Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?

[Mr Dave]

NoelWatson said:

CdA also matters. Where data are you referring to in order to reach the above conclusion?

NSX CdA in the earlier ones is in the region of 6.13, same aged Supra is around 6.45, more but not a huge amount more. BHP/ton also matters and thats where the Supra is ahead of the NSX as well.

Data im referring from is mostly personal experience of rolling start drag racing between my friends Supra and a friends NSX, drag raced from standing starts, from 10 miles an hour up to starting at motorway speeds. Every time the NSX would get a bit of a jump and the supra would reel it in and then pass it easily.


If you want proper drag strip times the NSX tends to be about 13.8 -14 seconds and trapping at about 100 miles an hour while the supra tends to be about 13.3-13.5 seconds and trapping at about 110 miles an hour, the figures suggest as well that NSXs get off the line faster but dont have as much power.

It is a car that weighs in the region of 100kilos lighter and tends to have less horsepower. Its exactly what you would expect. Still a very fast car mind, im in no way suggesting otherwise, just that the Supra is really quite powerful.

Whats suprising is that a standard mk4 Supra non-turbo weighs about 1450 kilos and a stock NSX weighs 1403 kilos, thats going by manufacturer specs of a 1993-1997 model that ive seen in a few places, a Supra twin turbo is around 1550 stock.

So for the NSX being super light and all aluminium body and so on its still quite heavy.

Its 200 kilograms heavier than the equivalent aged RX7 turbo. 0-60 in a similar time to the RX7, doesnt have as nice an interior, does quarter mile in a similar time and cost twice the price new. I still prefer the RX7 steering feel and general handling over the NSX as well.


Edited to add, the NSX is over a second slower 0-100 and a second slower 60-100

Edited by Mr Dave on Wednesday 1st June 21:50

[tali1]

Mr Dave said:

tali1 said:

I suppose rarest NSX in UK must be F-matic targa - taking the pee at 74k new
Trouble was NSX was over 10k more expensive than nearest Jap rivals -so i suspectthey were maximising profit margins rather than outright sales
UK sales -seems after the launch hype it badly fell away
1991 125
1992 41
1993 47
1994 19
1995 55
1996 38
1997 35
1998 10
1999 17
2000 11
2001 8
2002+ 23+

Do you have the figures fo total worldwide sales per year?

Copy/paste from NSX forum
Japan:
1990 737
1991 3849
1992 702
1993 528
1994 300
1995 331
1996 176
1997 210
1998 93
1999 78
2000 60
2001 41

Europe:
1990 6
1991 521
1992 297
1993 155
1994 103
1995 138
1996 82
1997 70
1998 39
1999 24
2000 18
2001 10
Honda groups the Middle East and Africa into its European division but it isn't clear whether those areas are included in these figures or not.

United States:
1990 1119
1991 1940
1992 1154
1993 652
1994 533
1995 884
1996 460
1997 415
1998 303
1999 238
2000 221
2001 182

Canada
1990 156
1991 253
1992 91
1993 64
1994 31
1995 38
1996 16
1997 13
1998 10
1999 5

1990 - 2018 (USA = 55%)
1991 - 6563 (USA = 30%)
1992 - 2244 (USA = 51%)
1993 - 1399 (USA = 47%)
1994 - 967 (USA = 55%)
1995 - 1391 (USA = 64%)
1996 - 734 (USA = 63%)
1997 - 708 (USA = 59%)
1998 - 445 (USA = 68%)
1999 - 345 (USA = 69%)
2000 - 299 (USA = 74%)
2001 - 233 (USA = 78%)



17,346 with 8,101 sold in the US. (47%)
1/4 of the NSX sold in Europe are in Switzerland

(Honda website total is 7,919 which doesn't include 2001's 182)

[TRUENOSAM]

Wayney said:

The car was never marketed well?

911 goes GT racing and dominate the GT3 class at Lemans. The GTR made a big song and dance about being quicker then 911 turbo around the ring. Ferrari is ever present in F1, Audi dominate LeMans etc etc etc

Where was Honda's marketing, apart from the odd Lemans entry??

There where many teams that ran NSX's in the JGTC series. The NSX wasnt initially destined for europe.

[NoelWatson]

Mr Dave said:

NoelWatson said:

CdA also matters. Where data are you referring to in order to reach the above conclusion?

NSX CdA in the earlier ones is in the region of 6.13, same aged Supra is around 6.45, more but not a huge amount more.

