30th Aug 2004, 19:21

*Original Writer*

As regards to the person who said this was a bargain motor, it is my opinion. Fair play I did look at the competition and compared the differences etc, but because I have owned Hondas all my life (94 Civic VTI, H22 VTEC Prelude, Integra Type R and a Type V 2.3 Accord) the sheer build quality, reliability and day-to-day running of the NSX, it has no rivals. Arguably.

As regards to the person who thought this was similar to the Acura NSX, once again fair play, I used that review as a way to set mine out. As an NSX owner, I enjoy seeing how others get on with theirs.

16th Oct 2004, 14:13

The NSX is a nice car, but beating everything off the lights it doesn't... and a 70k it's a bit pricey. Now spend 15k on a 2nd hand twin turbo supra, and you will beat 99% of everything off the lights.

14th Mar 2005, 14:05

15k for a Supra is fair enough, but IMO they're ugly cars, must be a blast to drive though. The NSX for 70k is way over priced, but you can now pick up an early one with 40,000 miles for about £20,000 and for that money it makes much more sense. I'm looking at getting one, but I currently own an S2000 and the performance specs don't look that much better for the NSX, not sure if it's worth the extra cost anyway. If you do get one avoid the paddle shift gear box, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds is awful.

29th Jun 2005, 07:54

Why do you care about beating other cars away from the traffic lights. How pathetic is that. What are you trying to prove. Where's the thrill in that. Surely its more fun to take your cars and insecurities to a track and get it out of your systems there.

Do you run home to your partners and tell them how you beat another car at the traffic light dash. Impressive!

8th Sep 2005, 16:20

To the original writer of this review: fair play to you.

For all those critics about the performance of the NSX - it is true for a £70k car it may well be underpowered compared to rivals of this price range. However it is not the sheer power and torque that shines from this car, it is without a doubt the MR transmission, the suspension set up, the entire perfected combination of power band and handling capability that makes this car unique to any other on the market.

For the writer who owns the S2000 surely you'd noticed that your car, yet another genius production by honda, debatably out-performances any car of its class. Reviews usually compare the S2k with cars with larger capabilities such as the Z4 and Boxster both with larger engines. And without comprising all kind of practicality like the Lotus Elise it is without a doubt the perfect balance for a car of that class.

I see the NSX in the same light as the S2000 except at the class of a supercar. Yes there are terrible things about it - the interior of a far more basic car, the price - enough said; but performance-wise I am sure without a doubt it would be a winner against an E46 M3 around a track; and on the road - how many do you see?! For £70k it is a lot, it must be said, but this car is for those who can afford to stick with their specific taste.

It costs to be unique. It costs to have a supercar with the reliability of Honda (and outperform a lot of cars!)

23rd Nov 2005, 23:15

Another question/doubt about the NSX:is the fuel consumption good or bad, is it eocnomical? I know it can't be so good for an NSX, but do you end up spending tons on it?

24th Nov 2005, 09:33

I can see all of you made good points. I just like to add my view on Honda NSX... It's just wicked car and fantastic to drive. I owed one NSX for myself, and I have driven M3 and Supra before, there was nothing like NSX. The handling, power, the importantly VTEC.. Absolutely beautiful. However, I have never doubt much on M3 and Supra... but NSX just better in every way when driving it. NSX is just VTEC, not turbo or supercharge, think about it, NSX is also a car that you can drive everyday and cost less compares to Supra Twin turbo and M3. Test drive NSX if you guy have an opportunity, but I don't really care much about M3 and Supra, too many on the road. When was the last time you see NSX? Simply it's a future classic car and rare, because its unique.

25th Nov 2005, 04:58

According to Honda all NSX variants have had power windows, power mirrors and air conditioning fitted as standard, so how could they be fitted as optional extras?

28th Nov 2005, 20:17

It depends what year and make the NSX is. I believe (from reading somewhere) that the 80's models had the power windows and air conditioning as optional extras, but newer makes (the 2000's ones) have these features as standard.

9th Dec 2005, 06:19

80's models? This car first went into production in 1990! I totally agree about these cars by the way, a BMW M3 is basically still a very boring car. I have only ever seen two NSX's on the road and followed them both times just to get a better look. I agree that the interior is fairly bland, but cars are for driving and you are not meant to be gawping at the interior trickery when you are driving fast! I intend to buy an old 92 or 93 NSX as soon as I can find a good example at the right price. Incidentally, the interior on the new BMW 3 series is absolutely appalling, I used to run a 1992 320i and the interior on that was way better.

9th Dec 2005, 14:54

"the fastest car will always be quicker than the fastest bike, the bike's true advantage is its between-cars size"

I'm sorry, this is rubbish. I suggest you get yourself a bike license and get yourself a go on something like a Kawasaki ZX-10 or a Suzuki GSX-R1000. Power to weight ratios are now of the order of 1000 bhp per tonne (the bikes are typically around 170 bhp and tip the scales at around 170 kg) and these are stock, mass produced models available to buy straight out of the showroom for less than UKP 10,000. Assuming the rider was suitably skilled, one of these would comfortably out drag any current production car until well into three figure speeds.

For a current 1,000cc superbike, you are looking at 0-60 in well under 3 seconds, 0-100 mph in around 5 and standing quarter mile times of under 10 seconds at just shy of 140 mph terminal speed. For reference, the McLaren F1, generally accepted as the fastest production car ever made posts 11.6 seconds and 125 mph figures for the quarter mile sprint, almost 2 seconds and 20 mph slower. The violent performance of a modern sports motorcycle is beyond the comprehension of anyone who hasn't experienced it, and depending on where you live you can buy it, tax it and insure it for 10,000 quid.

Of course, all other things being equal, a car will be quicker around corners due to its higher levels of mechanical grip, and being much less likely to kill you if you exceed those levels of grip for a short time. Indeed, on a typical circuit it has been proven time and again that a quick car will generally beat a quick bike's lap time. On the road however, unless the going gets really twisty, you wouldn't beat a top line sportsbike in any mass produced car.

Plus of course, you have the traffic beating capability that you mention.

Get a bike license and experience it for yourself. You wouldn't make such a ludicrous claim then. Even the 600 Kawasaki in my garage will make light work of an M3 until the "throw away the key" side of 100 mph. What always gives me a chuckle though is that the eejits behind the wheel never seem to tire of needing this to be demonstrated.

10th Jan 2006, 07:01

Maybe a bike is faster, so what. We'll see which is worth the money when it rains (Which is typical in Britain). Obviously, the NSX will be a lot faster. I don't see how anyone can compare an NSX to some "everyday, German car". These cars are rare and the sight of one is amazing, so maybe you should re-consider buying another overpriced German car and have a Supra or an NSX as an option.