Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?
Discussion
sorepaws said:
If you want spills thrills and excitement buy a Caterham 7.
As an aside, I did the Caterham drift day last week - the cars we supposedly set up to oversteer very easily - getting back into the NSX I was expecting it to feel terrible, but it felt just as balanced, just a bit softer than the Caterham.Again, taste 10p. I think that looks infinitely better than teh NSX ones, even before you get to the digital readouts set in to the dials.
Plus if you sit in both cars in the flesh, the Porsche seem much, much better quality.
Im no fan of the 996 interior at all, btw. Im certainly not hailing it as a benchmark
INcidentally, Im making no comment on ergonomics. I don't really care about those. In my experience , a general rule of thumb is that the more ergonomically designed a car interior is, the blander it looks.
Plus if you sit in both cars in the flesh, the Porsche seem much, much better quality.
Im no fan of the 996 interior at all, btw. Im certainly not hailing it as a benchmark
INcidentally, Im making no comment on ergonomics. I don't really care about those. In my experience , a general rule of thumb is that the more ergonomically designed a car interior is, the blander it looks.
Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 1st June 16:42
RudeDog said:
LuS1fer said:
How so? I don't see it was in a different market to the Honda - a mid-engined supercar which was aroung £120k new - probably still not as expensive as the Honda adjusted for inflation. I think Ford could sell many more of that type of car and the main bugbear of that model was the silly doors. It's not like Ford lack a motor racing pedigree. Of course it would have to be great because the Nissan GTR and 911 are no pushovers but the Gt won PCOTY quite easily so the basics are there. The "unknown" is whether people paid over £100k solely because of the retro styling or because of the way it went...or maybe both.
I was going to suggest such a car would need to be GTR money but I'm not so sure. Styling is generally make or break in this area which is where the Nissan falls down IMHO.
I think there is still quite a difference even when you factor the economy changes over the last 20 years.I was going to suggest such a car would need to be GTR money but I'm not so sure. Styling is generally make or break in this area which is where the Nissan falls down IMHO.
The Ford GT was made to compete with some of the very best Italian GT sports cars. The 612 Ferrari Scaglietti or 575M and the Lamborghini Murcielago. It wasn't pitched at the 911, F430 or Gallardo, the modern day equivalents of the NSX competitors. The big factor for me though is its race winning legacy. I would guess that lots of people who bought the Ford GT would have lusted over the GT40 in the 60's in the same way I have the F40 and 959 in my PH fantasy garage. They are the cars I craved for when I was a kid. Not many people grow up wanting a Honda and that's the main difference for me between the desirability of a Ford GT and the Honda NSX.
I'll bet that the NSX would have a similar fate, and frankly I wouldn't be surprised if Honda was expecting it to be a slow mover when the original was still in concept stage. Mk 1 is a great car, gives them experience in this market, doesn't threaten the establishment in sales terms (though it actually looks like, worldwide, it did, and it explains Ferrari's apparent change of focus with the 355 and particularly the 360) but earns a good rep with those in the know. All going to plan, so when Mk2 is released, Mk1 has done all the hard work in earning credibility and Mk2 doesn't have to work half as hard to sell. Unfortunately NSX Mk2 never arrived.
Anh said:
Jonathan Legard said:
The Boxster? That fantastic driver's car that all the wannabes deride because "you only buy one of those if you can't afford a 911"? That one? 
The fact that you try to justify owning a boxster using journo-jargon like "driver's car" just says it all really.Simple answers to the question posed:
1) It was a Honda, which has no supercar lineage, or even sportscar lineage
2) It didn't come with a proper engine (V8 or V12)
3) It was short on power
4) It wasn't that pretty
5) It had a naff interior
6) It was expensive for any car, let alone a Honda
If it had a V8 with 100+ more HP and looked prettier then it would have been a hit. But neither of those things were in place, so it was lucky to sell what it did.
1) It was a Honda, which has no supercar lineage, or even sportscar lineage
2) It didn't come with a proper engine (V8 or V12)
3) It was short on power
4) It wasn't that pretty
5) It had a naff interior
6) It was expensive for any car, let alone a Honda
If it had a V8 with 100+ more HP and looked prettier then it would have been a hit. But neither of those things were in place, so it was lucky to sell what it did.
10 Pence Short said:
And if the NSX dials are rubbish, I'd say they're no worse than that above. They even share a typeface. Except the ones in the NSX are clearer.
Trying to compare Japanese designs and philosophies in a UK based forum populated with middle class Porker/BMW owning Nigel's with an agenda is like wrestling smoke in a house on fire.
blindswelledrat said:
Again, taste 10p. I think that looks infinitely better than teh NSX ones, even before you get to the digital readouts set in to the dials.
Plus if you sit in both cars in the flesh, the Porsche seem much, much better quality.
Im no fan of the 996 interior at all, btw. Im certainly not hailing it as a benchmark
INcidentally, Im making no comment on ergonomics. I don't really care about those. In my experience , a general rule of thumb is that the more ergonomically designed a car interior is, the blander it looks.
I absolutely agree on the subjective elements. It would be a boring world etc...Plus if you sit in both cars in the flesh, the Porsche seem much, much better quality.
Im no fan of the 996 interior at all, btw. Im certainly not hailing it as a benchmark
INcidentally, Im making no comment on ergonomics. I don't really care about those. In my experience , a general rule of thumb is that the more ergonomically designed a car interior is, the blander it looks.
Edited by blindswelledrat on Wednesday 1st June 16:42
Spending that kind of money upwards, my own preference would be that the interior is absolutely functional, screwed together in a way that will stand up to the job and is a decent place to spend time in. For me the NSX scores very highly on all those fronts.
