NSX Sales

ManhattanM (fka NY535iManual) said:

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. 

Sort of sounds like their strategy for the ridge line which was building a truck for people that currently ave a Honda and would like a second vehicle rather then going after sales from different manufacturers etc.

In reply to The0retical :

See also the new supra.

STM317 said:

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

I was just about to type this.  I'll add that while it's a great car to drive and the technology is fascinating it doesn't drive any better than anything else in its class and it's kind of soulless. 

Has anyone mentioned how ugly and boring the car looks yet?

:)

I think it's less about badge snobbery and more about it missing the mark and there being many incredible cars in that price range.  

Quite simply, being the Honda of supercars doesn't mean what it used to.

The0retical said:

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.

I'd still drop half a milly on an LFA 

In reply to The0retical :

That's what happened to the Delorian.  The Meh was strong with that one.

I haven’t driven an NSX but I have driven the other hybrid supercar that has been mentioned several times in this thread, the i8.  And my impression from it was a resounding “meh” to drive.  It was at an autocross and was slower than an I prepped NC while being frustrating to drive as there was a nasty amount of lag in the drive-by-wire.  The NSX May be better but as TG has pointed out many times, supercars need to be a bit dangerous.  And viscerally thrilling.  BMW missed badly with the i8, maybe Honda did as well.

off to look at pictures of NSX........I think I saw one of these in town the other day, thought is was a corvette.  Meh.

Unlike the new Lamborghini Urus, I've found that the new NSX looks a little better in the flesh than in photos.  It still wouldn't make my lottery list, though -- there are too many other great options these days.

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

I haven’t driven an NSX but I have driven the other hybrid supercar that has been mentioned several times in this thread, the i8.  And my impression from it was a resounding “meh” to drive.  It was at an autocross and was slower than an I prepped NC while being frustrating to drive as there was a nasty amount of lag in the drive-by-wire.  The NSX May be better but as TG has pointed out many times, supercars need to be a bit dangerous.  And viscerally thrilling.  BMW missed badly with the i8, maybe Honda did as well.

I've driven the NSX on the north course at Autobahn and it's a great car to drive.  The computers do an excellent job of deciding which of the four power sources should be putting down power and it makes interesting noises as the big electric motors in the front do their thing but it's no more engaging to drive than any conventional supercar that I've driven.  It's also lacking the visceral feel and sound of the truly good ones.

pushrod36 said:

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

Did the original really cast a huge shadow at the time? I remember it being a car that the journalists loved and the public went oh hey is that a Ferrari 348 over there? It only became an icon later to a generation that grew up on Japanese performance.

It's not really the return at a legend, it's a second shot at trying to make one happen and that's hard to do if you don't back it up with something. Pagani has the drama and the detailing, the new Ford GT has Le Mans and a totally different take on the supercar concept, Konisegg went the "let's just make something insanely fast" route and Honda said "here's something that's sort of like an Accord Hybrid that got sat on".

None of the supercars really do anything for me personally, possibly because of what I get to play with on a regular basis. My lottery money would probably go to something like a 911 GT3 RS becase of the level of engineering involved, or a Donohue Camaro replica for the same reason. But the NSX leaves me particularly cold even though I've driven an original.

pres589 said:

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.

I agree. If they've only sold 5, that's pretty amazing since there is one around here that I've seen twice. I mean, it's definitely cool. But it looks pretty much like ever other supercar out there, except not as cool as those other ones and yes, without the badge bump.  Tell the non-car friends you have a Ferrari, they are all impressed. Tell your non-car friends you have an Acura NSX and they're picturing some kind of FWD sedan, or at best "that car that replaced the Integra." For people spending 160k on a car, I imagine that kind of thing actually matters.....not that their 160k car is "more reliable." People with that kind of money have other "reliable" cars to daily drive - or at least they have a good mechanic and several unreliable expensive cars :)

. If I had 160k sitting around, the NSX would not be very high on my list, personally. The original NSX stood apart visually from everything else out there. This one is awsome in a pretty boring way (or boring in an awesome way). 

