2009 Nissan GT-R: Fixed (again)(again)

What is their labor charge per hour? $248 in labor for essentially an oil change seems a bit steep.

I'd love to see the eyes of the JiffyLube guy if you could pop this monster into his bay.

Hopefully this will be the last time that the GTR has to see the inside of a dealership garage for a long, long time... Peddle to the metal Edmunds.com employees...Let's see some miles put onto the GTR.

So, you had to have a 'specialist' flown out twice to fix your car.
I pity da fool who is a regular owner...

Where is this picture taken and can the public take their cars there?

I got some super important questions here so I hope someone will answer them for me.

How much would this have cost out of warranty?
Would they have taken such good care of the car if it were me?
Do you miss the reliability of the Ferrari 308 yet?
Could the cost of this repair if not under warranty buy the Ferrari back?

"Total time for this was less than a day and cost $75 in 0W40; $6.95 in filters; $2.65 for a drain washer; and a whopping $248 in labor. Plus tux the total was $339.58."

This may seem expensive, but you should see the tux. Magrath suddenly looks like James freakin Bond.

$1000 for a transmission oil change? WTF? I completely understand fluid changes after 1000-2000 miles on high performance cars (or, heck, cars you want to keep a long, long time)....but since when did $1000 for a trans fluid change become anywhere near acceptable on this car?

It's a Nissan, not a Ferrari. It's a giant-killer, not one of the giants. Remember?

The 2nd time today I'm saying this (and the first time I'm typing it).....the Z06 looks mighty good right about now.

I saw one of these on the road the other day and it did nothing for me...I didnt even look twice...

Heh, I was just at Courtesy Nissan yesterday ordering shocks for my g/f's Murano. The guy behind the parts counter said somebody called for a price quote on the GT-R brake system (calipers, rotors, pads) and it came out to be over $10k. He mentioned that they (Courtesy) charge $7500 for a GT-R brake job.

$340 for an oil change? My local BMW dealer won't even charge that much for an oil change on the M3.

Wow, as Joe said, the Z06 seems like a steal right now. Heck, if the warranty wasn't an issue, a ZR-1 looks like a better deal (which it is) for $25,000 more.

For some reason I get the feeling that if this had been an EVO VIII or IX, they would have voided your warranty based on not getting the 1000 mile oil change. That may be heavily biased from my friends having their warranties cancelled based on things such as "driving too hard" and registering with SCCA, yet never actually even racing.

Although this car has (inconsistently) put down some highly respectable numbers (if you go by numbers alone I guess its somewhat appealing)....it doesnt tickle my senses as its just "too smart" for me. To many computers telling what wheel to do this or that and too many settings to set if you need to make that object in the other lane disappear when the light turns green.

(Unfortunately, the Acura NSX successor has computers telling which wheel to do what also BUT from the videos Ive seen it seems to be much more involving going by sound alone vs the GTR.)

What ever happened to that well engineered, highly tactile, solid, simple, high quality, manual trannied, high performance mechanical masterpiece? Oh is at my local Porsche dealer....the GT3!

In my eyes a real sports car (Miata to F430 Scuderia) is about a pure, involving, engaging, highly tactile driving experience and the GTR just doesnt seem to have those characteristics.

...$13,690 transaxle? I would never ever ever EVER want to own one of these out of warranty. Criminy...

hondacura4, the F430 Scuderia is also highly computerized, it is pretty much in line with the GTR and EVO X as far as computer control goes, it just doesn't have power to the front wheels. Which is the reason why it is quicker then the Enzo on the track.

So is $13,690 plus plus a record for the highest repair cost ever for a long term test car?

So, is it correct to assume each oil change will cost $340 at this dealership? Also, what is the interval for the $1000 fluid replacement?

"I saw one of these on the road the other day and it did nothing for me...I didnt even look twice..."

Same for me. Saw one parked on Mulholland Hwy and it did absolutely nothing. Great car if you want attention from pimply 13 year old boys...

Anyway, when are we going to see performance numbers using regular 91 octane pump gas?

I thought that having a super-car not being hand-built (GTR Built with the Infiniti G35 in Tochigi, Tochigi, Japan) was to make it more reliable. I guess this car is an exception....

Does car number 7 always run in the desert?
It's a pretty blingy car.
It belongs on a street full of night clubs, next to the Cadillac Escalades.
How about that for the next set of photos.

Isnt this the same dual gas-tank setup the Vette's had since the C4, if not earlier? It seems to work fine on the Vettes.

