Anyone Buying the 2016 NSX? | Page 7 | FerrariChat

Anyone Buying the 2016 NSX?

Discussion in 'General Automotive Discussion' started by lencap, Jul 9, 2015.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    #151 texasmr2, Mar 6, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2016
    And for a good reason (in my opinion) as the package as a whole was originally under valued for the experience/comfort/performance and reliability compared to its competition. The NSX was perceived as being just an overpriced Honda by the general (non-car and uninformed) population while the real car enthusiast got it.

    Just my perception of course.
     
  2. Ryan S.

    Ryan S. Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 20, 2004
    26,628
    Not feeling this one. R8 wins by a mile still.
     
  3. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    Why?
     
  4. Ryan S.

    Ryan S. Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 20, 2004
    26,628
    Looks, build quality, v10, it's being raced in a real series, price....
     
  5. freshmeat

    freshmeat F1 Veteran

    Aug 30, 2011
    7,257
    #155 freshmeat, Mar 6, 2016
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2016
    too much acura, too little nsx.

    the old nsx which was such a timeless design, proven to be a revolutionary performance benchmark which was made only that much better by the great Ayrton Senna, and then there's the pininfarina design pedigree to boot...then you look at the nsx 2.0 designed by some biker chic from socal...a big meh...

    jay leno said he's going to buy one though, for whatever that's worth...
     
  6. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    1. The looks are subjective to ones own personal opinion.
    2. Build quality? You are familiar with Honda/Acura right?
    3. V10. Not going to go fall for that irrational argument.
    4. "It is being raced in a real series". Who cares?
    5. The 2016 Audi R8 V10 base model is $160,900 while the 2016 NSX base model is $157,800.
     
  7. Ryan S.

    Ryan S. Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 20, 2004
    26,628

    Good way to describe it.
     
  8. texasmr2

    texasmr2 Two Time F1 World Champ
    BANNED

    Oct 22, 2007
    22,232
    Houston
    Full Name:
    Gregg
    We all loved the first gen NSX but would it be rational to think that 11yrs later the 2.0 rendition would be a clone in any form or fashion of the 1.0? We are all car people but having said that must accept change (we don't have to like it though, right?).

    Just conversing guys and not trying to argue.
     
  9. LBBP

    LBBP Formula Junior

    The predecessor to the NSX, the Honda HSV-010 GT, has been racing in Japan in the Super GT.
    And the current NSX will replace the HSV both in Japan and internationally next year. There may be no need for a V10 when a 3.5 liter motor can be sufficient as the EMS/ Patron Honda powered car won the Daytona 24 hours.

    As to the looks, pictures don't do it justice, as it's far better looking in real life. Build quality.. the NSX is hand built one at a time so quality should be on par with comparable cars.
     
  10. rdefabri

    rdefabri Three Time F1 World Champ

    Jun 4, 2008
    33,571
    NJ
    Full Name:
    Rich
    This I agree with. I do think a "keep it simple" approach would have been far better than the gizmo stuff. Nissan had a "nice" product with the GT-R, but the knock always seemed to be the video game console comments.

    While I realize the days of analog sports cars may be over, that should still be a benchmark or target to hit. Seems like other offerings (e.g., McLaren) are better at this than the NSX. I just don't get the fascination with gizmos and doo-hickeys.
     
  11. energy88

    energy88 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 21, 2012
    26,812
    West of Fredericksburg, VA
    Full Name:
    John
    The last few posts have raised an interesting question on how the content of the car has changed since version 1.0 in 1990 and how this impacts the value/price over time. I grabbed some MSRP prices (rounded w/o transportation) off the NSX Prime forum and ran them through an inflation calculator to gauge what has occurred over time. Here is what I found:

    * 1990 Base MSRP- $60,000 (Comments noted that cars were selling for a $30K premium in the early days which vanished as years went by)

    * 2005 Base MSRP- $90,000 (Inflation calculator says original 1990 MSRP then equivalent to $89,268. Conclusion: MSRP increased by about $700)

    * 2016 Base MSRP- $156,000 (Inflation calculator says original 1990 MSRP now equivalent to $109,752. Conclusion: MSRP increased by $46,000 ($156,000 - $110,000 = $46,000) over what can be explained by inflation.

    The $46,000 price increase between version 1.0 and version 2.0 largely represents the added cost of gizmos of which some is acknowledged to be due to added safety requirements. $46,000 is a lot of gizmos and safety. I'm wondering if Honda isn't building a lot of extra profit margin into version 2.0 and this is why some comments above don't feel the car is a bargain anymore like version 1.0 (excluding the early premium-mania).
     
  12. Ryan S.

    Ryan S. Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 20, 2004
    26,628
    #162 Ryan S., Mar 7, 2016
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    In the 110 range it would have almost been a winner. Get close to the 2s though and you are playing with some heavy hitters imo.

    The engine bay also kills it for me....
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  13. Ryan S.

    Ryan S. Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Mar 20, 2004
    26,628
    The HSV could have been a cool car but would never see Honda taking that to mkt.
     
