Talk:Honda NSX (second generation)

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

I created this page because the second generation is distinct enough from the first generation. The differences are merely similar in name only. This second generation deserved its own page. Winterysteppe (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In full support of this, which was done by consensus in

Alfa Romeo Giulia (952). This is the practice even where a model, which has changed over generations, has a main article (as here now, Honda NSX) and each series has individual detailed ones - for example, Holden Commodore and each of its Main Page series articles. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

In full support too. This isn't just a refresh or a facelift of the former car. Iancaddy (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good.

Does Honda explain anywhere their rationale for using a hybrid powertrain? Saving gas? Really? Kortoso (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that there is no mention here, tha the Honda NSX second generation is based on the current Honda Legend.

The current Honda Legend which came out in 2015.02.20 in Japan invented a lot of parts which are used for the current NSX.

Beside a lot of interiour and exteriour parts, here are the most important examples

- The 3.5L V6 Engine from the Legend and NSX are (almost) the same. Only difference is the Bi-Turbo on the NSX Engine.
- The SH-AWD System with 3 Electric Motors was used from the Legend without any change to the technic itself.

The NSX is actually an reverse Legend. WIth the Legend the V6 IMA Engine was in the front and the 2 E-Motors in the Back. With the NSX, its just upside down. The V6 IMA Engine in the Back and the 2 Eletric Engines in the front.

But the power for the E-Motors are unchanged, only the power for the V6 changed (hence to the Bi-Turbo).

I think thats something to mention as the Honda Legend was most likely the main reason why the NSX does have exactly the drivetrain it has95.91.212.30 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have references for that, then please feel free to add it to the article.  Stepho  talk  02:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The claimed 0-60 time of 2.7 seconds, seems only for the updated 2019 model (Automotive publications also proves it). this is the actual manufacturer claimed 0-60 time from Acura for the updated 2019 model. (https://nsx.acura.com/explore/power-unit), unfortunately links were not working and redirects to the Type S's page because of Type S is the newest introduction from Acura, but its used as a reliable source in "List of fastest production cars by acceleration" page. In case of given source by Carfan568, its Acura Canda's website, and its only showing the 0-100km/h time (which is actually not a 0-60 time). If 2.7 sec is the manufacturer claimed 0-60 time for early model years, why all Automotive publications (including Car & Driver, Motor Trend and etc.) saying Acura claimed 0-60 is 2.9 or 3.0 seconds?

In case of comparison with NSX's lap time competition, WP isn't a car comparison site to discribe whether it's faster or slower than its competition. If this kind of info includes in Lexus LFA's page, feel free to visit and remove that unnecessary information. But you can add the lap times without comparing to other vehicles.

Hope you'll understand and do not revert or edit until the discussion is on going. Game for Game (talk) 10:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP isn't a car comparison site to discribe whether it's faster or slower than its competition

Please provide an appropriate guideline, WikiProject convention or discussion to support this claim.

As for the 0–60 time, some official claims from the manufacturer say 2.9 and some say 2.7 seconds. If we do not have a source that says that it changed with the 2019 update, then we cannot add this claim in the article as it would be original research.

Also, WP:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions clearly states that Performance figures should be limited to the manufacturer's claim. You haven't explained why we should ignore this. Carfan568 (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We faced the same problem with the Nissan GT-R's page. And we agreed to remove information that compares with other cars and brands for it's own goods. Visit - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nissan_GT-R#Comparison_tests

I'm not saying to remove manufacturer claimed performance figures. For early model years and 2019 updated version has a manufacturer claimed 0-60 time of 2.9 and 2.7 seconds respectively. Unfortunately, currently there's no official figures available from Honda or Acura newsrooms because of they were replaced by Type S websites. But the sites from automotive magazines proves the performance figures. And they were even more reliable than a manufacturer's website. I'll search for more sources that proves the performance figures. Game for Game (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should remove the lap time completely as it was an independent test and the results are quite meaningless without context, and meaningless information should not be added per

WP:NOTDATABASE. If you don't have a source that proves that the 0–60 time changed in 2019, we should not claim that it did, and per the WikiProject convention we should only have the manufacturer's claimed performance figures. Carfan568 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"If you don't have a source that proves that the 0–60 time changed in 2019", why? I already added a source from Topspeed.com that says Acura claims a 2.7 second 0-60 time. Game for Game (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nürburgring time is notable because its the 2nd fastest hybrid-electric production vehicle around the track. Do you have a source for this?

The source that you added for the 2.7 second 0–60 time did not say anything about the time changing in 2019, and therefore it doesn't confirm that the 0–60 time changed in 2019. Carfan568 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you have a source for this?" Unfortunately, there's no sources says them, but its actually is the second fastest electric hybrid production vehicle when looking at other vehicle's lap times. And its acceptable on WP (Used in several vehicle WP pages).

Topspeed.com, only saying Acura claimed a 2.7 second 0-60 time for the 2020 (which is same as the 2019 and 2021) model year. And for early model years (2017-2018), there's no sources available says a 2.7 second 0-60 time available. Only says 2.9s or 3.0 second times. So that means 2.7 sec is only for the updated model years. I already mentioned that I'm looking forward for more reliable sources. Feel free to help with it. Game for Game (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here and here are sources from 2016 and here is one from 2018 that mention a 0–60 time of 2.7 seconds, so ultimately there is not enough evidence to claim that the 0–60 time changed in 2019. And per

original research, which is not allowed. Carfan568 (talk) 16:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

As I mentioned before we all editors accepted to claim vehicle's notable Nürburgring lap times with a rank in it's class. I don't know why you cannot accept it. If you think it's unnecessary, you can only remove the claim "second fastest hybrid electric production vehicle around the track at the time" do not remove the lap time. Keep your patience until the end of the discussion, and do not make any changes. Game for Game (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another dealer source from 2016 and here is another from 2018 that state a 0–60 time of 2.7 seconds. When there are no sources in the first place that say that the time changed in 2019, we simply cannot add this claim in the article.

As for the lap time, you said that it was notable because it was "the second fastest hybrid-electric production vehicle at the Nürburgring", but since there are no sources that cover this, the lap time is not notable. Other car pages can have information about lap times if the lap times have received significant coverage (not just passing mentions) by reliable sources, but this car's independent lap time has not received any significant coverage by reliable sources, and neither is it adding any relevant information to the article since it is only comparable to lap times set by the same magazine (which you removed).

Wikipedia is not a lap time database, and therefore this lap time which lacks encyclopedic value without context (and has not received any significant coverage by reliable sources) should not be included. Carfan568 (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing gonna change from giving sources like this. The most reliable were the car magazine's (reliable than the official manufacturers claim in it's website). There were no any of a magazine says a 2.7 sec time (prove me if I'm wrong). If 2.7 sec time discribed only in a 2019 Acura NSX article, (by top car comparison site), isn't that means 0-60 time changed for the 2019 updated NSX? There's nothing irrelevant in the Nürburgring lap time. If it a 8 minute lap, it's still okay. Because a Nürburgring lap time isn't like a normal lap time in a normal racetrack. Because a normal car cannot lap the whole circuit in it's maximum capabilities. It will be totaled. So the NSX did 7:36, and it's notable. If you cannot agree with other editors to claim " the second fastest hybrid-electric production vehicle at the Nürburgring" just feel free remove the sentence. Do not remove the lap time. Game for Game (talk) 02:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a magazine that says 2.7 seconds. Car and Driver said 2.9 seconds here. But you should also note that WP:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions states that "Performance figures should be limited to the manufacturer's claim", regardless of which is the most reliable source.

And there are a huge number of cars that can lap the Nürburgring without being totaled. Simply because it was able to lap it in under eight minutes does not make it notable. Notability correlates with significant coverage given by reliable sources, and because no reliable sources have given significant coverage of the lap time, it is not notable. There certainly is no consensus to include this lap time, so you should stop adding it back, because per

WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Carfan568 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

My bad on WP:CW. It's stated in Vehicle Weight/Curb Weight Wiki page. Curb weight is vehicle weight with standard equipment such as engine fluids, fuel and etc. The weight stated in your source is dry weight. This will explain you - https://www.newroads.ca/blog/curb-weight-vs-gross-vehicle-weight/

Reliability of the quarter mile time is suspicious. All other officially tested cars are in the list. See in article stated as "Here’s the official carwow drag-race leaderboard with stats and a ranking for every car ever featured in a carwow drag race." They clearly saying these are the official times for Carwow ever tested. So it's suspicious about the 10.8 (which is never achieved by a magazine even after using 1-foot rollout) and it's reliability. May be it's a unofficial time. Otherwise it should be mentioned in the official leaderboard. XT RedZone (talk) 04:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times" page is irrelevant in the context of this article, because it is a list and not an article. And per

Wikipedia is not a lap time database, and simply because it is sourced does not guarantee inclusion

. No reliable secondary sources have given coverage of the lap time, which shows that it is not notable.

The Carwow page does not contain all of their times, and it also contains mistakes such as listing that the car has V8, so it is definitely not a definitive source. On some of their runs with the car they got 10.8 and some others 11.1 or 11.3, which obviously depends on the conditions, the particular car they used and how well they launched. They did not say anything about unofficial times, so it would be original research to disregard the 10.8 run. Regarding the curb weight/dry weight, no sources that I have used have mentioned dry weight for the car, and you can see the curb weight confirmed by sources such as this and this. Carfan568 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "List of Nürburgring Nordchleife lap times" page is relevant, because this very same lap time includes in that page without a secondary source. Only secondary source available is this (https://fastestlaps.com/tests/69416nu4ln8p) because other automotive publications cannot create a article or something else about it because it was achieved by a magazine. In case of . Maserati MC12, you can add it if you want. No one gonna make a obsession on that.

"No reliable secondary sources have given coverage of the lap time, which shows that it is not notable." Who said? Could you just show me a Wikiproject or a discussion says it? I'm not gonna make this page a lap time data base. If I want to, why only the Nürburgring? I can add whatever lap time available in the internet. NSX was tested several times at the Nürburgring before it's release and never gave a official lap time by Honda. So adding a available independently tested lap time that has a reliable source is way too important for a car like this.

In case of Carwow performance figure. You cannot say without a reliable source that it is obviously depends on conditions. And also you can see in their videos the presenter says it has 581hp (but actual car has 573hp). And that's why I replaced the other quarter mile time too. If you could found any other tested 10.8 quarter mile time. Feel free to add it, not this one. This one is way too suspicious because, wrong horsepower claim, not in the official leaderboard, secondary source (which is required by you), tire conditions and etc.

"no sources that I have used have mentioned dry weight for the car" of course. But neither no sources say that the weight you added is the curb weight (see the weight that I added clearly says it's with standard equipment and etc). Trying to prove from a dealer website and a magazine article proves nothing. How would they are even more reliable for you than the official Honda specification sheet?

Stop edit wars from doing reverts when a discussion is ongoing (because both of us will get banned). Sit tight until this ends. XT RedZone (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another secondary source found for the Nürburgring lap time as you asked. Satisfied? XT RedZone (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read

trivial mention

by one somewhat questionable source (which acknowledged that the lap time is not representative of true performance anyway) absolutely does not make it notable.

When Carwow said that the car has 581 hp, they were referring to

imperial horsepower

, so the claim was not incorrect. And I don't need a source to say that results will change depending on conditions, because that is completely obvious. It can clearly be seen from the footage of their 10.8 runs that the car went faster than the Nissan GT-R and Mercedes-AMG GT R, so unless you can actually prove that the 10.8 runs were erroneous rather than vaguely speculate, there is nothing wrong with them. All the sources I have used have clearly stated curb weight. There have been no mentions of dry weight. Also, the website I posted previously was not a dealer site; it was an official Acura website for information about their cars.

Lastly, you clearly ignored

WP:STATUSQUO by reverting away from the status quo during a dispute discussion. You made changes to long-standing content which were reverted, so the content should stay the way it has been for a long time until consensus is established. Carfan568 (talk) 16:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Excuse me. I didn't ignored WP:STATUSQUO here. First one to revert is you. "You made changes to long-standing content which were reverted", I don't think so. Seems like you were in a previous discussion about (which didn't ended) and you changed it again. So stay patiently till this discussion ends. Best regards. XT RedZone (talk) 03:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per

The lap time is not noteworthy for inclusion, otherwise it would have received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources.

If we only include lap times because they are merely verifiable, these articles will quickly turn into meaningless lap time databases. Also, their time in the Lexus LFA Nürburgring Package was 20 seconds slower than the official time, the Porsche 911 GT2 RS was 11 seconds slower, the Porsche 918 Spyder was 16 seconds slower, etc. There is clearly a pattern that their times don't represent the full potential of the car, and one of their times being only two seconds slower doesn't change that.

Again, you need better proof to change the quarter mile time. They only mentioned the word "official" in passing without explaining in any detail. They also wrote in that same sentence that the page features "a ranking for every car ever featured in a carwow drag race," but they didn't include the 2017 Nissan GT-R which they tested and several times were missing, so it hardly seems like a precise page. The horsepower thing is an irrelevant detail.

"Your source only says it's weight and mentioned nothing about standard equipment and etc (that's why it's dry weight)." That is absolutely not true. The official Acura source clearly stated "Curb Weight (without options)". And it was an official Acura spec sheet, so no less reliable than the Honda page.

The previous discussion absolutely ended with no consensus to change the content. Seems like you have restarted the same discussion with a different account since the content you are pursuing to add is the same and very similarly written. And I don't need to wait for the discussion to end if we are only repeating the same things. Carfan568 (talk) 13:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a secondary reliable source which confirms the lap time. Adding only a one lap time changes nothing into a lap time database. Adding a lap time in a notable track is important. Specially for a sports car. Comparing other car's official lap times with magazine lap times are irrelevant. That's why I pointed out that 2 second difference in that respective vehicle. And it's not the only one, there are way more vehicles like that one. A official lap time for the NSX is currently unavailable. So I did add the only available lap time which is tested by a reliable magazine. We editors shouldn't compare it's lap time with other vehicles, because we're not here for compare them. We add what is relevant with reliable sources. That's what I exactly did.

Why should I have prove that quarter mile time should be changed while it's not even eligible to belong in this page? There is the 2016/17 (they call MY17 as MY16, because the car released in 2016) Nissan GT-R's time which is 10.9 and also AMG GT R's 11.0 time (which was achieved in the same year and just 1-3 month difference between NSX's race day).

There's no significant proof that owners.acura.com is a official website, and clearly states "All information contained here in applies to U.S. vehicles only. For non-U.S.-distributor information go to world.honda.com". Please read the full information of an article before adding it to a discussion and pointing some false information. XT RedZone (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A

we should not just add information without context

. The lap time is meaningless without the context of other lap times set by the same magazine. The lap time is also not a widely accepted performance metric, otherwise it would have received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. And one contextless time is already the start of a meaningless lap time database, because that would set the precedent for the inclusion of other meaningless times without context.

As for the quarter mile time, you are reading way too much into a clearly imprecise page. The footage confirmed that the car was clearly faster than the GT-R and AMG GT R, which have times of 10.9 and 11.0 respectively, so 10.8 makes perfect sense. It was likely just a mistake that they didn't have the time on the leaderboard, since it already contains several mistakes.

Owners.acura.com absolutely clearly is an official site, that shouldn't even be an argument. And of course they include information about U.S. spec vehicles since it is a U.S. site. That doesn't make it false in any way. Carfan568 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already added a reliable secondary source that clearly confirms the lap time. And it's not a questionable source. "which acknowledged that the lap time is not representative of true performance anyway" how do you know? Honda engineer? There is no offense of adding a lap time to a Wiki page from other editors. For e.g see Lexus LFA, AMG GT and etc. This lap time got everything required to be reliable as possible to add into a Wiki page, so no more discussion necessary for this.

"you are reading way too much into a clearly imprecise page" what? That what we do, looking at the info precisely. I don't think it's wrong. We are not here to argue is this car is faster than the GT-R and the AMG GT R. I already clearly pointed out about this quarter mile time's unofficality. And you cannot blame to that article that it's a mistake from just guessing. We aren't here to do guessing. So I don't think we should do more discussions about this one too.

Honda NSX not only got sold in U.S, this is a worldwide car. So if a global official spec sheet curb weight is available why do we have to add the U.S spec car's curb weight. And also there is no sign of a standard equipment inclusion in that site too. We clearly have a source that says the curb weight with standard equipment. So trying to add a suspicious curb weight it completely unnecessary.

XT RedZone (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the point that

featured articles such as Maserati MC12

, which does not include a privately tested Nürburgring lap time, as I already mentioned previously. The source you added definitely is not from a respected high quality publication. And I know that the source acknowledged that the lap time is not representative of true performance, because it said that the cars are pushed harder in official runs. We definitely can end the discussion about this lap time and restore to the status quo since there clearly is no consensus to include it. You have not even referenced any policies/guidelines/essays in your arguments.

"We aren't here to do guessing." That is what you are doing. The original source clearly confirmed that the car did the quarter mile in 10.8 seconds, and no source has confirmed that the 10.8 run was incorrect. You are simply guessing that it was incorrect by pointing to a page that doesn't say anything about it and contains several mistakes. And I already explained to you why the word "official" in that page is fairly negligible. Regarding the curb weight, the vast majority of these cars were sold in the United States. Therefore the U.S. curb weight is the most relevant. Carfan568 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Lexus LFA and AMG GT pages are irrelevant, why should I take a look at the Maserati MC12 as per WP:OTHERCONTENT? Most of other sports car Wiki pages does include this kind of lap times, MC12 page being only one to not include, doesn't mean something wrong with it? I'm saying this again, if you want to, feel free to go and add it. "The source you added definitely is not from a respected high quality publication" this site's information have been used in serveral Wiki pages and I don't don't see any problem with their information and reliability. I have already mentioned we cannot exactly say whether it's the true performance or not. I already mentioned why this kind of Nürburgring lap times are important and reliable than a official lap time.

What I did about the quarter mile time isn't guessing. I already given a source why it's unreliable and unofficial. "page that doesn't say anything about it and contains several mistakes" I have already mentioned why it's not eligible to take place in this site. "V8" instead of "V6" is not several mistakes. Just a one typing mistake. How are you saying not including this time is a mistake? Because they have made more than 5 videos in this very same car. We cannot say it's a mistake from simply guessing. This quarter mile time is in doubt. Why we should add it when we have other reliable quarter mile times? you should stop trying to add a performance figure which doesn't confirm it's officiality. I don't think more discussion is necessary for this.