10 Pence Short said:
You might have (and be perfectly entitled to) a subjective opinion on whether or not you like the styling of the interior. What I typically find incredulous is the attitude from some that it was in any way worse in quality or layout than anything competing with it, not only at launch, but for a good few years beyond. I doubt the interiors of contemporaneous Ferraris would stand the test of time so well or actually be such good production quality items, yet people forgive them for being w
k in the name of 'character'.
From the moment the car was launched till now, my opinion on the interior has been the same. It never struck me as something special. In every other aspect I love the car, and the interior will NEVER put me off buying one. And one day I do intend to. I think it lacks that 'special feel'.k in the name of 'character'.And as for Ferrari, you can't compare, they many model variants, some are stunning, some are ok. I'm not a Ferrari luster (ok apart from a few) so I really don't care to compare.
The press found the Porsche 996 interior uninspiring and downmarket too, it's not so easy to dismiss this as badge snobbery. I never saw the problem with the NSX interior in pictures, I like the - similar to 928 - wraparound style of it, but the press were unanimous in their opinion that it didn't feel worthy of the car's price range, and I seriously doubt that this had anything to do with its durability. None of them ever denied it was functional, well screwed together and well laid out. There was just nothing to differentiate it from a high quality interior in cars less than a third of the price.
Frankly, 10PS shares the minority opinion on this one.
Frankly, 10PS shares the minority opinion on this one.
Anh said:
Why bother argue with badge bandits over public fora on such subjective topics?
Trying to compare Japanese designs and philosophies in a UK based forum populated with middle class Porker/BMW owning Nigel's with an agenda is like wrestling smoke in a house on fire.
You seem to have a seething resentment of the middle classes and motoring journalists, Anh. Anything else I should make note of?Trying to compare Japanese designs and philosophies in a UK based forum populated with middle class Porker/BMW owning Nigel's with an agenda is like wrestling smoke in a house on fire.
Dammm, looks like I'm 11 pages or so late, but I'm a big fan of NSX's so I'll add my 2p anyway.
'underpowered' AFAIK they had pretty competitive power/weight ratios at the time, the Japanese gentleman’s agreement limiting power to 276bhp (from memory) really hurt in the pub bore stakes though because no one really cared about Power to weight or weight in general back in the early 90's it was power. Lots car mags at the time were using phrases like "of course, some horses are faster than others" because it was widely thought that the NSX, Skyline GTR etc were actually putting out more, they just couldn't say they were.
Early interiors could have come straight out of a Civic.
But I think the biggest one is Badge, including the fact that they had a few specialist NSX Honda dealers you don't get the same experience buying a supercar from a dealer knee deep in Civic and Accords as you would a Ferrari or Porsche.
If you were lucky enough in 1992 to be walking about with £50-£60k or whatever it was in your back pocket to spend on a Car, it would take a brave man to ignore, the 911 or a slightly used Ferrari. You'd be afraid of spending the rest of your life telling people that would could have had a Ferrari, but you wanted a Honda and seeing 'that' look on a lady's face when you tell her, it's "like a Ferrari, only it's a Honda".
I guess they could have done a Lexus and rebranded it and sold a few more, but they designed, built and sold it, not for the sake of selling a couple of thousand supercars, but to help sell a couple of million Civics and Accords.
'underpowered' AFAIK they had pretty competitive power/weight ratios at the time, the Japanese gentleman’s agreement limiting power to 276bhp (from memory) really hurt in the pub bore stakes though because no one really cared about Power to weight or weight in general back in the early 90's it was power. Lots car mags at the time were using phrases like "of course, some horses are faster than others" because it was widely thought that the NSX, Skyline GTR etc were actually putting out more, they just couldn't say they were.
Early interiors could have come straight out of a Civic.
But I think the biggest one is Badge, including the fact that they had a few specialist NSX Honda dealers you don't get the same experience buying a supercar from a dealer knee deep in Civic and Accords as you would a Ferrari or Porsche.
If you were lucky enough in 1992 to be walking about with £50-£60k or whatever it was in your back pocket to spend on a Car, it would take a brave man to ignore, the 911 or a slightly used Ferrari. You'd be afraid of spending the rest of your life telling people that would could have had a Ferrari, but you wanted a Honda and seeing 'that' look on a lady's face when you tell her, it's "like a Ferrari, only it's a Honda".
I guess they could have done a Lexus and rebranded it and sold a few more, but they designed, built and sold it, not for the sake of selling a couple of thousand supercars, but to help sell a couple of million Civics and Accords.
TomJS said:
Simple answers to the question posed:
1) It was a Honda, which has no supercar lineage, or even sportscar lineage
2) It didn't come with a proper engine (V8 or V12)
3) It was short on power
4) It wasn't that pretty
5) It had a naff interior
6) It was expensive for any car, let alone a Honda
If it had a V8 with 100+ more HP and looked prettier then it would have been a hit. But neither of those things were in place, so it was lucky to sell what it did.
Congratulations you have searched your inner petrolhead wisdom and have somehow concluded that Honda should have made the NSX to be like that german agro-barge called the 9281) It was a Honda, which has no supercar lineage, or even sportscar lineage
2) It didn't come with a proper engine (V8 or V12)
3) It was short on power
4) It wasn't that pretty
5) It had a naff interior
6) It was expensive for any car, let alone a Honda
If it had a V8 with 100+ more HP and looked prettier then it would have been a hit. But neither of those things were in place, so it was lucky to sell what it did.
Interesting article here and only a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.classiccars4sale.net/classic-car-review...
Not that I am the slightest bit biased of course!!
http://www.classiccars4sale.net/classic-car-review...
Not that I am the slightest bit biased of course!!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff