What is the Most Overrated Car Of All Time?

Likewise I respect yours, but to me outright performance isn't the be-all and end-all - the NSX is fabulously engineered, arguably more so than either the Corvette or the Viper, and could probably outhandle both too. It would walk all over a Mustang GT in most departments, save perhaps straight line speed again.

Criticising the NSX for it's straight line performance to it's contemporaries (and certainly to modern cars - hell, the NSX is a child of the early 90s) is no different than criticising the R8 in the same way. It's forgetting virtually all of it's other qualities.
 
I will give in to the fact that the NSX is a fabulously engineered car,and it does hold good looks in my opinion.To me,thats the extent of the NSX.

I guess that maybe I look at it differently - Bang for the Buck. If I went out to buy a car in the 25-35K price range,I would have to avoid the NSX and look down the Chevy or Dodge road.

Again just my thoughts.👍
 
Early Vipers and early C5/late C4 'Vettes aren't faster than NSX's.
 
The NSX was hideously overpriced but no where near overrated. It is a fantastic car all around in terms of the final product. It was just way overpriced. Getting one used for $30k now is a great bang for the buck. It would probably run with or beat a few cars even by todays standards.
 
Geez...

Apparently (and oh so true) many people posting here were not born before 1989.
Bashing on the NSX? Saying it's overrated? C'mon, you have to be kidding me.
A car that is almost 20 years old and still outhandles at least 90% of everything that came after it, that can be faster around a track than most cars with almost twice its horsepower, than CAN be used on a daily basis, that STILL looks better than most other cars out there (including most "supercars")... What else do you want?

Plus, all I see is talk about cars that just came in to the market, which is another good indicator of the average age is for most posts.
Are very recent cars the only over/underrated ones? Seriously.
Another thing is the price issue. How can a car be overrated because it costs more than a similar one with a lower price? That just doesn't make any sense!
It's not called overrated, it's called overpriced at most.

Another thing is the standard by which many are evaluating the cars. It seems only a car able to "break world records" on the dragstrip is worthy of being driven.
For me it's the opposite; I'd rather have a car that has awesome handling (not talking about the NSX anymore), fun to drive and good power than one that is dangerous/sluggish/whatever but has enough torque to tow the White House from Washington to California in 9.87s. But that's my personal opinion.

Overrated is a car that hasn't really delivered, at least in one aspect, nearly as much as what's claimed (the manufacturer itself, the fanboys, etc). A car that doesn't live to the hype. A car that despite all the marketing on what it can do, doesn't stand out and is even inferior to its most direct competitors.
A lot more reasons surely, but none to do with prices.
As far as prices go, then it'd be an even sillier debate, because of the differences in price throughout the world. As a mere example, over here, the new M3 costs roughly USD$145k. Average monthly national income is of about 1000 dollars. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

Audi didn't make the R8 to be the Drag King, Honda didn't make the NSX to break the speed of sound in a straight line (there are specific cars for that, you know?)
Don't diss some car because of futile reasons. Back up what you're saying with facts.
 
Imakuni
I can't really see that you're sightly tipsy through a computer screen
Click to expand...

I wasn't 'tipsy' I was.. uh stoned. But no you can't, and anyways I wasn't really being serious most of what I said was pretty sarcastic, but you shouldn't be expected to know that through text on a forum. Especially in this kind of a thread, I just felt like being an idiot for an hour.

But my original stance stays, I do humbly think that the R8 is highly over rated. For the money I could list 20 cars I would rather have, but that's me.
 
RacingGameFan22
:jaw drop:

so you're pretty much saying that a 7-speed, F1 Paddles-on-the-steering-column CVT semi-automatic transmission is overrated, huh? Because That's what you're pretty much saying.

well, in that case, you should the aftforementioned NSX, Ferraris, and basically every single car that Lexus has releases in the last ten years. (I maybe forgetting others, but I digress)

BTW, CTV stands for Continuously Varible Transmission. it's not meant to be perfect. it's meant to go though the gears seamlessly. I drove the M5 in GT4, and I didn't see any problems with the Gearbox.

Get over yourself.
Click to expand...

Having test-driven almost every type of CVT in modern use, I can safely say... it sucks. CVT gives seamless performance, but isn't the best for power delivery. There is some benefit in out-of-corner acceleration, but not enough to overcome its deficits in the "feel" department. It's great for a cruiser, but not a sportscar.

Of course... you can't get an NSX with CVT... or a Ferrari... or any Lexus that isn't hybrid...

