Remember, guys, it's a Honda. It'll run at the ragged edge of its performance for 200K miles and not blow a gasket or destroy a rod or destroy bearings.

Could they turn up the wick? Yes. Reliably? Probably, at least a moderate amount.

I echo the complaint about the "soft launch". Yes, it'll do 0-60 in 3s flat (best I've seen was 2.9s, I think) and the 1/4 in 11s flat (best I've seen was 10.9s, I think), which is still pretty insanely quick. But to make a splash, you have to do something big. Honda's launch control on the NSX basically does NOTHING to hurt the drivetrain, yet it achieves very quick times. That's good (unstressed components) but it's bad (not substantially better, and in some cases slower, than the competition). If they'd have cranked up the launch control to get 2.5s or something like that, it would've made that splash they needed.

Honda still needs to learn how to market their cars, and also how to approach the market. This car was expected to destroy all comers and, while it's very good, it isn't necessarily clearly ahead in all areas AND it's behind in a few. Expectations were VERY high (unreasonably so, in all probability) and what the heart wants is what the heart wants. Honda's ethos and consumer demand were not aligned, as the sales clearly dictate.

That said, the last time the NSX came out, it faced similar headwinds and history has determined the original to be a classic. I'd bet this one will see similar fanfare, in time.

This car screams of too many chefs in the kitchen. Honda could've made an analog hipo v8 or c6 turbo, make it flat as fast, make it a little cheaper and it would be a hit. Ford is pretty much selling that at a higher price and people love it.

I can't disagree.

Agreed. A turbo V6 only with less weight and less price probably would have sold substantially better.

1. At its price point, the competition are: R8 (faster), 911TT(faster), 570S(faster), MB GT R(faster). Expectations were rightfully "VERY high". The only car the NSX beats is the SL63AMG but that car is a GT, not an outright performance car.
2. It beats the aforementioned car in MPG. 99%of buyers of these cars don't care about MPG.
3. Marketing was good. They got everyone excited with the Seinfeld spot. Then the car came out years later. Timing was a bit off.
4. The last time NSX came out, the only competition was 348, widely considered one of the worse Ferrari ever. There was no headwinds. This time competition is everywhere and quite fierce, the NSX simply was priced wrong.
5. you are very likely right about reliability. However, most of the buyers at this price point place that attribute far below many others.

I recall them benchmarking a 458. That's great and all, but it was pretty shortsighted of them to not recognize that competition would have moved on by the time the car actually comes out. As I said before, they had the tuning headroom to turn up the wick to match, but they didn't.

MPG-wise, they didn't even nail that. It may be better than the majority, but the 911TT is rated 19/24 and NSX is 21/22 with all its hybrid stuff. And you're right - no one cares anyway.
I think this is the biggest point. Nearly everything now is reasonably comfortable, easy to live with, and reliable. You have to do more to stand out. The NSX's hybrid system was novel, but at the end of the day, it only produced roughly equal performance to competitors, just with more weight and complexity. Merely having an interesting approach to the same result isn't enough. Sure, the torque vectoring, electric assist on launch and between shifts, and quiet mode are unique. But IMO that is offset by the others' sound, interiors, sheer performance, lighter weight, badge pedigree, etc.

It may be more reliable as in things won't break or leave you stranded, but the likelihood of it requiring expensive things over the course of ownership is high. Additionally, if this car ever gets in a wreck, it will likely be in a shop for quite some time.

I've said for years that the original NSX benefited from a soft market, much like the S2000 did at its debut, and really all the hondas of the 90s. But as the competition got better, Honda faded away. I'm not Honda hating, I would've loved a K20 powered CRZ, or an AWD 3 door civic type R, or a V6 turbo NSX, but Honda just seems to get in its own way.

having said all that, when/if the NSX depreciates to <100K, I'll seriously take a look.
(fingers crossed)

I previously looked at Gen1 NSX but decided the admission price wasn't worth the performance.

After Soichiro Honda died, Honda began its slow, eventual decline into mediocrity and "playing it safe," in North America at least. Thankfully the Urban EV signals a possible return to form, at least in the EV market.

They went after the wrong market. Should have just built a pure driver's car with superior style, reliability and handling than a 911. Instead they couldn't help themselves.