2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

Discussion in '2002 BMW M3 CSL Concept' started by Ferrariplaya, Aug 24, 2002.

  1. Thinking this'd make a good comparison. because the stock M3 and NSX are equal with eachother in terms of performance. so these suped up versions of each car should be fairly similair too. the NSX Type-R still has 290 bhp, but it now does 0-60 in 4.4 secs (as tested in the august edition of british autocar) due to the introduction of new light weight materials etc. i'm guessing this car will have a further 0.5 secs taken off the 0-60 time of the stock M3, making it about 4.3-4.5 secs?
    i'd rather have the NSX tho, coz in my opinion it looks sportier (if not as aggressive), and probably handles better too.
     
  2. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    Your on crack.
    the NSX Zero would absolutely rap the M3, proof check Nurenburgs times.
     
  3. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    HAHAHAHA. HAHAHAHAHA. The regular M3 rapes the shit of the NSX, and I'm assuming that the NSX type R blows just slightly less than the regular NSX, so it would get raped by the M3 CSL.

    Nring times, driver for both Horst Van Saurma

    Honda NSX: 8 minutes 38 seconds
    BMW M3: 8 minutes 22 seconds

    The NSX isn't fast. Get it through your head.

    Angus
     
  4. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    Your itchy rite??? Put down the Heroine!!!

    NSX Type Zero is a race spec NSX much like this M3 CSL.

    You don't kno shit.

    Scruff.
     
  5. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    Well if I don't know shit, then tell me what the specs are on the NSX-R? Maybe if I'm wrong about the NSX-R, but the regular NSX blows ass. Hopefully the NSX-R won't be way over priced like the regular one.

    Angus
     
  6. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    i dont see how the nsx is a SLOW car. in fact its a very fast car. it costs about 80 grand...that's hardly overpriced for a car that can hang with porsche 911's and ferrari f355's. ok so its nurburging time is abit slower, big deal its still a good car. besides the m3 csl isn't even going to be produced, althought i'm sure it would beat hte nsx type-R. the nsx type-zero isn't a production car i believe, but it is pretty fast as its quarter mile is about 12.8. the CSL is merely to show the performance potential of hte m3, it wll NOT MAKE PRODUCTION.

    anyhow i think the m3 would beat the nsx.
     
  7. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    it would be better to compare the NSX-zero to the M3 strassenversion because they are both race spec, the CSL is NOT race spec.
     
  8. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    The NSX is 20 seconds slower than the both of them. The NSX doesn't even hang with an M5, or an M3, or an M coupe, or an M roadster or a Z3 3.0.

    Angus
     
  9. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    The NSX can't beat a Z3? i think your mistaken. an m5 is a sedan. it might be extremely fast, but straight line acceleration is one par with the m5 (which is as fast as the m3). the reason why some stocker nsx's happen to do somewhat poorly in the track is a safety feature where horsepower is dramatically cut if the vehicle 'senses' it is out of control. overall the nsx is a very good car. i hardly think its bad.
     
  10. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    The NSX can't beat a Z3? i think your mistaken. an m5 is a sedan. it might be extremely fast, but straight line acceleration is one par with the m5 (which is as fast as the m3). the reason why some stocker nsx's happen to do somewhat poorly in the track is a safety feature where horsepower is dramatically cut if the vehicle 'senses' it is out of control. overall the nsx is a very good car. i hardly think its bad.
     
  11. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    in addition you would have to look at the year of the nsx that raced. pre-1995 nsx's did not include a limited slip differential and were severly understeered. post 95' nsx's make for extremely docile daily drivers and the ability to handle very well. all in all its a pretty fast car.
     
  12. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    damn, never head so much bull in all my life! the nsx is slow? the nsx couldn't beat a z3 3.0!? k, firts off, 2002 nsx 0-60 time was 4.8 as tested by car and driver. the 2001 nsx type s zero does the qaurter in 12.8 and the new nsx type r does 0-60 in 4.4!!! plus, it's chassis is still rated as one of the best in the world. that makes it one of the fastest cars in the world. in a recent comp with a skyline Gt-R in autocar, the nsx blew it away! the m5 and m3 are more GT's, they're slower round a track than an nsx. the time for the nsx round the Nring was an older version of the nsx, which, as stated had no slip diff. i reckon 0-60 times for the typre r and the csl will be almost identical, but around a track, the type r would burn the m3 csl.
     
