2016, er, 2017 Acura NSX aimed at Ferrari 458 for the price of Audi R8
10-20-2017, 10:44 AM
#2281
I'll say it again, Honda has a hard time competing in the sports arena when the competition is on its A game in that market. You think preludes and integral would be as popular if Nissan brought their sr20det powered cars, or we had early wrxs and evos? They still make a great midsize family sedan and cuvs though.
10-20-2017, 01:59 PM
#2282
In other markets where there were SR20DET powered Nissans and WRXs and Evos, the Civics and Integras were also popular. I'd like to think each of these cars caters to a different group of people and so each car has its own set of "fans." Each of these cars has its own unique character. This is what's so great about Japanese cars back in the days in the 90's. There were so many awesome choices.
10-22-2017, 07:48 AM
#2283
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.
I think the $100-$130k price seems more fitting for their performance levels. You can get a base GTR that performs about the same for that money, and while a few people here will tell you the design and interior are much nicer Acura has never sold a $150-200k sports car before. Another major misstep in the product launch. If you look how the GTR entered the market they raised the price nearly every year with minor improvements. They needed to go for some market share here and get interest. They lost a boat load of money on this program, they should have opted to loose a bit more by getting first year sales volumes up. Then they should bump up the power on both motors for the following year and add 15-20k to the price. Imagine a 550hp TT motor plus 100-150hp electric motor. Improve the 120mph+ setup. After bumping the power the following year should include cabin refinements, plus small power output changes. At any point if they want to make this car more interesting they tune the exhaust so it sounds good.
It's as if the team who launched the NSX designed, managed and launched this product for the first time and in a vacuum. I swear there wasn't a real car person on the team. What I outlined above is not rocket science, nor am I particularly smart. It's product launch 101.
Keep in mind, they had a killer ad program and a sweet product placement. They could have made this a small dunk.
10-22-2017, 09:41 AM
#2284
Registered User
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:
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
- 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
i wonder if the recent sales numbers account for the bigly discounted NSX’s.
The market has spoken.
10-22-2017, 09:42 AM
#2285
Let's put it this way, I was counting my pennies to buy a new NSX. Had it looked exactly the same but had just been a 3,200 lb. (or less) RWD or AWD 450+ hp turboed Honda for $120k or less, I'd have one in my driveway. I have always had a soft spot for Hondas and I'm willing to overpay a substantial premium for a Honda that can perform vs. all of the other cheaper alternatives. But what I'm not willing to pay for is a Honda GT-R, and that's what it turned out to be.
It's easy to bag on the new NSX because it's not as supercarish as, say, a McLaren, nor is it as raw as a GT3, etc. It's likewise easy to sneer at it because it can't hold a candle to a much cheaper Corvette or Viper offering, but that can be said about basically any expensive sports car. While all of that may be valid, what kills me the most is that the Audi TT RS is a 3,200 lb AWD car that runs 11s with little more than the wrong number of cylinders and some boost, all for about $70k. I've long considered Audis and BMWs and the like to be overpriced as performance cars, but even they've found a way to make the NSX seem all the more overpriced.
I'm afraid my favorite manufacturer will never build a car in my lifetime that checks all the boxes. Meanwhile, many other companies do.
It's easy to bag on the new NSX because it's not as supercarish as, say, a McLaren, nor is it as raw as a GT3, etc. It's likewise easy to sneer at it because it can't hold a candle to a much cheaper Corvette or Viper offering, but that can be said about basically any expensive sports car. While all of that may be valid, what kills me the most is that the Audi TT RS is a 3,200 lb AWD car that runs 11s with little more than the wrong number of cylinders and some boost, all for about $70k. I've long considered Audis and BMWs and the like to be overpriced as performance cars, but even they've found a way to make the NSX seem all the more overpriced.
I'm afraid my favorite manufacturer will never build a car in my lifetime that checks all the boxes. Meanwhile, many other companies do.