Wow, I am really surprised at several things here:
1) The cost of service. Makes the M3 look a hell of a lot better.
2) The invective from the posters. Then again, I guess there are not too many teenagers who only bench race statistics gleaned from car magazines here.
3) The lack of excitement I sense from Edmunds with the GTR. You guys seem much more passionate about other cars, like the M3 (I understand) and -- dare I say it -- the Aura. LOL!
The Z06 does look better and better in comparison. So does the Carrera 4.

I saw a titanium colored one here in Worcester, MA and I have to say, it definitely had my head turning! I'm not sure what came over me but I instinctively honked my horn and gave the guy a thumbs-up. Great car.

The price for parts reaffirms my contention that this is not a $70K car. This is very much a loss leader for Nissan.

test

gah it killed my long comment....I'll type the gist of it out again.

I like the GT-R, and I'm sure these troubles will be worked out by Nissan. It sounds like they've put a lot of effort into finding out the problems with this early model car. It may not have the class of an Aston Martin but there is certainly something I find appealing about it.

"The price for parts reaffirms my contention that this is not a $70K car. This is very much a loss leader for Nissan."

Hence the increase in price for the '09 model. The '10 model will likely experience another substantial increase in price.

The GT-R remains an amazing piece of machinery at any cost and simply a world beating value at MSRP. But I would not buy one and your experiences only strengthens my resolve.

BTW - Isn't anyone else shocked that the dealership didn't comp you some portion of the $340 oil change for having the car back in again and out of service for 13 days?

$340 for an oil change?? $1,000 for a transmission oil change??? Is Nissan trying to out-do BMW for high maintenance costs??

I think I'll wait a while before considering a GT-R in my future, and see how the car holds up and what it costs to maintain and repair.

So far, I'll take the Z06 - 16 seconds time difference on the Nurburgring isn't worth the extra expense and hassle of operating the GT-R, IMO. The Z06 is the essence of a reliable, durable, easy-to-maintain and fix, supercar. There aren't too many supercars that have those qualities.

I assume Nissan staffers read these blogs, since its one of the first GT-Rs out there. Its interesting how this car has gone from hugely appealing to everyone, to being written off of lists. I know its a small group who posts on here, but still, I think vehicle perception (including reliability) is hugely important.

(Our Fit has never been in the shop. Another reason I prefer small and simple.) If I bought a nearly useless [on public roads] car with a lot of extra money I didn't need, I'm with stingray454 all the way - Z-06.

I don't think reliability really matters for expensive performance cars. Chances are these potential owners have multiple vehicles anyway so a little down time won't hurt too much. To me, owners of high dollar sports cars seem to favor the quirks of their pricey vehicles. It makes nice small talk- "My GT-R's so fast & hi-tech that it costs $1000 to change the transmission fluid." I do think there's a double standard as affordable cars must be bulletproof for 100k yet cars like the GT-R get a free pass as long as the dealer kisses your ass.

I wonder if the other few GT-R owners are experiencing problems like this? You shouldn't expect so much headache from a brand new car. Then again, I see why many enthusiasts choose not to purchase a car during its first year of production. I really hope that Nissan is taking note of the problems you guys faced. They should've given you a brand new GT-R for all of the crap you had to put up with.

@Siblur: You're comparing an overpriced penalty box outperformed by 90% of cars on the road to a state-of-the-art track car that outperforms almost everything on the road. Shoot, the GT-R hits 100 before the Fit is wheezing to make it up to 55 on the highway. And the Edmunds Fit has been in the shop for transmission failure and defective brakes.

"I don't think reliability really matters for expensive performance cars. Chances are these potential owners have multiple vehicles anyway so a little down time won't hurt too much. To me, owners of high dollar sports cars seem to favor the quirks of their pricey vehicles. "

For wealthy poseurs, it probably doesn't matter. For me, and many other enthusiasts, it does matter. Nobody wants down time for repairs on their toys. Some tolerate it better than others, but all things being equal, everyone would rather be driving their toy, not waiting on it to get back from the shop.

What I look for in a performance car is not only the performance, but the ease of maintenance, cost of parts, mechanic-friendly design, durability, and reliability. Particularly, how well the car will hold up after beating on it for thousands of miles on a track road course, and if something breaks, how quickly, easily and inexpensively can I get it fixed so I can get back on the track for more fun?

Owners of supercars that write off frequent breakdowns and repairs as enjoyable "quirks" are either blindly biased or just trying to justify the extraordinary cost of their vehicle.