The site you added, mentions the curb weight of the previous source's curb weight, which I removed. I already said why did I removed it. We can add the U.S curb weight if we don't have a worldwide spec curb weight. If we have it why we should add U.S spec only curb weight? This curb weight also doesn't mentioned about standard equipment equipped or not (and Honda never stated U.S market gets a different spec NSX too). I think now on the discussion is only necessary for the Nürburgring lap time. XT RedZone (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Maserati MC12 page is not irrelevant, because it is a

WP:DTS

in regard to reviving old discussions.

The V8 thing wasn't the only mistake on that site. For example, the 2016 Nissan GT-R is missing information about power, gearbox/drive and weight. Also, that page is from carwow.co.uk/blog, so it is not exactly a formal source and as such there is no real proof that the 10.8 run was unofficial or unreliable.

There is no "worldwide spec curb weight". There are only specs for specific regions or countries. In this case, the U.S. curb weight is the most relevant, because the vast majority of these cars were sold in the United States. And it did mention that it was with standard equipment, since it mentioned "without options". Carfan568 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"If I add the privately tested lap time to that article, it might hamper its featured article status" how do you know it will? I don't think it will work like that because it already has a lap time from Top Gear. At the start of the discussion, this lap time only had required a secondary source. Original source is reliable enough and you also confirmed it at the beginning of the discussion. so there's no question about reliability. But recently you didn't have mentioned a relevant reason why we shouldn't keep this lap time. Only you did mentioned is "Maserati MC12 is a featured article and it doesn't have a Nürburgring lap time" so what? You know we shouldn't reference other pages as per WP:OTHERCONTENT. But you did it in several replies of yours. Seems like you giving too much weight on this lap time and probably you don't have a reasonable proof about this lap time's unreliability.

I have already mentioned you why I removed the other Carwow quarter mile too. Because they doesn't mention anything about test equipment, tire conditions, inclusion of 1-foot rollout or not and etc. So Carwow performance figures aren't reliable as magazines. That's what I wanted you to know. We shouldn't have to add a unreliable, suspicious quarter mile time while we have a reliable quarter mile time.

Your source mentioned nothing about standard equipment. Standard equipment means, lubricants, fuel, coolant and stuff like that. I have already mentioned discussions for the quarter mile time and curb weight is irrelevant now. XT RedZone (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"how do you know it will?" I didn't say that it will, I said it might. Just adding a random lap time without context won't improve an article, per

doesn't guarantee inclusion

. And if you actually understand the arguments, you should be able to note that I mentioned more than the MC12 thing.

"Because they doesn't mention anything about test equipment, tire conditions, inclusion of 1-foot rollout or not and etc." Neither do many magazines. And why then did you very recently add quarter mile times from Carwow to Nissan GT-R, even though times from magazine sources exist?

"Standard equipment means, lubricants, fuel, coolant and stuff like that." No, it doesn't. Per the definition of standard equipment here, it means "the basic configuration of a vehicle which is equipped with [...] all features that are fitted without giving rise to any further specifications on configuration or equipment level." Lubricants, fuel and coolant are not configurable items and do no affect equipment level. It would have said dry weight if lubricants, fuel and coolant were not included. So in this context "standard equipment" and "without options" mean the same thing. Carfan568 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a random lap time. This is a Nürburgring lap time which was achieved by reliable magazine. Even though that Top Gear time added to give context for the reception, that doesn't mean you can't add a Nürburgring lap time. You have no proof to say adding Nürburgring lap time doesn't improve a Wiki page. MC12 has nothing to do with this. As per WP: OTHERCONTENT, you know we can't refer other pages as reference in a discussion. No matter how many times you mentioning the same thing if it isn't a reasonable reason to the deletion of this lap time.

"why then did you very recently add quarter mile times from Carwow to Nissan GT-R, even though times from magazine sources exist?" That's why I removed it after 1 week of inclusion and added magazine time. Carwow is not a magazine at all. And they mentioned nothing about how their testings work.