10-25-2017, 01:07 PM
#2286
I agree competition is certainly a factor but it doesn't explain fully the lack of sales. It was the worst product launch I've seen in my life. Product changed multiple times, was delayed, pricing changed and the product that hit the market wasn't as fun as the prior NSX. When the lead designer said they had taken design inspirations from the original NSX we all fell off our chairs laughing. They look nothing like.
I think the $100-$130k price seems more fitting for their performance levels. You can get a base GTR that performs about the same for that money, and while a few people here will tell you the design and interior are much nicer Acura has never sold a $150-200k sports car before. Another major misstep in the product launch. If you look how the GTR entered the market they raised the price nearly every year with minor improvements. They needed to go for some market share here and get interest. They lost a boat load of money on this program, they should have opted to loose a bit more by getting first year sales volumes up. Then they should bump up the power on both motors for the following year and add 15-20k to the price. Imagine a 550hp TT motor plus 100-150hp electric motor. Improve the 120mph+ setup. After bumping the power the following year should include cabin refinements, plus small power output changes. At any point if they want to make this car more interesting they tune the exhaust so it sounds good.
It's as if the team who launched the NSX designed, managed and launched this product for the first time and in a vacuum. I swear there wasn't a real car person on the team. What I outlined above is not rocket science, nor am I particularly smart. It's product launch 101.
Keep in mind, they had a killer ad program and a sweet product placement. They could have made this a small dunk.
I think the $100-$130k price seems more fitting for their performance levels. You can get a base GTR that performs about the same for that money, and while a few people here will tell you the design and interior are much nicer Acura has never sold a $150-200k sports car before. Another major misstep in the product launch. If you look how the GTR entered the market they raised the price nearly every year with minor improvements. They needed to go for some market share here and get interest. They lost a boat load of money on this program, they should have opted to loose a bit more by getting first year sales volumes up. Then they should bump up the power on both motors for the following year and add 15-20k to the price. Imagine a 550hp TT motor plus 100-150hp electric motor. Improve the 120mph+ setup. After bumping the power the following year should include cabin refinements, plus small power output changes. At any point if they want to make this car more interesting they tune the exhaust so it sounds good.
It's as if the team who launched the NSX designed, managed and launched this product for the first time and in a vacuum. I swear there wasn't a real car person on the team. What I outlined above is not rocket science, nor am I particularly smart. It's product launch 101.
Keep in mind, they had a killer ad program and a sweet product placement. They could have made this a small dunk.
"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."
To add to what I said before, I'd say that the Acura brand does NOT have the same level of brand prestige as McLaren, Porsche, or even Audi, BMW, or Mercedes. For people willing to spend $150k+, they will in general not just look at the performance, but they will also consider the brand image. Acura has always been seen as a non-tier 1 luxury brand name, there's a huge price gap between the NSX and its flagship, the RLX. It's like the NSX doesn't even belong to Acura. I think this is more or less in line with what you are saying. That out of nowhere, Acura has this $150k car, when all of its other cars are like $30-$60k. There's no real connection between the NSX and other Acura models which are pretty much just Honda+ cars.
From what I recall, since the launch of the original NSX concept in 2011/2012, the NSX team had one major change in 2013 which is very involved. That change was mainly the powertrain, and because of this change, many components and designs have to be changed. Is that what you mean by changing many times? This is a big change and so the launch was delayed understandably. After all, we are talking about going from the transversely mounted NA J series V6 for a total output of about 400hp with the hybrid system, to a longitudinally mounted, bespoke turbocharged V6 that is not shared with any other cars, and good for over 570hp combined.
As far as design inspirations, here's what Michelle Christensen said,
When we look at the original NSX, it was very simple and only what needed to be there was there. It was very pure design and driven by the function of the car. At least from a styling standpoint, [the new version] has the same soul. We distilled it down only to what it needs to be. It's serving a functional purpose. It's a supercar, so weight is important, and we had to clean it up visually.
