It wasn't really that bad.
>>28799989Back then everyone associated hybrid = prius
>>28799989>auto only>heavy battery that expires >riced out from the factoryChief design engineer was a woman too if that matters
>>28799989>Chief design engineer was a woman too if that mattersThats a meme peddled out by Honda to portray them as progressive, she didn't do shit.
>>28799989It wasn't "bad" it IS ugly though and always has been. The only time I ever saw one and thought it looked ok it was completely blacked out, which hides the stupid looking front end arrangement. The fact that the car has 3 separate patterns of real and fake grille area on the front end alone is testament to poorly done styling, it's incoherent and busy looking. The rear end vents are mostly fake as well, with just small open areas on the large swaths of gloss black honeycomb plastic. Furthermore, the black stripe across the A pillar at the bottom of the mirror support is a completely pointless styling cue and the car looks better without it.
>>28800012I think she designed the eye gouging physical appearance.
>>28799989It wasnt that bad, but it didn't really have anything in common with the original other than the name and layout
May as well have made it a bev at this point
>>28800033It’s based on the concept designed by japs.>>28800035>New Sports car experimentalStill don’t see how weebs didn’t see this coming.
>>28800154The difference is new cars were good when the nsx was new. New cars were gay when the 2nd gen happened
>>28800156Every generation thinks their shit is good and the generation that came after is bad. Gen alpha will see the 2010s like you see the 90s
Looks like any generic mid-engine sports car on the road now. They all look the same with a different badge, yawn. At least when they were designed by Pininfarina in the 80s and 90s they looked good and unique.
>>28800158Except the 90s and early 00s were objectively better than now and the metrics you can use to assess that are so absurdly plentiful, I have to wonder if you’re actually insane to deny it
>>28800162The “metric” you’re looking at isn’t performance, styling, efficiency, safety, or even price, so once again. It might as well be boomer shit.
>>28800169Lack of right right to repair in modern cars, privacy concerns, massive quality control control issues with new parts, cultural stagnation, decline of the arts, destruction of modern mythology, increasing political violence, disposability over servicibility, stagnating wages, and with cars specifically, everything that isnt a metallic gray, silver or red cuck egg is dying off. You have to be mentally cucked beyond belief to actually think "things are better" now than they used to be. Every metric we have available points to us being a dying culture. Even worse, you think coping that >oh well it's safer and faster means its somehow better.
>>28800173Boomers complained about all of this shit in the 90s. You have no self awareness at all and just keep insisting your shit is special.
>>28800175This isnt even a rebuttal
>>28800175>>28800158Anon thinks societied just infinitely progress upwards to infinity and never experience stagnation or decline, apparently
>>28800190Neither is saying “shit was better in my day” like the boomers were already saying in the 90s you were so nostalgic about. What fucking point are you trying to make? That because kids back in your day watched initial d and the fast and the furious and therefore because those things are better than shit now that somehow changes the meaning of the “nsx” or justifies your cars or someone else’s? Make an actual point. Something that can’t be said about any fucking thing.>>28800191You think human civilization peaked in the only part of it you grew up in and everything outside of your experience is shit. How typical of a self centered millennial nigger.
>>28800199nta but so what if boomers said the same thing in the 90s. things have been declining for a long time. it was declining then and it's still declining now. most things were better in every current living generation's youth, and like he said that's not a rebuttal to his argument.
>>28800199Now you're just sperging. I laid out about a dozen objective metrics you can use to assess the decline. Civilizational declines happen in cycles, and we have dozens of examples through history and can use that to chart exactly where we sit on the curve. Again, you just seem to be pressing this idea that culture progresses infinitely upwards and any idea of cultural decline is just out of touch sensationalism, completely ignoring that from every metric you can judge by, I'm right. Your only rebuttal so far is that, somehow because modern cars are faster and safer, that means im wrong? Because previous generations also said similar things, they're wrong and im also wrong? That doesn't follow. This is babby tier argumentation. Make an argument and not reddit tier rhetoric.
>>28800204What is his argument? If you acknowledge that every generation can make their own red pilled /pol/ graph about societal decline what is the point of saying>>28800156 ? According to boomers, cars already sucked ass when the original nsx came out.
HSV should have been made road legal instead of this pos
>>28800209You haven’t explained how any of these “objective” metrics are relevant to the nsx nameplate or how this justifies you liking one car over another(it doesn’t). You probably don’t think boomer generation shit is best despite all those “objective metrics” being applicable to your own generation, so why are you saying it here? A car coming from a different era of lesser decline =/= better. Just as you would tell the boomers turning their nose up at your fwd eg6 all the same.This is /pol/ level non sequitur shit.
