(((honda Vtec Vs Bmw)))

Bryan330i · Aug 24, 2004

This is a very entertaining thread.

I think there is no question that the 3.2 BMW beats the 3.2 Honda. This has been proven, right?

I also think it is a funny comparison to even look for a general comparison between the two brands, especially given that the actual focus of the two companies are very different, as are the markets and cars equally as different. Honda receives that bulk of revenues from economy cars build on reliability and affordability.

Even the new 240HP Accord is widely accepted as inferior to the BMW from what I have read. An excerpt from Edmunds states that: “[t]epid handling doesn't match up to the 240-hp V6's promise of driving excitement.” edmunds.com

I think the cars are just too different to be compared. With the advancement of makers like Hyundai and Kia it could be more appropriate to compare Honda with these lines.

R3LzX · Aug 24, 2004

here is where you belong

http://www.honda-forum.com/

Bryan330i · Aug 24, 2004

Oh, I forgot to post my story. So I’m driving to work one day and this Honda coupe (zi, ci, hi, bi or something) came up behind me and was riding my bumper. He passed me and kept trying to challenge me. Stupid, stupid, stupid, guy he was as I trashed him effortlessly yet he continued trying and continued losing in a big way. Some of these people just lack common sense.

MrElussive · Aug 25, 2004

Bryan330i said:

This is a very entertaining thread.

I think there is no question that the 3.2 BMW beats the 3.2 Honda. This has been proven, right?

I also think it is a funny comparison to even look for a general comparison between the two brands, especially given that the actual focus of the two companies are very different, as are the markets and cars equally as different. Honda receives that bulk of revenues from economy cars build on reliability and affordability.

Even the new 240HP Accord is widely accepted as inferior to the BMW from what I have read. An excerpt from Edmunds states that: “[t]epid handling doesn't match up to the 240-hp V6's promise of driving excitement.” edmunds.com

I think the cars are just too different to be compared. With the advancement of makers like Hyundai and Kia it could be more appropriate to compare Honda with these lines.

Extremely well said.

frolf · Aug 25, 2004

from the most recent BMW Magazine, and i quote....

"BMW's long series of International Engine of the Year awards continues. Bringing home title number 19 (for the 2.5-liter inline six) and 20 (for the M3's 3.2-liter), the Munich carmaker once again demonstrates its hands-down leadership in engine technology. As the holder of 20 of the total 72 awards presented to-date, BMW is a standout forerunner. No other brand has won this renowned international contest as often as BMW"

PWNT

Chesty Bonds · Aug 25, 2004

frolf said:

Indeed. Although, ironically, Honda has won quite a few of the "engine oscars" too... But yes the companies are incomparable.

Section_8 · Aug 25, 2004

brahtw8 said:

Woah thar, calm down! [:)]

I said that about the NSX/M3 - NSX being a street race car, and the M3 being a GT car. There are exactly that, but not that it matters any - both cars can speak volumes for their own accomplishments.

The NSX is a car and frame built for Racing. It's a 'street race car' as it's sold by the thousands and tuned down compared to it's brother that is at the track 24/7, BUT in the end either a DD or track car - it ain't built for comfort, it's got a racing car's heart, soul, and body. Sold by the thousands to avid owners, many for whom the NSX lives only for the track. (I find NSX's much rarer on the road than M3's) If your daily driver is a NSX, then I congradulate you on having a strong back - they are a biatch to get in/out of (I know and have, bud of mine owned one back in the early 90's).

The M3 is a Touring car - All it is, is a highly tuned 3 series car. It's not a car/frame built specifically for racing as the NSX is. If BMW actually did this with a series/model car - I have no doubt it would be expensive, and dominate pretty much anything out there. (They wouldn't make it if it didn't..) But in the end, it's a Touring car (regular model, just 'supped up essentially).

That was my only point about the 2 - The NSX is built from the ground up for racing, and to hand cars like the M3 their butts, and it does occasionally happen - for both of them. The M3 is built to hand the majority of people their butts, and be comfortable doing it. [:)]

So was my point without merit? I think it holds a great DEAL of merit in the make-up of both cars. You are right I do not know alot about NSX racing (who would unless you own one and race it??). That still wasn't the point I was making, but I did grasp yours at least.

