Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?

[blindswelledrat]

silver surfer said:

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 are aware that different cars cost different amounts to make?

[blindswelledrat]

NoelWatson said:

blindswelledrat said:

0-60

Claimed or actual?

Is there much difference?
I don't know the exact figures, I just seem to remember it's over 5 seconds and having driven one, that felt about right.
But I guess claimed anyway. The advertised figures which sell a car!

[B Huey]

NoelWatson said:

B Huey said:

Contemporary Supras pushed out around 330bhp.

And had the same performance

Did the Supra cost the same as the NSX?

[RudeDog]

B Huey said:

NoelWatson said:

B Huey said:

Contemporary Supras pushed out around 330bhp.

And had the same performance

Did the Supra cost the same as the NSX?

That was my point. The NSX should have cost the same as a Supra, then it would have been a real success (IMHO)

[Alfanatic]

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...).

I know what you're saying, but I can relate to what they meant. If the car challenges your normal driving with vision limited slightly by some radically shaped windows, or a clutch that works fine but is heavier than normal, or steering that's just about manageable when parking but doesn't feel particularly at home until you're on the road, it can make it feel either frustrating or rubbish, or, if the flaws are tolerable, and related to compromises which feel like they're made so that the car rewards highly in other areas - sensational styling, peerless feedback at reasonable speeds, or whatever, it makes the car stand out, so driving it becomes a memorable occasion even if you aren't wringing its neck.

So even if the Honda was better at everything it would still lose because it was better at everything?

Depends on how you rate "better". All other things are never equal, but if they were, and you had two cars with identical performance, capability, behaviour and communication on the limit, durability, reliability, and all that, but one had been engineered so that when not pressing on it was quiet with very light controls and was no more difficult (or memorable) to drive than a Civic, while the other one didn't bother quite so much to hide the fact that it's a sportscar and asked you to pay a bit more attention when changing gear, put a bit more effort into turning the steering wheel, bend your neck a bit more to see past that styling flourish behind your shoulder, and so on and so on, I'd prefer the latter. For two reasons.

1) The former approach can end up feeling a bit numb when your're not pressing on, the latter is more likely to be offering a stream of communication and interactivity at any speed, giving the driver more to consider and simply being more engaging when pootling to the shops.

2) The latter approach simply means that, even when pootling to the shops, the car is constantly reminding you that you're in something different to the norm, something a bit special.

I'm not talking about, for instance, steering, or a clutch pedal, that's just heavy for the sake of being heavy. I'm talking about steering that might be a bit heavy, but is still really good at the things that count (to me), which are communication and accuracy. Good unassisted steering vs. good assisted steering. A clutch that reminds you it's a bit heavy when you depress it for the first time after climbing out of the Toyota Corolla, but gives excellent feel of the biting point, you've adapted after a few changes, and it's not so heavy that it's making your leg ache.

Does the same job, probably gives no more feel than the Corolla's clutch, but reminds you that you're not in an average car each time you change gear. It adds more substance to the drive for me. Others prefer the 1st approach, which I can't argue with, but I'd have preferred more of the first approach in a hot hatch like the 205GTI, and more of the latter approach in something thats supposed to first and foremost be a sportscar.

Maybe it's a "grew up in the '80s" thing. Early NSXs didn't have power steering as far as I know, yet the tests still went on about communication etc.

EDIT: To go back to that Fast Lane magazine test. If Honda's aim was to build a better Ferrari, then what they would have built was something that looked and felt more or less like a 348, but had better service intervals and build quality, and was more reliable - if unreliability was even a problem on the 348. In other words, keep the bits that make Ferraris desirable, it's not just the badge, cure the weak spots.

What they did instead, and again I'm basing this on early tests I had read and Honda's apparent philosophy, was to build a better Honda. As intended, it was easy to drive like a Civic, so there was no challenge to test driving it around the block. It was easy to see out of and as a result the styling was less flamboyant and aggressive. If you climbed out of a Civic and drove the NSX, you'd feel instantly at home, and if you didn't explore the full performance, well, did it make the drive that much more memorable than the one in the Civic? Meanwhile, try it in the 348 and you have an unusual gear change to master, maybe a heavy clutch, reversing it was a challenge that you'll remember for years, etc etc. It might have felt like something completely different, and the buyer would either decide it's a bunch of compromises not worth making, or decide that this is what sportscars should feel like and be underwhelmed by the NSX, or just buy a 911 and get the established best of both worlds.

