NSX Sales

http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/acura/acura-nsx/

I seem to recall that they wanted to sell something like 2000/year.  Last month they sold 5.

Everything I've read says it's a great car, but unfortunately badge snobbery still comes into it.  The NSX starts at $160k which is a crowded place to be these days.  The McLaren 570S is about $180k, Hurrican $200, 911 Turbo is $160K, R8 $140K.  It's a crowded market and unlike 1990 it's not head and shoulders above the rest in terms of daily livability and ergonomics.  Hell, it doesn't even have an effective cup holder and as most Super Cars these days get driven to the office on nice days such frippery is essential.  IF the poor sales result in lousy resale then could be a bargain once 10 years old.

And while the badge snobbery could be used against the  $400K+ Ford GT, it simply redefined the category then immediately (actually before the production cars were in peoples hands) went out and won it's biggest race.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

yep.  It's not the only supercar that starts every morning anymore.  And honestly, Acura isn't a newish cool company. Just seems to me like they would have sold a billion of these at 100K. 

Lots of tasty competition in that market--- it's pretty hard to stand out.   The new NSX isn't a dud, but it isn't a gamechanger the way the original was.   It also won't make the valets at Spago stand at attention the way a Ferrari, Ford GT, or even a Bentley would.   For a car in this class----- that sort of silly stuff is important.  

Is it just me or is the new NSX not actually that cool?  It seems so dorky to me.  The original NSX still seems cool and this somehow doesn't.  From certain angles it seems nice but with that vestigial Acura beak on the front and the basically over-done-ness of the styling it seems like it's trying too hard to look exciting.

From a purely spectator viewpoint, I'm not that impressed with it. I'd rather spend 100k on two original NSXs than the 160 for the new one. I think if Acura had been hunting the GTR or Cayman market rather than the Bentley/Hurrican market, we'd be having a different conversation. 

Yeah the new NSX, like the BMW i8, is a gadget for technophiles first and a sports car second. It costs more than the i8, doesn't look as cool, and doesn't have the badge appeal. So it looks like there's not much reward for having the second best car in such a small niche.

This sounds like a conversation for the first world problems thread.  'My ultra cool, ultra reliable super car isn't the coolest super car on sale so the Valet parked me in the back with the Prii' 

grover said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

 And honestly, Acura isn't a newish cool company. Just seems to me like they would have sold a billion of these at 100K. 

Worse, the car is badged as a Honda outside the US.

I always had an optimistic viewpoint on the vehicle and saw it as a 90% of a 918 in terms of technology, but with only 20% of the price tag.  I have never driven one, nor any of it's competitor, and I don't care to.

Maybe it was bound to be a sales dud no matter what it was because the original cast such a huge shadow.

Tom_Spangler said:

grover said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

 And honestly, Acura isn't a newish cool company. Just seems to me like they would have sold a billion of these at 100K. 

Worse, the car is badged as a Honda outside the US.

No.  It is a Honda, here's it's badged as an Acura (Emoticon button is not working Gggrrrr)  And yes, sales are just as dismal over there too.  Total 2018 (Jan - MArch) 20 cars!!!!  See, I told you no one wants cars, just CUV's :)   

I think that Acura has never enjoyed the separation from it's parent brand to the same extent that Lexus/Infiniti have. While Acura's designers have come up with great cars, they haven't consistently generated strong emotional responses in the car-buying public. The "halo" is weak. Put differently, they score low on both the lust and the snob scales. Put yet another way, Acura's like a supermodel who may have a perfectly shaped face and a body that wears clothes well, but men also want some T+A on their women.  

I saw the 'new' NSX in Feb 2013 at the Detroit auto show.  If technology is your platform, it's no spring chicken.

If I were going for low volume sports car mkt, my platform would be build quality and driving experience.  You can get impressive tech for $40k, and there is no profit chasing the bleeding edge at low volumes.

Give me knurled aluminum climate control rings and no LCDs, please.  Make the technology invisible and it won't look dated in 2 years.

grover said:

In reply to Adrian_Thompson :

yep.  It's not the only supercar that starts every morning anymore.  And honestly, Acura isn't a newish cool company. Just seems to me like they would have sold a billion of these at 100K. 

make it a non hybrid they could of

The NSX fell into the same trap as the LFA, the FRS at a lesser price point, and very likely the new Supra.

Announcement: It's coming and going to be awesome!

Enthusiasts: YEA! I'll have money tomorrow for a deposit!

2 years in and 20 car shows later: It's coming and going to be awesome!

Enthusiasts: YAY! I guess.

5 years in, 100 car shows, and 100 press releases later: It's coming and going to be awesome!

Enthusiasts: I mean, I guess it's still cool.

10 years in, 200 car shows, and 1 MM press releases later: It's coming and going to be awesome!

Enthusiasts: God this thing still exists?

Release: It's here and awesome!

Enthusiasts: Meh.

If you're going to release something awesome do it like Ford with the new GT. Just show up, be awesome, and produce it quickly while you can capitalize on the hype.

It doesn't seem to do anything to differentiate itself from the competition or make itself stand out. R8s, Astons, Bentleys, AMGs, ZO6s, 911s, McLarens, etc are a tough field of competitors.

Looks are obviously subjective, and I think it looks good, but not more so than anything else in the $150k+ bracket. 

It's got a lot of tech, but that tech doesn't seem to make it any better than the competition, and you can get similar tech for less in a BMW i8. The tech also becomes obsolete really quickly which hurts a car like this even more than normal.

It performs well enough, but just well enough to stay class competitive. It's not a game changer.

Its a fine car. But it doesn't excel at anything more than the competition and it doesn't elicit enough emotion to make people want to shovel $150-200k into Honda's earnings reports

The $160K price point is "People's Supercar" territory. That demo doesn't want hybrid. The $500K demo isn't as opposed to hybrid.

I love the NSX, but the LFA has more swagger. 

Wasn't one of the neat things about the original NSX that it was a high quality execution of a supercar? Not the fastest, but everything worked, and it drove well?

You can't really differentiate by "actually functioning" any more, and Honda probably isn't the right mfr to get away with doing "the modern supercar without all that tech nonsense".

It may have just failed to hit a sweet spot, or maybe they were between a rock and a hard place with regard to both wanting a halo car that showed off their tech chops and one that actually sold.

Channeling the tiny part of me that still has a shred of supercar-poster-on-the-bedroom-wall, it leaves me colder than most of them these days. I don't know whether it's the actual tech implementation, or the way it gets written about, but while the i8 and 918 seem like clever implementations to allow for short bursts of ludicrous speed, or generally greater peaks to performance without carting around a 1200hp internal combusion engine, the NSX's impression in my head is more about funky electronics that seem like they'll make it drive weirdly.

It's a bunch of conjecture on my part, but maybe similar to some of the thought process making actual potential customers wander off to other makes.

It's not a bad looking car, but it doesn't stand out from others in its class, nor does the performance put it above the others.  For the same money, I know I'd choose something else.  Strange to say super cars is a tough market, but there is a lot of choice these days, and Honda for the most part is pretty good at building bland cars, and the NSX is the poster child for a bland supercar.  

Part of the problem is everyone has seen what the car was for years before they actually put it in production and they hyped it for years anyone remember the super bowl commercial with Seinfeld and Leno that was a few years ago. The car isn’t bad looking but I don’t think putting a regular Acura type face on it was good for a super car.

Adrian_Thompson said:

This sounds like a conversation for the first world problems thread.  'My ultra cool, ultra reliable super car isn't the coolest super car on sale so the Valet parked me in the back with the Prii' 

What's the point of buying a supercar if you don't think it's cool?  I get buying a Corolla and not carrying about cool.  I think my SX4 is cool in very small doses.  They're inexpensive appliances, all told.  

Would Ford sell any GT's if people didn't think they were cool?  Did you ever watch Top Gear?

MotorsportsGordon said:

Part of the problem is everyone has seen what the car was for years before they actually put it in production and they hyped it for years anyone remember the super bowl commercial with Seinfeld and Leno that was a few years ago. The car isn’t bad looking but I don’t think putting a regular Acura type face on it was good for a super car.

The problem is that the drug it out for so long. I remember reading a Popular Science article in the late late 90's as NSX production was winding down about the platforms future being a hybrid system potentially with electric motors in each wheel hub as hybrids were starting to become a thing.

I graduated from High School, College, Grad School, had kids, was changing careers, and buying my second house by the time the new NSX was released. We're talking close to 20 years all for a car that's just like every other super car now days.

If it had come out in the early aughts (10 years into the hype) I bet it would have been ground breaking. These days it's just an also ran. I agree that the beak doesn't help it either. I think it's long past time to cull some marketing/design people that insist on the "corporate grill"

I think the point about sell at $80k less and mass produce them.. that probably would have worked.  But who knows.  

It seems like Honda's  target demographic is 30s/40s professionals who grew up as Honda fanbois but can now afford a $160k  car. I'm not sure that's a sufficiently large pool. 

For my part, if I ever am in a position to spend that much on ONE car, I'm a Porsche turbo buyer all day long. There is no substitute.