Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?

Why was Honda NSX not a great seller?

Author
Discussion

Mr Dave

3,233 posts

196 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Maybe most important, and what everyone seems to be missing when they say about the competitors. The Porsche retained value well. The Ferrari retained value well. The Honda didnt.

The people who had the money to buy a car of this price are usually sensible with money and if the NSX cost twice more to own over say three years when depriciation was taken into account then why would you pay more for a Honda over a Ferrari? If it came to it, I know I would laugh at you for suggesting it.

The price of a car usually reflects little on the cost to own it.

P.S. I think the FD RX7 is a sportier car to drive.


Pesty

42,655 posts

257 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Mr Dave said:
Maybe most important, and what everyone seems to be missing when they say about the competitors. The Porsche retained value well. The Ferrari retained value well. The Honda didnt.

depends on what time period you are talking about

91 NSX £18k 107k miles
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/2654164.htm

A 964 C2 would have to be in good nick and lowish miles to fetch 18k and prices have risen dramatically recently. You can still find them at just over 10k not very long ago, yes some dealers are asking nearly 20 for cars with engine rebuilds etc etc but prices are very similar.

Yes a 348 is still mid 20's but find me one that has over 100k miles on it for that price. Just look on the ferrari section on here to see how touchy they are about milage.





Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 1st June 02:21

Mr Dave

3,233 posts

196 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Pesty said:
depends on what time period you are talking about

91 NSX £18k 107k miles
http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/sales/2654164.htm

A 964 C2 would have to be in good nick and lowish miles to fetch 18k and prices have risen dramatically recently. You can still find them at just over 10k not very long ago, yes some dealers are asking nearly 20 for cars with engine rebuilds etc etc but prices are very similar.

Yes a 348 is still mid 20's but find me one that has over 100k miles on it for that price. Just look on the ferrari section on here to see how touchy they are about milage.





Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 1st June 02:21
Im talking about over the period of time the original owner had the car.

The price of the car now had absolutely no bearing on Mr. A buying a new NSX in 1997. How much it would be worth in 1999 did.

I remember a few years ago looking at NSXs at around 12k. Would have been a great time to buy one as they are going back up nicely. Irrelevant as what damaged sales figures was depreciation.

Wayney

626 posts

207 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
A question a little off topic!

But why do the Japanese develope a supercar once every 10-15 years?

eg Supra 1990-2001 - Replaced new Lexus! So 2001-2011 Toyota saw no market for a Supercar? Why release one now?

Again a very valid point was raised earlier! The NSX launched in 1990 was undepowered, over priced!! But there was little or few updates in 15yrs! Why?

Pagani for example with the Zonda, ran limited edition runs & batches & every new batch was an evolution of the previous version of the Zonda! smile

Nick3point2

3,917 posts

181 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Johnboy Mac said:
The badge aspect has been covered already, still an important point.
Well I wasn't arguing about the badge, its was more sublime vs ridiculous. And spending £70k on a car in 1990, you'd go for ridiculous every time!

Baryonyx

18,006 posts

160 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Because true genius is never understood.

On the other hand, there is a predictable Porsche, Ferrari et al option. Why bother thinking outside the box when conventional wisdom and brand acceptance has already told you what you want? rolleyes

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
B Huey said:
It looked odd, was underpowered and overpriced.

Next question.
Relative to what?

jbi

12,682 posts

205 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
NoelWatson said:
Relative to what?
Ferrari brought out the 355 and Porsche, the 993 variant of the 911, which walked all over the NSX.

Also in the USA, it's target market, it was being beaten by cheaper and faster cars like corvette's

It was a good car, but it needed to be brilliant, and it needed investment, which it never got.

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
belleair302 said:
The only other possible problem was the lack of noise from the exhausts / engine.
Fair point about the exhaust, but noise from inside the cabin - different matter.

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
B Huey said:
Contemporary Supras pushed out around 330bhp.
And had the same performance

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
RobM77 said:
I drove a later 3.2 model and reckon it probably had around 300
It probably had around 285 if standard

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
jbi said:
and Porsche, the 993 variant of the 911, which walked all over the NSX.
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
TVR Cerbera 1:33.42 - 20º
BMW M3 1:33.78 - 15º
Caterham Superlight 1:33.80 - 6º
Suburu Impreza Turbo 1:34.01 - 2º
Lotus Elise 1:34.24 - 1º (120 CV !!!)
Mercedes E36 AMG 1:35.44 - 10º
Jaguar XK8 1:37.10 - 11º
Peugeot 106 GTI 1:38.32 - 5º (120 CV !!!)
BMW 528i 1:38:24 - 16º
Alfa Romeo GTV 1:38:52 - 18º
BMW 318ti 1:39.92 - 19º
Citroen Xantia Activa 1:41.86 - 17º
Nissan Primera SRi 1:41.96 - 12º
MGF 1:43.24 - 3º
Peugeot 306 GTI-6 1:43.26 - 7º


1997
Lap times around Castle Combe circuit, under damp conditions.


1 Ferrari F50 69.37
2 Ferrari 550 Maranello 72.04
3 Honda NSX 72.20
4 Chrysler GTS 72.86
5 Caterham Superlight R 73.17
6 Nissan Skyline GT-R 73.09
7 Lotus Esprit GT3 74.40
8 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 74.89
9 Jaguar XJR V8 76.20
10 Venturi Atlantique 76.71
11 Subaru Impreza Turbo 76.83
12 Porsche Boxster 77.52
13 Honda Integra-R 78.94
14 BMW Z3 2.8 79.02
15 Lotus Elise 79.05
16 Peugeot 106 GTI 79.63
17 Renault Sport Spider 79.83
18 Ford Puma 83.15
19 MGF VVC 85.80
20 Ford Ka2 94.81




stew-S160

8,006 posts

239 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
navier_stokes said:
Saw a nice yellow on bumbling through Godmanchester the other day - very understated on the road, but very unique!
Seen that a few times through Huntingdon. Lovely car.

jbi

12,682 posts

205 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
yes you are right... the NSX was closer than I remembered, but perhaps this reinforces the point that once the porsche was good enough and the NSX received no investment to make it better, people would opt for the porsche by default.

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
J4CKO said:
all it was Japanese and had 276 bhp and not Italian with 375, big difference, especially once the badge was taken into consideration, ok it was good but better than a 355 ?
The Ferrari was 83k in 1994 - not sure what NSX was

http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsVerdi...

As an aside, the NSX tested in 2002 had very similar performance to the Ferrari, so looked like Honda produced a press special, so they must've learnt something from the Italian competition (allegedly)

Pentoman

4,814 posts

264 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Engine not large enough really.
Engine not characterful enough. It certainly has character but it's sports car character not supercar character.
Engine is probably closely related to that from an everyday saloon car. I am assuming this, by the way - but then so would potential buyers.
All the above are probably suffered by the Esprit and Evora as well. Compare to some of the great units in the 911, 348, and maybe even Corvette.
Interior has already been said. It remains a disappointment to this day when you look at 2nd hand ones. Despite the cheap appearance, I bet many interior and exterior parts are still overpriced as seems to be the case too often on Japanese cars. That doesn't make any sense to the buyer.
The high reliability isn't that big a deal. Most people buying new wouldn't buy one as an only or everyday car. And anyway they could afford the repairs bills on something more exotic. An ultra reliable supercar is a niche.
Back then (and still to some extent today) Honda wasn't well known for its great to drive cars, not in the same way as the competition were. UK roads are somewhat unique, and what works elsewhere doesn't work here. Buyers will go on instinct as much as, or more than, on what a magazine says. If they even read any magazines. If a previous Honda hasn't done it for you, it's hard to assume this new one will. It's a risk when you look at the available competition, all guaranteed to put a smile on your face.
What else made the competition more attractive? Brand loyalty, childhood dreams, motorsport, too many things.
I love the NSX. I'll probably own one when I think I can afford it. It was a bold move and they deserve a lot of credit for building it and doing such a fine job. They've got the difficult first effort out of the way, the same way BMW did with the M1. NSX values are pretty high right now in my opinion, maybe a good sign for future residuals.

Ben3883

1,971 posts

167 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
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.

Johnboy Mac

2,666 posts

179 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Nick3point2 said:
Johnboy Mac said:
The badge aspect has been covered already, still an important point.
Well I wasn't arguing about the badge, its was more sublime vs ridiculous. And spending £70k on a car in 1990, you'd go for ridiculous every time!
If I may make a suggestion? Go and speak to the owners, especially the one's who splashed out the £50k back in the early 90's, ask them why they bought. All seemed to me to be generally very well informed and usually had an interesting car ownership history too. Personally, I've nothing but respect and admiration for those petrol-heads.


LuS1fer

41,154 posts

246 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
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.
That's not actually true. The 90s Corvette had big bolstered leather chairs and were very comfortable (more so than the later thinner C5 seats).

NoelWatson

11,710 posts

243 months

Wednesday 1st June 2011
quotequote all
Pentoman said:
I am assuming this, by the way - but then so would potential buyers
I think that is the problem.