"Owners of supercars that write off frequent breakdowns and repairs as enjoyable "quirks" are either blindly biased or just trying to justify the extraordinary cost of their vehicle. "

Stingray- where on the same page. That's what I was getting at...

mikeolan, you just don't get it at all. Do you think I'm so dumb as to not know what separates these two cars? I'm just illustrating a personal preference.

For my money, I expect reliability and fun. Maybe it's a Z-06, maybe it's some Porsche 911 variant. Not sure. But big, bad, and complicated isn't always more fun than light and simple. At the other, far (read: bottom) end of the spectrum, are little cars that are also a blast for what they are.

Lucky us - guys who have other financial obligations. By buying practical cars, we actually get the best of everything - more efficiency, more reliability, and a light, tossible package. Think about it. A Fit puts up better numbers on the slalom than a previous generation Corvette Z-06. On the twisty back roads that I drive every day (where you'd be an idiot to exceed 50 mph in ANY car), a fit is as much fun as a GT-R, or moreso, because of its size, great sight lines, and its real stick/clutch combo. And I'll be driving it instead of waiting at the dealer for my repairs to be done.

My weekend toy can be my daily driver, family car, and my "utility" vehicle. For all that the GT-R is such a miracle of modern technology, it ain't all those things at once. It's not even close.

Which is more expensive, sophisticated, and faster? A Boeing 747 or an aerobatic WWI biplane? If you were a pilot, which do you think would be more fun to fly? Okay, maybe the GT-R would be more like an F-18, but the point still stands.

Chill, friend. It's just conversation. And by the way, a Fit going 80 is exactly as fast as a GT-R going 80, no?

BTW, I have no idea where you get that it's over-priced or a penalty box. I don't know what lap of luxury you're used to driving in, but I think your views are seriously skewed. Sorry, didn't mean to steer the conversation away. Go back to drooling and dreaming ;o)

"The F430 Scuderia is also highly computerized, it is pretty much in line with the GTR and EVO X as far as computer control goes, it just doesn't have power to the front wheels. Which is the reason why it is quicker then the Enzo on the track."

Lazy, true the F430 does have a host of electronics BUT they are way better implemented and executed vs the GTR. The Enzo had the Mannetino before the F430.

The Ferraris electronic gizmos dont seem to take away or dampen the driving experience and Im sure the F430 would do quite well without them vs the GTR without them. I still believe the F430 would provide a better, more memorable driving experience VS the GTR.

siblur - you must be smoking the same crack pipe that the review industry had a hit off of on the honda fit.

I just test drove a 2009 sport this weekend. OMG, was that a crapy car. my 2001 sunfire 4spd auto 2.2l has more go. And a better engine note. I thought the honda engie was going to DIE. not to mention the thinest sheet metal on the planet, a complete lack of nosie insulation from the engine. And miles of the hardest cheapest looking plastic that money could by. did it hand ok? I geuss, hard to tell when it takes 6 secs to get to 30mph. In fact I question the edmunds test. Because it would take close to 10 secs to get it up to speed to clear the salomn in the time their claiming.

If the fit is honda's 'best' i'm never buying a honda.

There's a fantastic video of the F430 on youtube, from the show Top Gear. I think the host/driver pretty much echoes your statements, hondacura4. Those folks are very good and very demanding drivers, so I trust their opinions. But heck, I'd also agree with anybody who said the Ferrari was a clear winner on looks alone. Shoot, compared to this Nissan? Any Ferrari....

"By siblur on September 25, 2008 12:51 PM

Think about it. A Fit puts up better numbers on the slalom than a previous generation Corvette Z-06. "

Where did you get that piece of very WRONG information? The Fit posts good slalom numbers for an econocar, but it doesn't touch a C5 Z06:

Here are the facts:

Fit: http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=31&article_id=4807

66.6 mph

C5 Z06: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/112_0202_2002_chevrolet_corvette_z06/index.html

70.3 mph

In case you're not good with math, 70.3 mph is > 66.6 mph.

"On the twisty back roads that I drive every day (where you'd be an idiot to exceed 50 mph in ANY car), a fit is as much fun as a GT-R, or moreso, because of its size, great sight lines, and its real stick/clutch combo."

And you know this because you drove a GT-R on twisty back roads???

Why are we even having this conversation? Anyone who thinks a Fit is a better handler and more fun to drive than a C5 Z06 or a GT-R is insane.

I think it's time you see your doctor for some medication.

"The Z06 is the essence of a reliable, durable, easy-to-maintain and fix, supercar. There aren't too many supercars that have those qualities."