----

I've sampled the M5 with the automated manual gearbox... shifts are absolutely brutal. There's no doubt it's effective, but I don't know if it's massively better than a manual gearbox... and it certainly isn't the kind you'd use on a daily basis (cruising around town... 2500 rpm... part throttle... shift... CRUNK! ... 2500 rpm... shift... CRUNK!) You can tame the shifts slightly by rev-matching... but even with an experienced race driver in the M5 with hundreds of hours of seat time, there's still quite a bit of jerk on every shift.

Now if the M5 were an uncompromising track car, weighing just over a ton, with two seats and a rollcage, that'd be acceptable. But this is supposed to be a luxury sports-grand tourer. As a sports sedan, the M5 is exceptional. As a grand tourer, it's execrable.

----

I don't care if the R8 isn't as fast as a Vette/Viper/GT-R/whatever... it's low-slung, it's pretty, it makes nice noises... and... apparently... it handles well, too. All the same reasons I like an M3.

Point-to-point speed is not the be-all and end-all of sportscars. You can build a car that sticks like a Hoover and flies like a booger, but if there's no passion... in the way it steers, sounds or looks, it's not going to be an easy sell.
 
Beerz
How can a car be overrated because it costs more than a similar one with a lower price? That just doesn't make any sense!
It's not called overrated, it's called overpriced at most.
Click to expand...
Even then, there is a line one has to draw. I've never understood why people claim the NSX is too expensive when it was literally designed as a Japanese take on Ferrari.
 
Because the technology never really changed all that much despite the Ferrari it was meant to compete with being replaced twice by the time the car died?

Nothing personal, I grew to respect the car a lot later. But nevertheless, the NSX didn't exactly "evolve" like it should have.
 
I do understand that (though disagree, and I'm not even talking about the second NSX-R), even though Honda always lost money on them. What I don't get is when people blanket that on the car's entire lifespan. And that's ignoring that even after the respective Ferrari competition got faster and more powerful (which wasn't that noticeable until the 360 anyways) compared to the NSX, they also got more expensive. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that the NSX was targeted at two cars, which is what everyone using the "it got too old" card neglects to mention.

To be honest, Porsche causes a much larger problem considering the classic Porsche formula (aircooled 4evar amirite?) was "perfected" in 1993. But even that was a matter of merely bringing the two cars into a near-parity with each other that hadn't existed in the 964-era Porsche range. It wasn't until 1998 that Porsche managed to come up with a normal production model that rivaled the base NSX, and even then the pricing between the two cars was close enough that the "its overpriced" argument still doesn't apply. The fact that the 996 in question was sold throughout 2004 means that the NSX was an overpriced car. For one year.

In essence, Honda went from trading blows with the more-expensive-yet-slower-and-crappy 348 to trading blows with the similarly-priced-and-performing Porsche 993/996. And people still complained about the NSX being too expensive. It simply makes no sense, much like those who whined about the Honda S2000 before the 370Z came out.

Then there is that whole mess of the JDM exclusive versions, or the Zanardi Acura model, which usually managed to diminish whatever power advantage the F355/GT3 had.
 
Last edited:
I guess for me, the S20000 made a lot more sense compared to the NSX. Until I actually sat down to figure out how fast the car had been, and had continued to have been, no matter how the competition changed... I never thought of it as that good of a car. But, in reality, it was truthfully one of the greatest engineering feats out there. Bringing the S2000 into the equation, you got a pretty solid performance at 1/3 the price. As they began to sell in greater numbers, the importance of the NSX began to fall quickly.

I'd personally start putting cars like the STi and Evolution up there before the NSX, but that may come down to performance preferences and all of that.
 
The NSX Type R is still used as a benchmark for many performance tests over in Japan and still manages to--almost--keep up with newer cars like the GT3 even after being out of production for 4 years.
 
YSSMAN
I'd personally start putting cars like the STi and Evolution up there before the NSX, but that may come down to performance preferences and all of that.
Click to expand...
But where do you draw the line when you start including cars like that? They cost $30,000 and go as fast as cars that cost $300,000, so you have to wonder whether or not comparing them to the NSX (or any exotic, really) is applicable.
 
The NSX raised the bar in so many ways that to call it overated is to clearly not understand the market that it came into at that time. PERIOD.