I already explained what is curb weight and dry weight by using a reliable source. Seems you didn't see it or forgot it. It clear says amenities also have to be included rather than standard equipment. And Vehicle Weight Wiki page also confirms it. XT RedZone (talk) 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument of "The lap time is reliable so it must be included" is not based in policy. I already explained to you with policies/guidelines/essays why it is not noteworthy. Your answer about the quarter mile time is missing the point of the question, and your claims about the curb weight are starting become irrelevant drivel. This discussion is starting to just repeat itself and continuing it wouldn't be very productive; no consensus was established, so we should return the disputed content to the status quo per

WP:NOCONSENSUS. Carfan568 (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Disagreed. All you were mentioned about the lap time is, it doesn't have a secondary source (which I did add it after all and proved its notable), compared other vehicles lap times to prove this isn't the real performance and pointing out MC12 page doesn't have a lap time (these two was completely irrelevant for this page's lap time and unacceptable as per WP:OTHERCONTENT). To point your opinion and to prove it, you should have to mention reliable sources or explain it with notable information. Avoiding WP:OTHERCONTENT and adding policies/guideline/essays which were both of us already knew, and some of them were completely irrelevant to this discussion.
  How many times should I have to repeat same thing again and again? I have already explained why Carwow quarter mile times are unreliable. And I removed both 10.8 and 11.1 times right after I knew about the unreliability.
  I have explained your curb weight's disqualification too. With sources I have explained various times what is curb weight and what should have to be included. Your's didn't met that requirements. That's it.
  At this point you're right. This discussion have repeated itself for several time now. But you didn't wonder why it did. It happened because you repeatedly tried to prove you're right from using the same explanations right after I pointed out they were wrong. No consensus was established because you didn't proved you're correct about your informations and you didn't accepted mine either. So that doesn't mean we should've to return the disputed content. If you couldn't prove you're right, it's completely fine and just move on with your other works. Do not commit edit wars because maybe we both will end up being blocked from editing. Hope you understand. Best regards. XT RedZone (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • XT RedZone, it would be nice if you indicated who you're talking to. To me? To Carfan? I can't tell. Also, please follow talk page guidelines on how to indent posts. If you keep "having to" repeat the same thing, maybe stop--either your opponent isn't listening, or your point is not considered valid. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, I was replying to Carfan at the time when you leaved that message on this discussion. So I saw it after submitted my reply. XT RedZone (talk) 03:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to summarise the lap time dispute of the above two threads to hopefully get a third opinion and resolve this. So, this dispute between myself and another editor (note: the other editor appears to have used two different accounts (Game for Game and XT RedZone), as evidenced by a very similar editing style on the same pages) is about whether a lap time attained privately by a magazine with this car at the Nürburgring race track should be included in the article. I argue against including it and the other editor argues for the inclusion of it. The argument against including the lap time is that because it has not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources, it is not noteworthy to be included and is not widely accepted by reliable sources as being representative of the performance of the car, and as such including it would violate

• At Third editor (I don't know its Drmies or someone else), Autoevolution is a, auto encyclopedia features automotive news, reviews, drivetests, videos, spyshots, car and motorcycle specifications and etc. It doesn't meet any similarities to be a questionable source in
  WP:QS. Carfan didn't mentioned anything reasonable point either to prove it's a questionable source. We both waiting for your opinion about this lap time. Best regards. XT RedZone (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • It is not a reputable source. For example, here you can see another more reputable source covering them literally misquoting a person and spreading false information. Many of their articles are clickbait-y and in general it appears to be a no-name publication. Besides that, it was still just a trivial mention of the lap time rather than significant coverage. Carfan568 (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carfan568 So this is what you call a summary of a third opinion? We are not here to start our previous discussion in here too. We both stated our opinions once in this discussion. So just wait patiently until that third person leaves his opinion. XT RedZone (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just clarified my thoughts on the source. Carfan568 (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, there's already a more heavily covered lap time for the car, so it seems indiscriminate to provide the magazine lap time also. It's kind of going beyond encyclopedic even though the other lap time might also be accurate. That's less important than conciseness, and favoring things with more reliable sources when seeking that conciseness. Popsofctown (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Popsofctown, "there's already a more heavily covered lap time for the car" which lap time did you meant?

So what you're trying to say? Removal of the lap time or inclusion?

I found another source which doesn't mention this particular magazine's test but the lap time. It states NSX did a 7:36 lap time while in testing at the Nürburgring back in 2015. Requesting a check on that. XT RedZone (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I found another two reliable sources which confirms car's 7:36 minute lap time. Check this and this. XT RedZone (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think it was quite clear that Popsofctown implied that including the magazine's Nürburgring lap time is indiscriminate, i.e. it should not be included. He stated that "it seems indiscriminate to provide the magazine lap time", with magazine lap time obviously referring to the Nürburgring lap time. None of the sources which you found are reliable high quality sources; all of them are more or less poor quality ones and only briefly covered the lap time. For reference, here is an example of a source that would prove that including a specific lap time would not violate
    WP:INDISCRIMINATE. At the moment there is consensus to not include the time, so unless that changes, I will remove it. Carfan568 (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