Edited by Alfanatic on Wednesday 1st June 12:52

[blindswelledrat]

RudeDog said:

That was my point. The NSX should have cost the same as a Supra, then it would have been a real success (IMHO)

They are completely different cars though.
Its like saying a 911 GT2 should cost the same as a Nissan GT-R.
The NSX is an all aluminium lightweight mid-engined supercar whilst the Supra was a sledgehammer.

[POORCARDEALER]

NSX could have never cost the same as a Supra, technically it was VERY advanced for its time, and that costs money

[B Huey]

RudeDog said:

B Huey said:

NoelWatson said:

B Huey said:

Contemporary Supras pushed out around 330bhp.

And had the same performance

Did the Supra cost the same as the NSX?

That was my point. The NSX should have cost the same as a Supra, then it would have been a real success (IMHO)

My point too!

As I said earlier, less powerful than even it's Japanese rivals, and way more expensive.

[RobM77]

blindswelledrat said:

They are completely different cars though.
Its like saying a 911 GT2 should cost the same as a Nissan GT-R.
The NSX is an all aluminium lightweight mid-engined supercar whilst the Supra was a sledgehammer.

Very good point, and I think the crux of the matter is that you and I know that because we're car geeks, but most buyers didn't know and probably didn't care. The truth is that the car market is a tough place, and making something as perfect as the NSX isn't enough on its own for general sales. It probably needed quite a bit more power to make a case for itself against the established supercar/sports marques of Porsche and Ferrari. Look at the Nissan GTR for example - would it have had the same reception if it had 350 to 400bhp? Probably not. If it had that power and perhaps equalled the 911 and M3 in performance, rather than the 911 Turbo, would it have had the same reception? Did it not need that vast amount of performance per pound to make a case for itself in a badge obsessed market?...

The Evora might well be suffering the same fate now...

I get the feeling that the NSX was made by people like me (and others here) for people like me (and others here). The problem was maybe that it stopped there.

[RudeDog]

blindswelledrat said:

RudeDog said:

That was my point. The NSX should have cost the same as a Supra, then it would have been a real success (IMHO)

They are completely different cars though.
Its like saying a 911 GT2 should cost the same as a Nissan GT-R.
The NSX is an all aluminium lightweight mid-engined supercar whilst the Supra was a sledgehammer.

Maybe with 400bhp it would have been but on the street, it was beaten by most of the lower priced, turbo-charged models from its Japanese competitors.

[Johnboy Mac]

B Huey said:

RudeDog said:

B Huey said:

NoelWatson said:

B Huey said:

Contemporary Supras pushed out around 330bhp.

And had the same performance

Did the Supra cost the same as the NSX?

That was my point. The NSX should have cost the same as a Supra, then it would have been a real success (IMHO)

My point too!

As I said earlier, less powerful than even it's Japanese rivals, and way more expensive.

Agh, stop it now as you lot are getting tied up with nationality now, not cars.

[Mr Dave]

NoelWatson said:

Any evidence? I also refer you to Chris Harris in 2002 driving the NSX against the R34 and 996.


Circuito de Thruxton. 1996
Coche Tiempo - Valoración Manejo

---

Honda NSX 1:32.12 - 4º
Toyota Supra 1:32.84 - 9º
Porsche 911 1:33.16 - 13º
Lamborghini Diablo SV 1:33.18 - 8º
Nissan Skyline GTR 1:33.36 - 14º

This is what gets me, the Supra drives really well, corners really hard, has 4 seats, is really bloody quick in gear, and in a drag race usually soundly beats the NSX, was incredibly reliable, had better brakes than the NSX, yet cost a hole lot less.

And people say the Supra wasnt a competitor to the NSX?

I also think for handling and steering feel and weight balance, the FD3 RX7 is the best Japanese car ive driven, noticably better than the NSX.

[blindswelledrat]

RobM77 said:

Very good point, and I think the crux of the matter is that you and I know that because we're car geeks, but most buyers didn't know and probably didn't care. The truth is that the car market is a tough place, and making something as perfect as the NSX isn't enough on its own for general sales. It probably needed quite a bit more power to make a case for itself against the established supercar/sports marques of Porsche and Ferrari. Look at the Nissan GTR for example - would it have had the same reception if it had 350 to 400bhp? Probably not. If it had that power and perhaps equalled the 911 and M3 in performance, rather than the 911 Turbo, would it have had the same reception? Did it not need that vast amount of performance per pound to make a case for itself in a badge obsessed market?...