Meanwhile, Acura could probably make a pretty awesome $50k sportscar (like, an adult-looking one for those who wouldn't be caught dead driving the silly Civic R) and sell a billion of them to the former Civic Si fanbois, who didn't all grow up and get jobs making $500k.....Make it the spiritual successor to the S2000 or something, IDK....

The original nsx May have been a Ferrari knock off in a way styling wise but at least it had proper sports car or super car styling. Granted away from the nose on the current nsx is better but clearly Honda feels that all their sports cars now need a sedan type front end.

KyAllroad (Jeremy) said:

I haven’t driven an NSX but I have driven the other hybrid supercar that has been mentioned several times in this thread, the i8.  And my impression from it was a resounding “meh” to drive.  It was at an autocross and was slower than an I prepped NC while being frustrating to drive as there was a nasty amount of lag in the drive-by-wire.  The NSX May be better but as TG has pointed out many times, supercars need to be a bit dangerous.  And viscerally thrilling.  BMW missed badly with the i8, maybe Honda did as well.

Bruh, autocross isn't a fair place the rate that car. I drove one on the street and it was awesome. Autocross impressions doesn't really mean E36 M3 to me with some cars. I mean a persons opinion of a miata on the Autobahn means just as much. i8 wasn't meant to be a cone dodger, try it in its natural habitat. 

Based on posts on s2ki (S2000 forum), I think all the grown up Honda fanboys bought GT3s and GT4s.  I know which I'd spend my money on.  

The0retical said:

I think it's long past time to cull some marketing/design people that insist on the "corporate grill"

That belongs in the magazine!

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' 

Isn't that like 75% of the point.  It's the pointy end of the car world, so you want to be the point.  

ManhattanM (fka NY535iManual) said:

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. 

This is where I landed, exactly. I have a 911 turbo now. The old NSX was pretty neat but the new NSX really left me cold.

If they had done the high revving Honda NA V10 and an excellent aluminum or good carbon chassis with a decent transmission I would have gone for it. And it would have cost them tremendously less, left chills on more spines, and sold far more Civic type Rs. 

Also I wonder if the Ford GT would have flopped if they had tried to sell a large number of them. Honda could have just underproduced to cause demand to meet their price and improve perceptions. 

I don’t know if you can anymore but for a while they were putting $30k on the hood plus whatever you could negotiate, so they actually made a lot of sense as a lease since they’d compete with a base 911 and only cost slightly more than a loaded M4. But they weren’t about to advertise that.

turtl631 said:

Based on posts on s2ki (S2000 forum), I think all the grown up Honda fanboys bought GT3s and GT4s.  I know which I'd spend my money on.  

Lol I came from S2ki as well - you have that pegged perfectly. A GT4 or GT3 were my plan until I decided to do a race car - an old Boxster is a lot more affordable for that. My motor popped so I’m glad I didn’t go any more exotic than a wonderfully balanced hairdresser’s car! ($3k on eBay bought a replacement motor that will be going in the car shortly.) The Porsche sports car lineup offers just about everything people loved about the S2000 except scaled up to a higher level of cost and performance. Used ones are fine for those who didn’t have their incomes jump very far.

If my vague memories of numbers are correct, didn't the old NSX sell for about twice the price of a standard Corvette?  $30,000 vs $60,000? If that's so, I'd imagine sales would be far betterif the new NSX was just North of  $100,000.

ManhattanM (fka NY535iManual) said:

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. 

There are plenty of use out there. But we did not want a hybrid. Simple as that. We wanted a mondern take on the old car. High RPM, low weight and ease to live with daily for a supercar. But Audi really took there lunch with the R8 and now there i just way to much cool stuff out there at that price point.

Having said that with a 30-35K discount off of MSRP they sell pretty well.

The thing is (IMO), Honda is used to being able to charge a lot for their specialty vehicles "because it is a Honda (Acura). Witness Ridgeline and Odyssey prices. They engineer the living crap out of stuff, and some people will pay for that. Admittedly, they do seem to have fallen on their collective face here.