I hear you man. The Nissan GTR is a fantastic supercar. This is especially true when it first came out with its 911 beating performance at like $75k or something. Even though the GTR now starts at $110k, it still packs quite a bit of performance for the money. For sure, if performance is the only thing you are concerned about, the GTR is a better deal than the NSX. However, the GTR isn't a mid-engined machine. The GTR also does not have the same level of ride comfort as the NSX, even though for 2017, Nissan made further improvements for that area.
I had the opportunity over the weekend to drive both the NSX and the R8 V10 Plus on a racetrack. Needless to say, both are very quick cars in the straightaway. My butt dyno can't really feel much of a difference but I'd imagine the R8 has slightly faster acceleration on paper. When it comes to handling though, the NSX really put a big smile on my face. Despite its weight and all the hybrid components, the car actually drives very naturally and intuitively. It certainly didn't feel like I was driving in a video game. I'd have to say this is even more fun to drive on a track than my s2k. My friend also has a NA1 NSX and he was kind enough to let me drive it too since the original NSX has always been my number 1 dream car since childhood. That car was a blast to drive. It's comfortable but also fun to drive. It's got great visibility, a good shifter, you get to sit low, etc. The engine is responsive and pulls linearly to 8000rpm with ease. The steering though is a bit too light despite not having any power steering, and the gear ratios felt a bit too spaced out since it's a 5MT.
Based on my experience, all I can say is that the NA1 NSX, the S2k, the NC1 NSX, they are all different vehicles. I don't think there's much of a point comparing them in terms of fun to drive. For me, each is fun to drive in its own right. My suggestion is, if you can afford it, get all 3 of them. Each would reward you with a unique and fun to drive experience.
10-25-2017, 01:16 PM
#2287
Let's put it this way, I was counting my pennies to buy a new NSX. Had it looked exactly the same but had just been a 3,200 lb. (or less) RWD or AWD 450+ hp turboed Honda for $120k or less, I'd have one in my driveway. I have always had a soft spot for Hondas and I'm willing to overpay a substantial premium for a Honda that can perform vs. all of the other cheaper alternatives. But what I'm not willing to pay for is a Honda GT-R, and that's what it turned out to be.
It's easy to bag on the new NSX because it's not as supercarish as, say, a McLaren, nor is it as raw as a GT3, etc. It's likewise easy to sneer at it because it can't hold a candle to a much cheaper Corvette or Viper offering, but that can be said about basically any expensive sports car. While all of that may be valid, what kills me the most is that the Audi TT RS is a 3,200 lb AWD car that runs 11s with little more than the wrong number of cylinders and some boost, all for about $70k. I've long considered Audis and BMWs and the like to be overpriced as performance cars, but even they've found a way to make the NSX seem all the more overpriced.
I'm afraid my favorite manufacturer will never build a car in my lifetime that checks all the boxes. Meanwhile, many other companies do.
It's easy to bag on the new NSX because it's not as supercarish as, say, a McLaren, nor is it as raw as a GT3, etc. It's likewise easy to sneer at it because it can't hold a candle to a much cheaper Corvette or Viper offering, but that can be said about basically any expensive sports car. While all of that may be valid, what kills me the most is that the Audi TT RS is a 3,200 lb AWD car that runs 11s with little more than the wrong number of cylinders and some boost, all for about $70k. I've long considered Audis and BMWs and the like to be overpriced as performance cars, but even they've found a way to make the NSX seem all the more overpriced.
I'm afraid my favorite manufacturer will never build a car in my lifetime that checks all the boxes. Meanwhile, many other companies do.
And given my experience driving the R8 V10 Plus and NSX, unless the TT RS is much better driving car than the R8, I'm pretty sure the NSX is a much better drive than the TT RS.
This is actually quite interesting because given that this is a S2K forum, I'd imagine most of us here would care more about the driving experience rather than 0-60mph, 1/4 mile, skid pad, and lap time figures.
10-25-2017, 03:21 PM
#2288
People seem to have no problem buying a Ford that costs double, has just as few cylinders, and doesn't even have electric motors. I speak of course of the GT. Oh man do I want one of tbose.
