INSIDE LINE

1991 Acura NSX vs. 2012 Audi R8

Media Player

  • 2012 Audi R8 Picture

    2012 Audi R8 Picture

    Different eras. Same goal. | January 12, 2012

Feature

1991 Acura NSX vs. 2012 Audi R8

Battle of the Stoic Supercars

    43 Ratings

    It's likely that Acura's 21-year-old NSX is most famous for things it never actually did.

    1990, you might recall, wasn't a year when supercars covered themselves in the glory of either shocking performance or metronomic reliability. The stink of '80s automotive misery hadn't yet worn off and the glory of middleweight performers like the RX-7, 300Z and fourth-generation Supra was yet to take hold. When it came to supercars, it was the era of the Ferrari 348, a machine so awful to drive it couldn't even find a private investigator drama in which to hide.

    Following, in no particular order, are some things most NSXs never did: leak, stall, stink, burn, ventilate their crankcase, cook their clutch, experience catastrophic electrical failure, overheat or simply strand their driver. The NSX, for all its hype, sprang from a time when mixing some mundane Honda Accord into the supercar stew, rolling it up in an aluminum body and dropping it into a market ripe for a real driver's car was a stupendously good idea. Good enough, in fact, to last for 15 years.

    Next to Porsche's ubiquitous 911, the NSX might just be the most practical, reliable real-world supercar ever built. But in 1990 there was something more exotic about a low-slung, midengine, aluminum-bodied supercar than there was about any Porsche. And there's still truth in that statement today. Which is why we think Audi's R8 might be the best spiritual successor the NSX could have.

    Here, then, is how they stack up.

    The Basics
    It's the cab-forward, engine-behind-cockpit layout that's the defining similarity between the R8 and NSX. Following modern trends, the R8 is bigger in every dimension. It is 1.2 inches longer, 3.2 inches taller, 4.7 wider and its wheelbase is 4.7 inches longer than the NSX.

    If raw output is all that matters, the NSX's transverse-mounted 3.0-liter, 270-horsepower V6 is no match for the Audi's longitudinally mounted 4.2-liter 430-hp V8. Gears are selected in the NSX via a five-speed manual transmission, while cogs are slotted home via a gated six-speed manual in the R8. And when it comes to powertrains, that's where the similarities stop.

    The Audi, naturally, drives all four wheels through three differentials that produce a distinctly rear-drive balance. The NSX's rear-drive balance is more authentic thanks to a conventional transaxle and clutch-type limited-slip differential driving, well, the rear wheels.

    The Numbers
    The performance data in this test serve to demonstrate how far supercars have come in 21 years more so than to help determine a winner.

    Accordingly, let's look first at one area where progress isn't so easy to gauge. At 3,010 pounds the NSX might be the only car we've ever rolled onto our scales that exactly matches its manufacturer's claimed weight. And because it's 611 pounds lighter than the R8 (3,621 pounds) it demonstrates one area where technology and cubic megadollars are yet to produce a positive impact in performance cars.

    Fortunately, performance hasn't suffered the same decline.

    Ripping to 60 in 4.5 seconds (4.3 with 1 foot of rollout as on a drag strip) gets the R8 there a solid 1.1 seconds quicker than the NSX (5.6 seconds, 5.3 with rollout). The 0.9-second gap at the quarter-mile demonstrates that it's the Audi's launch that produces its biggest advantage. Here, even the 21-year-old NSX holds its own by running a 13.7-second pass at 102 mph. The R8's 12.8-second pass at 110.1 mph is quicker, but not as much as its 21-year advantage might lead one to believe.

    Handling, too, is beyond the NSX's years. It shimmied through the slalom at 69.3 mph on nine-year-old rubber, (we tested it on new tires, too, but the numbers were inexplicably worse) a feat the Audi handled at 72.1 mph. Lateral acceleration worked out to 0.88g and 0.98g for the Acura and Audi, respectively.

    When it comes to stopping, the Audi's contemporary rubber and ABS technology are far superior. It required only 105 feet to come to a halt from 60 mph. The NSX needed an additional 26 feet.

    The Similarities
    Through the magic of the Inside Line time machine we were able to experience these two cars on the same piece of unoccupied driver's road at the same time. And the gap between them at the top of the road was nearly as substantial as the years between them. But, spiritually, there were ample parallels.

