Anyway, NSX came (hopefully really will) first, so wins. GT-R wins against HSV because Honda did not bring that 5.0l V10 AWD, which would be the current GT-R rival.

It is not even worth comparing the GT-R to the NSX. Have to wait for next GT-R, which will also cost more than current one.

 

This may be off topic, but what about real world utility.

From what I see of the GT (and it is amazing), I don't see any place for storage.

The NSX appears to have a frunk.

 

Ironically, they are both Japanese. If that matters to people.

 

I am pretty sure the NSX will weigh a couple hundred pounds more then the GT. While the NSX powertrain is highly advanced and will add performance capabilities the GT V6tt only engine won't be able to you can't get away from the weight of those batteries and motors which add hundreds of pounds. Hybrid/electric and light weight just don't go together. Only way the NSX would weigh around the same as the GT is to extensively use the most expensive light weight exotic materials like Carbon Fiber, Magnesium, Titanium throughout the entire car to make up for the weight of the batteries and motors which means the price would jump another 100K.

The GT will be a much more expensive low volume model compared to the NSX and likely won't be anywhere near as daily driver comfortable or have the build quality/reliability/low maintenance costs.

 

Here are some real pics of the NSX from the show. So gorgeous from the side.
http://jalopnik.com/the-interior-of-...ara-1679301144
Nice article about a Acura for a change at Jalopnik which normally takes pleasure trashing Acura.

 

It looks so good and is technically so perfect. I think the FT-1 won't be as good.

 

The more I see the car the less I like the styling especially the front end. Doesn't make a statement, kinda looks like a generic supercar in a video game or movie.

 

It's all speculation until the specs for both cars get released. I will bet on NSX. Like you said, it will also be a much better daily driver as well.

 

Whether it makes statement or not, it depends on how well Mclaren F1 team do. You probably don't care, but I'm sure many more do.

 

Again i personally think its overpriced for an Acura.
They should of stuck to 100k, as that would be a big value against other supercars.

Why would someone get this over a Lambo Huracan, 458, even a GT3.

Plus anyone thinks this car will be a good DD, never drove a Supercar.
Rearward visibility looks non existent, you will attract huge attention in it, and no trunk space.
This is why Porsche 911 turbo/GT3 are much better as a DD, they blend in with all the other 911s.

LFA still best supercar ever from Japan.
Too bad Toyota/Lexus is too cheap to follow up on it.....

 

i am not sure what kind of new lamborghini or ferrari you can get for 150k? gt3 is probably the closest you can get.

just like back in 91 paying 60+k for nsx, it was very expensive for a honda, but compared to ferrari? cheap

 

Sometimes there are far more variables than just a badge to justify price. LFA is one of those examples.

Good for Acura. Improve your image, let the NSX be their 'LFA' so to speak and spark the change necessarily for Acura to be mentioned when one is car shopping.

 

The first generation NSX was a good daily driver so being that this one too also has a trunk and probably not any harsher a ride than the first generation, I think this one too will make for a good daily driver if one so choses to use it that way.

 

Agreed but the market is flooded with performance cars today compared to early 90s.
On the low end u got MB GT, Audi R8, 911 turbo/gt3, AM Vantage, BMW i8.
Over 200k, u got 650s, 458, and Huracan.

The readons NSX stood out 25 yrs ago do not exist today.
Today even Ferraris have decent reliability and build quality is solid.

As u know Name Brand is huge in this segment as well.

 

I think the 2004 HSC looks better.