2002 Sales Numbers to Date

[nsx2000]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
No, the Integra/RSX line had generations released in 1994 and 2002. That's only two major body revisions, not three. So when you say "this also resulted in a series HP gains (integra 139/170/195 and rsx 160/200)", that represents only ONE hp "gain", when the 2001 Integra line was replaced by the RSX line.

The 1990 Integra was a new model (previously 86-89) when it came out at the same time as the nsx.

it offered RS, LS, GS 130hp in 1990

1992 updated with the front and rear bumper, taillights, and some interior panels and added the Vtec GS-R good for 160hp engine

complete new design 4 headlights integra in 1994 with the LS, GS and GS-R.

updated with slight change of bumpers, lights and added the Type-R in 1998

brand new model and engine in 2001 with the RS-X with even higher horsepower models. Now, it is available in 200hp iVtec for the Type S. There is also a more powerful Type R in the Japan market.

I lost track of their horsepower since 1994. But I know they increased the engine from 1.6L to 1.8L in 1994 model.

If you compare to the BMWs
The 1990 US M3 had 220 horsepower
The 1994 US M3 had 270 horsepower
The E46 M3 has over 340 horsepower?
(I might be wrong with the horsepower #)

The competition have already passed NSX. Looks like Honda has a lot of catching up to do.
But the good thing is NSX will not age as fast as other cars because 1991 model looks/perform the same as a 2001 model NSX. Hense, the NSX will keeps its value until Honda makes a huge move on the new model.



[This message has been edited by nsx2000 (edited 16 June 2002).]

 

[Tom Larkins]

Originally posted by NetViper:


Giving the NSX more power can only help the image of the car IMO. Even if it is only a bump to 310 or so.

The next gen car should be pushing a lot more power. I can understand not spending more money on R&D with current engine with a new model coming out, but adding a factory option for a comptech SC doesnt cost them a dime.

I've only owned my NSX for less than 6 weeks, the matter of more power is of course a personal opinion and dependent on how your want to drive the car. My wish would be to have more power, but its good as is for most of us. Driving on the open roads of the mid-west in the dawn hours today it was evident that the car had more to give in certain conditions that most of us could handle or try, including myself. I'm not ripping anyone here, but how many of us put the our car to the limit. I know guys track the cars, but lets face it, we don't want to wad our car into a ball. I purchased mine in the hope that it was everything that I would need in a preformance car, and it is right now. Call me an optimist, but a mentioned this in another thread http://www.nsxprime.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/005045.html I think they will make good on more power and when they do, i'll buy another one because the power we have available now will become relative, but of course the 1st gen will still be good.




[This message has been edited by Tom Larkins (edited 16 June 2002).]

 

[POWERED by HONDA]

Originally posted by Michigan NSX:
Does anybody know why this agreement was made?

I'm going to guess that they were trying to avoid a horsepower war.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
No, the Integra/RSX line had generations released in 1994 and 2002. That's only two major body revisions, not three. So when you say "this also resulted in a series HP gains (integra 139/170/195 and rsx 160/200)", that represents only ONE hp "gain", when the 2001 Integra line was replaced by the RSX line.

nsx2000 beat me to it =)

Also, the fact that a model has several variations available at the same time does not represent incremental changes over time, but rather, a need for separate versions.

I think that is a rather narrow interpretation. All of the variations are still considered the same model as the base car. An integra LS, GSR, and type-r are all still integras -- just with different options and trim levels. What I find significant is that honda continually upgraded the Integra lineup. Whether it be a change across the board ('94, RSX, etc) or the addition of a new variant (GSR/type-R), the result is that the buyer could get his hands on an Integra with more power than before. Whether or not you can buy the old clunker base engine at that time is irrelevant.


It is a shame that the NSX only saw this happen only once in 1997.

Similarly, most of the different versions mentioned above for the CL and the Accord are simply different versions available at the same time, not performance enhancements over the years

Not true with the Accord. Using your criteria for what constitutes a bump, the EX trim alone gets 4 bumps between 90-95 -- 130 in 1990, 140 in 1992, 145 in 1994, and 170 in 1995. The LX trim got several bumps in some of the same years as the EX.

Because the premise to your question - that Honda improves most of its models every year or two - is simply not true.

I think the accord EX example plus the integra info contributed by nsx2000's post pretty much answers this.

When sales of a model are in the hundreds rather than tens of thousands, it's simply unrealistic to expect changes to be as frequent as for the bread-and-butter models.

I would have believed you if Honda didnt keep coming out with all sorts of JDM variations. That has got to cost money. Even if they could not afford an engine upgrade, they could have at least brought over one of these and give the competition a run for its money. Still, these tweaks and mods wont yield as much interest as an extra 20-30HP. Doing it only once in the course of 11 years isnt much better either.