    Perhaps the biggest of these is the compact, balanced sense of confidence that begins in each car's powertrain layout and culminates in confident, direct inputs from its driver. There's a deftness possessed by midengine cars that is distinctly absent in any other layout. Wood the throttle in either of these machines and its nose rises with an immediacy and directness that could never exist in a car with its mass centered farther forward.

    Similarly, both cars demonstrate a willingness to change direction not available in a car with its engine placed outside the axles. Mass centralization. Don't discount it. Even when it's 21 years old.

    It's like comparing Mother Love Bone to Mother Theresa.

    But there are differences.

    Old vs. Bold
    Performance car engineers — at least those developing contemporary cars like the R8 — are obsessed with reactions. Every input should be answered with an immediate and rewarding reaction, right? That's what they say.

    The result is a mixed blessing.

    Twenty-odd years ago the guys making these decisions on the NSX either had different goals or different expectations. Nowhere is this dissimilarity more apparent than in the way these two cars steer. The NSX's variable-ratio steering rack (18.2:1 to 20.8:1) is slower than the R8's fixed 17.3:1 ratio, but the numbers hardly tell the story.

    Predictably, the effort required to corner both cars plays heavily into the experience. The Audi's hydraulically assisted steering makes nearly no demand on its driver and still supplies enough information to attack the road confidently. The NSX's weighty wheel is better than many full manual racks we've experienced, but leaves little reason to do anything but surrender to the car's relatively low limits once understeer is achieved.

    Largely, this is because we fear finding ourselves in a situation that requires "fixing" any kind of oversteer without the benefit of modern assisted steering. Call us wimps, but not before you correct oversteer in a midengine manual-steering car yourself.

    Still, this limitation doesn't diminish the reward of the NSX experience. It's just one element that makes it slower than its modern counterpart.

    Here's Another
    The R8's reaction to throttle input is insanely rapid by 1990 standards. Partially, this is due to the blunt honesty of the first-generation NSX's simple, cable-actuated throttle. The control provided by electronic throttles has supplied engineers with undue command over a car's character. The resulting eagerness has reached the point of absurdity in some cars. Fortunately, it's not so much a problem in the R8 as it is motivation to start paying attention.

    Snap the Audi's throttle open and the chassis responds instantly and intuitively. Somehow, despite driving all four wheels, the Audi reacts like a rear-driver, offering a rewarding ability to balance power against steering without the need for heavily calculated metering. Its approachable limits are a blessing in a car that could easily have overlooked such details. Vorsprung durch Technik, indeed.

    Not so in the NSX.

    The Acura's response to throttle input carries far less consequence. Measured against the snap-to-it reactions of the more powerful R8, the NSX's response to big, aggressive movements of the throttle doesn't demand as much attention or reward as heavily. This, we'll admit, is in large part due to a significantly lower power-to-weight ratio (8.4:1 Audi vs. 11.1:1 NSX).

    It's here that the NSX, when measured against the wildly involving R8, begins to show itself for what it is: old.

    Oldie but Goodie
    Still, there are genuinely striking qualities in this aged sports car that are distinctly absent in the R8. Like, for example, the simple, authentic way the NSX gets down the road. Forget about radical urgency. Forget about breakneck reactions. All of the NSX's controls perform their duty resolutely but without the Audi's pressing haste. It's like comparing Mother Love Bone to Mother Theresa. One screams its intent in your face and the other is content to let its actions do the talking over the whole of the experience.

    The NSX's shifter slots into the selected cog with a fidelity lacking in most modern car/driver interfaces. It's especially striking considering this car's age. That's to take nothing from the R8, whose manual shifter might be the best in the world today.

    Reality says that any car as old as the NSX is going to lack the speed and confidence provided by a modern supercar like the R8. But that doesn't mean the experience is bereft of passion. Perhaps the most potent bit of character is an intake note that tunnels down its driver's ear canal, shoots through his brain stem and penetrates his soul. Truly, there are few cars before or since the NSX that offer the audible reward produced by its 8,000-rpm anthem.

    Also, we'd never have thought 21 years ago that we'd look back on Honda's '90s design ethos as soulful. But viewing modern cars through the lens of small pillars, a low waistline and simple controls makes us yearn for such unvarnished honesty in design. The R8 has a similar feel, but can't match the NSX's original brilliance.

