Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?
Discussion
Ben3883 said:
If this thread is indicative of the car buying public I think it's obvious why it didn't sell well...people clearly hate them for not being ferraris. A shame as they were cracking cars, and the interiors were not only decent quality but comfy as well - which is not something you can say about the 964, 348 corvette or countach of the day.
Indeed. It is amusing how strongly felt are the opinions of people who, it would appear, have never driven an NSX or, I daresay, most of the cars against which they unfavorably compare it.EDLT said:
Alfanatic said:
Basically it kept losing tests, being described as lacking the drama, or sense of occasion that should accompany cars in its sector.
I hate it when they put out lines like that, to me it just sounds like they were looking for reasons for the other car to win(usually a Ferrari, and we know what they are like...).Sportscars in the '80s had lots of compromises to comfort in town driving. For some, these helped define the car. For others, the M5 was probably more appealing than a two seater, mid engined practical everyday sportscar. But then again, the sales figures published in this thread do rebuke the "not a great seller" label, suggesting perhaps it only didn't do well in Europe.
I got to drive a 360 on one of those track day things - so maybe ten minutes in the car, not enough to form an impression of what its really like to live with of course, but the first impression was underwhelming. The car clearly had capability and was a great communicator, the steering was precise, and while I didn't exactly explore its limits, I got the impression it would be a very enjoyable car to have on a track. But it made no demands of me, and that was the underwhelming bit. It just wasn't different enough from run of the mill family cars, until you started to stretch its legs. It made me feel as though it would be brilliant on a deserted private road, but on a run to the shops, it would be more of an event for pedestrians than for the driver.
My impression at the time was that this was what the NSX probably felt like compared to the 348, and if so, I'd have chosen the Ferrari, even if it was slower around a track and more likely to dump me in a ditch. This was the late '80s too, so making an impression on the road, where flat out is often not possible, was far more important than making an impression on a track.
To those that responded about my comment about the road tests, the one that sticks in my mind was the Fast Lane test vs. 348. Fast Lane did rather like the 348, apart from the styling, and I remember Dron's concluding statement almost word for word: "Honda may have set out to build a 'better Ferrari', but if their computers had told them to build a 348 they'd have assumed a programming error and started again."
Mark Hales did a track test with a few mid engined cars too, including the 348. I can't remember if the NSX was present in that test, but again the 348 got excellent feedback from Hales, who noted that it felt "special", and this was to do with how it was engaging the driver - its communication and tactility.
I know Performance Car liked the NSX and didn't like the 348, but I only started reading that some time after Fast Lane was discontinued, and by the time they were running an NSX on their fleet it had already earned its rep as a great car that noone buys, so the damage was already done. Even then, they went on about how great it is but also publically managed to spin it into a barrier without trying at all, and concluded that the car's standard set up may have played a big part.
Since they weren't spinning all the cars they drove into barriers when not pressing on, and then walking away completely confused by why they had spun, a reader would easily conclude that the NSX is a great car that's lovely to drive but one day might spit me into a hedge without warning, and there's nothing I can do to drive around that. A bit like a plane that is very reliable and comfortable, but one recently fell out of the sky and noone knows why. It makes it harder to trust, and despite their praise, they may have done more harm than good to the car's sales.
I'm not trying to knock the NSX. I've never driven one and I may one day if I'm lucky drive an NSX and a 348 and realise that the Ferrari actually was a bit pants and that the NSX is everything I want in a sportscar. I'm just posting the observations I concluded from what I saw and read.
Alfanatic said:
Since they weren't spinning all the cars they drove into barriers when not pressing on, and then walking away completely confused by why they had spun, a reader would easily conclude that the NSX is a great car that's lovely to drive but one day might spit me into a hedge without warning, and there's nothing I can do to drive around that.
Did they ever find out what caused that (vaguely recall reading about it)? I think toe in settings were a lot less aggressive on more recent examples.NoelWatson said:
Alfanatic said:
Since they weren't spinning all the cars they drove into barriers when not pressing on, and then walking away completely confused by why they had spun, a reader would easily conclude that the NSX is a great car that's lovely to drive but one day might spit me into a hedge without warning, and there's nothing I can do to drive around that.
Did they ever find out what caused that (vaguely recall reading about it)? I think toe in settings were a lot less aggressive on more recent examples.Alfanatic said:
I can't remember them mentioning if later models had different settings or not.
Mine did 10k on the last set of rears, so assuming the settings are reasonably close to factory spec, would suggest so. My local BMW dealer was surprised to hear this when I recently moaned about my 330i eating rears (he worked at Honda in early 90s, and tyre wear, along with warped disks were the most common issues)THe NSX is definitely one of my favourite cars.
However, there are a few things that would have put me off the considerable price at the time:
1)The considerable price at the time
2)Headline figures such as bhp and 0-60 (these do sell cars regardless of whether you think they should)
3)Interior,specifically dashboard - just awful. Awful awful awful.
My gut feeling is that they could have quite easily changed 2 & 3 and sold a huge amount more, notwithstanding the badge as they are such brilliant cars.
However, there are a few things that would have put me off the considerable price at the time:
1)The considerable price at the time
2)Headline figures such as bhp and 0-60 (these do sell cars regardless of whether you think they should)
3)Interior,specifically dashboard - just awful. Awful awful awful.
My gut feeling is that they could have quite easily changed 2 & 3 and sold a huge amount more, notwithstanding the badge as they are such brilliant cars.
My take on the NSX...
