Why did the NSX and Civic Type R fail for Honda this year?

>implying the first US Type R civic failed

Ugly, sure. Watch them hold a 20k+ value for the next decade though. They're also catching way more attention from normal people because of the boatload of rice, it's not the direction Veeky Forums wants but regular people won't see it as the 3k shitbox of old.

honda got really clueless after 2006

>NSX was too much of a compromise. They didn't appeal to the really high end market and don't really compete with the poor mans supercar like the Hellcat or the Corvette.
So exactly like the original NSX?

The original NSX was cheaper.
It cost around $60k for an entry model.
The 1991 Corvette cost around $32k.
A 1991 Ferrari F355 was over $120k.
When you could have bought both the NSX and a new Corvette with change left over instead of a Ferrari, I don't think your argument holds up.

This is why, nobody want factory riced shit

MSRP for a Ferrari 488 is $250k, you can buy an NSX and have money left over for TWO C7 Corvettes

So how is that not a point in my favor?

You're an idiot, no point in wasting energy explaining anything to you because you're determined to shit in the NSX and will move goalposts around the entire field several times in the process

>calls me an idiot
>immediately creates a strawman
Thank you for saving us both some time lol

You k ow it's true. You're blinded by your hatred

>obvious troll is obvious
is it just for the (you)s? reading a book or getting a job would benefit you more.

>he doesn't agree with my narrative, he must be a troll!

I wouldn't say fail, but a disappointment? Yes.

90s Honda was amazing in terms of car design, both physical and mechanical. A lot of this transfered into the early 2000s. Now we've seen an NSX that isn't a superb drivers car that beats out supercars even though it's down on power, and we've seen a Civic Type-R with fake vents and unnecessary rice that is underpowered compared to the competition.
The new Civic is also riced out to a ridiculous point.

They haven't failed completely, but they're stumbling the wrong direction and it really makes me sad. 90s Honda needs to make a comeback.
Lightweight drivers cars are the way to the car enthusiasts heart.

The Type R is faster then the competition and the new Civic is selling like hotcakes

>underpowered compared to competition

300HP is about as much as FWD ever needs, and it blows other stock Type R stats out of the water while staying sub 3000lbs.

Granted, I think that the EP3 Type R is perfection as far as civic looks go but muh rice isn't a good reason to shit on an actually fast economy car at a reasonable price point new.

I saw a thread where people were shopping panels over the fake vents a la the WRX's fog light covers, made the car look way better.

>Over $40k for 5.7 0-60
>Reasonably priced

>0-60 is all that matters
Go back to your Model S.

If you want 0-60 times buy a muscle car. It's a pointless fucking metric

You said it's fast

Around a track, yes it is. Especially for a hopped up FWD econobox.

cnet.com/roadshow/news/2017-honda-civic-type-r-captures-nurburgring-lap-record/

Go away shitposter

>0-60 is a useless metric
>Here's the burgerking time after removing the infotainment and has non Factory tires!

>Honda installed a full roll cage for safety reasons, and it canceled out that weight gain by removing the infotainment
>used a "road legal, track-focused" tire
You're the kind of idiot that thinks people put all seasons on 911s

So how is 0-60 a useless metric and a gutted, roll caged, and $300 a pop track tires is?

Because you touch yourself at night

Nobody wants a chink sportscar

>civic type r
the fuckers are selling it for 20k more than esrp

>Faster than it's competition
No it's just not. It's definitely not in a straightline where it's 0-60 is 5.7 seconds. Even my stock 2003 WRX is quicker than that. Also, it gets beat on every track besides the Nurburgring which is a meme track anyways AND the only reason it got that record is because they stiffened it with a roll cage, put road legal slicks on it, and probably removed all the weight they could. It wasn't a showroom new car.
And the Civic always sells, I'd be more interested to see sales of those model vs when the last model was first introduced. And I still wouldn't be surprised if it was higher because the general public are idiots and sportier is better in their eyes. In a car enthusiasts eyes, only sport cars should look sporty and giant fake vents are heresy.

Well it'd better be faster than the last one, and I'd still rather have the last one. And muh rice is a great reason. The STI has rice but it looks fucking good. The Civic is so busy it's ridiculous. Like the roof spoiler? Like the 4 huge fake vents? Like the fucking extra trim they slapped on?
All the other Type-Rs have been fairly subtle. This screams LOOK AT ME THIS IS A TYPE R.

>muh 0-60
>muh meme tracks

How can you use sales as a metric for success and not talk about how the type R is sold out twice over

If I have one piece of shit, and some idiot buys it for a dollar, that means when I was selling my shit it completely sold out!
Then if his idiot brother comes buy and gives me his money for my next shit then I have sold out twice over!
Wow!

>nsx with a honda badge

0-60 is the most important aspect on the street because you're constantly starting and stopping. It's one of the few performance metrics you can actually do legally on the road.

Also I was saying how the meme track doesn't matter, a group of tracks is much more important and on tracks across the world, the new Type R isn't the fast FWD vehicle, must less faster than AWD hot hatches. So we agree on the meme track.

The original NSX only came with a Honda badge in Japan. Acura was only for pandering to the U.S. market.

Of course I do

You take that back!

pretty sure its still honda nsx in japan

>0-60 is the most important aspect on the street because you're constantly starting and stopping
Yeah, back in the 60s when your average shitbox took 20 seconds to get to highway speeds
>It's one of the few performance metrics you can actually do legally on the road
Using launch control and getting a 2.8 second 0-60 will get you a fat ticket. Go on and explain to the officer how you weren't going to go over 60

yeah i know. i wish the nsx here was under honda not acura, looks way better with the honda badging imo

Because the NSX is too expensive, and the Type R could have been the Kia Stinger, but it's not.

...

What car can you buy for under 50k that does a 2.8 0-60?
0-30 is what you do and feel every day. You can launch a Focus RS from a stop light and get up to 40 and not faster and a cop won't pull you over.

NSX is too expensive for what you get, Type R is fuckugly and the only thing it has going for it atm is a faked track time

>$45k for a civic USED

That's why.

I'd kind of like to think that Arabs and Russians are the biggest badge whores but in reality US are the actual No.1.
Either that or the nation is controlled by mainstream media and they are unable to think for themselves. It won't sell if won't be advertised well enough.
Obviously I'm talking about the majority. I'm not hating people because of their nationality or race.

oh i'm sorry, did they fail because that's all you've been reading on a peruvian quilt making forum? the CTR hasn't even been out for a month yet and it's already a failure? the nsx isn't a failure, it's made leaps in automotive technology (like the original nsx) and is around the same price as the original nsx in the 90s, adjusted for inflation
but you wouldn't know any of that because you're a fucking BUSRIDER who doesn't have their license yet

Yes they will you tard

Not while he's riding his bus

Your wife likes riding my bus

Did you just assume my sexuality?

How did the new type r fail?

All competitors in the US have AWD, thus are immediately quicker at certain speeds. Not necessarily a failure, rather it is the odd man out

>falling for the AWD makes you faster meme

I was hoping that would be a webm of both cars launching hard.

Because Honda used to make some nice stripped out (R) or minimal (NSX) cars, now they make fat riced out shit with all kinds of tacky crap stuck on them (civic). The new NSX I don't hate, but they should sell a stripped out no hybrid 3pedal version and not the full fat squashed down MDX that it is.

Hey, if it were a meme we would have FWD supercars. Thats all im saying

Is it ever specified how much the batteries & co. add to the NSXs weight?

Yet you're insisting that the Impreza would be faster than a Civic because it's AWD
>durr supercars use AWD, that means my mom's shitbox Subaru is good too

>every civic is fwd with an ugly design

Nah. This is still easily the best looking Civic ever made imo. EP3 comes very close.

The nsx in 1991 was $110k in todays money for the base. In 2005 it was $115k in today's money. The new NSX is $156k and has a TON more stuff on it and it WAY faster.

It's faster yes, but fast in comparison to it's competition? No. The old NSX was underpowered but it could still keep up with cars well over twice its price.
The new NSX is more expensive than it should be, and it's not a good performer when compared to the competition.

It's like height when you're a kid. Of course when you're 10 you're going to be taller than when you were 7. But when you were 7 you were taller than all your friends and at 10 you're shorter than all your friends. You aren't growing at the rate of the competition.

Granted I try and give Honda a little bit of a pass on the NSX because it is supposed to be an experimental sports car for Honda to try new things out on and learn from. It's not meant to be the best sports car in it's range, which is good, because it isn't.

I don't think he was implying that. There's a reason the majority of performance vehicles use AWD and RWD vs FWD.
FWD has its benefits, especially in economy and wet/snow traction at low speeds. BUT one of its benefits is NOT the best performance possible and denying that is idiotic.

...

>not a good performer compared to the competition
>only slower than literal million dollar hyper cars

>The old NSX was underpowered but it could still keep up with cars well over twice its price
uh..
>The new NSX is more expensive than it should be, and it's not a good performer when compared to the competition.
The performance per dollar is still superior to the old one in its own time though.>It's like height when you're a kid. Of course when you're 10 you're going to be taller than when you were 7
when the NSX was 7 it wasn't taller than all its friends though.

>Granted I try and give Honda a little bit of a pass on the NSX because it is supposed to be an experimental sports car for Honda to try new things out on and learn from
That's the entire point of its name and the car so i'm glad you agree.
>It's not meant to be the best sports car in it's range, which is good, because it isn't.
Neither was the last one if we're just benchracing.

