[theunchosen]

As a matter of fact I have. I've been keeping tabs on this car and the Honda NSX since the NSX got discontinued.

The problem is the car is not. . .revolutionary in any way.


ok its got horses and its not a tank(it is by my standards but compared to a truck. . .)

Its got "technology."

It gets 3.3 0-60. Its fuel economy is combined rated for 18.

Its a 2009 that has only 254 hp/ton compared to a 1997 with 202 hp/ton naturally aspirated.

Not an engineering thing of beauty.

"It is complete not when nothing else can be added, but when nothing else can be taken away," is the definition of engineering that I subscribe to.

If it were truly a thing of beauty and horsepower and design. . .they would have scrapped the piston engine and went with a turboshaft engine. Could drastically reduce weight. 608 lbs for 480 horses. The engine produces .8 hp/lb. Relatively inefficient turboshafts drop 1.2/lb and high end models pump 1.4/lb. 729.6-851 horses for the same weight and considerably better FE, or you could keep the 480 horses with just 370 lbs instead of 608 and still even better FE.

Also the trans could be alot more simple with only 1-2 gears since the turboshafts can accomodate such high rpms.

So you can take that much more expensive much heavier sequential transmission and throw it away. The huge engine block, the turbos, the advanced differentials, the awd and virtually all of its complicated drive train components.

Convert all the pretty aero in the front to a ram-scoop for the engine. The turboshaft won't get off the line as fast, but as it approaches the end of the quarter mile you'll be doing more than 200 miles an hour, twice the speed of the GTR. Turbine driven engines increase power and torque as they increase speed because it increases their front end compression. Its the idea behind a Ram-jet engine.

sorry this is a discussion about if the GTR is all that or not.