@XT RedZone: Do you understand the difference between curb weight and dry weight? In your edit summary you said that "without options" doesn't mean that lubricants and others were included, but I never said that it did. I said that the fact that they stated "curb weight" instead of "dry weight" confirms that lubricants and others were included. Carfan568 (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do, because I'm the one who explained it to you too. Some manufacturers doesn't count the curb weight with fuel and lubricants, but also states it as "Curb weight" instead of "Dry weight", see this for a confirmation. Also the weight now in use of the page is pretty identical for the weights measured by Car & Driver and Motor Trend. Just for reference, C&D's car has all of the options equipped and weighs 3,868 pounds and MT's car weighs 3,930 pounds because it only has the carbon roof as a option, and do you really think Type S will weigh another 45 kg more over the standard NSX? These magazine tested weights aren't anywhere near the weight that you wanting to add. Hope you understand. XT RedZone (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The source did not confirm what you said; in fact it stated that manufacturers specifically mention a dry weight if they don't include such consumables. You can see here an example of a manufacturer mentioning dry weight. There have been numerous reliable sources which stated 3,803 pounds, such as this and this in addition to the ones already cited, so it seems like original research to discount it. Carfan568 (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked about this at WikiProject Automobiles to hopefully better establish consensus. Carfan568 (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • My source says "Many manufacturers have set their own standards for calculating kerb weight. Some manufacturers consider that fuel tank is 50% of its total capacity instead of completely filling the tank while some others assume that it should be merely 10% of the capacity". I added this to prove that we cannot clearly say which is the actual curb weight because we don't know how Honda measures. We should accept the weight which is more similar to tested weights by independent testers.

Chevrolet source is irrelevant and proves nothing in this discussion. I checked other two sources that you added, and it's just a test drive article and a spec sheet, which represents this curb weight. They're weren't tested by them.

I think we are repeating the previous discussion in here too. Please provide a better reliable source to consider about your curb weight. XT RedZone (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"We should accept the weight which is more similar to tested weights by independent testers." Doing it like that would be original research. Independently tested weight figures vary depending on the situation; for example, here Car and Driver cited an even lower figure than the one you posted above. If a manufacturer states a certain weight range, we should include it as stated by the manufacturer and clarify that it is the manufacturer's claimed weight, rather than conduct research ourselves.

"I think we are repeating the previous discussion in here too." Well, a compromise was made, but you keep reverting to your favoured revision despite not getting consensus. Carfan568 (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• it's the only way to prove if you couldn't accept the truth. I know it's depends on conditions that why it's just similar to the weight not the exact same. But they're similar only to the weight which is currently in use. See this, this, this, this and this. All of the model years states the exact same curb weight which is currently in use. "Well, a compromise was made, but you keep reverting to your favoured revision despite not getting consensus" what compromise? We made no compromise about your cub weight because you failed to prove it with reliable sources. Provide a reliable source or get nothing. XT RedZone (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"they're similar only to the weight which is currently in use" That is stretching it, ~20 kg is not a big difference at all between C&D's figure and the one that you are trying to remove, and C&D's figure is ~10 kg lighter than the one that is currently in use, so they are rather similar. And here you can see the exact same source as you cited above state 3,803 pounds.

"what compromise?" We disagreed on which figure to include, so I added both of them separated with a dash, which was probably the most fair solution in that case. Carfan568 (talk) 10:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • no they're actually not similar to the removed curb weight. if it is, it (C&D weight) should be lighter than the removed weight (1,725 kg), if it was measured with consumables. Because in test car, it will only be lighter than the manufacturer's weight because of fuel consumption and etc. But it's 23 kg heavier than the 1,725 kg claim, so it's pretty clear it is not similar to the C&D weight. The source you added also doesn't mention anything about a inclusion of consumables, which I repeatedly said for various amount of times to add a source which says it includes the consumables. Do not waste other editors time from adding sources that doesn't confirms that claim. Come up with a better source that meets the requirements unless trying to add false information. If you couldn't it's okay, just leave it. XT RedZone (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, but in the video that was in the Car and Driver lightning lap article they stated that the weight was with a full tank, so that part of your comment above is incorrect. As for the "doesn't mention anything about a inclusion of consumables" part of your comment, the fact that they stated "curb weight" instead of "dry weight" confirms that consumables were included, as I have already said. Speculating about fuel levels is venturing into original research territory, and the sources that are currently used in the article did not mention anything about fuel levels.