Sting, wasnt the 1991 NSX the first "supercar" to have all those qualites and a few more? Im amazed how the NSX didnt get the respect it deserved simply because "it was a Honda" yet just about every high end supercar on the market (then and now) has sampled from the NSX formula.

If my memory serves me correctly didnt the (C5?) Z06 have some piston ring issues? I know Honda had a (small) batch of 91-92 NSXs that had ring gear issues but the car litterally remained a legend in reliability/durability even by todays tougher standards.

When it comes down to it, all cars have issues regardless of country of origin but I will agree the Edmunds LT GTR is completely unacceptable.

The NSX doesn't get any props in my book because it had a naturally aspirated V6 (and unbalanced at 90 degrees) with no torque. If I had the money for a supercar, I at least want a powerful torque laden engine with a manly exhaust burble. Granted, it made a lot of power in its day, but it just didn't do it for me with it's odd styling and typical Honda details (tiny wheels and no style whatsoever).

The problem with the NSX is that it's styling looked dated the moment it came out. Like an overgrown MR2. Add to that an interior that looked like it was pulled from a Prelude, and well, there you have it.

Weird that the GT-R is getting compared to the Z06 and the M3 because of its price.
The machine itself compares to the ZR1 and the... wait... BMW doesn't make a super car.

Stop hating GTR people. It could be the last one that mechanics build Friday afternoon, so they probably forgot to torque down some bolts and nuts then check the quality. No matter what car produced, whether it's mass producer or limited production, there is gonna be some kind of problem in them.
Moreover, most of the readers can't afford this car and even if one of you did it will be another toy in your garage. So yes, it maybe a supercar that anyone can drive anywhere, on any condition but the reality is it won't.
For the money, I'd still buy new M3/M5, GT3/ RS4 or even ZR1 (yes, I am saying that I'll buy corvette for the first time). Simple reason Nissan service sucks and they did a great mistake of putting a Nissan badge on GTR instead of the Infiniti. Heck, I'll get a free 50k miles of service and free sexy smiles from service department chicks if I bought a M3 in my local BMW dealership.

"Isnt this the same dual gas-tank setup the Vette's had since the C4, if not earlier? It seems to work fine on the Vettes."

This sounds very similar to the set-up in
my C6 Corvette - but I have read of some
units having issues when filling....
Not all.
[ And not mine. ]
But some.
- Ray
Happy with the C6 - would NOT be happy
if anything like this happened to me...

The issue with C5 Z06 piston rings did exist but it was fairly minor. It only effects some cars under some driving conditions, namely extended high-rpm low load conditions. This was fixed late in the 2001 MY and doesn't effect the rest of the C5 Z06 run. I have a 2001 Z06 that falls in the time where it is supposed to be a problem and it hasn't burned any oil in the 2200 miles or so that I've driven it.

stingry454,

It's possible that the road test I read compared the Fit to a standard C5, not a Z-06. I hope you can get over the fact that I may have mis-spoken. I have.

Then again, your research shows that we're talking about a difference of 4 mph. For an econobox with a 1.5 to get within 4 mph of a Z-06 is VERY impressive. Even you can admit that.

"And you know this because you drove a GT-R on twisty back roads???"

I have driven a Z-06 on twisty back roads, and found it to be too big to be nimble, too confined to see out of, and too heavy in clutch and stick to snap off shifts like I can in any Honda. I would be able to drive a Fit down a road like this faster and more safely, and so would you. Try it some time before you fly into a rage. We're not talking about open stretches of freeway driving here.

"Anyone who thinks a Fit is a better handler and more fun to drive than a C5 Z06 or a GT-R is insane."

I think you're pathetic if you can't see any of my points at all, and can't see any value in zipping along in a fun, small car. There would be no Lotus, no MINI, and probably no BMW if everyone shared your views. (Do you even know who Colin Chapman is? Broaden your mind.)

Driving a small car fast is a simple pleasure in life. Trying to talk to you...is not. I'm insane because I drive a huge variety of cars, from 60 to 400 hp, and I decide what style of driving I PREFER? Are you for real? Are you twelve years old? Call me insane, deek. I won't hear you because I'll be out having a blast in a car that I can afford and rely on. Bye.

Oh, by the way:

"What truly set the Fit apart was its handling — not a pretense of handling but the real deal, with springs and struts that allowed one gentle rebound and no more, the only car here that felt happy storming the switchbacks. We later confirmed this when the Fit sailed through our lane-change test 6 mph faster than anything else here — faster, in fact, than a Corvette Z06.

"Abetting the handling was linear, direct steering — you could pick out a pebble at an apex and reliably place the Fit's inside-front wheel directly atop it — a shifter that Hyundai and Suzuki would do well to copy, and pedals for real heel-and-toeing." - Car and Driver

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/station_wagons/2007_dodge_caliber_vs_2007_honda_fit_2006_hyundai_accent_2006_kia_rio5_2007_nissan_versa_2006_suzuki_reno_2007_toyota_yaris_comparison_test/2007_honda_fit_sport_comparison_test

"hondacura4 on September 25, 2008 2:16 PM

Sting, wasnt the 1991 NSX the first "supercar" to have all those qualites and a few more? "

The NSX was never a supercar because it lacked one key thing: supercar performance. It had supercar LOOKS (and arguably handling), but it was too slow and underpowered to ever be considered a supercar.

"Im amazed how the NSX didnt get the respect it deserved simply because "it was a Honda""

No, it didn't get the respect it deserved because it was underpowered and overpriced. If they had the same car at the same price with either a twin turbo V-6 or a V-8 pushing 400-450hp, THEN it would have received the proper respect as a supercar.

"If my memory serves me correctly didnt the (C5?) Z06 have some piston ring issues? "

Yes, one model year only: 2001. It only affected some vehicles, and some driving styles (typically driving at high RPMS's 4k and above with light load on the engine). It caused piston ring float which led to high oil consumption. They redesigned the rings in 2002, and problem solved. They also replaced the pistons rings on affected 2001 units under warranty if the customers complained of high oil consumption. This problem never created a reliability issue as it never left an owner stranded on the side of the road, unlike the ring gear problem Honda had with the NSX.

"When it comes down to it, all cars have issues regardless of country of origin"

I agree. I really don't think you want to go down the path of NSX problems versus Z06 problems. They both have their issues (no car is perfect), but the Z06 has fewer, and requires less maintenance. Quick example: the NSX engine has a timing belt requiring replacement every 60k miles. The Z06 does not.

"Weird that the GT-R is getting compared to the Z06 and the M3 because of its price.
The machine itself compares to the ZR1 and the..."

No it doesn't. The only thing the GT-R is close to the ZR-1 on is the Nurburgring lap time. That's it.

Every other performance metric, the GT-R is a close match to the Z06. The Z06 pulls on the GT-R everytime above 60 MPH. 0-150, the Z06 will crush the GT-R everytime. If you don't believe me, there are plenty of videos out there proving it - look them up yourself.

"By siblur on September 26, 2008 6:24 AM
stingry454,

Then again, your research shows that we're talking about a difference of 4 mph. For an econobox with a 1.5 to get within 4 mph of a Z-06 is VERY impressive. Even you can admit that."

I already said the Fit's slalom time was very good for an econobox. I wouldn't say VERY impressive - most people know small cars do better on slalom than large cars. The Corvette is a wide car - not an asset for slalom. The fact is does as well as it does in the slalom is testament to its excellent handling.

"And you know this because you drove a GT-R on twisty back roads???"

I have driven a Z-06 on twisty back roads, and found it to be too big to be nimble, too confined to see out of, and too heavy in clutch and stick to snap off shifts like I can in any Honda. "

I said GT-R, and you reply that you drove a Z06. No matter - you're still insane if you found driving a Fit more fun than a Z06 in the twisties. The Z06 clutch is hardly heavy. I'm sure it's heavier than a Fit's clutch, but I wouldn't call it heavy. Sorry that you're too short and weak to drive a Z06 - that's not the car's fault.

"I would be able to drive a Fit down a road like this faster and more safely"

More safely? Maybe. Faster? No f*&^'in way. I've got thousands of miles of twisty canyon road driving under my belt, and about 1k miles of track time in my Z06. There is NO way you could out-drive me in a Fit. I'll put serious money on that.

And actually, now that I think about it, I don't think a Fit would be more safe either. If I make a mistake and go down an embankment or flying off a cliff, I would much rather be in a Corvette than a Fit.

"Try it some time before you fly into a rage. We're not talking about open stretches of freeway driving here."

I've driven small econoboxes before (rentals), and I HATED them. Boring and slow. I haven't driven a Fit, but given its credentials and spec sheet, I can't see enjoying one. If I ever fell on hard times and that's all I could afford, I still wouldn't buy one - I would buy a much nicer and better performing used car for the same price instead.

"Anyone who thinks a Fit is a better handler and more fun to drive than a C5 Z06 or a GT-R is insane."

"I think you're pathetic if you can't see any of my points at all"

I don't really care what you think (you're insane). There is no way you could ever convince me, or 99.9999% of the population, that driving a Fit is more fun than driving a Z06 or a GT-R.

"Driving a small car fast is a simple pleasure in life."

I can understand that. But a Fit is not a small car that should be driven fast - it's an econobox! It is NOT a Lotus, it is NOT a Mini, it's NOT a Miata, and it is certainly not a BMW. You keep placing your little Fit in the same league as those cars, and even better than super cars - insanity is the only explanation for that.

I wouldn't waste my time or gas racing someone like you in a Fit. Get real.

What matters is that you get the last word. That just goes along with your entire personality, no? Isn't that why you got your
'Vette? So you could be king of the hill?

The only claim I ever made - EVER - was that I...I...find the Fit to be a fun car to drive enthusiastically (not dangerously fast). I would never drive it against a big-time sports car on public roads or on a track - that WOULD be insane. I make a very simple point here that you make a conscious effort to circumvent: if you drive reasonable speeds, a lot of the advantages of a supercar over a "regular" car evaporate. That's all. Effing RELAX a little. To answer your question, "Why are we having this conversation", it's because it's FUN and interesting to share experiences and opinions.

Keep your serious money. I have no need to overcompensate or be the big winner...here, of all places, and certainly not on the road. Since you obviously do, who exactly is too short and weak?

Now write back like a big man, or don't. Don't really care.

Look, Man, I'm sorry that I brought it up at all. All I am trying to do is bring up a different, interesting angle that we haven't talked about before. But I'm really not disagreeing with you at all. I said I'd get a Z-06 if I had extra money and wanted a toy. I take offense at you calling me "insane" because I have the balls and the intelligence to think for myself, to think a little bit differently about things. When you get this hot and bothered over a blog/forum, and you're willing to make drag racing bets and come to blows over it, well, that is real insane behavior to me. So I'm not going to stoop to making further antagonistic comments here. It was never my intention to fight, just to express how much fun I have with my car (I don't even OWN a Fit, by the way) without having to spend GT-R or Z-06 money. So enjoy your car (I mean it sincerely, not sarcastically), be safe, don't hurt anybody out there, and I will do the same.

"The NSX was never a supercar because it lacked one key thing: supercar performance. It had supercar LOOKS (and arguably handling), but it was too slow and underpowered to ever be considered a supercar."

The only Corvette at the time that could come close to the NSX's total performance package overall was the 405hp ZR1 (ZR1 wasnt a cheap car). Straight line speed probably being its only major advantage. I wont even start with the quality (or lack thereof) regarding the C4. The C4 wasnt a techno tour de force nor a world class high performance car.

"No, it didn't get the respect it deserved because it was underpowered and overpriced. If they had the same car at the same price with either a twin turbo V-6 or a V-8 pushing 400-450hp, THEN it would have received the proper respect as a supercar."

When the NSX debuted it had 270hp (3.0L V6) a bit less than base Corvette (290-300ish) yet it was still a fast car. The 300+hp Ferrari 348 had a bit more power yet the NSX was still faster. As I always say, numbers alone dont tell the whole story. 300hp was a lot back then.

For a 270/290hp V6 the car was very fast. Later 3.2L V6/6MT editions were capable of high 12's! Power alone doesnt define a supercar, if that was the case a Mustang GT500KR would be a supercar.

The fact that it didnt have the outright power of its competitors yet could keep pace or outrun others on a track should have been more than enough to give the car the respect it deserved.

Did you ever stop and think WHY the NSX was expensive? Production car firsts such as an all aluminum monocoque chassis, titanium connecting rods and the fact the car was hand assembled was clearly reflected in its asking price. World class build quality, fully forged aluminum suspension and aluminum body panels ETC ETC were again... reflected in its price as these little unnoticed (by most) details added up.

I love this Acura NSX commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SRwLRNL7to

The car wasnt perfect as I will admit Honda should have given it more power(or a more significant refresh) later on in its life cycle but from 91-2000ish it was a highly competitive package. The car was and still is appealing (to enthusiasts who could see through numbers alone) but in its later years the competition had moved up significantly in terms of power. Honda should be smacked for letting this great car rot to death.

I still believe the NSX was the first sports car of its kind to offer world class quality, top notch reliability, civility, easy to drive nature and low maintence without sacrificing all out performance. Please name another sports car in the early 1990's that had similar or better performance package with ALL the attributes I listed above. The Corvette wouldnt be on that list.