>>28800216The original nsx became a cultural touchstone of automotive history, and you have to include the cultural context of it's release and development if you want to assess either as "good" or "bad".Objectively, in terms of performance, the modern nsx is very good. When placed in context, it was dog shit. Its development was not influenced by racing pedigree. The visual design was derivative. It was not a driver's car and massively isolated the connection between the drivers and the machine. It was designed from the ground up to be comfortable. Its a "spec sheet sports car," as in everything good about it comes from numbers.Much like the cope in this conversation revolves around "you're wrong about modern society being shit because number go up," but everyone feels and lives differently. Thats why a 30 year old Acura still sells for 80k, because it delivers an experience that modern cars cant give you anymore. People are willing to pay that sum of money because a car being good is determined by way more than numbers going up on a spread sheet, and culture works the same way. >every generation can make their own red pilled /pol/ graph about societal decline No, they cant.
>>28800199>and everything outside of your experience is shitI'm experiencing this current shit and I gotta say, not a fan
>>28800228>You haven’t explained how any of these “objective” metrics are relevant to the nsx nameplateI actually did earlier with my first post. The differences between the original nsx and the modern one reflect the differences in culture of when they were made. This isnt a difficult line of logic to follow, so im not sure why you’re having a hard time with it. On paper, the nusx is better, but people will still pay more money to get an old example. It goes beyond nostalgia, because the original is better in ways that are more difficult to quantify. If you want to judge the health of a society, you look at the works it produces.
>>28800232The original nsx became a cultural touchstone of the millennial generation of automotive history, it was not a cultural touchstone for boomers. You do not have to include the cultural context of a product’s release to assess if it is good, you know what makes a product good? Actual standalone merit.>its development was not influenced by racing pedigree Retarded. Its engine was co-developed by cosworth. It has the least differences between its road version and race version unlike the original nsx with its transverse mount engine that had to be rotated length-wise and require an entire re-design of its front and back subframe by dome. So that point is completely wrong. And irrelevant anyway. Visual design is subjective, and goes back to every generation thinking their shit is special. What is the metric you can cite for one visual design being objectively better than another? There is none. So you’ve left objectivity behind already. You haven’t driven either of these cars and have no idea how either of them drive, never mind that this has nothing to do with the car’s nameplate. The nsx name was Honda showing off their new technology. This is not nor was it ever intended to be a spartan sports car. A 30 year old Acura sells for 80k for the same reason cars of today will sell for high prices when gen alpha reaches their mid-life crisis years. Boomer level nostalgia that exists in every generation. But you still can’t see that and still insist that your generation is special. There is nothing special about a 30 year old Acura other than it being front wheel drive, which you can easily get today. Same with manual cars, same with “driver’s” cars. All that exist today. Your post ultimately boils down to nostalgia and not rational thinking.
>>28800256>The original nsx became a cultural touchstone of the millennial generation of automotive historydid the new nsx become a cultural touchstone of its generation?
>>28800232>no they can’t Yes they can, or do you think metrics prove culture, the economy, and society was better in the 90s but worse in the 60s?>>28800250Judging a car by how close it is to the culture you are most fond of and not any actual merit is the most double digit IQ boomer shit ever. Truly a /pol/ brained original thought if there ever was one. Also the most anyone has paid for an nsx is the new one. Hell, if you look at depreciation curve, the new one both lost less money and rebound quicker than the original. The only ones people are paying more for are the very limited supply edition models.All this retarded nonsense can be used to suggest boomer culture is better than your own, that boomer cars are better than your own, or even that American cars are better than Japanese ones. Do you see how retarded how you view things actually is, yet?
>>28800256All im getting from this still is "cultures improve infinitely upwards forever and if you think anything is worse now you are just a boomer" and until you grapple with that point, the rest is cope. > Its engine was co-developed by cosworth. I can concede the engine itself was. The car as a whole was not. It was a modern prequel to hybrid slop. Designed by committee for spec sheet autists like you to fawn over. Packing a bunch of new tech and funny numbers into a car, but forgetting to make it a car people actually wanted to buy. >There is nothing special about a 30 year old Acura other than it being front wheel drive, which you can easily get today. Same with manual cars, same with “driver’s” cars. All that exist todayYou're doing it once again; theres this "society gets better forever" position that you arent explicitly stating but keep reinforcing. Its foundational to your position and yet you keep dancing around it and refuse to acknowledge it. You'd be the type to walk the streets the late Roman while their men are destitute, infrastructure declining, women bineg raped by barbarians, and just stand on a soap box and claim they're just complaining because they're out of touch and poisoned by nostalgia. This position is fucking staggering to be honest. >>28800261>did the new nsx become a cultural touchstone of its generation?Absolutely not, but he will ignore that point. >>28800280Its like you dont even know what stagnation is, and all of world history began in 1776.
>>28799989>auto onlyYes it was
>>28800261We don’t know yet, cause gen alpha is still growing up. How long did it take for anyone to give a shit about the original nsx? They were dirt cheap for the longest time.
>>28800287lol
>>28800284>culture moves infinity upward No, it’s that every generation can point to /pol/ graphs to say their culture is better and therefore their cars are better without having to judge things on their own merit, you still keep ignoring that or just too stupid to see my point at all. Never mind how bafflingly regarded iy is to use nostalgia prices for shit when millennials made fun of how much boomers paid for shitboxes from their own era. You still haven’t proved how your culture is best. So it doesn’t mean anything.>the engine itself wasCool of you to ignore how the whole car is closer to its racing counterpart than the original nsx-gt was to its own production example. What was the original nsx a prequel to? To cars that had fucked transverse layouts that had to be unfucked when they raced? Do you realize how “design by committee” the original nsx was for it to not use a V10 or V12 like everyone actually wanted? Or that the original nsx was so undesired until millennials got older you could get it for just half its original msrp for the longest time?Just doubling down on stupid.Do you actually think a 30 year old Acura is better in every way than modern ones? (Measurable ways, not retarded boomer level culture shit). And instead of defining the ways in which the 30 year old Acura’s are better, you just go on another retarded /pol/ rant. I’m noticing a pattern, here.Where did we stagnate, again? Did everything conveniently improve for the better in your generation while conveniently declining just after? Do you have metrics for that?Show me in what was your generation was best, and answer if you think boomer cars were better than yours, or even that American cars are better than Japanese ones. I noticed that you completely ignored that question.
>>28800296Remember when boomers laughed at your generation, too?
>>28800234Boomers weren’t a fan of the hip hop filled tuner-based front wheel drive slop of the 90s, either. Who knew people get cynical as they age.
>>28800306>culture moves infinity upward Your response to this still addresses nothing. You say no and then just make every argument supporting the same point but refusing to acknowledge its actually your position. This is called dishonesty. >Do you actually think a 30 year old Acura is better in every way than modern ones?I actually addressed this point, which is objectively yes, the new nsx is better on paper, and yet nobody cares about it. Its like you're having an entirely parallel conversation with someone else. >Where did we stagnate, again? Did everything conveniently improve for the better in your generation while conveniently declining just after? Do you have metrics for that? You're just demonstrating a profound ignorance of history with every post, again reinforcing the "culture gets better forever" position you keep denying you have.Cultures go through cycles. Rebirth, decadence, stagnation, decline, crisis (or some variation), and the cycle repeats. This is undeniable and one of the most well understood trends in history. The boomers lived during the age of decadence, and following that came the period of cultural stagnation. You can still have advancement during stagnation, but the idea is the pace of cultural development slows down. The momentum generated by the decadent period carries foward for a while, but it eventually slows down and starts regressing. You could see this happening as early as the 60s and 70s when the cultural decline started to really take hold. Starting around 2001 and especially 2008, we started the economic decline couldn't be ignore and it has continued ever since. So whats your next cope going to be?
>>28799989It was released way to early for people to accept hybrids as anything other than econoboxes. Honda also took the NSX name too liberally and believed it meant "experimental sports car" when everyone really knew it as the Ferrari fighter car.
>>28800319this right here. if you disregard the name you begin to see how honda invented this style of supercar before anyone else. porsche, ferrari, mclaren, bmw all copied the nu-nsx template but didn't get nearly as much shit (except bmw). they are also legitimately the best sounding hybrid of all time. it may be a v6 but it sounds highly exotic in this configuration.
>>28800325I think the main thing is that Honda made a car that actually works. Well I Guess so does Porsche. Ferraris, LAmbos, Mclaren, the offerings at this level from BMW, are all undriveable garbage. Somehow when the local redneck gets an 800HP rocket that grenades in 1000 miles, he's an idiot for even trying, but when a "supercar" maker does the same thing, its an exotic car that matters and "real" performance. If your car can't go 100k on basic maintenance, it shouldn't even count. So in this case, Honda showed them how to actually make a car, which Ferarri has NEVER done. We should really stop using Italian brands as a measuring stick for any sort of performance or with the word supercar. If you're talking Europe, only Porsche can do it.
>>28800316>your response still addresses nothingThen it’s because you’ve said nothing.>nsx = New Sports car eXperimental >yea but my generation is better so my opinion is more validRetarded.>i actually addressed this pointYou didn’t. You won’t even answer whether boomer cars or better than your shit or not or whether Americans are better than jap ones. If they aren’t, why are they worth more? You can’t answer.You just demonstrated that you don’t even understand the cars you’re actually talking about by being completely fucking dead-wrong about how closely it’s tied to racing or not. This is why you’re trying to keep the argument about something nebulous so you don’t have to actually judge anything off merit.>culture goes through cyclesCool, but what does this have to do with cars? Cars don’t go through cycles. They get progressively better as technology and engineering improves, and this also makes them worse in terms of simplicity and all the disadvantages that come along with it. Even with changing trends, you can still find cars that are simple, spartan, and come with manuals. But you can’t say cars also find examples of cars being more complicated than they were in the 90s compared to the 60s.You can’t say cars are better from your generation because boomers can say the same using the exact same reasoning. You already tried to use “metrics” to assess how your generation is better, and boomers can do the same for theirs. You were already wrong about the car itself and talked directly from your ass.What are you even trying to say anymore?