[driving2]

codex57 · Aug 25, 2004

Errr, you've never actually been in an NSX have you?

Section_8 · Aug 25, 2004

codex57 said:

?

I mentioned that I've ridden in one numerous times. Old college bud of mine had one bought for him by his 'rents back in.... '92 or '93 I believe. Brand spanking new. I was his co-partner on many excursions. My back still remembers the experience.. Comfy inside, but getting 'in' or 'out' was always my gripe. I don't recall the interior being anything overly special though, except the seats (I remember it smelling new, and everything looked crisp inside - This was a hot car back then, still is today). Then again it's been 10 years since I rode in his, and that was my last time in a NSX.

What am I missing?

codex57 · Aug 25, 2004

I found the NSX pretty comfortable. Granted, I only was in one once, but it felt very comfotable. I don't think it's a street car built for racing and then tuned down from the racing version. Both the NSX and M3 seem like a chassis, and then tuned for whatever races you put them in. It's just that the NSX isn't really a mass produced car like the 3 series. After all, it was designed to be a supercar you could drive everyday.

Course, my perception might be cuz my body frame is prolly around what the Honda engineers had in mind. I can see how some taller people would find it uncomfortable.

knightpitt · Aug 25, 2004

Bah, all this comparison. You can't dumb down the comparison of two car companies to a thread like this. I think that everyone can agree on that. Compare two specific motors or two specific cars, okay, alright, that's fair but still not easy. But, to sit around and talk about an entire company's product line vs. another company's entire product line is a terrible coversation.

Compare the S2000 to the Z3, boy, that's embarrassing to BMW (you know it's true). But, it's a fair matchup.

I mean, compare the NSX to an M3? Well, if we're doing that, we should compare a Corvette to the Porsche Cayanne while we're at it. They're both sports cars of some sort, right?

I have a heck of a lot of respect for the engineering that goes into automobiles. People here trash Hondas or VWs or Fords or anything that's not BMW, but, truth be told, these manufacturers are all in business because they're good at something and appeal to a customer base. Honda and BMW are of course not an exception to this rule. I have owned both cars, and see much merit in each.

Honda has gotten an image of being economy car based (much due to their popular offerings throughout the 80's and early 90's) that they are trying to shake (read about the most recent Honda CEO press conference?). I think that they offer a good deal of credibilty in their sporty lineup, not limited to the S2000 and the NSX.

As for my personal opinion, I enjoy German-engineered cars more than the Hondas, Toyotas, Subarus, and Mitsubishis that I have owned/driven. If I were to build my ideal project car, the base would be an E30 325is or perhaps a 944S. But that's me. I would probably be able to get faster track times for a lot cheaper with possibly more reliability if I worked up an Integra instead. I'd probably do even better still if I purchased a used Corvette and put minimal work into it. Oh well, right?

VtecTurbo · Aug 26, 2004

hey guys some good points being made, i think we should all agree no matter what we like and dislike that all cars have good points about them or they wouldnt design them in the first place, anywayz this is more like it rather than arguing its better to just put your opinions across, thanx guys

wood_e · Aug 26, 2004

Yeah I'm pretty glad this discussion kept rather clean

bimmerman11 · Aug 26, 2004

Who the hell hates ford?

wood_e · Aug 26, 2004

bimmerman11 said:

What are you talking about?

brahtw8 · Aug 26, 2004

knightpitt said:

No comparison is perfect, to be sure, but comparing and NSX to an E46 M3 is not analogous to comparing a Vette to a Cayenne.

A number of people cross-shop the NSX and M3, including myself. A number of people own both.

The NSX and the M3 have raced against each other in a variety of amateur forums, as well as Speedvision (before it became the Fox NASCAR channel Speed) GT in the late 90s. They have similar power to weight ratios, etc.