  13. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    i dont think the type-R would actually burn the m3 CSL, but it would be much closer. thank you for reiterating all my posts. anyhow i the nsx is a fast car. stop bagging on it just because it has 290 horsepower.

    in addition, older used nsx's are much more affordable than other supercars and have substantial aftermarket support. they are also rated among some of the world's most driveable supercars. the nsx offers very good balance, handling, world class suspension/chassis and good acceleration times.

    in the case with the type zero-s, i'm really not to sure as i've only seen one video of hte car beating a skyling gtr. i have no idea of any of its performance specs, but i believe it makes like 300 or 310 horsepower or something. (not too sure here as its not offered here int he united states and information on the car is scarce).

    a supercharged nsx won sponsored by realtime racing drove by peter cunningham won a field of (all race prepped)

    5 911 CUPs
    2 BMW m3's
    1 audi s4
    1 corvette c5

    (Speedvision world challenge championship hosted at the ALMS race at leguna seca) in addition it was the only japanese car entered in the field and won by a whopping 7.5 seconds.

    in addition did you know that the kuminitsu team of japan raced a nsx at le mans a few years ago. it took first place in the Gt-2 category and second place in the GT category. not bad for the first try and having a team that did not have huge financial support.
     
  14. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    The M3 would come out on top. The standard M3 deals with the standard NSX rather easily. Then again, we get the Euro-spec M3 in Australia, so that may be the reason. With the M3 CSL beating the standard M3 around the 'ring by 30 seconds or so, it's hard to see how the NSX Type-R is going to beat it. Now, if only Honda would finally forget about Japan's 206kW power limit...then we might have a competition. As it stands though, the M3 CSL might be cheaper than the NSX Type-R, and should beat it easily.
     
  15. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    Actually the M3 CSL IS going to be produced sometime in mid 2003 or so. Only available in Europe. And as far as the NSX vs M3 is concerned the M3 would come out on top. Its a more dedicated sportscar and has roots that go back longer than the NSX.
     
  16. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    For one, the NSX isn't exactly slow, but comparos have been conducted and the NSX is beaten by the 911 Carrera, which is in turn beaten by the M3, albeit by a narrow margin. Secondly, M3 CSL is set to be on the road in 2003. The CSL has been shown to do 0-100kmh in a tad over 4 seconds, and should be good for a mid-12 0-400 metres. Should only cost AUD$20k (US$10k) over the standard M3, as well...when the Carrera's asking price is around AUD$185k (US$92.5k) and the NSX is around AUD$245k (US$122.5k), I know which I'd prefer, especially when Motor Magazine refers to the CSL as "the most focused road car we've ever driven." They drove an LS6-spec C5 5 or 6 months ago as well, so work that one out.
     
  17. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    Face the facts, both cars rule and are fast. But the M3 is a bit faster on track. The M3 was 15 sec faster than an NSX on the ring, and the CSL can dive under the 8 min they say, I don't think the Type R can do that cause it still has the same 280hp it has just a bit less weight and maybe some better brakes, I think that the type R will beat the normal M3 just with a few secs on the ring. Still I like the NSX if only those japs may make cars more than 280hp...
     
  18. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    actually the NSX-R does a 7,56 at the Nurburgring. If what you're saying about the M3 CSL doing a lap under 8 min is true then both cars should be almost even.

    dont be fooled by 280 horsepower. thats what they are only allowed to advertise. The R34 GTR N1 version supposedly has 280hp with a 9000rpm readline over the 8000 of the standard GTR. A dyno shows it has more then 400hp at the flywheel!
     
  19. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    one thing the NSX has is incredible chassis rigidity. at the Bathurst 12 hour in the early 90's Wayne Gardner stuck one in a wall, and bent the chassis rails. usually a car takes about 10 tonnes of pressure to straighten the rails. the NSX needed 30
     
  20. #20 Chris164935, Nov 10, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    Wow! It can do 0-60 in 4.4 seconds? The brand new M3s can do 0-60 in 4.5 seconds (as tested by Car and Driver*). And they can fit 4 adults comfortably, and it weighs more!

    And saying that either car would burn the other is flat out stupid. You have no way of proving this. It's all just ridiculus opinions. "I like Honda, so I say the NSX is faster." "I like BMW, so I say the M3 is faster." It's your opinion versus someone else's. Basically, it comes down to whoever is more of a loser with no life and sticks with their opinion longer.

    * http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=4227&page_number=4
     
  21. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    NSX-R would win on the track with its handling and the power given. but in a 1/4, then the M3, my personal opinion, no ?'s needed the NSX-R would murder.
     
  22. #22 mariok2006, Dec 2, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  23. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    HOW DARE YOU COMPARE A HONDA TO A BMW SHAM ON YOU
     
  24. Re: y does EVERYONE hate American Cars?

    Idiot^^^^^

    anyway, the NSX-R gets 7:56at the Ring.
    the CSL is about 10 secs faster (yes faster than a Modena)


    but what would i rather own?
    the Honda.
     
  25. Re: 2002 BMW M3 CSL Vs 2002 Honda NSX Type-R

    I think that both cars are quite nice, but when looking at the stats, and times, the M3 takes the cake, not by a large margin, but it takes it, and i perfer it. Don't get me wrong i like the NSX as well, and if i didnt love BMW so much it would be a tough call, but.... i love BMW, what can i say... <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     

Share This Page