Anubis Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) Any transformation from an A-10 would look pretty crappy for an alternator. The fuselage is too thin for it. I'm in the camp of a Mig or F-22 would work better for Starscream. The VF-14 is much closer to the SR-71 Blackbird than the VF-4. Edited January 12, 2004 by Anubis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander McBride Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 I'm going tonight to buy an 87 FC3s GTU! Well, I'm not the one buying, but it's the new car of a team member! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 RX-8? Eh. S2000 ass rapes an RX-8. RX-7 vs NSX? 1/3 of the price? What crack are u smoking? Comparing these cars is equally ridiculous as they're NOT competitors. Neither in price nor performance, much less reliability and held value. Mazda and Fd fans might want it to be, but RX-7 is not in the NSX and Supra league. If those 2 are in the majors, RX-7 is a AA club. RX-7 is the car that nearly bankrupt Mazda with warranty work. But it's sure kewl for Japanese drifting. Plus Honda > Mazda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) Damn double post. Oh yeah, Starscream should be an F-22 if Takara/Hasbro will break out of the "car only" schtick. Wasn't the original Starscream an F-15? Licensing would be nothing but trouble... MiG-29 would be cool, though... Jetfire? We already have a Masterpiece Jetfire. Yamato 1/48 Hikaru Super VF-1J. Just paint the fast packs red. Edited January 12, 2004 by Uxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eriku Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Jetfire? We already have a Masterpiece Jetfire. Yamato 1/48 Hikaru Super VF-1J. Just paint the fast packs red. Actually Jetfire had a 1S head, not a 1J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) Jetfire? We already have a Masterpiece Jetfire. Yamato 1/48 Hikaru Super VF-1J. Just paint the fast packs red.  Actually Jetfire had a 1S head, not a 1J. Take the new Hikaru 1S, paint the nosecone red, as well as the fast packs, and voila! Instant Jetfire You know something Yamato should make a deal with hasbro, make it so they can distribute the VF-1S as a masterpiece Jetfire. Edited January 12, 2004 by GobotFool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 What's ironic is the original Autobot RX-7, Camshaft shouldn't technically have any cams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wumzi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 I think this has finally convinced me to pick up the new Alternators line. I was going to settle for just Prime, but this Mazda is sweet! Which leads me to a few questions, is the silver Subaru available or not yet? I'd rather get that than Smokescreen. Plus, what's the difference between the Takara and the Hasbro versions, Diecast content? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LePoseur Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Jetfire? We already have a Masterpiece Jetfire. Yamato 1/48 Hikaru Super VF-1J. Just paint the fast packs red. Actually Jetfire had a 1S head, not a 1J. Take the new Hikaru 1S, paint the nosecone red, as well as the fast packs, and voila! Instant Jetfire You know something Yamato should make a deal with hasbro, make it so they can distribute the VF-1S as a masterpiece Jetfire. Not to nitpick, and I'm sure most people wouldn't notice, but isn't black/color pattern on Jetfire reversed from the standard DYRL version? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) RX-7 vs NSX? 1/3 of the price? What crack are u smoking? Comparing these cars is equally ridiculous as they're NOT competitors. Neither in price nor performance, much less reliability and held value. Mazda and Fd fans might want it to be, but RX-7 is not in the NSX and Supra league. If those 2 are in the majors, RX-7 is a AA club. RX-7 is the car that nearly bankrupt Mazda with warranty work. But it's sure kewl for Japanese drifting. Plus Honda > Mazda. Afraid to say that the third generation RX-7 is very much a competitor with the NSX. Comparing a model year RX-7 and model year NSX, an RX-7 will be equal or very very close to an NSX in terms of staright line speed, and actually out handle the NSX. The NSX is an overpriced wanna be Ferrari. The RX-7 can hang with them in every way, and for 1/3 the price. I know, it's hard to believe because the NSX has an aura of invincibility around it among Honda fans but they're not that great. The RX-7 is a competitor with the NSX and in terms of price for what you get, the RX-7 wins. The Supra beats out the RX-7 in power potential and reliability, but not in handling. The Supra is a pig compared to the RX-7 and will get shamed by the RX-7 on the track. The Supra is a dyno queen, they put out impressive number but still have trouble breaking 9 secs in the 1/4 mile with over 600 HP. Put a few grand into a mid-80's fox body Mustang and embaress any Supra owner. They're made for top speed runs, not handling or 1/4 times. Honda is a good company but they can't make an exciting car for the life of them. Good engineering and design, but horribly overrated. The S2000 and NSX are good cars, but overpriced and overrated. EDIT: Heres proof: http://www.supercars.net/Comp?sourceList=1...ompList=1547-28 The NSX will beat an RX-7 in a straight line, but rthe RX-7 can push more g's (i.e. it turns better). The RX-7 has less power but less weight. All in all the cars are pretty much neck-to-neck, but the RX-7 is much cheaper. Edited January 12, 2004 by yellowlightman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 What's ironic is the original Autobot RX-7, Camshaft shouldn't technically have any cams. That guy is awesome, how much do those usually go on eBay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGuy42 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 poor Camshaft.. so easily broken. I never DID ever had one who's head didnt break within a month or so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 What's ironic is the original Autobot RX-7, Camshaft shouldn't technically have any cams. That guy is awesome, how much do those usually go on eBay? Yellow, they go for dirt cheap last I looked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Afraid to say that the third generation RX-7 is very much a competitor with the NSX. Comparing a model year RX-7 and model year NSX, an RX-7 will be equal or very very close to an NSX in terms of staright line speed, and actually out handle the NSX. The NSX is an overpriced wanna be Ferrari. The RX-7 can hang with them in every way, and for 1/3 the price. I know, it's hard to believe because the NSX has an aura of invincibility around it among Honda fans but they're not that great. The RX-7 is a competitor with the NSX and in terms of price for what you get, the RX-7 wins. Bang for the buck does not equate when you're talking about one car that costs more than twice as much as the other. The NSX and RX-7 are not aimed at the same people. The RX-7 is a poorer man's version, yes, capable of similar performance numbers, but need I trudge up internet references of Ford Festivas and Miatas with V8s or a certain Hyundai Tiburon that bears TWO V8s? Which is on the other end of the spectrum from of build quality, luxury features, and reliability. Sadly the RX-7 is towards the Festiva V8 end of the spectrum. In 95 an NSX was MSRP at $81,000. Same year RX-7 was $37,800. In 93, it was a similar ratio: $69,500 to $32,900. That's closer to half than 1/3. Such a price discrepency can NOT logically be attributed to a similarly marketed car. But that's nitpicking at this point. NSX, Supra, and Skyline GT-R are all in one tier. RX-7 is down another one or two rungs on the ladder. This is the apple. Performance is the orange. Even though the NSX still wins. The NSX doesn't have anything remotely approaching any aura of invincibility. Especially amongst Honda fans (who if you were talking about fanbois would be talking about the NSX-R, not the heavier NSX-T, which all the US has gotten for nearly all of the last decade). It's greatest quality is it's performance combined with its reliability. Something that can NOT be said of the 3rd gen RX-7... especially with a straight face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Bang for the buck does not equate when you're talking about one car that costs more than twice as much as the other. The NSX and RX-7 are not aimed at the same people. The RX-7 is a poorer man's version, yes, capable of similar performance numbers, but need I trudge up internet references of Ford Festivas and Miatas with V8s or a certain Hyundai Tiburon that bears TWO V8s? Which is on the other end of the spectrum from of build quality, luxury features, and reliability. Sadly the RX-7 is towards the Festiva V8 end of the spectrum. In 95 an NSX was MSRP at $81,000. Same year RX-7 was $37,800. In 93, it was a similar ratio: $69,500 to $32,900. That's closer to half than 1/3. Such a price discrepency can NOT logically be attributed to a similarly marketed car. But that's nitpicking at this point. NSX, Supra, and Skyline GT-R are all in one tier. RX-7 is down another one or two rungs on the ladder. This is the apple. Performance is the orange. Even though the NSX still wins. The NSX doesn't have anything remotely approaching any aura of invincibility. Especially amongst Honda fans (who if you were talking about fanbois would be talking about the NSX-R, not the heavier NSX-T, which all the US has gotten for nearly all of the last decade). It's greatest quality is it's performance combined with its reliability. Something that can NOT be said of the 3rd gen RX-7... especially with a straight face. You are the definition of a ricer. What you're saying is that performance doesn't matter, only price and prestige. If you're ego is so inflated that you judge cars based on who they're marketed to you're one sad person. Even in terms of price the Supra is on the same level as the RX-7. the NSX is overpriced, and apparently that's all that matters to you... price. Price doesn't matter. The difference in price between the RX-7 and NSX is easily figured out. The NSX uses more advanced materials and processes, making for a more expensive construction. There's also the matter of it costing simpyl too much for what it offers; this has long been a complaint of automotive journalists. I suppose arguing with you is worthless, since the only thing that matters to you is price. In true ricer fashion, looks and reputation matter more than performance. Congratulations, you have the automotive appreciation of a 12 year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicKaze Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 FD3S > NSX anyday in my book. The NSX is just a piece of aluminum on wheels. It's beautiful, but it's performance is sub-par for the price. The performance of exotics doesn't even count in my book anymore, as many have been eclipsed by the Lancer Evolution. Recent runs by Top Gear Television in the UK have had the Evolution beat out almost all exotic cars they've tested on the track, even the Lamborghini Murcialago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGuy42 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Ouch, yellow... Dude, I can understand defending your ride (which I do on a daily basis with my Honda loving room mates,) but don't be so mean. Frankly, I agree with you. I'd take an RX-7 over an NSX anyday. Personally, I think they're better looking cars, if we're talking pure aesthetics. Just for the record (and in case anyone feels like pokin' fun...) I drive a 1990 Camaro. It's done me quite well for the four years I've had her, though I'm in the process of defecting to the Mustang camp over the summer.... On the topic of the toy: Honestly, I wish that Hasbro/Takara would avoid rehashing the Smokescreen transformation method. I was rather enjoying all the different approaches to robot mode that the Alternators were taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 The real next alternator! Sorry, the only alternators I know of belong in cars! Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Dude, I can understand defending your ride (which I do on a daily basis with my Honda loving room mates,) but don't be so mean. Frankly, I agree with you. I'd take an RX-7 over an NSX anyday. Personally, I think they're better looking cars, if we're talking pure aesthetics. Just for the record (and in case anyone feels like pokin' fun...) I drive a 1990 Camaro. It's done me quite well for the four years I've had her, though I'm in the process of defecting to the Mustang camp over the summer....\ Sorry if I came off like an ass, i didn't mean to (much). But frankly, Uxi's way of thinking reall yirks me, especially since it's so prevalent among car "enthusiasts" nowadays. His idea that the price and targeted audience of a car are what define a car rather than it's actual performance is nuts. A car isn't a jewelry, cars aren't designed as a way to show off wealth. Cars exist to be driven, and as such, when comparing a car against another car status and prestige are irrelevant. Human perception of a car is what determines that, but comparing cars is done by comparing the car itself. How it handles, how it drives, how it performs, how it was engineered. Opinion is one thing; I can't fault another person for liking an NSX more than an FD. That's personal opinion, soem people liek red, some people like blue. But saying the NSX is superior and of a "higher level" than the FD simply because of price and not performance (in which they are equal), that is what bothers me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-0S FAN Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 The real next alternator!Sorry, the only alternators I know of belong in cars! Graham Hi Mr anti-tranny What's up ? any scoops about Yamato stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wumzi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 I take it nobody knows anything about the silver Subaru and it's due date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF-0S FAN Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 I take it nobody knows anything about the silver Subaru and it's due date? Silver Subaru = BT- 03 Silver Streak ( Japanese diecast version ) : release date March in Asia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axelay Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (OT, obviously.) GreenGuy42, welcome to the Mustang camp! I've been in it since I was 15, and I'm planning to buy my 4th one once the new models are released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfunk Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 EDIT: Heres proof: http://www.supercars.net/Comp?sourceList=1...ompList=1547-28 The NSX will beat an RX-7 in a straight line, but rthe RX-7 can push more g's (i.e. it turns better). The RX-7 has less power but less weight. All in all the cars are pretty much neck-to-neck, but the RX-7 is much cheaper. Ive seen that site before, they put up performance specs that they get off a calender. those RX-7s arnt that fast, Ive seen them run and 13's are a little low. for example my LT-4 convertable (grandsport/collectors edition) was supposed to run 13.7 in the quarter, I have a time slip from my buddies (identical except for white) and unless color makes a diference, he ran 12.90 on crappy (GSC) street tires. they say the M3 is supposed to run 13 flat, I beat one 4 times in a row, 2 of those times on a roll,,,not beat, but smoked,, and he thought his car was faster on the magazines, so the proof is in the pudding, not in a magazine or web site. I like those wankels, but they are inherantly problem motors, even the non turbos, consider yourself very lucky to have that many miles on one. Just like if you have an old chrystler if ya piss on the tire it wont start (humidity thing),, or if you have a 99-02 GM with piston slap. everyone has thier problems at one time or another and the wankel is a engine thats for the person who likes the novelty of it and perhaps the wieght savings. as for being banned at the racetrack , thats a diferent style motor, even a diesel has pistons, but they dont allow those either. Im definatly not knoking that motor, I think its an engineering feat (id love to take a RX out for a test drive), but just since you own one, doesnt mean its the best, Im not knocking you either and thats definatly JAZZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenGuy42 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 yellow - Amen. I've been raised in quick cars, and I can't DREAM of driving something because it looks cool. I wouldn't be driving a 3rd Gen F-body if I cared THAT much about status (even though I keep mine in top shape.. ) Axelay - My defection isn't complete... and perhaps.. I'm just returning to my roots. When I was four, I remember my dad having a cherry red 1964 1/2 Mustang. According to him, the engine was frozen, and so, it sat in the yard for about a year until a buddy of his offered him $500 for the thing. Well, needless to say, the engine was FAR from frozen and I'm not even GOING to say how trivial the problem ended up being. Oh yea, Dad still recieves a Christmas card from his friend, with pictures of his (former) all original Mustang, its engine bay chromed up and painted, in the guys garage..... The sad and pathetic thing was.... I used to sit in the car, and pretend it was mine. So, even from childhood, I've been a closet Mustang fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom64ss Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) on the TF2005 boards they are suggesting he might be Overdrivebut if its gotta be red it'll probably be cliffjumper. If they can talk Mazda into a white one it'll be Jazz OMG, I had him. Chalk another MIA transformer to my list.. I still have mine. The omnibots were pretty cool for $5.00, mail away toys. Edit: First attachment too big. Editted for smaller pic. Edited January 12, 2004 by tom64ss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) His idea that the price and targeted audience of a car are what define a car rather than it's actual performance is nuts. A car isn't a jewelry, cars aren't designed as a way to show off wealth. Cars exist to be driven, and as such, when comparing a car against another car status and prestige are irrelevant. Human perception of a car is what determines that, but comparing cars is done by comparing the car itself. How it handles, how it drives, how it performs, how it was engineered. You are obviously clueless on what my ideas are, so don't pretend to have brainpower you're obviously lacking (just FTR, I'd like an NSX for a daily driver and maybe a stripped R version for the track, but I'd have a Z06 first as a track machine). Performance (and its numerous subcategories) is ONE aspect of a car, but by far from the only one. Build quality, ride quality, handling, finish, luxury features are SOME of the others that all correlate with price. Good performance can be had cheap, as the SRT-4 shows. But you're either too obtuse, or just plain ignorant (if not both), to understand that. Ricer? Quoting stats from ONE site (and a bad one at that) instead of personal anecdotes makes YOU the ricer. You're worse than a mag racer. You should have just used RX-7.net or something... If you had an ounce of integrity you'd quote some personal times and u could compare them against other "enthusiasts" (in this case, NSX ones from maybe... NSXprime.com). But that's not how nutswinging ricers operate, I suppose. They instead resort