>>28800287>They were dirt cheap for the longest time.They never were. Go find those prices and then adjust for inflation. I know you're getting this information from Doug DeMuro, who doesn't know shit about cars either. He thinks an SUV with a lot of HP makes it a sports car. If you watch some of his videos, he sometimes points at knobs and just didn't have the decency to look up what it does before just going "idk what this does!". I forget which model it was too, but he was sorting through menus I think in a Jag, and couldn't tell what Korean text was in the language selection. He's just a totally uneducated individual, and again, doesn't know SHIT about cars.
>everyone glossing over the chief aspect of why it sucked
>>28800341It sucked because it was a hybrid. That's it. Whoever had that idea is what killed it, and I guarantee you it wasn't this roastie.
>>28800338>But you can’t say but you can also find examples of*
>>28800342>IT'S LIKE THIS BECAUSE I SAY SOnope. you're not an authority on shit other than living with your mom.
>>28800339You can find people on this very board who were kicking themselves for not having bought them when they could be had for as low as 40k if not lower. they had a starting msrp of 70k in 1990 (and only got more expensive in msrp from there).. 70k in 1990 is 170k. 40k in the early 2010s would be 59k today. That a massive price difference and everyone agrees that their sudden spike in value only came within the last 5 years or so.When were they ever selling for the prices they are now even adjusted for inflation?
>>28800341It sucked because she turned a Japanese concept into a production ready product? She had very little to do with how the car turned out. This car is as Japanese as it gets. Everything that could actually influence its design is Japanese.
reading through this thread has given me cancer. to the nu-nsx fanboy, please do something about your extremely gay form of autism before any more anons needlessly suffer my fate.
btw i only have 3 minutes left to live please pray for me.
>>28800338Im not even reading this babble at this point. Fucking pages of babbling and still cant understand the basic discourse of claim/response
>>28800440Your entire strategy has been “shit from my generation is better” whilst trying to obfuscate it. The few times you actually tried to make a point that directly addresses the car you revealed your bias. You don’t want to acknowledge that you have a bias so you’re trying to hide it behind fake measurements of objectivity.
>>28800199>You think human civilization peaked in the only part of it you grew up in and everything outside of your experience is shit. How typical of a self centered millennial neighbor.Wrong. I think it peaked before I got a chance to experience it.T. every fucking millennial.
>>28799989Yeah, but it really wasn't that good and had none of the same appeal that the original had.>but muh newer technology it's not 1990 anymoreHelp from BMW aside, that didn't stop Toyota from making the new supra an I6 turbo even offered with a manual. Honda's modern Type R is a manual-only 4cyl as it always was, now with a turbo. WRX is still offered as a turbo boxer 4cyl with an available manual. Meanwhile the NSX became, what, an auto-only hybrid that almost weighs 1000lbs more than the original? No meme Senna appeal to try and save it, no Ferrari benchmark they tried to beat or anything. The tech might have made it 'similar' to cars like the LaFerrari or Porsche 918, but the actual performance wasn't close to beating those hypercars. Instead, it sat in an awkward space in between those hypercars and the BMW i8. Who cares if it came first? The original NSX arguably didn't do anything new at all or innovative when it came out, it just did it's thing well as an n/a MR sports car with Ferrari-beating performance.
>>28800878>The original NSX arguably didn't do anything new at all or innovative when it came outThis is something a lot of people seem to not realize. There was nothing overly technologically advanced about the original NSX, and the ferrari it "beat", the 348, is known as one of the worst ferraris and wasn't even fast in the context of its time period. The NSX was a better CAR, and that's what set it apart. It was a high end sports car that looked the part, didn't cost $100k, was universally praised for not just its handling but its street manners. It had "refinement", a buzzword now, but that means good NVH, no bad street habits such as tramlining or overly harsh ride, and no bad handling tendencies.
Honda lost the plot with Acura in the 2000s>Rebadged Pilot (MDX)>Rebadged CR-V (RDX)>Rebadged Accord (The rest of their lineup)>the beakHow anyone actually expected nu-Honda to be any exciting is sad.
>hybrid>mid engine >uglyinto the trash it goes
>>28799989>It wasn't really that bad.>spending $300k to get outperformed by a $60k Camaro
>2026>caring about a discontinued GM shitbox