10-25-2017, 05:19 PM
#2289
Registered User
NSX is Amazing
https://www.driving.co.uk/car-review...017-honda-nsx/
Great Article from the Sunday Times about the new NSX.
As some of you know I have one, love it. Don't get the interior criticism, the most comfortable seats I have ever owned and the steering wheel is great. The materials are of excellent quality. My references are Audi, Mercedes, Porsche and due to the great seats the Acura NSX is my favourite interior to be in. I personally like the minimalist approach versus buttons and lots of silver accents.
I just returned from a drive in mine. Performance is outstanding and for the street I can't even use the power it's got.
Someone else was comparing numbers and associating a car's value based on numbers. If you look at the most recent lightning lap in Road and Track the $ 71,000 Camaro ZL1 1LE at 2.45.7 beat the 2017 Porsche Turbo S priced at $ 192,310 which did a 2:46.8. Based on the flawed logic of using performance as the sole measure of value, the Camaro is better and more desirable than the Porsche Turbo S. Well for some, maybe, with no disrespect to the Camaro which is a nice car, I will take the Porsche Turbo S.
Cars are not purely about absolute performance. It's the experience one has driving and the aesthetic appeal that car has to you. I love the look of the car and towards the end of a driving session I am looking for an excuse to go farther and extend my time in the car. This makes it a success for me.
Last but not least I also bought because of my confidence in Acura reliability and their commitment to support me long term. I wanted a beautiful, fast car with great looks and reliability that I enjoy to drive. That is what I got, without the fancy nameplate but my ego can handle that.
Great Article from the Sunday Times about the new NSX.
As some of you know I have one, love it. Don't get the interior criticism, the most comfortable seats I have ever owned and the steering wheel is great. The materials are of excellent quality. My references are Audi, Mercedes, Porsche and due to the great seats the Acura NSX is my favourite interior to be in. I personally like the minimalist approach versus buttons and lots of silver accents.
I just returned from a drive in mine. Performance is outstanding and for the street I can't even use the power it's got.
Someone else was comparing numbers and associating a car's value based on numbers. If you look at the most recent lightning lap in Road and Track the $ 71,000 Camaro ZL1 1LE at 2.45.7 beat the 2017 Porsche Turbo S priced at $ 192,310 which did a 2:46.8. Based on the flawed logic of using performance as the sole measure of value, the Camaro is better and more desirable than the Porsche Turbo S. Well for some, maybe, with no disrespect to the Camaro which is a nice car, I will take the Porsche Turbo S.
Cars are not purely about absolute performance. It's the experience one has driving and the aesthetic appeal that car has to you. I love the look of the car and towards the end of a driving session I am looking for an excuse to go farther and extend my time in the car. This makes it a success for me.
Last but not least I also bought because of my confidence in Acura reliability and their commitment to support me long term. I wanted a beautiful, fast car with great looks and reliability that I enjoy to drive. That is what I got, without the fancy nameplate but my ego can handle that.
10-26-2017, 07:22 AM
#2290
Matt Farah just published a video on One Take. Here's a guy who has driven just about everything including all sorts of modified craziness and he LOVES the new NSX. The powertrain in the NSX is on par with the hypercars, actually I'd say more advanced than the P1, 918, and La Ferrari, for a fraction of the cost. The 918 is the NA engine in the rear and motors on the front. The LaFerrari has a big NA engine with inline electric motor keeping it RWD. The P1 has a twin-turbo V8 with inline electric motor keeping RWD. The NSX has the twin-turbo engine of the P1 with the inline electric motor AND the pair of electric motors at the front like the 918. So basically, the NSX is more advanced than the three existing million dollar hypercars for a fraction of the price.
Farah LOVES the handling of the NSX, probably a lot of it due to some torque vectoring witchcraft going on with the electric motors.
Farah LOVES the handling of the NSX, probably a lot of it due to some torque vectoring witchcraft going on with the electric motors.
The following users liked this post:
JonBoy (10-26-2017)