I drove one in 1995 and thought it was amazing (OK, I was 19 at the time and thought that a Merc E320-Coupe was amazing too). What I could never understand though was why it was priced to compete with 911's rather than Nissan 300ZX's and Toyota Supra's (or whackier things like the Mitsubishi GT3000 and Subaru SVX). Priced similarly to those other Jap-coupes, it would have cleaned up and Honda would have had a hugely profitable model.
I drove one in 1995 and thought it was amazing (OK, I was 19 at the time and thought that a Merc E320-Coupe was amazing too). What I could never understand though was why it was priced to compete with 911's rather than Nissan 300ZX's and Toyota Supra's (or whackier things like the Mitsubishi GT3000 and Subaru SVX). Priced similarly to those other Jap-coupes, it would have cleaned up and Honda would have had a hugely profitable model.
The NSX was a better car than comparable japanese cars of that time due to the advance technical specification of the chassis and suspension which even cars of current time fail to match. The all aluminium construction was a world first!!!...that's why it was expensive!!
You either 'get' the NSX or you don't.....Flemke says it's a great car...that's enough for me.
SS
You either 'get' the NSX or you don't.....Flemke says it's a great car...that's enough for me.
SS
NoelWatson said:
Alfanatic said:
Since they weren't spinning all the cars they drove into barriers when not pressing on, and then walking away completely confused by why they had spun, a reader would easily conclude that the NSX is a great car that's lovely to drive but one day might spit me into a hedge without warning, and there's nothing I can do to drive around that.
Did they ever find out what caused that (vaguely recall reading about it)? I think toe in settings were a lot less aggressive on more recent examples.NoelWatson said:
RudeDog said:
Priced similarly to those other Jap-coupes, it would have cleaned up and Honda would have had a hugely profitable model.
What are you basing you manufacturing costs on?Re the reception the press gave the car;
Years ago I was casually reading what was on the net, re the NSX, and several journalists wrote that it was the one car they would spend their own money on, something you don't see that often about other cars
Why did it fail? Profile was simply too low. Styling not attention grabbing/power output for a flagship model also not scary enough, high tech alu-monocoque and titanium con-rods not visible, Honda name simply not on peoples' radar.
When someone a fantastic as me wanted to buy a used one, then what higher praise can there be ? Used prices remain high, probably due to limited supply. Future classic, without question.
Years ago I was casually reading what was on the net, re the NSX, and several journalists wrote that it was the one car they would spend their own money on, something you don't see that often about other cars
Why did it fail? Profile was simply too low. Styling not attention grabbing/power output for a flagship model also not scary enough, high tech alu-monocoque and titanium con-rods not visible, Honda name simply not on peoples' radar.
When someone a fantastic as me wanted to buy a used one, then what higher praise can there be ? Used prices remain high, probably due to limited supply. Future classic, without question.
Alfanatic said:
EDLT said:
Alfanatic said:
Basically it kept losing tests, being described as lacking the drama, or sense of occasion that should accompany cars in its sector.
I hate it when they put out lines like that, to me it just sounds like they were looking for reasons for the other car to win(usually a Ferrari, and we know what they are like...).I drove an Auto LHD import a few years back. Probably not the best spec but still, it had great handling but didn't feel that quick tbh. There is a lot of comments about the interior on this thread and whilst I agree it isn't the best, it's quite a comfortable place to be considering it's a supercar. All IMHO of course....
EDLT said:
So even if the Honda was better at everything it would still lose because it was better at everything?
Same for any Japanese car... For example, the Jazz and Yaris are better on paper than a Fiesta or Corsa. Better at the things that matter to the buyer of a car like that. So, if you take your PH hooning hat off for a second, you'll see that the mpg is better, they have a wider power band making driving more relaxing, produce more power (all of this is because they use more advanced variable valve timing engines, unlike Ford or Vauxhall). They also have more flexible interior space (moving rear seats for example), longer and more comprehensive warranties, and to top it all off, they're cheaper. People still buy more Fiestas and Corsas though, and I've even attracted a huge amount of vitriol on PH for suggesting that the Yaris or Jazz might be better (it'll probably start again now - just you wait!). With most people, strangely, being better is not what cars are about. The NSX may well have been better than the Porsche and Ferrari - both in obvious ways such as handling, cost of ownership and reliability; but also if you look into the numbers (given in the famous Mclaren F1 book for the suspension parameters for instance), many of the engineering aspects of the NSX were superior to its contemparies. It's a strange world. I'd rather have an NSX than a 993 or a 348 because it's probably a better car, but I think I'm in a minority.
So, coming back to what I said about the Fiesta and its competition; what matters to the buyer of a £60k sports car? For me it's handling (balance and progression mainly), feedback, performance, comfort, practicality, cost of running etc. For most people I suspect status comes into it, and I guess that's where the Honda loses out. I couldn't give a toss about status - I love cars. Again though, I think I'm in a minority. If the NSX was available new for £60k then, having driven the opposition, I would buy it in preference to the Cayman S, M3 or possibly the Evora (which would be a tougher choice). I've not driven a GTR, but I suspect I'd rather have an NSX than one of those from what I've read.
Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 1st June 12:29
EDLT said:
Alfanatic said:
EDLT said:
Alfanatic said:
Basically it kept losing tests, being described as lacking the drama, or sense of occasion that should accompany cars in its sector.
I hate it when they put out lines like that, to me it just sounds like they were looking for reasons for the other car to win(usually a Ferrari, and we know what they are like...).Are we seeing history repeating with the MP4-12C?
Edited by bern on Wednesday 1st June 21:02
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff