UnFacconable
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 3,458
- Reaction score
- 5,517
I remember the 1990's Nissan 300zx being pretty sweet. The twin turbo was more powerful than the NSX and I believe it had a better power to weight ratio. There were a few years there when those Japanese cars looked like the future and Porsche (and Jaguar, etc.) looked like they were running on fumes. Here's a comparison between the 300zx and the outgoing 944 turbo which conveys a sense of what I'm getting at. Now people might say the 300zx of that era was more of a GT but really what has the 911 become.
I'm also not exactly of the same mind with Foo on the new NSX in large part because I think that these high end sports cars are selling a fairy tale. I don't disagree that from a pure performance standpoint the NSX could be seen as a fail (although not as much as the i8 which I have harped on more than enough times in this thread). There are just so many conflicting factors - manual vs automatic, powertrain tractability and flexibility, etc. - that impact the analysis but seem to be left out depending on what the proponent is trying to achieve. For example, I would be surprised if Foo could hustle his manual GT3 around a track faster than he could a new NSX. I would be shocked if the difference in performance between the GT3 and NSX would be noticeable on the street. The main difference between the cars is in feel; the performance envelope difference for most drives is about as meaningful as the difference in depth ratings between the Rolex sub and seadweller. The nurburgring times are also apples to oranges because as far as I can tell he is quoting the official time for a new GT3 (which is like 13 seconds faster than the PDK GT3 that was available at the time the new NSX came out) against an unofficial NSX time. I don't believe there is an official ring time for the new NSX but happy to be proven wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the GT3 (and RS) aren't far superior cars for track rats than the NSX, that isn't in doubt. I think the fact that Porsche sells so many GT3s to people who aren't track rats proves that it's a bit silly to discuss ultimate performance as if it would be meaningful to the way the cars are used by their drivers. In large part it's symbolic.
I'm also not exactly of the same mind with Foo on the new NSX in large part because I think that these high end sports cars are selling a fairy tale. I don't disagree that from a pure performance standpoint the NSX could be seen as a fail (although not as much as the i8 which I have harped on more than enough times in this thread). There are just so many conflicting factors - manual vs automatic, powertrain tractability and flexibility, etc. - that impact the analysis but seem to be left out depending on what the proponent is trying to achieve. For example, I would be surprised if Foo could hustle his manual GT3 around a track faster than he could a new NSX. I would be shocked if the difference in performance between the GT3 and NSX would be noticeable on the street. The main difference between the cars is in feel; the performance envelope difference for most drives is about as meaningful as the difference in depth ratings between the Rolex sub and seadweller. The nurburgring times are also apples to oranges because as far as I can tell he is quoting the official time for a new GT3 (which is like 13 seconds faster than the PDK GT3 that was available at the time the new NSX came out) against an unofficial NSX time. I don't believe there is an official ring time for the new NSX but happy to be proven wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the GT3 (and RS) aren't far superior cars for track rats than the NSX, that isn't in doubt. I think the fact that Porsche sells so many GT3s to people who aren't track rats proves that it's a bit silly to discuss ultimate performance as if it would be meaningful to the way the cars are used by their drivers. In large part it's symbolic.