2016, er, 2017 Acura NSX aimed at Ferrari 458 for the price of Audi R8
10-17-2017, 05:56 AM
#2271
And I called it before they went on sale.
The following users liked this post:
TommyDeVito (10-26-2017)
10-17-2017, 07:18 AM
#2272
10-17-2017, 08:01 AM
#2273
I feel like I've said this before, but I do wonder at what point a used '17 will be worth less than a clean '05 NSX. What was the most recent Zanardi sold for? Saw one last weekend at a car show.
$80k in 3yrs is possible, although I don't think it'll fall that far, that fast unless Honda comes out with better versions. That's what happened with the AMG GT S and now you can get a '16 under $100k vs. orig. MSRP over $150k.
10-17-2017, 09:43 AM
#2274
- Honda sold 21 NSX in Aug 2017 and 22 in Aug 2016
- Nissan sold 32 GTR in Sept 2017 and 82 in Sept 2016
- Audi sold 75 R8 in Jun 2017 and 72 in Jun 2016
- Porsche sold 532 911 in Sept 2017 and 465 in Sept 2017
Consider the price range and made by Honda/Acura without the name recognition and prestige as a Porsche/Lambo/Ferrari/etc. I don't think the sales numbers are all that low for a $150k+ car. Now they just need to update the civic-like interior and it will be a nice halo car. Not very Honda like, but you can't deny its performance.
*source:
American Honda Reports August 2017 Auto Sales - Honda News
https://media.audiusa.com/en-us/releases/174
Nissan Group reports September 2017 U.S. sales - U.S. Sales Reports - Nissan Online Newsroom
Porsche Reports September 2017 Sales of 5,059 Units
10-17-2017, 01:25 PM
#2275
A flop according to who? I wouldn't call this a flop because you don't know what Honda's sales projection was before the car was launched. Now, a little google I found the sales numbers* for NA:
- Honda sold 21 NSX in Aug 2017 and 22 in Aug 2016
- Nissan sold 32 GTR in Sept 2017 and 82 in Sept 2016
10-17-2017, 02:02 PM
#2276
GT-R is way cheaper than the NSX. While they may compete in performance, they don't compete in class. GT-R is more of a Z06 or Viper competitor, when it comes to purchasing dollars.
The following users liked this post:
mosesbotbol (10-18-2017)
10-17-2017, 05:23 PM
#2277
In the early 90's they were selling these by the thousand Acura NSX US car sales figures
1991 $80k = $143k in todays Monday.
It's a flop guys.
I did lose the bet. It did win the lap time bet Jon. It still hasn't posted a ring time and even C&D said the performance to GTR was the same. Either way, it might eek out the 10 year old GTR by a second on a short course but it's not twice as much car. Go on about the interior all you want, it has a steering wheel and gear shifter from a TLX. It's almost parts bin.
1991 $80k = $143k in todays Monday.
It's a flop guys.
I did lose the bet. It did win the lap time bet Jon. It still hasn't posted a ring time and even C&D said the performance to GTR was the same. Either way, it might eek out the 10 year old GTR by a second on a short course but it's not twice as much car. Go on about the interior all you want, it has a steering wheel and gear shifter from a TLX. It's almost parts bin.
10-17-2017, 06:19 PM
#2278
In the early 90's they were selling these by the thousand Acura NSX US car sales figures
1991 $80k = $143k in todays Monday.
It's a flop guys.
1991 $80k = $143k in todays Monday.
It's a flop guys.
Interesting to think that the old NSX was in such a similar situation compared to the top Nissan at the time, which was the 300ZX. Again, the NSX cost ~50-60% more, and performed about the same, maybe ever so slightly better. Same complaints (kind of Honda-ish interior, only a V6, expensive for the performance) but the old one sold a lot more (at least initially, as it fell off after the first couple of years and the incremental changes didn't really help).
I think the difference is because of the competition at the upper end. In the early '90s, you basically had the Ferrari 348 (kinda crap and slower) and 964 Turbo (challenging handling, not the luxo-cruise-missile the current 911 Turbo is). That was basically it, except maybe the Viper and C4 ZR-1 which were pretty crude. No Lambo (except at 4x the price), McLaren, Audi R8, Mercedes AMG GT. Hell, no 911 GT3 either - not saying they compete directly, but just another option.
Back in '91, the $60k the NSX cost couldn't also buy you a pretty much equally-awesome McLaren, R8, AMG GT, 911 Turbo, and you also couldn't spend more and get an amazing car like a 488 or Huracan, or spend less and get a ridiculous yet livable Z06 or an all-rounder like a 911 S. That's why the new one isn't selling. Sure it's interesting with the hybrid stuff, but unless that captivates you, you have so many options these days.
10-18-2017, 06:14 AM
#2279
You had a lot less options when the original NSX came out. Comparing the new NSX sales figures to the old one doesn't make sense. It would be like comparing the today's iPhone sales number vs the original iPhone that came out 10 years ago.
The market has completely changed in the $100k+ car category. Not only you have cars like NSX, GTR, R8, 911 etc. which are more performance orientated but also have to compete with high-end luxury cars like S-Class Coupe, RS/S7, LC500, Tesla, etc. which are all $100k+. It is definitely not selling like hot cakes but its unfair to call it a flop.
10-19-2017, 01:02 PM
#2280
When the original NSX came out, there weren't as many competitors. There were no Audi supercar, no McLaren that is in the $100-$200k range, etc. The other cars back then also had many issues that made them not very user-friendly. The original NSX was also priced relatively cheaper at USD$60k due to the strong Japanese economy. $60k USD in 1991 is the same as $110k USD in 2017.
As such, the NSX was quite successful early on. The Japanese economy tanked in the early 90's though, and with the unfavorable currency exchange rate, by 1994, the NSX already had its MSRP increased to $77k, which is around $130k USD, for pretty much the same car. Many Japanese sports cars suffered the same fate, like the 300ZX, Supra, and RX-7. They were bargains when they first came out, but the weakening Japanese economy caused the MSRP to balloon for these cars.
For the new NSX, I personally feel the $150k base price is alright. The problem is that it can be optioned to over $200k. To be more specific, these options, other than the Trofeo R tires and PCCB brakes, don't improve performance at all. Heck, I'd imagine a NSX with steel brakes would probably perform similarly to one with the PCCB. It's just that the PCCB version would stop many times more before the brakes start fading. And unfortunately, dealerships are most of the time greedy, As such, they would order NSX's that are pretty much fully loaded at $200k. For $200k, people have more options, and so these $200k NSX's sit in the showroom. That would then have a domino effect on the whole NSX model, whether it's a loaded car or a base car.
As such, the NSX was quite successful early on. The Japanese economy tanked in the early 90's though, and with the unfavorable currency exchange rate, by 1994, the NSX already had its MSRP increased to $77k, which is around $130k USD, for pretty much the same car. Many Japanese sports cars suffered the same fate, like the 300ZX, Supra, and RX-7. They were bargains when they first came out, but the weakening Japanese economy caused the MSRP to balloon for these cars.
For the new NSX, I personally feel the $150k base price is alright. The problem is that it can be optioned to over $200k. To be more specific, these options, other than the Trofeo R tires and PCCB brakes, don't improve performance at all. Heck, I'd imagine a NSX with steel brakes would probably perform similarly to one with the PCCB. It's just that the PCCB version would stop many times more before the brakes start fading. And unfortunately, dealerships are most of the time greedy, As such, they would order NSX's that are pretty much fully loaded at $200k. For $200k, people have more options, and so these $200k NSX's sit in the showroom. That would then have a domino effect on the whole NSX model, whether it's a loaded car or a base car.