to personal attacks when informed that their intelligence (particularly in simple math and categorization of modern automobiles) is lacking. Edited January 12, 2004 by Uxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solscud007 Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) Build quality, ride quality, handling, finish, luxury features are SOME of the others that all correlate with price. Good performance can be had cheap, as the SRT-4 shows. But you're either too obtuse, or just plain ignorant (if not both), to understand that. Uxi in one of Acura's show catalogs it states clearly that the NSX is second to only one car in handling, the RX7. Even the manufacturer knows this. My friend has a Zanardi NSX and an S2000. My dad has a 3rd Gen RX7. It out performs them all day long. Not much can beat my dad's 350 hp Twin turbo except heavily modded cars and a Ferrari F50 or F40. yes performance can be had cheaply. Compared to a Ferrari or Lambo the RX7 could be seen as you see the SRT-4. Some of my dad's RX7 buddies actually owned a Ferrari and switched to the RX7 as their more preferred ride. ITs all opinion. Now stating that the RX7 is a rung below the Supra, Skyline and NSX I think is an understatement. It is a worthy competitor. The festiva and Hyundai you mention are not real cars they are frankenstein and hybrids (i.e engine swaps) Why is it then that RX7s compete with the Skylines, Supras, and NSXs in stock car races in Japan? As an example in my "Sayonara RX7 and Supra" Best motoring DVD the 35o hp RX7 was leadign the pack of a 500 hp Skyline, 600 hp Supra and a 400 hp Silvia. These cars are all jsut tuned. But the RX7 can hang. Dont be so judgemental the RX7 is a great car. Also if you want to compare which woudl you say is a better car? Lotus Elise or NSX? Both have valid claims being the better. THe Lotus has power vs weight ratio the NSX is an all around great car. Now the Lotus may not be as luxurious but dont you think it could spank a NSX? Edited January 12, 2004 by Solscud007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) THAT is a good argument. My point is not on the performance on the RX-7. It's undeniably a good performer and competitor on performance. Just as undeniably the 3rd gen's are maintenance nightmares for the vast majority of their owners, which is the reason they haven't been in production for the US since '95. Nothing that can't be handled but add the maintenance costs. My nit with him was on his math (1/3 vs 1/2) and categorization of cars and how some people want more than . To say someone in 1995 is looking at an NSX and then sees an RX-7 and says "hey, this car is just as fast but half the money, I'll get it" is like saying someone looks at a Lamborghini Murcielago and then a Z06 Vette and says something similar is ludicrous. Anyone buying a Murcielago is beyond the Vette and the horsepower and performance numbers do not enter the equation. I do NOT think the NSX is the end all and be all of cars. There are many many cheaper cars that can spank it. My point was that raw performance isn't the standard the NSX is being judged by (straight line performance isn't a trait of ANY Honda for that matter). If someone is just beating off to hp numbers or performance data and have no care to luxury features, build quality, and exclusivity, then there are cheaper alternatives to the RX-7 as well (which is where those hybrids come in). Straight line performance, in particular, is tied to one thing and that's $$$. Edited January 12, 2004 by Uxi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 THAT is a good argument. My point is not on the performance on the RX-7. It's undeniably a good performer and competitor on performance. Just as undeniably the 3rd gen's are maintenance nightmares for the vast majority of their owners, which is the reason they haven't been in production for the US since '95. Nothing that can't be handled but add the maintenance costs. My nit with him was on his math (1/3 vs 1/2) and categorization of cars and how some people want more than . I do NOT think the NSX is the end all and be all of cars. There are many many cheaper cars that can spank it. My point was that raw performance isn't the standard the NSX is being judged by (straight line performance isn't a trait of ANY Honda for that matter). If someone is just beating off to hp numbers or performance data and have no care to luxury features, build quality, and exclusivity, then there are cheaper alternatives to the RX-7 as well (which is where those hybrids come in). Straight line performance, in particular, is tied to one thing and that's $$$ My whole argument in the first place was about performance. The NSX would obviously make a nicer daily driver than the RX-7, but in terms of performace they are equals. Even with that in mind the NSX is overpriced for what it offers, but that's not to say it's a bad car. My original