Dodge Viper SRT-10 vs. new Acura NSX

This comparo was brought up in another thread and it absolutely astounds me that anybody would choose an NSX over the Viper. The Viper beats it in every catagory. One smart guy even had the ignorance to say that choosing the Viper over an NSX is like: "telling him to eat shit when he has the option to eat filet mingon". As far as I'm aware the overall opinion of the NSX is that it's way too over priced for what you get.

Here's the specs of each car:

Dodge Viper SRT-10
Price: $79,995
Miles Per Gallon: 10/20 mpg
Curb Weight: 3380 lbs
Layout: Front-Engine/RWD
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual

Type: V10
Displacement: 8277 cc
Horsepower: 500 bhp @ 5600 rpm
Torque: 525 lb-ft @ 4600 rpm
Redline: 6000 rpm

0-60 mph: 3.9 sec
0-100 mph: 8.3 sec
Quarter Mile: 11.77 sec @ 123.6 mph
Skidpad: 1.05g
Top Speed: 190 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 97 ft
Slalom Speed: 70.4 mph


Acura NSX:
Price: $89,000
Miles Per Gallon: 17/24 mpg
Curb Weight: 3153 lbs
Layout: Mid-Engine/RWD
Transmission: 6-Speed Manual

Type: V6
Displacement: 3179 cc
Horsepower: 290 bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque: 224 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm
Redline: 8000 rpm

0-60 mph: 4.9 sec
0-100 mph: 11.7 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.4 sec @ 106 mph
Skidpad: .91g
Top Speed: 175 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 117 ft
Slalom Speed: 65.8 mph

Will the Viper stomp all over it in every category? Yes. Would I take the NSK over the Viper? Yes. I just like them more.

the viper would kill the nsx in every category yes. but the nsx just looks so much better imo. so that is a really really hard choice. especially since i dont have a brand preference between acura and dodge. but i would have to go with the viper because the performance more than makes up for the looks.

hmm obvious who the stronger one is here. it basically comes down to looks and if this were first gen NSX than i wouldnt have even had to think (Viper wins) but the 2nd gen imo looks much better, but still not enough better to justify the price and lack of the vipers power.
Btw this is my 100th post, just thought i'd mention that:)

the viper makes for one hell of a street monster. it doesnt' kid around when it comes hp and torque and aggression. that's what it's built for. and it does it quite well. the nsx on the other hand just pampers you with refinement, fit and finish and just an incredible and more civilized driving experience. cruising down the highway in an nsx is more pleasing than in a viper. but then roasting tires and getting pushed back in your seat like no other is hard to match driving the viper. i don't think the nsx is designed to take on a viper head to head. it'll lose like everyone has said. i think they're meant for two different driving pleasures. high speed cruising and backroads, give me the nsx. stoplight races or just burnout contests and doing donuts all day long, i'll take a viper anyday. haha.

The NSX.


Is it a faster car??? Nope.



A better car??? Yes.


The NSX has always been high up on my dream car list and until I get one within the next 2 or 3 years will remain there.

The NSX

http://www.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2002/losangeles/highlights/images/acura-nsx10s.jpg

or

Viper SRT10

http://www.xl.pt/aut/galeria/rapidos/imagem/viper_srt-10.jpg

Hmm...

Performance wise: Easily the Viper
Looks wise: Edge for me is the NSX..til the Viper Coupe comes out...
Quality wise: NSX
Value wise: Viper

i cant wait till the viper coupe comes out. i have always liked coupe's better than convertibles. but the nsx will still look better cuz i love the supercar look of the nsx more than the muscle car look of the viper. but hey, thats what they are made for. so for getting there job done, i think the viper does it better.

If the new NSX follows in the spirit of the original model developed by Ayrton Senna, i'd go for it every time, although there's no doubting the Viper's good value.

Will the Viper stomp all over it in every category? Yes. Would I take the NSK over the Viper? Yes. I just like them more.

Im with him.

