# F#ck Dumbestics, Turbo honda 4L **URL:** \ **Category:** NYSpeed Automotive\ **Created:** [August 17, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099 "2006-08-17T20:42:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:30pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/81 "2006-08-21T20:30:03Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > car isnt as good as it should be for $90k. It’s every bit as good or better than the 90k porsche… Interior design is subjective, it’s still of the highest quality in fit and finish. Is the engine powerful enough to hang out with the _massive_ 3.6L porsche? Yup. Does the suspension help it hang with the the $110+K 996 TT around a track? Yup. So for 90K it outperforms other sports cars that cost 90K I don’t think 911s are overpriced… I fail to see how it’s not good enough. It might not be the car for you, but it’s not overpriced ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:37pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/82 "2006-08-21T20:37:03Z")
Since you decided to go down that road. Let’s compare stats. All prices are without tax, destination, options. 2002 NSX: $89,000 MSRP Displacement: 3179 cc Horsepower: 290 bhp @ 7100 rpm Torque: 224 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm Max RPM: 8000 rpm ¼ mile: 13.4 sec @ 106 mph (Stock 944 Turbo range, since you wanna make this a pcar vs nsx arguement). Nurburgring Time: 8:38 HockenHeim: 1:18.4 2003 Porsche GT3: $99,000 MSRP Displacement: 3600 cc Horsepower: 380 bhp @ 7400 rpm Torque: 285 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm Max RPM: 8200 rpm ¼ mile: 12.1 sec @ 116 mph Nurburgring: 7:54 Hockenhiem: 1:13.2 Remind me how that puts them even in the same performance range, when they are definitely in the same price range? Or how it’s better than the Porsche to quote you? OOOOO Big half liter difference in displacement! Oh wait, it still revs higher then the _gasp_ revvy honda! ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/83 "2006-08-21T20:38:06Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > Since you decided to go down that road. Let’s compare stats. > > All prices are without tax, destination, options. > > 2002 NSX: $89,000 MSRP > Displacement: > 3179 cc > Horsepower: > 290 bhp @ 7100 rpm > Torque: > 224 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm > Max RPM: > 8000 rpm > ¼ mile: > 13.4 sec @ 106 mph (Stock 944 Turbo range, since you wanna make this a pcar vs nsx arguement). > Nurburgring Time: 8:38 > HockenHeim: 1:18.4 > > 2003 Porsche GT3: $99,000 MSRP > Displacement: > 3600 cc > Horsepower: > 380 bhp @ 7400 rpm > Torque: > 285 lb-ft @ 5000 rpm > Max RPM: > 8200 rpm > Nurburgring: 7:54 > Hockenhiem: 1:13.2 > > Remind me how that puts them even in the same performance range, when they are definitely in the same price range? Did I compare it to the GT3? No…did I compare it to the C2, C4, C4S and C2S? Yes. I totally agree with you…the NSX isn’t a $99,000 base price car btw: 1986 Porsche 944 Turbo 6.0 14.6 ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/84 "2006-08-21T20:40:04Z")
1989 944 Turbo 13.9 @ 102. Why not compare it to the GT3, it’s in the same price range! You asked what better for a $90k car? Well clearly, the GT3. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/85 "2006-08-21T20:42:29Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > 1989 944 Turbo 13.9 @ 102. > > Why not compare it to the GT3, it’s in the same price range! You asked what better for a $90k car? Well clearly, the GT3. If you want to pick nits the GT3 is 100K if the NSX is 90K But I wouldn’t pay the same for a NSX as I would for a GT3…But I’d buy an NSX over a 911 C2S…or a C4S with a ORIGINAL MSRP OF $89¸715! ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:50pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/86 "2006-08-21T20:50:12Z")
Why, because you like a car that’s slower, or you just like faux ferrari styling? 2002 911(996) C2: MSRP 89,000 Displacement: 3600 cc Horsepower: 320 bhp @ 6800 rpm Torque: 274 lb-ft @ 4250 rpm 1/4 Mile 12.90 @ 112.00 mph Nurburgring: 8:17 HockenHeim: 1:15.9 I prefer my 50 year old design, thanks! ---
