Buick Regal vs Acura NSX
07-26-2010, 04:48 PM
#81
TECH Resident
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wouldnt believe me if i told you
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-26-2010, 04:51 PM
#82
Launching!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Phoenix,AZ
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I can't argue with this statement, An NSX will NEVER be a super car in my eyes. Sure, it's mid engined and it handles great. It's still slow as ***** and way overpriced.
07-26-2010, 04:54 PM
#83
Teching In
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-26-2010, 04:54 PM
#84
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSX a supercar? I have nothing against it being a Honda and it's more car than mine, but it's no more a sportscar than a Z06 IMO. And the only reason I'd personally take an NSX over a C5+ Z06 if given the choice is because of the styling. It's nothing short of supercar-ish in that regard.
07-26-2010, 04:55 PM
#85
Teching In
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-26-2010, 04:57 PM
#86
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9259744802395#
07-26-2010, 05:00 PM
#87
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have trouble watching and taking BM videos seriously.
They've been known to exaggerate times and they occasionally look like they're sandbagging certain cars.
They've been known to exaggerate times and they occasionally look like they're sandbagging certain cars.
Last edited by DiscerningZ32; 07-26-2010 at 05:11 PM.
07-26-2010, 05:00 PM
#89
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Key West, FL / Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDIT: This whole time I assumed that NSXs were mid 14 cars, when later models were mid 13s. Not as slow as I originally thought, especially for an NA V6 which is very impressive.
Last edited by NightWindDriftr; 07-26-2010 at 05:07 PM.
07-26-2010, 05:07 PM
#90
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-26-2010, 05:09 PM
#91
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand this argument. I'm just really underwhelmed with what the NSX brings to the track. Sure, it's not a 1320 car and everyone knows that it's underpowered for it, but when you say "supercar" you tend to expect the whole package.
EDIT: This whole time I assumed that NSXs were mid 14 cars, when later models were mid 13s. Not as slow as I originally thought, especially for an NA V6 which is very impressive.
EDIT: This whole time I assumed that NSXs were mid 14 cars, when later models were mid 13s. Not as slow as I originally thought, especially for an NA V6 which is very impressive.
07-26-2010, 05:18 PM
#93
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it doesn't, but their videos often contain times that don't make sense or mesh with what others are getting.
For example, in that video the 996 GT3 was slower than the NSX by nearly one second (comparing fastest laps).
But, in every other test done by other drivers, the GT3 was quicker (Heckenheim short, Norschleife, Fuji raceway, and Top Gear track). It could be shitty drivers, traffic, or just inconsistency, but it tends to steer me (at least) away from using them as any sort of benchmark.
I'm not trying to talk down the NSX at all. It is arguably one of the best handling cars of the 90's.
For example, in that video the 996 GT3 was slower than the NSX by nearly one second (comparing fastest laps).
But, in every other test done by other drivers, the GT3 was quicker (Heckenheim short, Norschleife, Fuji raceway, and Top Gear track). It could be shitty drivers, traffic, or just inconsistency, but it tends to steer me (at least) away from using them as any sort of benchmark.
I'm not trying to talk down the NSX at all. It is arguably one of the best handling cars of the 90's.
07-26-2010, 05:20 PM
#94
***Repost Police***
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 2,480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it doesn't, but their videos often contain times that don't make sense or mesh with what others are getting.
For example, in that video the 996 GT3 was slower than the NSX by nearly one second (comparing fastest laps).
But, in every other test done by other drivers, the GT3 was quicker (Heckenheim short, Norschleife, Fuji raceway, and Top Gear track). It could be shitty drivers, traffic, or just inconsistency, but it tends to steer me (at least) away from using them as any sort of benchmark.
For example, in that video the 996 GT3 was slower than the NSX by nearly one second (comparing fastest laps).
But, in every other test done by other drivers, the GT3 was quicker (Heckenheim short, Norschleife, Fuji raceway, and Top Gear track). It could be shitty drivers, traffic, or just inconsistency, but it tends to steer me (at least) away from using them as any sort of benchmark.
@ the guy who's been here for point 5 seconds calling people a newb!
07-26-2010, 05:27 PM
#96
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mistake. They tested the 996 GT3 on another occasion and couldn't muster a time quicker than the NSX.
In that case, use the M3 CSL as an example. BM tested that car at twin ring motegi (here) and tsukuba (other video). In both of those instances, the BMW was slower. BUT, others found it to be faster than the NSX-R. Specifically at Hockenheim, Nordschleife, and Top Gear track.
In that case, use the M3 CSL as an example. BM tested that car at twin ring motegi (here) and tsukuba (other video). In both of those instances, the BMW was slower. BUT, others found it to be faster than the NSX-R. Specifically at Hockenheim, Nordschleife, and Top Gear track.
07-26-2010, 05:49 PM
#97
Teching In
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Earth...I think I've been there before
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
buying a ls1 corvette is a waste of money, you paid for the name,, paid 9500 for my car, invested about 5k so say 15k, i acctually have a buddy that just got a 99 vet ls1 6 speed, i beat him by almost 5 car lengths in a 1/4... it has 20k miles he paid 25k... and brand new mine woulda been 20k his brand new in 99 about 40-45k... yes waste of money
If I lived at the tree and worked at the traps, I might be inclined to agree with this opinion. But for anyone who occasionally ventures out beyond the dragstrip, they just might have a different idea of what a Corvette can do.
07-26-2010, 06:48 PM
#98
TECH Regular
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
get over it gtos are faster than your car, and his regal gs runs low 13s
07-26-2010, 07:04 PM
#99
TECH Senior Member
I know right? Its a total coincidence that the Japanese cars they test always come out on top 
And for some reason they always seem to race all the cars on the track at once instead of going for single times...
And for some reason they always seem to race all the cars on the track at once instead of going for single times...
07-26-2010, 07:30 PM
#100
Staging Lane
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: virginia beach va
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
irun: you have just helped my case not hurt it
an ls1 ... 1 and the ls 2 2222222 get the point camaros come with an ls1 and still beating the ls2 goat plus still the point i paid 9500 for my ss in great condition and that goat in same condition would be like 15,000, hense waste of money, but good atempt at steping in and showing me...
an ls1 ... 1 and the ls 2 2222222 get the point camaros come with an ls1 and still beating the ls2 goat plus still the point i paid 9500 for my ss in great condition and that goat in same condition would be like 15,000, hense waste of money, but good atempt at steping in and showing me...