Discussion in 'Motorized Vehicles' started by Spartan, Jan 26, 2017.
It's neat but not $156,000 neat.
Yeah, it's exciting to see some life in Honda again (when I got my 2011 Civic Si, it was basically the last remotely-enthusiastic car they sold), and I think they absolutely nailed the styling...but I'd rather that the NSX was a five-figure-price Corvette fighter than a six-figure-price Ferrari-fighter.
So why would someone buy this NSX when the Nissan GT-R is $30k-$50k less?
Thing is, those original NSX models have skyrocketed in value. A low mileage survivor can fetch upwards of $125,000.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
True, no matter how much power it has, it's still a Honda.
GTR is much better. At least in my "noone cares" opinion
Still Honda is Honda, looks great, sounds cool but... it's slowest supercar on the market... but to be honest... how many owners would use it on track? Mostly for dialy driving and showing up - you dont need any empty horsepower here.
Still... I would like to see Dodge Charger (or family Charger) Hellcat version than this.
You have a fair point with the speed, but then the problem is: why spend this much money on a "slow" car?
Really, the only "slow" car I'd buy would be a luxury car (or I suppose an expensive truck, RV, etc). For the same money or less, you can buy more performance. Likewise, for the same money or less, you can buy a much more comfortable car.
Like a Chevy Suburban with badass V8 engine. Or... Cadillac... Lexus... etc.
I would choose rather something from: GTR, Charger/Challenger Hellcat, Camaro Z28 and... most money in pocket. I would spend rest on a second car for terrain fun (like Hilux, F150 or even Ranger).
Currently sportcars like lambo, ferrari, nsx (etc) class is just only for showing up, and sooooometimes show good numbers on track. But... noone likes Nurburgring
I will never buy car tested & almost designed for Nurburgring.
Agreed. If you're not doing track days, why have something that's built for the track?
Separate names with a comma.