8th place..... entire article here: 2016 Motor Trend Best Driver's Car - Motor Trend

1st -2016 McLaren 570S
2nd -2016 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350R
3rd -2017 Porsche 911 Carrera S
4th -2017 Chevrolet Camaro SS (1LE)
5th -2016 Dodge Viper ACR
6th -2016 Mercedes-AMG GT S
7th -2017 Audi R8 V10 (Plus)
8th -2017 Acura NSX
9th -2017 Jaguar F-Type SVR
10th -2017 Nissan GT-R
11th -2016 BMW M4 GTS
12th -2017 Aston Martin V12 Vantage S

-----

8TH PLACE: 2017 ACURA NSX

PROOF THERE’S MORE TO A SUPERCAR THAN SUPER TECHNOLOGY

Perhaps no car in this year’s Best Driver’s Car lineup piqued more interest than the new Acura NSX. A hybrid powertrain with three electric motors. Active all-wheel drive with torque vectoring. Nine-speed dual-clutch transmission. More than 25 years after they shamed Ferrari, could Honda engineers do it all over again?

The short answer is, nope. Although technically interesting, visually arresting, and suitably fast, the 2017 Acura NSX isn’t a game changer. If it causes raised eyebrows in Maranello, it’ll be because the Ferrari guys, like us, were perhaps expecting all that technology to deliver more.

“Most of my drive … was spent eagerly waiting for the ‘aha!’ moment when I’d clearly comprehend what Acura’s new-age ‘new sports experience’ was,” Kong said. “There were no eurekas found, though.”

Nothing but the name leads me to believe it’s the successor to one of the most important sports cars in history.

Best Driver’s Car isn’t a numbers game, but the numbers provide useful context for a newcomer like the NSX. Against the other contenders, it recorded the fourth quickest 0-60 and quarter-mile times and tied for third in the 0-100-0-mph test: 3.1 seconds, 11.3 seconds, and 10.9 seconds, respectively. But it was only sixth fastest around Mazda Raceway Laguna Seca, more than two-tenths of a second behind the Shelby GT350R, a car with a DIY six-speed manual and performance technology old Carroll Shelby would have found familiar, and less than a tenth ahead of the less powerful two-wheel-drive Porsche 911.

Where’d the speed go? “The NSX is very sensitive on corner entry to weight management,” explained Pobst. “If I leave the weight forward, leave the weight on the nose a little too long on the way into the corner through trail braking, I get an entry oversteer that stays.” For Walton that translated to sideways fun for the cameras: “The car drifts like it was set up to do it: a slight flick, jump out of the throttle, then roll back on hard, but not to the floor.” But sideways is slow.

“The torque-vectoring front end should have completely redefined how a mid-engine supercar handles,” Cammisa said. “It does no such thing.” Instead, the NSX forces you to redefine your driving style. You have to learn to brake early and in a straight line to keep the rear end under control and then use a modicum of power to get the electrically driven front wheels to help you through the turn before rolling on the throttle. Finding the right balance is tricky, not helped by the numb steering and initial lack of bite from the carbon-ceramic brakes.

Where the NSX does shine is its talent at using torque-fill to emulate the response of a naturally aspirated engine. The integration between the electric motors and an internal combustion engine is as seamless as the shifts from the nine-speed transmission.

Driven with intent on a quiet, twisting two-lane, in Track mode, and while manually shifting the transmission, the NSX is deceptively, impressively fast.

But there’s always a part of your brain trying to figure out how to get around the artificially induced foibles in the handling, always trying to out-think the car. That makes the Acura NSX weirdly involving to drive. But not Best Driver’s Car. — Angus MacKenzie

I would say this isn't too bad for Acura's first go at the NSX in a long time, and they said what we get now is only the beginning, meanwhile almost every brand on this list has had time to fine tune, refine, etc. Give it time and the NSX just might shoot itself up the ranks. At least it isn't last.

So where the NSX needs more work is the torque-vectoring front end and corner entries. That doesn't sound too bad and the NSX is supposed to be a Halo car so updates and adjustments will definitely be made in future models.

Why does it seem a bit slow int he straight between 5 and 6 compared to 6 and 7 which is shorter?

Because of weight which affects corner exits whether into long or shorter straights. We all know it's heavier than what it should have been. A delta of over 600 lbs in curb weight isn't minor... albeit the 570S has a carbon fiber tub but the NSX is still over that middleweight class.

The entry speeds are completely different so you have to expect the speed difference. That being said, I think people just had way too high of an expectation for what the NSX really is. That seems to be the big issue.

For those reasons i'm looking forward to seeing what the Type R version has going on. They just can't stick to doing the regular Type R things they've always done. Now Type R needs to be along the lines of the difference between a 911 and a 911 GT3, maybe the GT3 RS... but that might be asking for too much.

I thought the McLaren lack grip and stability without aero aids. How did it win?

Why not? I did. For a price tag easily north of 150k... I expected it to at least match or perhaps even beat the performance metrics of its competitors.

It puts power down very well... great balance and track-worthy chassis. When I test drove one, after driving a Huracan, I immediately felt how nimble and easy to drive the 570S was... slow or fast. It's really a very fine sports car... RWD too! Amazing. The 570S is still one of my favorite entry-level supercar.

I meant performance wise. Do I think it's overpriced, yes. But, you have to think beyond what it is on the track. Look at the luxuries, technology, etc. You're paying for a complete package, not a track time. If you want to look at it vs. it's competitors, take it to a different motorsport and see how it performed in the last edition of the worlds greatest drag race. Step over to it's performance at Pikes Peak.

I hear you... but that's not what I expected. Pike's peak isn't the only telltale metric and neither is M/T's BDC nor CD's Lightning Laps. I can see it now... excuses will start to roll out. The car was benchmarked against high-performance sporsts cars and supercars... in short I also feel it's over-hyped yet a bit under-achieved let alone overpriced. I like the car especially the design but that's still my subjective opinion and I'm also looking at it objectively so I don't think that I'm off base here. Like I said before the biggest Achilles' heel is the dang weight. Huge factor at this caliber and it doesn't take track results to realize that.