  14. anunakki

    anunakki Seven Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 8, 2005
    72,490
    Las Vegas Nevada
    Full Name:
    Jerry

    you have to factor in what the competition was selling for then and now as well. adjusted for inflation, ferrari and lambo are both way higher than they were then. there are lots of factors even beyond technology , like govt regulations, that account for that price diference over inflation.

    if compared to the competition, the new NSX was as exciting as the original no one would be complaining about the price. a hot looking ferrari beater for $150k ? bring it on...

    problem is the new car is simply not exciting either physically or mechanically. the bar has been raised way too high for honda to think that car is going to generate the excitement of the original...and thats what you need to justify the price. excitement.
     
  15. energy88

    energy88 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 21, 2012
    26,812
    West of Fredericksburg, VA
    Full Name:
    John
    You also raise an interesting point of how much performance may have also increased versus the other mandates. Today's Super Cars go faster quicker.

    The 2016 NSX is about 2.2 seconds quicker going from 0 to 60 mph (~3 sec) and has a 23 mph higher top speed (~191 mph) than the original 1990 version. This is some of what the incremental inflation-adjusted $46,000 calculated above buys you.

    In an effort to split out government mandated safety and emission requirements from performance, I looked at Corvettes as a quick proxy for the NSX.

    First, safety and emissions: The lowest level base 1990 Corvette had an MSRP of $37,264 at the time which in today's money is equivalent to $68,164. The lowest level base 2016 Corvette is priced at $60,395 MSRP which is surprisingly almost $7,800 less than expected versus the inflation-adjusted 1990 model without today's additional safety equipment. Granted, air bags, etc. cost real money, but this expense and others have probably been largely offset by better design practices, more efficient materials elsewhere in the vehicle, the opportunity to design a new generation from a blank sheet of paper several times, or heaven forbid, cheaper materials and cost cutting. For Corvette, at least, the government regulations have not added appreciably to the price burden. Hopefully, the experience at Honda was the same.

    Now for Corvette performance then and now: The 1990 Corvette Coupe ZR-1 was the hot model back in its day. Some called it a challenger to the Countach. It could do 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and had a top speed of 175 mph at an MSRP of $58,995. Today's inflation-adjusted value is $107,914. Today's top-of-the-line 2016 comparable Corvette Coupe is the Z06 C7 which is 1.1 seconds quicker to 60 mph (~2.9 seconds) with a top speed 25 mph higher (~200 mph). A nicely equipped model lists at $112,395, or about $4,500 more than the inflation-adjusted 1990 top performance model.

    Thus, Chevrolet engineers appear to have provided as much or slightly more incremental performance for $4,500 than Honda engineers did for $46,000. I believe this is why there is 10X more excitement for the Z06 C7 than the NSX today. Honda appears to have dropped the ball on the NSX this time around like they have for their other appliance cars lately. Not trying to knock Honda or the NSX but merely stating reality.
     
  16. kverges

    kverges F1 Rookie

    Nov 18, 2003
    3,179
    Dallas
    Full Name:
    Keith Verges
    Volume, my friend, volume. The development cost of the Corvette can be spread over many more units
     
  17. energy88

    energy88 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 21, 2012
    26,812
    West of Fredericksburg, VA
    Full Name:
    John
    Very good point!
     
  18. G.Irish

    G.Irish Rookie

    Mar 1, 2016
    16
    I think a lot of true driving enthusiasts prefer that approach, it would be nice to see what a supercar that committed itself to lightness first would look like these days. That said, I think what most of the manufacturers have converged on is the idea that a supercar has to be able to be a pleasant and easy car to drive on the street, while having a separate mode to turn things up for the track. Doing that involves adding complexity and weight. I think McLaren's approach with the 12C/650S (and the MR shocks and hydraulic stabilizer bars) has been the best execution of that concept to date.

    The goal of the original NSX was to deliver a new sports experience with the technology available to Honda at the time.

    Now they're doing the same thing with the technology available today. They're using a couple new manufacturing techniques, some new computer simulation techniques, and various things with electric motors and batteries. The idea is to make a car with a wider performance envelope than other cars in its class, while making the technology seamless to the driver.

    Will they succeed? As with most of the cars in the supercar segment, a lot of that is subjective, depending on what your tastes are. The car definitely has to hit the marks on the objective measures like straight line speed and lap times, but after that it comes down to fun, feel, and pleasure.

    Sales-wise the car is unlikely to fail with such low production volumes so it really comes down to how well the car is received by the public and whether it casts a favorable halo over the Honda/Acura brand and it's approaches to performance. That in turn depends on whether they follow up this car with other performance cars that use some of the same ideas.
     
  19. ARTNNYC

    ARTNNYC F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jul 8, 2005
    3,767
    NYC, FL
    Full Name:
    Jerome
    this car could end up being another Lexus LFA which was what many would consider a commercial flop due to its overinflated MSRP
     
  20. Solid State

    Solid State F1 Veteran
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Feb 4, 2014
    9,582
    Full Name:
    Maximus Decimus Meridius
    Struggling to find an engine in there. Maybe put a fish tank instead? What an embarrassment.
     
  21. G.Irish

    G.Irish Rookie

    Mar 1, 2016
    16
    The LFA failed because it was astronomically expensive. At the time it was significantly more expensive than the equivalent Ferrari (599) and didn't offer superior performance to justify that price premium.

    The NSX is much cheaper than the 488, and they've already sold out the first year's production, meaning they've already sold more NSX's than Lexus sold LFA's.
     

Share This Page