[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Re_Invention

I find it to be the absolute opposite. The more I see videos of the car, see the car in person and read/hear about it from journalists the more the car solidifies its position objectively - it's a legacy continuation and I think that's particularly difficult to do with a lengthy break and it pulls it off. It's a phenomenal chassis that's sussing out the power unit and still getting things to 'match' but given the break, given the new paradigm of sports cars - I think it's a stellar first break out the gate. Say what you want about why it doesn't fulfill your driving expectations, I can only imagine how disappointing (or not?) dead steering would feel like tossing it around a track - or maybe it's blistering quick to where I don't notice it at all. Given the context of sports cars today, that doesn't seem to be out of the norm, either.

The 1990 Honda NSX exceeded the Ferrari 348 at a reasonable price point by bringing forward thinking technologies to an attainable price point. Today that bar has different requirements but Honda is hitting it in my opinion, new tech challenging top tier manufacture at the sports car game for a, and don't laugh, reasonable price.

The video admits it's an unfair comparison to pit the Type R versus a standard NSX (without sticky tires, too) but wants that pure distillation to be evident ten years on. I don't buy that and I don't think that should be a demerit against the standard NSX. You'd have to wait for a new NSX-R to make that judgement call valid. And here's an exert from the latest C/D review on the car regarding tires:



The Porsche Carrera vs Turbo vs GT3 is a similar comparison. The new base stripped PDK no bones about it Carrera is quicker in many regards than the 10 year old GT3/Turbo models. That's a win, sure, but is it fair? You have to remember there's still a new GT3 and new Turbo model to make that comparison with and they are infinitely better. It'd be more interesting to compare a 2017 NSX to a 1990 NSX.

For reference because I've been looking into them:

A 2007 Porsche 911 GT3 does 0-60 in 4.0, 0-100 in 8.7, 1/4 mile in 12.0 @ 118 mph with 415hp/300ft lbs.

A 2007 911 Turbo does 0-60 in 3.4, 5-60 in 4.6, 0-100 in 7.8, 1/4 mile in 11.7 @ 121 mph with 480hp/502ft lbs.

A 2017 911 Carrera (base pdk) does 0-60 in 3.4, 5-60 in 4.3, 0-100 in 8.5, 1/4 mile in 11.9 @ 118 mph with 370hp/331ft lbs

And doing it at a conservative 13.0 psi. I think Porsche is sandbagging the numbers here. This is going to be a great pickup in 2-3 years when the leases come back to CPO for $55k!

I don't really understand why you're comparing a new PDK equipped 911 with launch control against a GT3 that has neither. Yes, there's great progress being made but apples to apples would be comparing manual transmissions with the only launch control being how well the driver can get the car underway.

A new Boxster S can hit 60 in mid-3s, But that doesn't change that I'd instead take a 997 GT3 every time over it, or a new 911. Ditto a 993.