    The Final Calculus
    There's no way to handily summarize the best car here. And that's not what we're trying to do anyway. The point is to capture each car's spirit. The NSX, 21 years ago, was ahead of its time — both in its construction and its attitude. It wasn't the fastest or most powerful car built, but it made a strong case for combining quality, durability and everyday drivability with engaging at-the-limit character. It's an enduring formula that's built into the most successful supercars made today — including the R8.

    We're not picking a winner. Rather, we're answering this question: Which car would we want in our garage? Judged on the experience alone, the answer is easy. The R8's ability to engage, its outright speed, its sound and the reward it provides during hard driving easily outshines the 21-year-old NSX.

    But experience tells us those qualities aren't all that will matter in 20-plus years. The Audi supercar's place in history will be also determined by its ability to endure time both mechanically and visually. And those are much, much larger demands.

    We'll be keeping the NSX around just in case.

    The manufacturer provided Edmunds the Audi for the purposes of evaluation. The NSX is part of Inside Line's long-term fleet.

    Sort By:

    duck87 says:

    05:49 AM, 01/23/2012

    @bimmerjay: Zing!

    vancebd says:

    06:02 PM, 01/22/2012

    @ vanquish421

    NSX's stock breaks is not the best (In today's standard) for hard breaking to nil, but on track, it rarely fades.   Also older NSXs may need the break line replace due to old age and many NSX owners have done that to improve the response.  Keep in mind that this test car is one of the original car rolling off the production line.  It is old.

    vanquish421 says:

    01:54 PM, 01/21/2012

    For the NSX:

    Braking Rating - Good
    Braking Comments - Weak Brakes

    ...what?

    ba27 says:

    05:26 AM, 01/20/2012

    church:  Having an argument would require that you devise a coherent position on a topic, something you have utterly failed to do.

    church123 says:

    12:20 PM, 01/19/2012

    Argument by assertion is another failure.  Try again.  Maybe you could try argument by authority next time

    ba27 says:

    10:23 AM, 01/19/2012

    Church:  Your reading comprehension fail is sad, but evident.

    church123 says:

    09:13 AM, 01/19/2012

    Give it up ba27, logic is clearly not your friend.  You said "nobody in the market for an R8..." cares.  But then you acknowledge that there are owners who do care.  But of course, they're idiots because they disagree with your take on things.  Hmm, sounds like projection and transference to me.  Back of the class.

    fordson1 says:

    07:30 AM, 01/19/2012

    Lots of good info.  Probably the best advice is something I barely touched on but church hit it harder - take it to a shop with experience with this car, and HAVE A BASELINE ALIGNMENT DONE.

    Probably as huyracing says it may be better to use a "cookbook" approach - simply go to a later and known-better suspension/wheel size/alignment configuration, with better tires.  Interesting discussion of void vs tread area of the OEM tires, but that train may have left the station - you're just not going to duplicate that dynamic because tires today are better in general and nobody is producing an OEM-developed tire for the car with a certain ratio of void to tread.

    Wheel size - the original small wheels and narrow tires were selected to keep unsprung weight down for sure, but probably also to enable them to keep the steering manual - wider fronts are going to complicate that for sure.  Modern forged wheels would enable going to a larger size while keeping weight in check, but more width is more width.

    Interesting that in addition to the tires recommended so far, my old friend the GS-D3 Goodyears have quite a following among NSX owners.  I have experience with this tire and feel it's a great street tire, although I have no experience with it on anything remotely similar to an NSX.

    Shock condition should also be checked as stated by huyracing, and there are certainly better shocks available now, along with any bushings.  Springs?  I dunno - looks like the cars sits OK, but it should be weighed at all 4 corners to be sure there is not a bad actor hiding there.

    For the brakes, maybe checking some contemporary road tests and getting some stopping distances would help for a start - if what IL is getting is significantly worse than what the car was doing new, then what they are experiencing with this car today is not just a characteristic of 1991 NSX braking capability.  Braided steel lines are probably going to help no matter what, because I can't believe that 21-year-old rubber lines are going to transmit hydraulic pressure that well.

    Final thought...forget all the talk about the car being an exotic - what it SHOULD have been compared to in this test is a new Cayman S, not an R8.  The parallels in size, configuration, engine size, weight, performance envelope etc. are too obvious to ignore.

    And what IL should get to replace their LT 911 is a Cayman S from about 2007.  For about $33k, like the NSX was.  Then do another comparison...

    ba27 says:

    05:56 AM, 01/19/2012

    Last comment for church:

    Not a strawman argument:  

    Quote from you:

    "....Cause you don't want to spend $100k+ (in today's dollars) for a sports car and get smoked by a Mustang. "

    Again, nobody who's in the market for an R8 (or indeed was in the market for an NSX when it was available) cares/cared that some muscle/pony cars were quicker in certain situations.  If they cared, they'd buy the fastest car they could for the same money.

    The fact that you've run into some idiot exotic/sports car owners doesn't mean that all owners act that way.  Nor does the fact that some muscle-car owners are idiots prove that all of that group of drivers are idiots.

    There are several cars I could have purchased that are quicker than my S4, yet cost less.  I wasn't interested in any of them because they don't offer the same overall experience.

    huyracing says:

    10:19 PM, 01/18/2012

    brakes on the NSX are an interesting thing... they may not provide the best 60-0 stop, but they can outbrake others say on a track setting. stock brakes will hold up fine for track duty with well chosen upgraded pads, stainless steel braided lines, racing fluid... and stopping distances measured should improve as well.

    wheels and tires make a big difference on this car. uprating it to 02+ specs makes a big difference and eliminates some of the guess work. NSX-R, NSX-R GT, and many NSX Time Attack cars in Japan run this set-up. 215/40/17 and 255/40/17. good tires please! Dunlop Star Specs, Advan AD08, or Falken RT615's. replacing the 20 year old shocks/ springs might be a good thing to do, then get it aligned to your preferences. There are sway bars and such out there... again, you can go with what Honda engineered... if you chose NSX-R suspension, then there is also a front sway bar and chassis bracing that went along with it... if you chose a Type-S suspension, there is a rear sway bar that goes along with it. if you went aftermarket, it needs to be set up properly.

    the power to weight can be adequately improved. with intake, headers, exhaust, ecu tune... you can probably make 270whp and people are getting their cars down to the 2700 lb range. matching the R8's acceleration is totally possible... even exceeding it.

    the NSX is a special car, but as with anything it just takes well chosen parts and proper set-up to work... you can bench race and talk about it all day and it will get you nowhere, but jumping in the car and driving will quickly tell you what you need to know.

    Sort By:

    Close

    Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter Share on Twitter

    Advertisement

    Tags

    Specs & Performance

    Vehicle
    Model year1991
    MakeAcura
    ModelNSX
    Base MSRP$60,600 (when new in 1991); $33,000 (purchased used)
    Options on test vehicleNone
    As-tested MSRP$60,600 (when new in 1991); $33,000 (purchased used)
    Drivetrain
    Drive typeTransverse, midengine, rear-wheel drive
    Engine typeNaturally aspirated V6, gasoline
    Displacement (cc/cu-in)2,977/181.6
    Block/head materialAluminum with iron cylinder liners/aluminum
    ValvetrainDOHC variable intake + exhaust-valve timing and lift
    Compression ratio (x:1)10.2
    Redline (rpm)8,000
    Horsepower (hp @ rpm)270 @ 7,100
    Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)210 @ 5,300
    Fuel type91 octane recommended
    Transmission typeFive-speed manual with console shifter
    Transmission and axle ratios (x:1)I=3.071; II=1.727; III=1.230; IV=0.967; V=0.771; Reverse=3.186; Final=4.062
    Chassis
    Suspension, frontIndependent double wishbones, coil springs, stabilizer bar
    Suspension, rearIndependent double wishbone, coil springs, stabilizer bar
    Steering typeUnassisted, variable-ratio, rack-and-pinion steering
    Steering ratio (x:1)18.2 to 20.8
    Turning circle (ft.)38.2
    Tire brandBridgestone
    Tire modelPotenza RE730
    Tire typeSummer
    Tire size, front205/50 ZR15
    Tire size, rear225/50 ZR16
    Wheel size15-by-6.5 inches front --16-by-8 inches rear
    Wheel materialForged aluminum
    Brakes, front11.1-inch ventilated
    Brakes, rear11.1-inch ventilated
    Track Test Results
    Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.)2.1
    0-45 mph (sec.)3.4
    0-60 mph (sec.)5.6
    0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.)5.3
    0-75 mph (sec.)7.7
    1/4-mile (sec. @ mph)13.7 @ 102.0
    Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.)33
    60-0 mph (ft.)131
    Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph)69.3
    Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g)0.88
    Sound level @ idle (dB)46.8
    @ Full throttle (dB)89.6
    @ 70 mph cruise (dB)71.2
    Test Driver Ratings & Comments
    Acceleration commentsStrong clutch despite high engagement. Needs about 4,000 rpm for effective launch. More rpm equals more wheelspin. Only made a few runs to avoid damaging old clutch. There might be a slightly quicker launch if we were willing to risk the clutch.
    Braking ratingGood
    Braking commentsWeak brakes. Could easily overwhelm them with this car's power and weight. Makes me wonder what they were like when new.
    Handling commentsSkid pad: Balance leans heavily toward understeer. All over the front tires here. Esc only steps in when sliding, which you really shouldn't do in this test anyway. Steering is communicative enough to know what's going on, but I wouldn't want to fix a big slide. Slalom: It seems important to keep this car below its limits. Although it's well behaved, exceeding its grip limits seems like it would be hard to recover -- especially considering the heavy steering and old tires.
    Testing Conditions
    Elevation (ft.)1,020
    Temperature (°F)66.4
    Relative humidity (%)29.1
    Wind (mph, direction)1.75
    Fuel Consumption
    EPA fuel economy (mpg)16 mpg city/22 mpg highway/18 mpg combined (current testing procedure)
    Edmunds observed (mpg)20.1
    Dimensions & Capacities
    Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.)3,010
    Curb weight, as tested (lbs.)3,010
    Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%)41/59
    Length (in.)173.4
    Width (in.)71.3
    Height (in.)46.1
    Wheelbase (in.)99.6
    Track, front (in.)59.4
    Track, rear (in.)60.4
    Legroom, front (in.)44.3
    Headroom, front (in.)36.3
    Shoulder room, front (in.)52.5
    Seating capacity2
    Cargo volume (cu-ft)5
    Safety
    Tire-pressure monitoring systemNone
    CollapseSpecs and Performance Expand Collapse

