Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?

[flemke]

Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?

Because Honda were wise enough to produce a great car that would not be sullied by the drooling morons and pimply teenagers who adore Ferraris.

[LuS1fer]

10 Pence Short said:

Sorry, you were saying?

You're just being dense now.



The point is that the Corvette was about 1/2 to a 1/3rd of the price of the Honda.

[10 Pence Short]

LuS1fer said:

You're just being dense now.



The point is that the Corvette was about 1/2 to a 1/3rd of the price of the Honda.

It was about 1/2 to a 1/3 as good. So good point.

[LuS1fer]

10 Pence Short said:

LuS1fer said:

You're just being dense now.



The point is that the Corvette was about 1/2 to a 1/3rd of the price of the Honda.

It was about 1/2 to a 1/4 as good. So good point.

...and one is still in production.

[10 Pence Short]

LuS1fer said:

...and one is still in production.

Sorry- I thought you mentioned "were" and "was" in relation to the Honda being more expensive when it came out. I suppose it only took the Corvette 16 or 17 years and however many generations to at least sit in the same ball park.

[Ozzie Osmond]

Targarama said:

Mainly the same reason the Lotus Evora won't be a great seller...

Agreed

Targarama said:

Unfortunately. Of the total £60-£80k performance car market, what % are true enthusiasts who will sacrifice some comfort for thrill (or whatever).

Not so sure it was that. The biggest problems with both cars are,

1. Unadventurous styling, and
2. V6 engine when the market says "V8" (or more)

IMO the only reason the similarly dull Audi R8 is finding customers is because it has the RIGHT engine.

[jbi]

simply didn't have the performance that the asking price required.

I don't think the even the badge was too much of a problem.

[mybrainhurts]

ge0rge said:

Ugly?

Yes...

[LuS1fer]

10 Pence Short said:

LuS1fer said:

...and one is still in production.

Sorry- I thought you mentioned "were" and "was" in relation to the Honda being more expensive when it came out. I suppose it only took the Corvette 16 or 17 years and however many generations to at least sit in the same ball park.

The Corvette was designed to sell for $30000. If they designed it to sell for $80000 like the Honda, I might follow your argument. Maybe you misunderstood my point. It was that people criticise the Corvette's interior despite the fact it's cheap and don't criticise the Honda even though in my opinion the interior does not come close to the price it sold at.
To be fair, cost has been a millstone for the Corvette too. A Callaway Turbo doubled the price of the car, the ZR1 doubled the price of the car and neither of those sold either because the base car could do 90% of what they could do - which brings us back to why the NSX was not a big seller and why one is still here.
It hasn't really taken 16-17 years as the C6 is essentially a development of the 1997 C5 but here we are...still...and still less than an NSX even at current list prices(ZR1 excepted)

[10 Pence Short]

jbi said:

simply didn't have the performance that the asking price required.

I don't think the even the badge was too much of a problem.

You managed to be 180 degrees wrong on both points. It was a better performer than its competitors and didn't sell because the European buying public were not going to spend £60k+ on a 'Honda'.

[Fire99]

IMO It was a car lacking in headline grabbing figures and it looked understated.

I don't doubt that as a drivers car it was probably worth every penny but you know what they say about BHP and car showrooms.

[jbi]

10 Pence Short said:

You managed to be 180 degrees wrong on both points. It was a better performer than its competitors and didn't sell because the European buying public were not going to spend £60k+ on a 'Honda'.

Initially it matched it's competitors, however honda did not invest and it quickly fell behind.

People wont pay the money if it can't beat it's competitors...

The V6 while being a nice engine was underpowered.

Edited by jbi on Tuesday 31st May 23:08

[i remember]

It's a great seller now, better late than never i suppose....

[LuS1fer]

It was an Acura in the US of course, not a Honda, which I think lacked the success of the Lexus brand. I always thought Acura sounded like a watch...maybe Honda did too but I don't think it really translated.

[RobM77]

jbi said:

10 Pence Short said:

You managed to be 180 degrees wrong on both points. It was a better performer than its competitors and didn't sell because the European buying public were not going to spend £60k+ on a 'Honda'.

Initially it matched it's competitors, however honda did not invest and it quickly fell behind.

People wont pay the money if it can't beat it's competitors...

The V6 while being a nice engine was underpowered.

Edited by jbi on Tuesday 31st May 23:08

I'm assuming it was hampered by the Japanese 276bhp agreement? I drove a later 3.2 model and reckon it probably had around 300, but perhaps without being strangled by the 276bhp target the NSX could have won over more buyers?

The crying shame now is that a car like the NSX will never exist again; it'll have to have four seats, a turbocharged engine, stubby "butch" looks, or "lifestyle" cred. A sleek lightweight good handling n/a sportscar doesn't belong these days sadly..

[Major Fallout]

Just thought we should have some photos.

[Haighermeister]

It's probably been said, badge snobbery. I've driven an NSX and s 911 on B roads back to back and the NSX was the superior handling and driving machine IMO. A simply fantastic point to point weapon.







All IMO of course.

[marcosgt]

I must admit when I sat in an NSX when they were first launched I was stunned at how cheap the interior looked.

I believe they got better, but if you're spending Ferrari/Porsche money you want it to be a nice place to be and, truth be told, it looked far too much like a Civic...

Also, whisper it, it wasn't all that quick when first released either...

Probably, though, what really killed it was badge snobbery.

M

[55allgold]

For those who doubt that the car had the performance to match its price tag - go and ask Gordon Murray. He's gone on about the car's true performance and what Honda's engineers did to make it drive so well compared to the German and Italian competition.

We all know it's not the ultimate Vmax car; it would be a crap car in Top Trumps. I hadn't thought of the V6 thing before - were supercar buyers of that era really so blinkered?

FWIW, they're disappearing from British roads as the best ones are now getting hoovered up by Far East buyers.

[icepop]

How odd, only today, I saw both Corvette Z06, and NSX, at close quarters. I must admit I was most surprised by the Z06 interior, which I thought was great, the NSX just looked functional, but probably still would in 10 years time.

Both cars looked great on the outside, but I do believe the NSX pipped it for me, but that may have been the colour that did it, the Z06 was black, and the NSX blue. Now with the Z06 in red, that might have been another story, but then again the NSX could have been in white.....oh 'ek! Worst of all the Z06 had chrome wheels, awefull.

Both drove by, admittedly at different places, the Corvette was thunder, the NSX could have been a Civic. They did look chalk and cheese, and I really get the sledgehammer and the scalpel comparison.