[AlexFL]

Originally Posted by Sublime00

There's as much of a market for a high priced Honda as BMWs.

BMWs been trying to compete at a price point that they just can't and continue to fail at.

But I guess that's not pointed out on a BMW forum. I wonder what the Honda forum has to say about this. Lol.

BMW sells those 120k V8 M cars pretty well. Acura/Honda can’t claim the same.

[Sublime00]

Originally Posted by AlexFL

BMW sells those 120k V8 M cars pretty well. Acura/Honda can’t claim the same.

Heavily discounted, yes they do. Same as Honda.

[supra93]

[strohw]

Originally Posted by Sublime00

Heavily discounted, yes they do. Same as Honda.

I'm confused. How do you know there is as big of a market for $100-110k Honda or Acura when they don't even have vehicles in that price segment? If Honda felt they had a market for it then wouldn't they sell vehicles in this price range?

That 100-110k is after realistic discounts you can get on product range of the M5/X5M/X6M after they've been out for a little bit. While I do believe that if Acura came out with a 500hp+ V8 performance based SUV that they could sell it for around 100k, there is no evidence so I can't just claim it would have the same demand as a BMW X5M.

[supra93]

Acura already has a hard time selling a $55k+ RLX.

https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3...tinued-killed/

[stein_325i]

BMW succeeds in the $100k+ market for their sedans and SUV's, although they still discount more and incentivize lower leases than other brands. Their coupes in this price bracket however are a different story, from the new 8er, the i8, and even the original 8er (E31) which was $70k in the 90's (roughly $130k today), they never have really hit their mark in sales of their high priced luxury sport coupes.

Its not surprising that Acura has trouble with the NSX. Acura as a brand just doesn't have the prestige for sports and supercars, no matter how good or bad the vehicle is. Not to mention the new NSX isn't exactly very reminiscent of the now classic original model which also didn't sell in large numbers and was very expensive compared to other sports/supercars due to its hand built production process.

[supra93]

The 1st gen was a "huge" success compare to this thing. Honda sold 9k units in the U.S. alone. Globally, it was 18,685 units. According to XtremeMaC, the global sales and forecast for the 2nd gen is merely 3,356 units.



I also wish it had more design cues of the original NSX. IMO, this old concept from 2003 would have been a much better starting point.

[David70]

Originally Posted by alex2364

People have said this plenty of times before, but it needs to be repeated. If Honda was smart, they should have removed the electric motor and made it a $120k car. As it currently stands, it doesn't have the brand cachet or performance for a $160k - $200k car.

Agree completely. Would have lost a huge amount of weight and complexity and I have doubts about it being significantly slower. I don't see the point in worrying about hybrid $160k+ sports cars that will rarely be driven. Yes it gets better mpg but unless you are driving it all the time it makes little difference.

Battery pack, 3 electric motors, V-6, and 3900+ lbs. would have me buying a 911 S RWD with similar performance at a much lower price and 500-600 lbs less weight (guess), far less complexity, I think more interesting power plant.
Or at a similar price I would get a GT3.

[Humdizzle]

the car is just too similar to the GTR imo. while costing alot more. Both are : v6, awd, nearly 2 tons, twin turbo, similar 'ring times, similar acceleration times.

The NSX does have the better styling though, better interior, and more 'flex' on the street as it a unique car you just dont see too often. I can see it being a nice alternative for someone who wants a performance car but thinks a 911 is not flashy enough and a used mclaren 570/12c is too unreliable or scary to own without a warranty.

looking to the future it will probably join the BMW i8 and mclaren 12c as the 'failed' supercars.

they should have followed the original nsx ethos. made it closer to 3000 pounds with an NA v8 in the back.

[GoneIn4Secs]

Its mainly the price that kept it out of reach for the ppl who were into nsx

[jmack]

Originally Posted by GoneIn4Secs

Its mainly the price that kept it out of reach for the ppl who were into nsx

Price was definitely a factor, but if you had $200k and wanted the closest driving experience to the old NSX, you'd end up in a 911 or 570s and not a NuSX.

[Germanauto]

Price, powertrain, branding, and I'd argue even styling were all players in this car's failure. Amazing how GM of all companies got the mid-engined C8 Corvette to the market at a very aggressive price yet Acura totally shat the bed.

[ReadyToParty]

Worst part is when you take it for service. There will be civics and accords around you.
or you can buy a Porsche...

[DocL]

Originally Posted by ReadyToParty

Worst part is when you take it for service. There will be civics and accords around you.
or you can buy a Porsche...

You have no idea how terrible the customer service is with Acura and the NC1. When I used to take mine in they wouldn't have a loaner car for me. I'd have to talk with the GM and remind them about the "playbook" for NSX owners. You'd think they would know how to treat people with their halo car. I get better customer service when I bring my SUV to Chevy for an oil change. That's just one of the image problems with Acura.

[David70]

Agree on the Acura dealer/service experience being far from close to the top. My wife drives a TSX (European Honda Accord - just doesn't care about cars and it does everything she wants), so we figure we are getting what we paid for but the shared facility with Hyundai and the facilities constantly remind us that in we bought an economy car. Fine with us as our expectations are met but I'm sure the $170k buyer see's things differently.

[supra93]

[ReadyToParty]

I'm sorry but if I'm spending $170k. I don't need civics getting serviced next to my somewhat supercar lol

[Bumpinjeep]

A reminder to everyone, this car costs $100,000 MORE than a C8.

That is all.

[4play]

The problem with the "new" NSX will always be that it was too little, too late.

Japanese automakers are always very hesitant to call a supercar "finished" or to release a finished product. There is a cultural tendency to keep honing a product to the point of irrelevancy.

Look at the amount of change in the R35 GTR over its production lifecycle, as well as the dozens of changes that the LFA went through from concept to final production.

Indecision plagued Honda/Acura with the NSX. The 2nd generation NSX was supposed to be a front engine V-10 car in the late 00s. However, due to the financial crisis and Honda being overly cautious, it was only ever used as a SuperGT car.

This NSX targeted the right cars (991.1 GT3, Ferrari 458), but then Honda kept tweaking, and waiting, and waiting. When it was released in 2017, all of the benchmarks had moved on and the NSX was slower but still at the same price point.

As a used car around $90-100k, I think the 2017 NSXs are great value, as they are significantly faster than other used cars at that price, save for maybe the heinously unreliable 12C. I would take one all day over a new C8 Corvette (the pricing is shockingly similar due to Vette markups). But as a new car, it was never a winning proposition.