The NSX beats the Viper in one category...gas mileage. :evillol: NSX has better gas mileage. :evillol:

i'd take a NSX Type-R... i bet things get good here...:)

I just don't like the NSX's looks, and they are definitley overhyped. Snake me...

yes, if we are talking about the type-r nsx, i would so take the nsx. but the specs that blindside amg gave was for the base nsx, so this is a comparo of the base nsx against the viper. so the viper wins imo in this one.

The NSX is a very sleek looking car. Its definately easier on the eyes than the viper. But for 90k...seems like an outrage. I'm sure the refinement and driving experience could be justified for that tag, but their are other cars in its price range that I would choose over it in a heartbeat. IMO, it doesn't hold its ground compared to its equal priced competition. And this car absolutely doesn't scream out value. If I were to put down the money for a car around 100k, I would turn the other way and head for a Porsche dealership and pickup a GT3. I have no quarrels with the car except for its seem-to-be high price, other than that, its damn near impossible to depict a flaw from it. I guess you know which way I'm leaning....gimmie the torque and the horsies, Viper all the way. :evillol:

I can't decide. They both have their unique qualities that make one better than the other

I guess it just depends on the person.

It seems as most people agree that the Viper is the better car. Most people chose the NSX because they "just like it more". The Viper is obviously best for the bang for the buck argument and pretty much everything else except for exterior design which is purely left up to the opinion of the person judging it.

The NSX is a great car but I'm really confused as to how Acura believes it's worth 90k. Anybody know where that inflated price tag comes from? The NSX is competition for the Corvette, not the Viper.

talking about the nsx's pricetag at 90k new, yes, thats new. but go to autotrader and make a search for nsx from $0-$30k and 58 nsx's pop up. now you might say that if you can get a nsx for 30k, then it must be crappy, but would 58 nsx's all be crappy? so i think the nsx used has bang for the buck.

It seems as most people agree that the Viper is the better car. Most people chose the NSX because they "just like it more". The Viper is obviously best for the bang for the buck argument and pretty much everything else except for exterior design which is purely left up to the opinion of the person judging it.

The NSX is a great car but I'm really confused as to how Acura believes it's worth 90k. Anybody know where that inflated price tag comes from? The NSX is competition for the Corvette, not the Viper.


well it's hand-built for one. forged rods and pistons. all aluminum frame. there's a lot of technology in the car. it was way ahead of its time when it was released and still more advanced than some more modern cars. now that just about everything else has caught up, yeah i find it hard to justify the price tag. if i had $90k, i wouldn't spend it on this car. which doesn't that it's still not an incredible car though.

NSX's are overrated. If I was going to spend 90K on a car, it better handle better than 1980s rx-7s worth $500-4000.

Well, see, blind speed isn't the only thing people look for in a car. It's why some choose imports over blocks of muscle. Of course 10 cylinders is more powerful than 6, much greater displacement. It's physics.

American supercars are known for their price; Corvettes and Vipers are some of the fastest cars you can get in their respective price ranges.

It doesn't mean Acura was smoking weed and completely ignoring their competitors when they were pricing the NSX; there's probably a reason it's that expensive.

:iagree: exactly, it could of been made with better materials. plus, the nsx is mid-engine and i love mid-engine cars. and the sound of it is awesome (ive seen one race a sti).

:iagree: exactly, it could of been made with better materials. plus, the nsx is mid-engine and i love mid-engine cars. and the sound of it is awesome (ive seen one race a sti).

what was the result of the race with the sti? i'm a bit curoius:feedback:

The NSX is an oddball, if anything, it's too cheap.
I bet Honda would have sold twice as many if the price had been twice as high.

well it's hand-built for one.

So is the Viper.

No question, I would take the Viper. In my opinion it looks better by far. There is also no question that the Viper you just kill the NSX in every category except gas mileage.

The NSX is an oddball, if anything, it's too cheap.
I bet Honda would have sold twice as many if the price had been twice as high.


Are you smoking something? The only way honda would have sold more is if they cut the price in half. Not twice as much. How would you feel if you spent 180K or even 90K and got your ass handed to you in a 40K rx-7?