**Author:** ![brent\_strong](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/brent_strong/32/7203_2.png) [@brent\_strong](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/brent_strong)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 8:55pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/87 "2006-08-21T20:55:05Z")
Looks like even the C2 whips the pants off of the NSX and brings with it the Porsche tax. Imagine paying Porsche prices for an underperforming Honda. Ouch. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/88 "2006-08-21T21:13:01Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > Why, because you like a car that’s slower, or you just like faux ferrari styling? So are we gonna stick with 1/4 mile is all that matters? Because I know you’re not going to say that the NSX doesn’t perform on equal footing with a C2S on a track…or in daily driveability… But if you really want to… 1/4 Mile ET: 12.900 ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/89 "2006-08-21T21:13:55Z")
Didnt read the Nurburgring or Hockenheim lap times did you? It smokes the NSX by 28 seconds at Nurburgring and 3 at Hockenheim. 996’s are as daily driveable as nearly any Honda FYI. (minus the '99 RMS seal issue which is fixed under warrenty as I know you’ll bring it up). ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/90 "2006-08-21T21:16:59Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > Didnt read the Nurburgring 8:16.15 149.471 km/h - Honda NSX so…yeah… ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/91 "2006-08-21T21:19:11Z")
From an unofficial list, I go by the SportAuto list which is all the same driver in the cars. Every “official” list I see has it listed at 8:38. > A very good track driver will easily be 5% or 25 seconds slower than an experienced pro. Tires will add another 5% = 25 sec. Weather can add another 3 to 5%. > Tires plus driver can easily equal 1 minute differential, running SAME CAR on Nurgurgring. ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:22pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/92 "2006-08-21T21:22:11Z")
I’ll give it to the NSX-R though for lap times, 1:14.6 at Hockenheim, 8:09 at Nurburgring. Pretty good, for an overpriced, underpowered, Honda. ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:26pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/93 "2006-08-21T21:26:22Z")
ROFL, even better the NSX time you pulled is from Best Motoring. HAHAHAHHA. Top Gear claims an 8:33, which I’m inclined to believe. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/94 "2006-08-21T21:28:42Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > Every “official” list I see has it listed at 8:38. In 91 the car went 37, in 97 38…no test after that. Top Gear has no date, and the best motoring time was from 99 since it was against the, OMG, 911… But what are you saying that Best Motoring lied about a recorded lap time? On video? ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/95 "2006-08-21T21:31:11Z")
I’m saying Best Motoring is about the most biased “car review” there is out there. OMG NOTHING CAN BEAT THE NSX!!!1111!!! _mouth continues moving to finish sentance in Japanese_ I’m pretty much done with this topic as I’ve laid down that the NSX is indeed overpriced and slow. > [@brent\_strong](#): > > Looks like even the C2 whips the pants off of the NSX and brings with it the Porsche tax. Imagine paying Porsche prices for an underperforming Honda. Ouch. Sums it up perfectly. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/96 "2006-08-21T21:32:08Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > I’m saying Best Motoring is about the most biased “car review” there is out there. OMG NOTHING CAN BEAT THE NSX!!!1111!!! > > _mouth continues moving to finish sentance in Japanese_ > > I’m pretty much done with this topic as I’ve laid down that the NSX is indeed overpriced and slow. How does bias change a video recorded lap time? The only thing you’ve laid down is that to get a solidly better car than the NSX you have to spend more…or you can get one car for less (C5 Z06) ---
**Author:** ![brent\_strong](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/brent_strong/32/7203_2.png) [@brent\_strong](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/brent_strong)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:37pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/97 "2006-08-21T21:37:34Z")
> [@JoesTypeS](#): > > How does bias change a video recorded lap time? The only thing you’ve laid down is that to get a solidly better car than the NSX you have to spend more…or you can get one car for less (C5 Z06) The C2 costs the same and outperforms it. The C6 Z06 likely also outperforms it and costs less. I’m not sure what basis you make that claim on. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 9:38pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/98 "2006-08-21T21:38:50Z")