For those wondering about straight-line acceleration, the current NSX runs around 4.8/13.0-13.1, right up there with an E46 M3. And that is for an NSX-T, all we get in the US right now, not a ligher coupe or even lighter NSX-R. For an NSX-R, 4.5/12.7 are about right. Given the NSX's power characteristics and gearing, I would expect the NSX-T to have a slight advantage at higher speeds.

But remember the new NSXs represent around 1% of the NSXs on the road, and NSXs in general are very rare. Of approximately 8500-9000 NSXs sold in the US from MY 1991-present, nearly half of those cars are 1991s (3000) or 1992s (1000+).

For the early cars, you can expect 5.2/13.6 performance, which is somewhat deceptive. The gearing on the early cars makes the NSX slow from 0-60 (actually just from 45-55, when you shift to 2nd and drop out of the powerband), and much faster at speeds above 60. For example, with my car I get my doors blown off from a stop against an Evo 8. They run 1.7 second 60' times with little effort, and my car runs 1.9-2.0 seconds with a good launch. They will also win in the quarter mile, running 13.0-13.1 with little effort, versus 13.6 for a good run in my car. However, put those two cars on the highway and run 80-120 and the NSX will put 5-7 car lengths on the same EVO.

knightpitt · Aug 26, 2004

That was pretty much my point. However, I honestly think that there are much better car comparisons that could be made (e.g. my example of the S2000 and the Z3 or perhaps a TSX vs. 330i) than an NSX and an M3. People owning both cars is more of an indictment of your argument than a support of it. As for speedvision, they'd race any cars that they think would perform well in comparison.

And, in the end, I would think that the NSX vs. M3 comparison would be as much of an embarrassment (if not bigger) to Honda/Acura as the Z3/S2000 comparison is to BMW. Imagine having your company's $89,000 (MSRP) "supercar" (my word, not theirs) compared to BMW's $55,600 (MSRP) touring sedan and the performance outcomes being somewhat "close". (It was at least close enough that they bothered to show it on speedvision, right?) What an embarrassment! Well, that is, unless the comparision doesn't hold well.

I mean, hell, if we're comparing these cars, throw in a 911 GT3. It's under $100k (MSRP). What about a Corvette Z06 ($52k)? What about an EVO($30k)? The list goes on and on.

I stand by saying that the comparison isn't that great - there are other factors, etc. etc. The NSX is a great car - not for necessarily how it compares to the M3 or because it can beat an EVO from 80-120, but for the design and engineering behind it. The M3 is a great car - not because it's faster than my brother's Honda Civic, but because of the engineering behind it. His Civic is a fantastic car, again not because of how fast it is or how expensive, but because when Honda stamped their name on the car, we automatically know the quality within.

Comparing cars that were not built to appeal to identical markets and on similar chassis is pretty pointless. The number of comparisons that can be earnestly made between vehicles is very small. Even my best example, the S2000 vs. the Z3 is plagued with personal preferences. People can sit and piss statistics, racing heritage stories, tuner quotes, and video clips around at each other about what car is "better" blah blah. I believe that's a waste of time.

If you want to talk about what car is faster, now that's fun - take it to the track.

Section_8 · Aug 27, 2004

The Modena is faster, there no one can argue that. [;)]

Good points by everyone, learn something new every day! I learned there are even less NSX's on the road than I thought - brahtw8 is that a good estimate count of NSX's in the US, or a very solid #? Either way it's less than I would have thought but makes sense, I see them less than ferrari's around here. NSX's always cause a double take - 'Wha, is that a ferrari??' nope better, AFFORDABLE. [:D]

Somehow though we got to NSX's and M3's from talking about 1.6l honda engines. Ahh heck NSX's and M3's are more fun to jaw about anyhow.

brahtw8 · Aug 27, 2004

Section_8 said:

Official US sales number from 1991-1998 are 7421. Since then, you can assume an average of 200 per year have been sold from 1999-2004, which would make 8500 just about right.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/productionnumbers.htm

PhatBimmer · Aug 27, 2004

I don't care that car is too expensive for a Honda [bmwdance]

(((honda Vtec Vs Bmw)))

2

Member

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

Member

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2