If someone beats me in an srt-4, its not THAT big of a deal because they are only about 4K less. Now if someone beats me in a pos car worth about 10K new, like a kia, I'd be a little irratated.

There is also no question that the Viper you just kill the NSX in every category except gas mileage.

Gas milage is understandable in this case though. Seriously, you get over 200 horspower and even more torque than the NSX. It only sounds reasonable that the Viper consumes more fuel. What really bothers me is when you get into cars that get even worse or par milage of the Viper, that produce far less hp. Then your talking thermally inefficient cars.

Are you smoking something? The only way honda would have sold more is if they cut the price in half. Not twice as much. How would you feel if you spent 180K or even 90K and got your ass handed to you in a 40K rx-7?

If someone beats me in an srt-4, its not THAT big of a deal because they are only about 4K less. Now if someone beats me in a pos car worth about 10K new, like a kia, I'd be a little irratated.


i agree with dayna, that the nsx wouldn't sell if the price is any higher. shit it barely sells any at this point. i'm actually surprised it's lasted as long as it has given other japanese cars at half the price were discontinued years ago.

the ideal that spending more money should automatically equate faster, i dont' necessarily agree with. a $20,000 neon for crying out loud will smoke a $70,000 mercedes. just coz you spend so much money on a car doesn't mean it has to be the fastest thing on the road. sorry but, some people pay money for other things than speed alone.

Back in 1990 when it was introduced, I would say the NSX was worth the price. It was the first of the VTECs and a nice bundle of high-tech technology. Now, to be frank, the NSX is getting its ass handed to it by its competitors; improvements in handling and power has made the car pale in comparision to them.

I imagine the car is still pretty formidable in AutoCross, but drag was never Honda's intention in the first place.

the ideal that spending more money should automatically equate faster, i dont' necessarily agree with. a $20,000 neon for crying out loud will smoke a $70,000 mercedes. just coz you spend so much money on a car doesn't mean it has to be the fastest thing on the road. sorry but, some people pay money for other things than speed alone.


I agree, but that wasnt my point. The NSX is a sports car. Its suppose to be fast, its suppose to handle well. The rx-7 that has always sold for half as much will out handle, out excellerate, and out break the NSX.

what was the result of the race with the sti? i'm a bit curoius:feedback:

they raced just going down a street and they started at 35 mph. i think the sti downshifted faster cuz it got the lead right away, but then the nsx pulled back ahead of it. when i talked to the guys, the nsx wasnt really going full throttle, so he could of gone faster.

about the price thing, the guy with the nsx was the oldest there (about 10 f-bodies, sti, a couple of ricers, and of course my bro and his saturn) and he was a doctor. so it shows you have to have a lot of money to have a nsx.

Are you smoking something? The only way honda would have sold more is if they cut the price in half. Not twice as much. How would you feel if you spent 180K or even 90K and got your ass handed to you in a 40K rx-7?

No, I don't smoke.
When the NSX was introduced it was an amazingly good car, and in my opinion, a lot better than it's competitors, the Porsche 911 and the Ferrari 348.
However, how many of the Ferrari and Porsche buyers would consider a cheap Japanese car? Judging by the sales statistics, not many.
Honda did not produce the NSX as a competitor to the RX7, and buyers don't buy them to 'smoke' other cars on the highway.

they raced just going down a street and they started at 35 mph. i think the sti downshifted faster cuz it got the lead right away, but then the nsx pulled back ahead of it. when i talked to the guys, the nsx wasnt really going full throttle, so he could of gone faster.

about the price thing, the guy with the nsx was the oldest there (about 10 f-bodies, sti, a couple of ricers, and of course my bro and his saturn) and he was a doctor. so it shows you have to have a lot of money to have a nsx.

i would expect the sti to easily beat the nsx off the line up to 70ish then after that, it's all nsx. makes sense. i'd think it would be hard for anything that's not awd to keep up with an sti off the line.

No, I don't smoke.
When the NSX was introduced it was an amazingly good car, and in my opinion, a lot better than it's competitors, the Porsche 911 and the Ferrari 348.
However, how many of the Ferrari and Porsche buyers would consider a cheap Japanese car? Judging by the sales statistics, not many.
Honda did not produce the NSX as a competitor to the RX7, and buyers don't buy them to 'smoke' other cars on the highway.
Well put.