The Germans, Italians and even the Corvette quickly or eventually followed, even borrowing some of the NSXs technology and sampled its formula. Even the Ford GT engineers used the NSXs shifter as a benchmark for tactile shift quality.

"the NSX engine has a timing belt requiring replacement every 60k miles. The Z06 does not."

Very true but Ive seen timing chains break as they are not 100% bullit proof. Honda used belts for quieter engine operation and the fact that belts weight less. All of their new engines (all current 4cyls) have chains with the exception of the J series V6 which was concieved in the mid 90s.

We can argue about this all day but(unfortunately) in the end I think the NSX was a much more significant product than most will ever admit.

siblur

as someone who drove the fit. I could not disagree with. and most reviewers more. maybe the 09 I drove was broken. But the car was a pos.

Engine noise so loud, I would be embarassed if someone else was in the car with me.

I would be amazed you can get it up to any speed worth of 'twisties'

imho, the only reason journalists like this car is the honda halo.

IMHO its junk, with a pretty face

opfreak, I'm sorry that you didn't like the car, but at least you gave it a shot before deciding that you hate it. That, I can respect.

I never found it loud compared to any Civic Si, Spec V, or typical performance compact that I've driven, and although it's not a fast car, I never thought it was underpowered for what it's meant to be. We have different standards. I'm actually surprised that you'd call it pretty. The design could be better, to me.

I've never driven a GT-R, but I think I would rather have less electronics and definitely a lower price. I think I'd rather drive a car that I have to work more to get performance out of, instead of having the car do the work for me. I think I get more out of a drive that way, and I know that that's not the way a lot of people feel about it.

I did drive a Z-06 and thought, "Wow, that's it?" It's very very fast, and it corners well, but overall, I'm not comfortable in it, and honestly, for the money, I found it to be a total let-down. I'd rather have something that's more middle-of-the-road. Now, the C6 is beautiful, and I think if I wanted a fast car for weekends or track days, I might get one. It's a little better than the C5 for ergonomics, etc., I think.

I did drive the 'Vette and the Fit, and other cars, on the same back roads, and I had more fun in the smaller cars. Not everybody would have the same reaction, but that was mine. Maybe that surprises people, but that's my honest opinion, for what it's worth. It's not because I don't know how to drive, or because I can't understand why super cars are better. It's just my gut reaction to this particular car. And anybody who thinks it's because I'm too weak to work the clutch is an imbecile. Maybe it's because I also take those curves on a sport bike that can smoke anything on this planet with four wheels, but I like the way a smaller car that is pushed a little harder feels.

If I bought a Z-06 because it was very close to a Ferrari or Lamborghini, etc., in concept (big V8, RWD, massive power), the Vette would be a clear value, and I'd be a smart guy to buy one.

When I say that the the Fit reminds me of a MINI or a 1 Series because it's got a smaller body and a smaller, higher revving engine, I'm crazy? Come one. No, it's just that the concept is the same, only on a smaller scale, for less money. Just like a Corvette is the same concept as a real exotic car, just on a smaller scale for less money. So it's not so crazy.

Finally, I think that you have to drive cars between 7 and 10 tenths of their capability in order for differences in handling and power to really become useful. If you don't do that on a regular basis, most cars out there become pretty equally capable. Because I don't usually drive that hard, I find that very cheap, easy, reliable cars are just as satisfying to drive as the super cars. They just save me a lot of money, and a lot of time in the shop. Plus, they're better in so many other ways. Now, when you consider that a Fit is fairly cheap, and it does happen to handle very well compared to one of the best performance cars in the world, that must say something about how the car is reasonably fun to drive, at least for that price, and that is good enough for me because I don't really have anything to prove out there. That's all I'm trying to say.

kudos siblur for your opinion

The Fit at 80 is something the GT-R isn't: out of breath.

The Fit posts good slalom numbers, but that isn't the same as being fun to drive. A Mazda3 (roughly same price in the real world, better reflexes, drives like a real car not a minivan) is fun to drive. The Honda Fit corners well for what it is, but what it is is a micro-minivan. An underpowered one at that, but compared to a real car, it's nada.

You guys are so funny. You're arguing over a claim that I never made.

80 mph is 15 to 25 over most state speed limits, and it's about 10 mph faster than normal freeway traffic where I drive. Still, I can do it comfortably in a Fit, and that makes the car under-powered? I don't it. How fast do you need to be able to go on public roads? Again, we're not talking about track days here.