Data im referring from is mostly personal experience of rolling start drag racing between my friends Supra and a friends NSX, drag raced from standing starts, from 10 miles an hour up to starting at motorway speeds. Every time the NSX would get a bit of a jump and the supra would reel it in and then pass it easily.


If you want proper drag strip times the NSX tends to be about 13.8 -14 seconds and trapping at about 100 miles an hour while the supra tends to be about 13.3-13.5 seconds and trapping at about 110 miles an hour, the figures suggest as well that NSXs get off the line faster but dont have as much power.

It is a car that weighs in the region of 100kilos lighter and tends to have less horsepower. Its exactly what you would expect. Still a very fast car mind, im in no way suggesting otherwise, just that the Supra is really quite powerful.

Whats suprising is that a standard mk4 Supra non-turbo weighs about 1450 kilos and a stock NSX weighs 1403 kilos, thats going by manufacturer specs of a 1993-1997 model that ive seen in a few places, a Supra twin turbo is around 1550 stock.

So for the NSX being super light and all aluminium body and so on its still quite heavy.

Its 200 kilograms heavier than the equivalent aged RX7 turbo. 0-60 in a similar time to the RX7, doesnt have as nice an interior, does quarter mile in a similar time and cost twice the price new. I still prefer the RX7 steering feel and general handling over the NSX as well.

Mr Dave said:

If you want proper drag strip times the NSX tends to be about 13.8 -14 seconds and trapping at about 100 miles an hour

From Wiki

NSX

One of the first magazine articles to offer NSX test data showed the lightweight 3.0L 270 bhp (200 kW) NSX producing a best 0-60 mp/h time of 5.03 seconds and 13.47 seconds for the quarter mile


Post-1997 3.2 L North American Acura examples are known to achieve a 13.3 second quarter-mile time (targa)

Although magazine tests for the 02+ models were rare Honda apparently kept improving the engine as Sports and Exotic Car magazine did a farewell article on a 2005 NSX-T and recorded a 0-60 time of 4.7 and a 13.1 quarter mile on the heavier targa model


Supra

and 1/4 mile (402 m) in 13.3 seconds at 109 mph (175 km/h).



Maybe the Supra auto is way slower than the manual, as Gazboy did 161 at Vmax compared to 162 of NSX

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/vbpicgallery.php?do=v...

[TomJS]

Anh said:

TomJS said:

Reasons why the NSX failed to make an impact.

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 928

You know what, that would have been a good idea. Porsche sold 4 times as many 928's as Honda did NSX's despite the 928 being 50% more expensive to buy than the NSX and despite it being pitched in direct competition with Ferrari and Aston Martin. Then Aston Martin took over where the 928 left off, and the DB7, particularly in V12 form, became the most popular Aston ever.

There's a lot to be said for a transaxle front engined rear drive sporting GT with a massive engine. Heck the 928 even had 51/49 % weight distribution which rather detracts from the point of the NSX being mid engined.

[55allgold]

NoelWatson said:

The Autocar 2002 handling test placed it 5th - marked down for steering, brakes and tricky handling beyond limit - it beat the 996 in that test. Maybe magazines have different priorities, or maybe the cars are that variable deoending on tyres, or maybe, as mentioned, Honda make subtle changes.

Autocar was pretty sure it went wrong with the adoption of power steering. It had won both the '91 and '92 Autocar handling tests - by a country mile. "Calculated and contrived it might be, but when something is this great that hardly matters.Its level of ability in all areas was almost unbelievable. When Warwick drove it WAS unbelievable." In '91 it beat the Porsche Carrera 2. "Against the Honda, the Porsche felt inept. ... The things that make the Ferrari 348 desirable are becoming increasingly ephemeral and peripheral." "The level of Honda's achievement can't be exaggerated. This is, by a clear margin, the best handling car we've ever driven."

Those quotes are from the '91 test. Can't be ar5ed to type up the '92 quotes, but they're in the same vein.

[55allgold]

TomJS said:

Heck the 928 even had 51/49 % weight distribution which rather detracts from the point of the NSX being mid engined.

But weight distribution is only part of the picture. The mid-engine thing is about low polar moment of inertia, too.

[HAB]

55allgold said:

In '91 it beat the Porsche Carrera 2. "Against the Honda, the Porsche felt inept. ...

Just for a bit of balance (from an olive eating old 911 owner, no less). Here's a few w@nky quotes from Performance car '91 - 964C2 vs NSX vs 300ZX :

http://www.porsche964.nl/reviews/964-1991.php

'The Porsche is everything the Honda isn't - restless, petulant, teasing through the wheel and chassis...'