    Specs & Performance

    Vehicle
    Year Make Model2012 Audi R8 4.2 Quattro 2dr Coupe AWD (4.2L 8cyl 6M)
    Vehicle TypeAWD 2dr 2-passenger Coupe
    Base MSRP$115,450
    Options on test vehiclePiano Black ($1,640); Audi Navigation System Plus With Audi Music Interface ($2,200 -- includes Audi music interface with iPhone/iPod integration and Audi navigation system with color LCD screen, 40GB hard drive, SD card slots for MP3 music, nVidia graphics chip, 3-D topography, real-time traffic audible route guidance and graphics and voice control [replaces standard navigation system with six-disc CD changer]); Convenience Package ($2,100 -- includes Audi parking system with front and rear sensors and rearview camera, Audi hill holder assist, auto-dimming power-adjustable, power-folding and heated exterior mirrors, storage package including nets on driver and passenger backrests, luggage securing net on storage surface behind the seats and folding compartments under seats); Bang & Olufsen Sound System ($1,800 -- includes Bang & Olufsen premium sound system with 12 speakers and 465 watts output); Oxygen Silver Sideblade ($1,000); Illuminated Door Sill Inserts ($875); Phantom Black Pearl Paint ($650).
    As-tested MSRP$128,715
    Assembly locationNeckarsulm, Germany
    North American parts content (%)1
    Drivetrain
    ConfigurationLongitudinal, midengine, all-wheel drive
    Engine typeNaturally aspirated V8, gasoline
    Displacement (cc/cu-in)4,163/254
    Block/head materialAluminum/aluminum
    ValvetrainDouble overhead camshaft
    Compression ratio (x:1)12.5
    Redline, indicated (rpm)8,500
    Horsepower (hp @ rpm)430 @ 7,900
    Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)316 @ 4,500-6,000
    Fuel typePremium unleaded (required)
    Transmission typeSix-speed manual
    Transmission ratios (x:1)I = 4.373; II = 2.709; III = 1.878; IV = 1.411; V = 1.126; VI = 0.928
    Final-drive ratio (x:1)3.462
    Differential(s)Electronically locking hypoid gear front, viscous clutch center and electronically locking hypoid gear rear
    Chassis
    Suspension, frontDouble wishbone
    Suspension, rearDouble wishbone
    Steering typeHydraulic assist speed-proportional power steering
    Steering ratio (x:1)17.3
    Turning circle (ft.)38.7
    Tire make and modelPirelli P Zero
    Tire typeAssymetrical summer performance front and rear
    Tire size, front235/35R19 (91Y)
    Tire size, rear295/30R19 (100Y)
    Wheel size, front19-by-8.5 inches
    Wheel size, rear19-by-11 inches rear
    Wheel materialAlloy
    Brakes, front14.4-inch ventilated disc with 8-piston fixed calipers
    Brakes, rear14-inch ventilated disc with 4-piston fixed calipers
    Track Test Results
    Acceleration, 0-30 mph (sec.)1.7
    0-45 mph (sec.)3.2
    0-60 mph (sec.)4.5
    0-60 with 1 foot of rollout (sec.)4.3
    0-75 mph (sec.)6.7
    1/4-mile (sec. @ mph)12.8 @ 110.1
    0-45 mph, trac ON (sec.)3.6
    0-60 mph, trac ON (sec.)4.9
    0-60, trac ON with 1 foot of rollout (sec.)4.7
    0-75 mph, trac ON (sec.)7.2
    1/4-mile, trac ON (sec. @ mph)13.3 @ 108.6
    Braking, 30-0 mph (ft.)28
    60-0 mph (ft.)105
    Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph)72.1
    Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) ESC ON70.9
    Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g)0.97
    Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) ESC ON0.98
    Sound level @ idle (dB)51.0
    @ Full throttle (dB)81.4
    @ 70 mph cruise (dB)69.8
    @ 70 mph top down (dB)2,900
    Test Driver Ratings & Comments
    Acceleration commentsHard to get a confident launch as there's always some bog. Gated shifter feels good and inspires confidence. Engine revs immediately and sounds awesome. An incredible powertrain: durable, powerful and able to balance the chassis.
    Braking commentsImmediate, consistent and solid braking response.
    Handling commentsSkid pad: Light steering makes this thing quite an adjustment vs. heavier NSX steering. Must slow down inputs and meter steering effort carefully. Doesn't work front tires as hard as NSX. Slalom: Holy moly this thing changes direction rapidly - like night and day vs. the NSX. Still, it manages to be stable and controllable when its limits are reached. ESC will punish if you're not smooth enough.
    Testing Conditions
    Test date11/22/2011
    Test locationCalifornia Speedway
    Elevation (ft.)1,121
    Temperature (°F)54.3
    Relative humidity (%)29.8
    Barometric pressure (in. Hg)75.3
    Wind (mph, direction)0.9
    Odometer (mi.)1,386
    Fuel used for testPremium unleaded
    As-tested tire pressures, f/r (psi)45/41
    Fuel Consumption
    EPA fuel economy (mpg)11 city/20 highway/14 combined
    Fuel tank capacity (U.S. gal.)23.8
    Driving range (mi.)476
    Dimensions & Capacities
    Curb weight, mfr. claim (lbs.)3,605
    Curb weight, as tested (lbs.)3,621
    Weight distribution, as tested, f/r (%)43.7/54.3
    Length (in.)174.6
    Width (in.)76.0
    Height (in.)49.3
    Wheelbase (in.)104.3
    Track, front (in.)64.5
    Track, rear (in.)62.8
    Headroom, front (in.)38.1
    Shoulder room, front (in.)54.8
    Seating capacity2
    Trunk volume (cu-ft)3.53
    Ground clearance (in.)4.3
    Warranty
    Bumper-to-bumper4 years/50,000 miles
    Powertrain4 years/50,000 miles
    Corrosion12 years/Unlimited miles
    Roadside assistance4 years/Unlimited miles
    Free scheduled maintenance1 year/5,000 miles
    CollapseSpecs and Performance Expand Collapse

    Advertisement