point was that for the performance minded enthusiast, the RX-7 is a better deal. I drive cars to drive them, so that's the mindset I come from. Hell, I prefer manual windows to automatic. The reason they stopped making RX-7s in the US is the same reason they stopped making Supras and 300ZX's: the market for high end sports cars was drying up, so don't use that as an excuse. Yeah, the FD is a maintenance bitch, but that's not why they stopped making them. I apologize about price, but the new NSX's are around $90k, so I assumed the older ones were in a similar price bracket. I don't follow the NSX, so I was shooting from the hip as to pricing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZorClone Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 yellow, I think you were just missing Uxi's point about general class categories of cars.. like, seating on a plane (coach/business/1st class). When it comes to buying a car, performance is not the only factor for picking one you like. If someone's got the big bucks, they're gonna look at cars with the bigger name, and the fancier image. Cars, to (what I would say) most people serve a dual purpous. They are the workhorse, and the stagecoach. You want it to be reliable for day to day grunge, but if possible, impress your friends and significant others while you're goin out on the town.. or whatever then you have your hardcore drivers who just want performance, even if it looks like a flintstones car =P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uxi Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 My whole argument in the first place was about performance. The NSX would obviously make a nicer daily driver than the RX-7, but in terms of performace they are equals. Even with that in mind the NSX is overpriced for what it offers, but that's not to say it's a bad car. My original point was that for the performance minded enthusiast, the RX-7 is a better deal. I drive cars to drive them, so that's the mindset I come from. Hell, I prefer manual windows to automatic.I apologize about price, but the new NSX's are around $90k, so I assumed the older ones were in a similar price bracket. I don't follow the NSX, so I was shooting from the hip as to pricing. You were making an argument about bang for the buck and I noted it was a ridiculous comparison. Anyone buying a new NSX doesn't really care about a "deal" because they obviously don't need one. People spending 70k for a performing car don't look at 30k cars as competitors, even if their performance is similar. That's what i was talking about. The NSX *IS* still a faster car. Yes it's over twice as much. Just like a Murcielago is faster than a Z06 and costs much more than 2x as much. Is the Murcielago worth it? If you have the money it is. If you don't, then it probably isn't. Regarding price, I looked it up on MSN Carpoint before making the post. Not hard to do a little research instead of shooting from the hip. Speaking of price, the reason it's so expensive is due to two factors: 1) all aluminum body and 2) Honda insists on a minimally automated approach to building the NSX. It's this latter one particularly that is price intensive. Last issue regarding price... NOONE pays MSRP for an NSX. Look at the FAQ on NSX Prime and u'll see a new one today goes for mid to high 70s not its $89k MSRP. Many don't even pay invoice! The NSX is still here and the RX-7 is not. Toyota is more interested in luxury than performance these days and Mada (Ford?) is trying to stay alive, much like Nissan. And I let the overrated and overpriced comment on the S2000 go. Find another roadster from the same year that can beat it and u'll be paying a LOT more (hint: Porsche Boxter S) and revisit this same argument from the other side. Ob Alternators/Binaltech - They should do a car based on the new NSX-R. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GobotFool Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 Okay, back on topic, what bout dem Alternators/BT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soze Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 (edited) *sigh* yet another tranformer I am going to have to get. RX-7,NSX,S2000 = all cars I wish I could own and drive. My car = grocery getter Accord Let's see them make an Alternator out of a grocery getter hehehe. Seriously... what I really want is a Binaltech/Alternator F1 racer named "Mirage". I still have my G1 Mirage, and having a Binaltech/Alternator one would be cool! Since Michael Schumacher drives a red Ferrari car, maybe a Paul Tracy blue and white car will do? Edited January 12, 2004 by soze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Californium Posted January 12, 2004 Share Posted January 12, 2004 As posted on Tformers.com: Here's a pic of a hydrogen-powered demo/prototype rx8 that could make for a kickass Jazz coloration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.