'... and you will know that the 911 is a world apart.'

'This is the feel of a real racing car, where the Japanese have the delicacy of a butterfly, the Porsche has the presence of a B52. Every control balances slickness with weight, every input precisely rewarded, every sense heightened by a unique immediacy..'


Oh fvck it, I can't take any more, I'm off for a chug in the John Lewis bogs.

[Mr Dave]

NoelWatson said:

Mr Dave said:

NoelWatson said:

CdA also matters. Where data are you referring to in order to reach the above conclusion?

NSX CdA in the earlier ones is in the region of 6.13, same aged Supra is around 6.45, more but not a huge amount more.

Data im referring from is mostly personal experience of rolling start drag racing between my friends Supra and a friends NSX, drag raced from standing starts, from 10 miles an hour up to starting at motorway speeds. Every time the NSX would get a bit of a jump and the supra would reel it in and then pass it easily.


If you want proper drag strip times the NSX tends to be about 13.8 -14 seconds and trapping at about 100 miles an hour while the supra tends to be about 13.3-13.5 seconds and trapping at about 110 miles an hour, the figures suggest as well that NSXs get off the line faster but dont have as much power.

It is a car that weighs in the region of 100kilos lighter and tends to have less horsepower. Its exactly what you would expect. Still a very fast car mind, im in no way suggesting otherwise, just that the Supra is really quite powerful.

Whats suprising is that a standard mk4 Supra non-turbo weighs about 1450 kilos and a stock NSX weighs 1403 kilos, thats going by manufacturer specs of a 1993-1997 model that ive seen in a few places, a Supra twin turbo is around 1550 stock.

So for the NSX being super light and all aluminium body and so on its still quite heavy.

Its 200 kilograms heavier than the equivalent aged RX7 turbo. 0-60 in a similar time to the RX7, doesnt have as nice an interior, does quarter mile in a similar time and cost twice the price new. I still prefer the RX7 steering feel and general handling over the NSX as well.

Mr Dave said:

If you want proper drag strip times the NSX tends to be about 13.8 -14 seconds and trapping at about 100 miles an hour

From Wiki

NSX

One of the first magazine articles to offer NSX test data showed the lightweight 3.0L 270 bhp (200 kW) NSX producing a best 0-60 mp/h time of 5.03 seconds and 13.47 seconds for the quarter mile


Post-1997 3.2 L North American Acura examples are known to achieve a 13.3 second quarter-mile time (targa)

Although magazine tests for the 02+ models were rare Honda apparently kept improving the engine as Sports and Exotic Car magazine did a farewell article on a 2005 NSX-T and recorded a 0-60 time of 4.7 and a 13.1 quarter mile on the heavier targa model


Supra

and 1/4 mile (402 m) in 13.3 seconds at 109 mph (175 km/h).



Maybe the Supra auto is way slower than the manual, as Gazboy did 161 at Vmax compared to 162 of NSX

http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/vbpicgallery.php?do=v...

The auto ones are slower, but the only manual that I have been in has been modified so I cant compare them, 360ish bhp and it does pull very very well.

I was talking more about the pre-1997 NSX ones mostly and I think my figures were accurate, the newer are faster, but from say from an in gear pull the Supra is faster in my experience. Ive no experience driving or being in the newer NSXs, are they much improved other than being lighter?

Still lovely cars but when people say they cant be compared to Supras et al, I believe they can be and some of the other cars offered different strengths and weaknesses for less money and I think thats part of why the NSX sold so poorly in the UK.

Im not saying in any way they are bad cars, they are still very fast and they do handle very well and I think they are gorgeous, I just think all this "oh you pay twice as much for the aluminium chassis" stuff is balls because what advantage does that give over cars that dont have that yet perform similarly?

162 is a good result over 1.6 miles I have to say! What do you reckon an auto NSX would get? The RUFs really are something else at vmax.

[Jonathan Legard]

Mr Dave said:

Its 200 kilograms heavier than the equivalent aged RX7 turbo. 0-60 in a similar time to the RX7, doesnt have as nice an interior, does quarter mile in a similar time and cost twice the price new. I still prefer the RX7 steering feel and general handling over the NSX as well.

I would prefer an RX7 to an NSX and I'm not a big fan of the rotary lump.

[mp3manager]

Major Fallout said:

Just thought we should have some photos.

Better ones here.

http://www.dtdirl.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7737...

[B Huey]

Just read that the NSX was originally going to have just a 2.0 litre engine.