Besides, you cannot just force the article to remain in your preferred version through edit warring, as per

WP:BRD the content should be left the way it was before the dispute began, regardless of how correct you think you are. The content that you want to remove had been there for years, and when you removed it the change was reverted, so continuing to revert without achieving consensus is inappropriate. Carfan568 (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Carfan568 thought you understood about my opinion. Unfortunately seems you didn't. You're completely misunderstood my previous reply. Independent weight measurements are depends on conditions. But that measurements will never be more than the manufacturer's weight, unless being lighter than it. I know C&D weight measured with a full tank, but fuel isn't the only consumable in a car. Consumables also includes, lubricants, coolant, water and etc. So consumption of them will result a slightly lighter weight than the manufacturer's. You can clearly see it's just 11 kg lighter than the weight that currently in use, and 23 kg heavier than 1,725 kg.

It's clear that 1,725 kg is a dry weight and I proved it from several different ways. Just an only valid Acura source says curb weight is 1,725 kg while every other sources says it's 1,759 kg. You didn't even pointed out anything to consider the 1,725 kg as a curb weight. Because there's no independent tester got a measurement that less or near to 1,725 kg. Hope you understand this time.

If you took more than 3 days to reply, tag my username when you're submitting your reply. I didn't even knew you continued the discussion until you made some edits in the article. XT RedZone (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"But that measurements will never be more than the manufacturer's weight" No, there are numerous cases where a magazine's measured weight is higher than the manufacturer's weight. For example, in the same 2016 lightning lap test Car and Driver measured 3,771 pounds for the Audi R8 V10 plus, but the manufacturer states 3,627 pounds. And it is absolutely not clear that 1,725 kg is a dry weight, because 23 kg is not even close to the typical difference between a dry weight and a curb weight. For example, the Chevrolet Corvette C8 has a curb weight (as tested by Car and Driver) that is 127 kilograms higher than the manufacturer's dry weight, and the page here of the Huracan shows a 131 kg difference between the car's curb and dry weight. Our job here is to report what sources say, and not nitpick the numbers we want. If we are including the manufacturer's figures, and 1,725 kg is part of the manufacturer's figures, it is only appropriate to include it.

And with all due respect, you seem to have ignored the last part of my previous comment. Your edit summary of "long standing content? It's been controversial since it has been added to the article." is incorrect, because the content has been there for years until you recently started removing it, and I didn't even add it in the first place. As per

WP:NOCONSENSUS situation. Reverting once again to your preferred version without achieving consensus is not appropriate. Carfan568 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• I took a look at weights of that cars and I couldn't figure it out how did you proved your opinion. Audi R8 official curb weight says nothing about including of options and consumables. "typical difference between a dry weight and a curb weight" How do you know? Because its not the same for every vehicle out there. Also, it's depends several things such as on optional parts from manufacturers. "Our job here is to report what sources say" obviously that's what I did, see how many official reliable sources I've showed to you. But you have only a one source. You kept disagreeing with it for no reason and that's why I tried to prove it from independently measured weights. Simply, just look at this car. Your source says 2017 NSX weighs 1,725 kg (no mention of consumables), mines says 2017,18,19,20 and 21 weighs 1,759 kg. We both know that there was nothing upgraded in 2017 that resulted in a weight reduction to get into 1,725 kg (even the 2019 also didn't). It's way more obvious that your weight is a dry weight. XT RedZone (talk) 03:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the third opinion provided, it appears that there is consensus that 1,725 kg is an acceptable curb weight. Unless that changes, I will add it back to the article. Carfan568 (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summary for third opinion

This discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so to hopefully move forward I will request a third opinion and provide a concise summary of the dispute. Basically this dispute boils down to whether there is relevant evidence that this car's as-stated-by-various-sources weight figure of 1,725 kg (3,803 pounds) is a dry weight (the weight of a car without fluids), even though all sources which have stated the figure have mentioned that it is a curb weight (the weight of a car with fluids). The various sources which stated the aforementioned figure include the following: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] and [7]. The editor arguing that it is a dry weight is using the following sources for their curb weight figures: [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]. XT RedZone, the editor who thinks that it is a dry weight, argues that the sources which stated the figure did not explicitly state that lubricants and other fluids were included in the car (the fluids are required to measure a curb weight). I, the editor who disagrees, argue that because all the sources specifically stated that the figure is a "curb weight" instead of a "dry weight", and because none of the opposing editor's sources mention anything about fluids either, it would be original research to assume that fluids were not included. The summary might be somewhat biased because I argued for the other side, but hopefully we can clarify any misunderstanding in that case. Carfan568 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Those sources do not help. We have an article on this: Vehicle weight#Curb weight. In the United States at least, the government defines the term in 40 CFR § 86.1803-01. This regulation defines curb weight clearly as "the actual or the manufacturer's estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and weight of fuel at nominal tank capacity...." Any spec sheets published in the United States would need to comply with the federal regulations. Therefore, it is not original research to assume that a document specifying "curb weight" means exactly how it defined in the regulation. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]