Most econoboxes will do this and more, for about 30% less than the price of the average new car. A car like a GT-R, on the other hand, costs about 300% more than the average, and what you're buying is mostly feature content that you can never use, at least not every day. (I know it looks and feels sporty, even driving slow, but that's a high price to pay.) So if a normal car is out of breath at 80, who cares - who's driving that fast on a public highway anyway? You know what I'm saying?

I like the Mazda as well. But, like we said in the last thread, there are steps up from that as well. A little more money, a little more power, and so on. A base model 3 might be had for the same price as a loaded Fit or even less money, so I understand your point. Then you lose a little mileage and the cargo room (4 dr), but I get what you're saying.

"By hondacura4 on September 26, 2008 3:10 PM

The only Corvette at the time that could come close to the NSX's total performance package overall was the 405hp ZR1 (ZR1 wasnt a cheap car). Straight line speed probably being its only major advantage."

You've got your facts wrong. The ZR1 was faster than the NSX in straight-line, top speed, skipdpad g-s (.99g vs .89g), and braking 60-0 (104ft. vs 111ft.). The NSX had the advantage in ONE performance category: slalom speed (66.4 mph vs. 68.4 mph). If you don't believe me, you can look up the archives yourself.

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/chevrolet/112_9508_chevrolet_corvette_zr_1/performance_data.html

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sports/112_9506_1996_acura_nsx/sports_tires.html

The only advantage the NSX had was it was easier to drive at its limits, which was great for newbies (a function of its limited horsepower and mid-engine design). The mid-engine design also contributed to its faster slalom speed.

You sound like the typical import car lover - you think Corvettes can only go in a straight line and can't handle at all. The facts say you're wrong.

As for your comment about the ZR-1 not being a cheap car, this is true at $65k in 1995 dollars, however it was still a whopping $20k less expensive than the NSX at the time.

"I wont even start with the quality (or lack thereof) regarding the C4. The C4 wasnt a techno tour de force nor a world class high performance car. "

Other than some rattles which were common in C4's, what quality problems of the ZR-1 do you speak of?

The ZR-1 was not a world class high performance car?? It was among the top 10 fastest cars in the world at the time. The ZR-1 set 7 world speed and endurance records. How many did the NSX set?

Not bad for a car (C4) that was originally designed and introduced in the early 1980's. The C4 had been on the market for nearly 8 years before the NSX even came out, and the ZR-1 was based on a slightly modified C4 platform.

"When the NSX debuted it had 270hp (3.0L V6) a bit less than base Corvette (290-300ish) yet it was still a fast car. "

Now you compare the $85k NSX to the $40k Corvette base model? And it STILL doesn't have as much horsepower! The ZR-1 was the competitor to the NSX at the time (and was still $20k less expensive than the NSX). The horsepower deficit of the NSX was huge.

"300hp was a lot back then."

Yeah, and 405hp was a whole lot back then.

"For a 270/290hp V6 the car was very fast. "

I wouldn't call 0-60 in 5.8 seconds "very fast". Moderately quick is a better description.

"Later 3.2L V6/6MT editions were capable of high 12's!"

Don't even go there. Many cars are "capable" of many things. You don't want me to go into what the ZR-1 was "capable" of, do you?

"reflected in its price as these little unnoticed (by most) details added up. "

Valid point, however I question what all these details really added to the package. It didn't add to the performance, and it didn't add to the intangible experience (passion, exotic flare, etc.) the way a Ferrari does, for example.

" Honda should be smacked for letting this great car rot to death."

I agree, but aren't they working on a new one? From what I've heard, this next one should be packing the kind of fire power the original one should have to be a true supercar. The only thing that remains to be seen is the styling, in which the concept cars seemed questionable.

"Very true but Ive seen timing chains break as they are not 100% bullit proof. "

Timing chain failure is VERY rare - about as rare as a connecting rod failure. The only thing more bullet proof than timing chains are timing gears, but those are noisy.

"Honda used belts for quieter engine operation and the fact that belts weight less. All of their new engines (all current 4cyls) have chains with the exception of the J series V6 which was concieved in the mid 90s."

You can defend it all you want, but the bottom line is timing belts suck. Most companies use them because they are cheaper and easier to design to be quiet. Timing chains can be designed to be quiet too, but it requires more engineering and expense. There is no excuse for using timing belts anymore.

"We can argue about this all day but(unfortunately) in the end I think the NSX was a much more significant product than most will ever admit."

No sense in arguing, and I don't think we're arguing. I like the NSX overall - I think it's a nice looking car, I love the mid-engine layout, and I like the handling and technology in it. What I didn't like was the power deficit and the price for the performance you got.