[NoelWatson]

TomJS said:

Heck the 928 even had 51/49 % weight distribution which rather detracts from the point of the NSX being mid engined.

Assume you are joking.

[NoelWatson]

55allgold said:

Autocar was pretty sure it went wrong with the adoption of power steering.

I think that is fair.

[GTR Cook]

I have read through and there is no mention of the other iconic jap super car- Skyline.

I would say this had a bearing on the number of NSX's sold, rightly or wrongly.

[marcosgt]

Alfanatic said:

The GT40 is world famous as the blue collar supercar from the '60s. I'm pretty sure they didn't sell many of the original but then it was built to race, not to sell. However, what it did do was build an exceptional legacy, as its value is easy to recognise in hindsight. Generations of kit car lookalikes helped keep it in the public's imagination too. So when GT no. 2 came about, it didn't have to be half as good as the original to be credible, it just had to not be pants.

The GT40, as you sort of say, was a GT racer, it was NEVER a 'blue collar supercar' - It was hardly cheap and only a handful were built for the road.

What people are buying into there is the 'Le Mans racer for the road' image and the GT40's racing history. No-one builds a GT40 road car because their dad had one on the road in the 1960s..

What you said about the GT being a shoe-in was true though - It could've been a fat bloater of a whale with dire handling and a 200 BHP engine and it'd have sold out...

On topic, I reckon that comment about "Because it had a Honda badge" is mostly the point. It sold reasonably well in the US with a Acura badge.

People would probably have overlooked the downmarket interior if the Honda badges hadn't made the obvious connection with the low end Civics.

I rather like the NSX, it's my kind of car (not that I always buy them!), favouring precision, lightness and driving experience over raw grunt, but I (and I'm sure most people looking to buy an NSX when they were new) want it to be somewhere pleasant to sit (If you drive your cars, it kind of doesn't matter what the outside looks like!) and that cheap finish, dull dials and ugly steering wheel aren't that great - Add in the big H and (unless you were already bought into Honda the F1 engine builder hype) you were probably going to think £12K hatchback!

They addressed this later on, but by then we were deep into loads-a-money territory and anything less than a Porsche or Ferrari just wouldn't do for most people with that kind of money.

Badge snobbery? Possibly, but more likely just ignorance that anything else might fit the bill!

M.

Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 2nd June 08:10

[NoelWatson]

Mr Dave said:

I was talking more about the pre-1997 NSX ones mostly and I think my figures were accurate, the newer are faster, but from say from an in gear pull the Supra is faster in my experience. Ive no experience driving or being in the newer NSXs, are they much improved other than being lighter?

Very hard to say how different they are - I don't trust some of the press car numbers

Mr Dave said:

162 is a good result over 1.6 miles I have to say! What do you reckon an auto NSX would get? The RUFs really are something else at vmax.

I reckon an auto would get mid 150s - down on power and number of gears. After changing intake and exhaust we are now up to 164/165, but I think that is our limit. Vmax events are the only time I crave more power - the RUFs are indeed crazy, but this was the maddest of the lot

http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/251362/9ff_gt9r_...

[stew-S160]

andymadmak said:

stew-S160 said:

NoelWatson said:

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."

HAHAHAHAHA. Seriously, Andymadmak, do you even know what an NSX looks like? To say one sounds dull, HAHAHAHAHAAHAHA.

Without wishing to sound a smart arse, I'd wager I've done more miles in NSXs than you have........ And as I said before I do love them. BUT this thread is about WHY they did not sell too well outside the USA. Care to share your extensive knowledge of the product and the reasons for its failure in major western markets?

I'd agree that you have more mileage in an NSX than I, however, my point was clearly that an NSX does NOT sound dull. I find it laughable that anyone would think that.

As for the rest, I made no comment on any of it and don't wish to start.

[scampbird]

jackal said:

its a nerds car and not a porsche or a ferrari

how many kids of the 1970's said to themselves, 'when i get made a partner, I am going to go out and treat myself to a honda'

do you honestly think that even one real world buyer back then gave a stuff about the 348's snappy rear end ?

"not a porsche or ferrari". Its all you need to know about the market: people are swayed by badges. It sold in reasonable numbers in the US, where it was badged Acura.

Nerds car? Disagree with that completely. Its no more a nerds car than a 911 is a city wideboys car.

[RobM77]

GTR Cook said:

I have read through and there is no mention of the other iconic jap super car- Skyline.

I would say this had a bearing on the number of NSX's sold, rightly or wrongly.

As you put it yourself, the skyline was a 'super car', not a 'supercar'