks like a Ferrari rather than a Celica with a body kit (ie - the Supra).

You can build a Fiero with a Lamborghini Bodystyle, the problem is, that fiero does not have the performance the real thing has. Am I seriously going to pay $50,000 more for that?

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,

The problem is, it isn't $20 to $30k more, it's DOUBLE THAT. That's a key part to my arguement.

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.

WHAT? How the hell do you figure they don't compare? I was comparing two cars and how they show up new from the factory. This supports my arguement because Toyota is able to have TWO TURBO's on their engine and still come out $50,000 LESS than the NSX.

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.

I never said the NSX wasn't less than a Ferrari, but the Ferrari is much more car than the NSX.

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 agree with that. I haven't ridden around in one, even though an associate of my girlfriend and I's just got one 6 months ago. It's been in storage though since he got it. I know from sitting in one that the inside is quite displeasing. Personally though, I think that for $20,000, you can have something done about that. Maybe not making it as good as an NSX, but tolerable.

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.

Unfair and illogical?! I am comparing two sports cars, stock versus stock. One costs $90,000 one costs $40,000. The $40,000 one beats the NSX in every single performance aspect.

So what? Just not in this country. Doesn't mean they don't compare. They both competed from 93-97.

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.

Maybe on the previous generation Supras. Plenty of them are still running around with plenty of hp and plenty of miles. Go over to mkiv.com if you don't believe me.

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

HA! Look at the skidpad ratings my friend! I've mentioned them quite a few times. The Supra's ratings are higher.

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.

Uh, the Supra is Turbo. Now, taking into considration how turbo's work, and at which point they work in the rpm range, wouldn't you think that the Supra is also a good car at highway speeds?

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.

That point may have been a little harsh. What I really should have said that the NSX does not deliver what it should for $90,000, plain and simple.

Thanks for a mostly mature response, and making your points in a very mature way.

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

It doesn't have anything to do with the E46 M3, just with a post below that got into the NSX. You don't have to read it if you don't want to. No one is forcing you to.

Questions, comments, or problems, please visit the Roadfly help desk.