I think that the reasoning behind people liking the old NSX is as follows:

1- The old NSX was famous for being an 2WD N/A sports car when every car or japanese sports car was using AWD or Turbo or both
2- It got development help from ayrton senna
3- I think it just looks better

Compared to the current NSX:

Its a turbo AWD car. Place the engine on the front and remove the hybrid system and WOW! ITS A NISSAN GTR!

The car in some parts looks awfully familiar to the civic for no reason. I find it terrible when companies reuse the same front grill or design across several cars. Makes them look lazy.

The car overall less original than the previous counterpart, and it still tries in design and interior to be too much like an hypercar in some features.

I personally just like the look of the previous car tho. If it was a longitudinal MR V6 or a flat 6 it would probably stand much better to this day.

>completely change the car and its a Nissan GTR

>NSX
>hybrid
>not tuned by Senna

>Civic Type R
>smaller displacement
>turbo
>not high revving

>"""""tuned by Senna"""""
>literally drive it like once and told them to stiffen it

>remove hybrid engine that its just a drivetrain assisted tool that gives extra torque for staring up the car to move
>change engine placement
>"HURR DURR YOU ARE CHANGING THE WHOLE CAR"

No i am not. Its still a lot like the GTR. Same auto-only tranny, same dependance on electronics and turbos. Same need to use AWD. Even the same ego injections to the guy that buys one and drives them. Maybe less so for the NSX one since the NSX isn't as popular as the GTR nowadays.

He test drove it several times and gave the designers several tips about how to improve the steering and suspension and stiffening the chassis.

If he didn't do that the NSX wouldn't be as good as it is.

Changing the engine placement literally changes the whole car, stop talking about things you have no idea about

>If it was a longitudinal MR V6 or a flat 6 it would probably stand much better to this day.
What do you mean? as in it would be more popular or faster? a Naturally aspirated MR V6 would never be faster than today's cars in a million fucking years unless they made a Bac Mono and called that an "NSX".

You can't just change the engine placement without going back to the drawing board on the whole car though. pic related. its not possible with how the current setup is. some FR cars can move their engines to the back but no MR could ever go FR.

It weighs 500 pounds more than the mclaren p1(RWD), 200 more than the porsche 918(also AWD), and 400 more than the ferrari la ferrari.

The weight differences between them are probably due to them having heavier engines than the NSX but making it up by using way more carbon fiber and aluminum in their construction than the NSX.
I remember from Top Gear that the P1 had an electric range of 6 miles, the 918 did 18 miles, and the laferrari doesn't have an electric only mode but the battery is 2.3 kWh 480 V lithium-ion.
It's hard to get a good read on the NSX because they're not well talked about

oh the irony

>What do you mean?
A longitudinal MR would give it a slightly better weight distribution left to right considering that they do not have to balance the tranny position and the such.

As for the flat 6, it would allow them to set the engine lower and reduce secondary vibrations.

It is a longitudinal MR you tard

Still has no idea what he's talking about

Funny thing is that the NSX still weighs less than the GTR

Wanna get proven wrong again?

Ok. Changing the engine placement will require major change to the bodywork and design of the car and change the weight distribution. But my point is not "how easy it is to do it" but "how much does the new NSX has in common with the GTR" because i still believe that the NSX ditched whatever the old NSX had going for it just to be more like the GTR.

We're talking about the current NSX you mongoloid
Pic related

I thought that was transverse?

>i talk about the old NSX
>"ITS LONGITUDINAL YOU RETARD!"
>get proven wrong
>"I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NEW ONE!"

In no way in my comments through the context i could have hinted at me talking about the New NSX. In fact, the fact that i called it MR and not something like MAWD or M4 only confirms this. Its ok if you misunderstood it tho.

Yes it is. The pic shows its transverse.

Literally nothing in common with the GTR other than the twin turbo V6 and DCT
And even those are nothing alike, the GTR is a decade old and the NSX is all new using completely different technology to manufacture it

When they switched the new NSX from transverse to longitudinally mounted they had to start from scratch again

The funnier thing is is that even with all the added weight and double the power, it's still (barely) more fuel efficient than the OG NSX

No even the fact that that it's a thread about the new NSX and the guy posted a picture of the new NSX's drivetrain?

No one cares about fuel efficiency in supercars, these hybrids are for that added torque fill and vectoring

21 MPG city and 0-60 in under 3 is pretty damn cool though.

>the OP is about the new NSX
>the entire thread must be about the new NSX

Are you being a janitor here? if you misunderstood me that's fine. I was answering a question about why i believe that a flat 6 longitudinal MR would be better for the old NSX.
This. Questioning MPG in sports cars is fucking retarded beyond benchracing.

25 years later nothing's gonna change the layout