> [@brent\_strong](#): > > The C6 Z06 likely also outperforms it and costs less. Thanks for playing “Let’s talk about cars that were made after production ended”, try again next time…the C6 Z06 out performs the 996 GT3 too there pal…The C6 Z06 is a beast of a car > [@brent\_strong](#): > > The C2 costs the same and outperforms it. They perform on the same level To get an undeniably better car than the NSX in the Porsche lineup, you’re going w/ the GT3…which was MORE EXPENSIVE… The fact remains, the car was not overpriced. > [@MPD47](#): > > I will not pay for a $90k Honda ^^ Remains the reason people hate on the NSX > [@MPD47](#): > > OMG NOTHING CAN BEAT THE NSX!!!1111!!! > . 8:11 - 151,274 km/h - Mitsubishi Lancer EVO IX (Best Motoring video 14) \*That beats the 911 (and the NSX, that’s impossible though right? From best motoring…) …does that make the 911 overpriced? So do they now just lie about all japanese cars? Because it’s a Japanese auto mag? Couldn’t I just say the same thing about non-japanese auto mags? But seriously now…how exactly is the NSX overpriced? It performs on par with cars that cost the same…is outperformed by cars that cost less (that also outperform the cars that cost the same)…is out performed by cars that cost more…yet, it’s overpriced compared to the cars that cost the same…hrmmmm ---
**Author:** ![MPD47](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/mpd47/32/7383_2.png) [@MPD47](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/MPD47)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 10:01pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/99 "2006-08-21T22:01:09Z")
Ok, this is going to be my last post in this thread, as it’s clear you either A. are just goading me, or are B. so blinded by your Honda faith that you cant see past facts. The two people considered the “Ring masters” BESIDES SABINE, are Walter Rohl, and Horst Van Somethinggerman. Rohl test drives for Porsche and occasionally does times for AutoBild mag, Horst does times for Autobild and SportAuto. The times are set by the same two people and are generally within a second of each other. By the Automotive media, these two are considered the “official” Nurburgring times list. Best Motoring doesnt even blip on the radar other than with m4d JDM Touge fan bois. ---
**Author:** ![JoesTypeS](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/joestypes/32/7190_2.png) [@JoesTypeS](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/JoesTypeS)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099/100 "2006-08-21T22:09:29Z")
> [@MPD47](#): > > Ok, this is going to be my last post in this thread, as it’s clear you either A. are just goading me, or are B. so blinded by your Honda faith that you cant see past facts. > > The two people considered the “Ring masters” BESIDES SABINE, are Walter Rohl, and Horst Van Somethinggerman. Rohl test drives for Porsche and occasionally does times for AutoBild mag, Horst does times for Autobild and SportAuto. The times are set by the same two people and are generally within a second of each other. By the Automotive media, these two are considered the “official” Nurburgring times list. Best Motoring doesnt even blip on the radar other than with m4d JDM Touge fan bois. So you’re telling me that a test driver posts better times in 1 car than in another car…on different days? Shocking. AND you’re saying that a video recorded lap isn’t valid? We could go back and forth for days with lap times and videos of professional drivers racing the cars together on the track at the same time…And the NSX is going to win some and the 911 might win some, which would pretty much put them on par performance wise wouldn’t you say? Seriously man, give it up…the car wasn’t overpriced. The sub 97 years are massively overvalued used, but that’s not really an issue. It’s not a $50,000 car or a $150,000 car, it was priced just right at $89K (for at least 12 of 14 years)…and that if it had a Lambo, Ferrari or Porsche badge no one would ever say it was overpriced. AND YOU KNOW THIS IS TRUE. For you to say the fact that it’s a Honda doesn’t impact your view on it’s price is silly…you pointed out specifically that you wouldn’t pay $90K for a Honda, etc… etc… Would the C6 Z06 be overpriced at $130K? No, not really the numbers all match up, but who would pay that much for a stock Chevy? Same thing with the NSX because it’s a Honda it shouldn’t be valued with the cars it competes with. The next NSX could go out an beat the 997 GT3 around the ring, cost $85K and people would still say it’s overpriced, because it’s a Honda :roll: [Previous page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099.md?page=4) [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/f-ck-dumbestics-turbo-honda-4l/16099.md?page=6)