It's lack of development over its lifetime is a whole different kettle of fish for which no blame should be affixed to the vehicle. You can compare it to just about any car of early 90s vintage and it still comes out ahead in many parameters. It has aged well, still has great perfomance (perfomance is not limited to 0- 60 and 1/4 mile acceleration!!!!!!!) still has a nice, minimalist interior, etc.

Also, for those who claim it was overpriced, how many aluminium cars were being produced in the early 90s? I thought so.
</rant>

I'm surprised it took so long for the H2 to be nominated.
 
neanderthal
I'm surprised it took so long for the H2 to be nominated.
Click to expand...

The only hype the H2 has is being a supper balla car that can use rims the size of Mini Coopers. Does it pretty damn good.
 
Toronado
But where do you draw the line when you start including cars like that? They cost $30,000 and go as fast as cars that cost $300,000, so you have to wonder whether or not comparing them to the NSX (or any exotic, really) is applicable.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this comes down to perception then? I personally perceive the STi and Evo as "toys" that 20 year old so-and-so's go out to trash around with their popped collars and sideways DC hats. While they put up respectable performance figures, I'm often less-willing to give that driver or the car "props" because it is all computer-controlled madness.

...But that gets away from the point...

Something I thought about last night is that with the NSX, time presumably shapes your opinion of the car greatly. When I was a kid, there were pretty much two hot cars that everyone wanted to get, that turned the performance world on its ear; The Corvette ZR1 and the NSX. Although I didn't much care for the NSX at the time, obviously, it held up and otherwise continues to do so until this day. As a radical departure for Honda, perhaps those of us who are a bit older, who remember how HUGE of a deal it was, it ends up meaning a lot more to us by days end.

Fast forward to the present, where the 13-15 year old kids can barely remember 1996, I'm certain that the thought of a $100K Acura NSX in 2004, with the performance numbers it achieved, likely makes it seem like a "lesser" car.

Its not a model I'd personally care to champion, but it seems like it could be a reasonable explanation for the "disconnect" between some of us on it.
 
neanderthal
The NSX raised the bar in so many ways that to call it overated is to clearly not understand the market that it came into at that time. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

It's hard to understant the market when people doing the claims weren't even born at that time, as well.
 
-Fred-
It's hard to understant the market when people doing the claims weren't even born at that time, as well.
Click to expand...

Nuff said.

To add perspective to it, one could list the "sports/ sporty" cars that were on sale when the NSX debuted and in the 5 years after.

Im pretty sure Chrysler was still making the K cars. :scared:

When people want to berate my old car (early 90s Mercedes 300E) I ask them to find me any car from 1985 to 1995 that has aged as well as that W124 bodystyle.
 
I seem to recall a comparison test done by Motor Trend with the NSX upon debut that included the ZR1, 3000 GT VR4, RX7, and 300ZX. I think the RT/10 was in there too, but its been a while.

Thinking back to how things were, outside of the ZR1, the NSX was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.
 
YSSMAN
Thinking back to how things were, outside of the ZR1, the NSX was leaps and bounds ahead of the competition.
Click to expand...


I don't think we can consider the ZR1 competition, to be honest. Because even if it was, it wasn't... with the C4's poor build quality and inside ergonomics, it was miles away from being able to compete with anything world class... People who claim the C6 is horrid have never been inside a C4, that's for sure. Still, it was pretty fast, with 385 hp at first... 85 more than the 348, and just a hundred shy of a Diablo! But then again, in the right hands, an NSX (with the 290hp 3.2l V6, obviously) could do high 12s on the quarter mile... no doubt helped by the weight distribution and actual lack of said weight. Hell, even the facelifted 2005 models weighed under 3000lbs!

Interesting tidbit, also, there was more human involvement at the Tochigi plant on the NSX production chain than there is at Maranello... Hmmm. Everyone knows Senna worked on the chassis development as well (15 years before Ze German did the same with Fiat... Hmmm again.)

Oh, and a certain Gordon Murray, who himself owns (or owned, anyway), an NSX, used it as a benchmark for supercar usability and practicality when designing a certain supercar I'm sure everyone has heard about, back in the early 90s... McLaren F1 rings a bell?
 
neanderthal
When people want to berate my old car (early 90s Mercedes 300E) I ask them to find me any car from 1985 to 1995 that has aged as well as that W124 bodystyle.
Click to expand...

I love Mercs but there are other cars that have aged well.