Desides if "smoking other cars" is your thing, buy an NSX-R. The NSX is so damned easy to drive that it should be criminal, it's a supercar that turns into a luxury car while completely turning the supercar world on its head with it's innovativeness (Well it did at least back in 1991)

NSX and RX7 is a joke, put it this way. The cars are in different worlds- one was aimed at the other Japanese performance cars (RX7), the other tred to take it to Ferrari and Porsche (NSX).

So stop putting apples up against computer speakers.

Well for this day and age I find the NSX far too bland. And for a car designed for the exotic market I don't find that "easy to drive" is necesarily a good thing.

As Clarkson put it "In my book the NSX is too easy to drive to be a super car"

Tiff compared it to a 944 rather than a 911.

So bootom line it seems the NSX lacks the character to be a proper exotic.

So personally I chose the viper. Big bore, big torque, very agressive styling. Plenty of personality.

I saw a Viper GTS Friday night on my way home from work. God that thing was beautiful! It was a midnight blue with withe racing stripes. I laughed when a riced out integra had the nerve to rev at him...

Lets see, I'll take performance. NSX is good for a 290hp car, no doubt about that. The Viper is simply a monster and what do people mean when they say the NSX has better "quality" than the Viper? Any specific examples?

Well for this day and age I find the NSX far too bland.
...
So bootom line it seems the NSX lacks the character to be a proper exotic.

I’m with you. The NSX is too plain on the inside, and out, especially the rear styling of the car. The facelifts have also messed up the front.
The reason the NSX didn’t sell in the UK is due to price, although as mentioned before, it was superior to the opposition when it first came out, especially the Ferrari 348... You can't build brand equity with just one car.

The NSX is outdated tech.

Movin' on...

Mobing on indeed............the NSX is finally due for a replacement in 2005, the HSX concept shown at Tokyo has been given the green light, while Honda have acknowledged the need for V8 or V10 power, so I reckon the result should be pretty sweet.


Doesn't make me want a 3.2 any less, though.

Mobing on indeed............the NSX is finally due for a replacement in 2005, the HSX concept shown at Tokyo has been given the green light, while Honda have acknowledged the need for V8 or V10 power, so I reckon the result should be pretty sweet.


Doesn't make me want a 3.2 any less, though.


i'm not so sure honda will develop a V8 anytime in the near future. what i would expect is a V6 equipped car with V8-like power, more than likely with the assistance of an electric motor. unheard of for sports car but that's honda for you. hondas could certainly benefit from the torque that an electric motor could provide. rumors have it a 300hp V6 with a 100hp electric motor to total 400 total hp for the next nsx. we'll see if that pans out to be true. t

i love the looks of the concept (well, production from what jimster said). that would be cool if honda would us an electric motor with the internal-combustion engine. that thing would move.

Actually, that sounds pretty interesting. Haven't seen any pics of the concept, but that kind of tech. in a sports car instead of a 100mpg grocery getter sounds like a breath of fresh air.

http://www.papan.gr/images/hsc/hsc-ext-3.jpg

http://www.streetracersonline.com/gallery/albums/userpics/nsx/normal_IMG_1568.jpg

http://www.papan.gr/images/hsc/hsc-ext-1.jpg

http://www.papan.gr/images/hsc/hsc-int-1.jpg

nice looking car, except the rear window looks a little odd, i hope they redisign that part.

Nice front & interior, the back looks like it was inspired by a computer game.

Nice front & interior, the back looks like it was inspired by a computer game.
Well considering the nationality of Ridge Racer..................................Need I say anymore??? :p

Well considering the nationality of Ridge Racer..................................Need I say anymore??? :p
Ridge Racer was the one i was thinking of :D

i never seen a back view of the car. i have only seen 3 quarter views of it. the back end does look kind of odd with it being so big. when you look at the 3 quarter view, it doesnt look like the back end would be that big.

The design alone looks like it will slap another $30-50k onto the price tag. Gimme a Ford GT for that price!

I think I would chose the NSX only if the egine was a lot bigger. Cause I know im not going to pay 89,000 dollars for a car with a v6 and 290 horsepower.

if they give me the combustion-electric engine with 400 hp and keep it at 90k, that would be a truly awesome car.

think of the viper vs. nsx battle this way... $30g 10 and 11-year old nsxs have the same chasis, engine, etc. as the ones that sell for $90g now. The only thing different is the styling, and, personally i like the older styling better. I would definitely spend $30g and have a stock car with a 0-60 of 4.9 then pay $80g and have a car that does not handle as well, but is faster. And, you can always find a nice big turbo kit for it which would match, or beat the power of the viper.

think of the viper vs. nsx battle this way... $30g 10 and 11-year old nsxs have the same chasis, engine, etc. as the ones that sell for $90g now. The only thing different is the styling, and, personally i like the older styling better. I would definitely spend $30g and have a stock car with a 0-60 of 4.9 then pay $80g and have a car that does not handle as well, but is faster. And, you can always find a nice big turbo kit for it which would match, or beat the power of the viper.

Smart move, you just spent $30,000 on a 10 year old car. A 10 year old NSX will NOT handle better than a brand new Viper. The Viper is a full second faster than the NSX 0-60. That is a huge difference. Then you talk about slapping a turbo on a 10 year old car to add 200+ hp. Not smart dude. You're just asking for stuff to blow up.

I don't know about that outhandling the Viper comment, blindside. Honda boasts some of the best handling tech in the world, and the Viper's 10 cylinders won't help it any.

0-60/quarter mile times and handling are related, but not directly dependent on each other. The third gen Rx-7 is slower in 0-60, but will hand the Viper its ass in an Autocross course.

I just read the whole fucking thread. You look pimper in an NSX than in a Viper. Of Course a viper will out perfrom an NSX pretty easily. The NSX-R does not compare to the Viper either, The Type R does the quarter mile in 12.9-13.1 seconds, shaving around .4 from the base model due to the weight reduction. At the track the NSX-R is pretty good, i saw it racing in a video on those japannese tracks and a Lamborghini Murcielago could barely keep up with it until the last straight were the Murcielago won. The NSX-R beat a porshe turbo, and a GT3 i believe. Of Course the driver of the NSX was badass.

The old NSX looks better than the new one, and performs equally. If Honda comes up with a 380-450 hp NSX with 3000 lbs weight, it will start battling again.

yea i also hope that honda puts more power in the newer nsx, i think it should have at least around 100 more horses from its 290 hp, but its probably gonna get around 350 hp if its the bigger displacement v6, considering how honda is.

I don't know about that outhandling the Viper comment, blindside. Honda boasts some of the best handling tech in the world, and the Viper's 10 cylinders won't help it any.

0-60/quarter mile times and handling are related, but not directly dependent on each other. The third gen Rx-7 is slower in 0-60, but will hand the Viper its ass in an Autocross course.

SRT-10 will destroy a third gen on an autocross course.

Doubt it, as much as I despise the things (It's an owner/enthusiast related issue) there are very few cars that are set up as nicely by the factory as the RX7 be in an FD, FC or the early ones.


Then again, in reality autocross'd be about 85-90% driver, so it's an irrelevant argument, whichever way you look at it.

I think what blindside AMG said about a 10yr old NSX not being able to handling better than a brand new Viper holds some truth. A 10yr year old car will already be showing some signs of age. The chasis isn't going to be as strong, bushings are becoming worn as well as the rest of the suspension components. The bolts and nuts have already begun to lose their strength. The motor is getting age and miles put on, tranmissions also losing its strength. The seals in the transmissions become just as worn with age as they do with miles. Unless the owner planned to revamp the entire car (which would cost a lot of money), I couldn't see it handle as well as a Viper. Even if the owner was to replace everything, he would still be using the 10yr old chasis. Now a brand new NSX would be a different story.

SRT outhandling an Rx-7?

That's the first time I heard that. And I've never seen it.