The Evora might well be suffering the same fate now...

I get the feeling that the NSX was made by people like me (and others here) for people like me (and others here). The problem was maybe that it stopped there.

Spot on. Although try as I might I cannot understand for the life of me why they didn't give the NSX more power.

[Marf]

Primarily the 276bhp gentlemen's agreement, secondly(following the relaxing of the agreement) the development costs perhaps?

[NoelWatson]

Marf said:

Primarily the 276bhp gentlemen's agreement, secondly(following the relaxing of the agreement) the development costs perhaps?

I think it can only be the former - reason being that changing the exhaust/intake gives +~20bhp.

[blindswelledrat]

Mr Dave said:

This is what gets me, the Supra drives really well, corners really hard, has 4 seats, is really bloody quick in gear, and in a drag race usually soundly beats the NSX, was incredibly reliable, had better brakes than the NSX, yet cost a hole lot less.

And people say the Supra wasnt a competitor to the NSX?
.

It depends entirely what you are calling it a "competititor" in?
In a drag race, sure.
Perhaps even on a circuit.
But a competitor for sales it isn't. Someone looking for a Supra is not looking for an NSX in the same way that someone looking for an Exige would not be looking for a GT-R

Im not belittling the Supra, btw, I love them also but for a completely different reason.

[andymadmak]

It wasn't pretty enough, wasn't fast enough and had a poor interior. I remember testing one in 1994 and thinking that there was more sense of occasion driving my 4.3 Chimaera than there was in the Honda.
I "got" the whole Senna / sublime handling /usable supercar pitch that Honda floated though (very badly, Honda marketing was crap too)

Autocar road test article said:

And in a car of such astounding ability and one that carries a £52,000 price tag, an interior that would look better in a hot hatch £40,000 cheaper is not good enough. The ingredients are fine – great driving position, superb seats and excellent visibility for its configuration all score in its favour – but their execution and the attention to detail leave much to be desired. The dashboard, for instance, is swathed in an unpleasant vinyl and houses instruments that, despite being easily read, are strangely characterless.

And in a nutshell, unless you are a driving GOD, many people will select a car in this category more by how it makes them feel when they drive it rather than how it stacks up in a comparison test. After all, it's not as if the competitors were total dogs on a track, so there was no real percieved penalty in buying the Ferrari or the Porsche.
Honda decided to make the NSX king of the handling hill, and in doing so selected the one area to excell in that most owners would never explore. (remember track days back then were rare compared to now) That it handles 10% or 15 better in extremis than a 911 or a 348 is irrelevant if the looks don't inspire you, the noise is dull and the interior crap. Some would not have bought on badge, but I think thats relatively few... most were put off because it just did not feel THAT special in normal use.

Edited by andymadmak on Wednesday 1st June 13:16

[RobM77]

Precisely (as I said a few pages ago). The gentleman's agreement for 276bhp was fine for 1300k sports cars as had been made up till then, but not for supercars, and it killed the NSX. Because the whole car and engine was bespoke, I'm guessing there wasn't the room for enlarging the engine to get 400bhp (which is what it really needed). More importantly, I suspect the boardroom case wasn't there for developing the car, given poor initial sales.

Regarding the Supra - it's an awesome car and I love them, but it's a front engined 2+2 GT, not a lightweight mid engined supercar. Saying that it's a competitor to the NSX is like saying the 456 was fighting in the same market as the 355, or perhaps the Cayman vs the GTR. Performance is not everything in a car.

[Johnboy Mac]

Mr Dave said:

And people say the Supra wasnt a competitor to the NSX?

According to the press the nearest competitor to the NSX was the 348 from what I recall. Also for what it's worth, when Gordon Murray was designing the F1 he drove not a Supra but an NSX, if that means anything.

[NoelWatson]

andymadmak said:

the noise is dull

Have you honestly driven one?

"From around 6,000rpm when the VTEC's high lift lobes take over until the limiter cuts in at 8,500rpm the NSX emits a sound that's probably best described as a cross between a roar and a wail. It is quite simply aural ecstasy for petrolheads and it's a pity we didn't grab an MPEG to go with this report because it must rate as one of the best road car soundtracks ever."