741133.jpeg

1990-lx5.jpg

281636498_630e7ca0aa.jpg

459245779_389f6daa1a.jpg

http://nyrotary.com/Multimedia/Registry/Josi%20Long%20Island.JPG[/
IMG]
[IMG]http://volkswagentalk.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/volkswagen-golf-gti-1.jpg
780559.jpeg

1990-honda-nsx-3_460x0w.jpg

94_prelude_01.JPG

1994.nissan.sentra.8194-e.jpg


To name a few. :D
 
how dare you forget DeLorean?
 
-Fred-
I don't think we can consider the ZR1 competition, to be honest. Because even if it was, it wasn't... with the C4's poor build quality and inside ergonomics, it was miles away from being able to compete with anything world class...
Click to expand...

But, keep in mind that it was a massive leap forward for the Corvette in general. Before then, it had otherwise been somewhat of an afterthought to make a dedicated sports model, but there it was, completely separating itself from the rest of the pack. I guess, in my mind, I see the ZR1 as the first major decision by GM to really take the Corvette seriously since the DeLorean days. Truthfully, without the ZR1, I really do not feel like the Corvette would have evolved into what it is today; A bargain-priced "supercar" that can actually be taken semi-seriously against the offers from Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini.
 
Okay, so someone mentioned the C6 with it's "bad" interior and so on.. Okay, so I googled the C6s interior.. Is this what you call a bad interior? Get out of here...

042707_1.jpg
 
I think they ment bad in quality (compared to a Porsche or similar) rather than bad looking.
 
I saw the thread title and only one thing surfaced in my mind.

"I bet this turns into a Corvette vs. Something else argument. Again."

Though actually I had a second thought which was "I bet just about every supercar made in the last 20 years gets a mention, including the Veyron, R8 and GT-R. Again."


Anyway, the most overrated supercar is the Countach. Unless you drive a car actually looking for the feeling that you've just been beaten crapless by Bruce Lee while suffering from anthrax. And consider seeing out of and parking your car to be mere affectations of the modern era.


The most overrated car? Well... it'd have to be something aspirational - the kids all want and rave about it - but something which ultimately doesn't fulfil its purpose.

So that'll be the Citroen Saxo/Peugeot 106 then.

No wait up... Let me explain...

It's a mass-produced car designed, effectively, to take you (and by "you" I mean "your mum") to the supermarket and back relatively frugally, fit into a parking space. The kids all love them because they can nail "phat" bodykits to them and "bangin" stereos and then hang around in car parks comparing their stupidity to one another.

The reality is that it's a nasty, cramped little box, with pedals you can only press individually if you're a pre-pubescent Chinese Olympic gymnast hopeful which rattles, bangs and squeaks. It handles like the Orca while Jaws is chomping on it and the majority of them are unpleasant, wheezy, buzzy lumps of fail which can barely move - what better base for a moron with a Giro to make it heavier and less aerodynamic?

Compared to any of its peers and price-point competitors it is absolutely the worst option you can pick - but still the cap-on-backwards crowd laud it like it's Jesus, Jade Goody and Wayne Rooney all rolled into one. Giving out free Special Brew.


So that's pretty much the definition of overrated. Load of crap but thought of highly. And I just undercut the thread by about £75,000.
 
:lol: Can't disagree with that!

I do like the 106 Rallye though. But then most of those are actually serving a purpose, as they're used frequently in club racing and rallying (and winning, so they can't be too bad).
 
I think stating the Saxo and 106 are overrated, because it's THE car for the underpriviliged youth in the UK, would have sufficed and leaves no room to raise objection against.
However, the second part of your plea, it so happens, emerges, notwithstanding the deliberate and conscientious phrasing, to be wide off target though. I once managed to conceive myself being François Delecour driving an original 106 XSi, despite my feet being size 10,5.

The most overrated car of all time must be any particular model from Hyundai or Kia. It's OK if you say you bought one because they're cheap. The problem is most buyers make up other arguments as well. Take one of my best friends, for example. He bought an Hyunday Inspireless because it 'drives well, is comfortable and looks alright'. In reality it does none of these three things and clearly makes the car overrated.
The only good part about it is the safety. If you get into an accident, you'll always get out of the car since the play of the gear stick allows you to knock out any window necessary.
Still, that doesn't alter the fact that Hyundai's and Kia's are overrated.
 
-Fred-
I don't think we can consider the ZR1 competition, to be honest. Because even if it was, it wasn't... with the C4's poor build quality and inside ergonomics, it was miles away from being able to compete with anything world class...
Click to expand...
Ferrari and Porsche weren't winning any awards at the time either, and Lamborghini had only just started getting their act together.
 
Back