 

[huckster]

for the engine whizzes out there; do you think a newly designed engine putting out more power would be significantly lighter and/or superior to the current aftermarket option of comptech or bbsc?

For the guys/gals with aftermarket exhausts; does your car 'seem' faster--are you more satisfied with your hp than you were with the stock exhaust? i ask this because my stock exhaust is so quiet, i dont get the full visceral sense of speed that i would get with, say, a 348. i think that sound is part of the illusion of speed. a fast car just seems faster with the right exhaust feedback is my presumption.

IMHO the nsx, even the 252hp, is plenty fast--unless you have the comparison to other fast cars while tracking or dragging. as said earlier in this thread, the nsx's capabilities exceed most driver's abilties, mine included--and Tom, no jokes about my carousel ride!!!

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by nsx2000:
The 1990 Integra was a new model (previously 86-89) when it came out at the same time as the nsx.

Wrong. The 1990 Integra was a new model when it came out at the end of 1989. The NSX was introduced as a 1991 model almost a year later, in September 1990.

Originally posted by nsx2000:
updated with slight change of bumpers, lights and added the Type-R in 1998

The bumpers and lights that were changed in 1998 are virtually indistinguishable unless you've got two Integras sitting side by side.

And the Type R version was added in the States in 1997, not 1998.

Originally posted by nsx2000:
If you compare to the BMWs
The 1990 US M3 had 220 horsepower
The 1994 US M3 had 270 horsepower
The E46 M3 has over 340 horsepower?
(I might be wrong with the horsepower #)

Yup, wrong again. Try 190 hp for the E30, 240 for the E36 (which came out in 1995, not 1994), and 333 for the E46, which was released as a 2001 model.

If you want to make a point, get your facts straight first...

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 17 June 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by JoeSchmoe:
Not true with the Accord. Using your criteria for what constitutes a bump, the EX trim alone gets 4 bumps between 90-95 -- 130 in 1990, 140 in 1992, 145 in 1994, and 170 in 1995. The LX trim got several bumps in some of the same years as the EX.

According to Edmunds, the 1995 Accord EX got 145 hp. So did the 1996 and 1997. So, from 1990 to 1997, there were two "bumps" for a grand addition of 15 hp. Sheesh. And, during that period, the NSX was introduced AND a new model was added with an extra 20 hp, more than the two Accord bumps combined.

Can't ANYBODY here get any facts right?

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 17 June 2002).]

 

[Lud]

Japan needs to wake up. There IS a horsepower war going on - it's probably the most obvious trend in sports cars in the last 20 years.

The premier sports cars from every other manufacturer are moving to the BIG HP bracket and the trend clear as day. In fact even luxury cars and sedans are reaching and exceeding the NSX's power... Here is a list of some current production cars and the corresponding HP. I do not think it is a stretch to say that while some of them may be more expensive, heavier, not handle as well, etc. a car like the NSX should still be a lot higher up on the list!

Lamborghini Murciélago : 571 HP
Ferrari 575M: 515 HP
Mercedes SL55 AMG: 493 HP (upcoming 2003 model)
Aston Martin V12 Vanquish: 460 HP
Dodge Viper: 450 HP (2004 Viper is shooting for 500 HP / 500 lb-ft torque)
Ferrari 456M: 436 HP
Aston Martin DB7 Vantage: 420 HP
Porsche 911 Turbo: 415 HP (462 HP in the GT2!)
Chevy Corvette Z06: 405 HP
My Supercharged 3.2L NSX: 400 HP (estimate based on RWHP dyno * 1.12)
Ferrari 360: 400 HP (400 may be optimistic but it certainly has more than the NSX!)
Jaguar S-Type R: 400 HP
BMW M5: 394 HP
Ford Mustang Cobra: 390 HP (2003 model)
Maserati Spyder/Coupe: 390 HP
Jaguar XJR/KXR: 370 HP
Mercedes S600: 362 HP
Mercedes S55 AMG: 355 HP
Lotus Esprit: 350HP
C5 Corvette: 350 HP
Mercedes C32/SLK32 AMG: 349 HP
Mercedes CLK55 AMG: 342 HP
Pontiac Firebird TA: 340 HP
BMW E46 M3: 333 HP
BMW 745i: 325 HP
Chevy Camaro SS: 325 HP
Porsche 911: 320 HP
Lexus GS430: 320 HP
BMW M Coupe/Roadster: 315 HP
Chevy Camaro Z28: 310 HP
Mercedes S500/SL500: 302 HP
Mercury Marauder: 302 HP (2003 model)
Cadillac Deville/Seville/Eldorado: 300 HP
Jaguar S-Type 4.3: 300 HP
Lexus SC430: 300 HP
Acura NSX 3.2L: 290 HP
Jaguar XJ/XK: 290 HP
Lexus LS430: 290 HP
BMW 540i: 290 HP
Lincoln Town Car: 275 HP
Mercedes E430/S430: 275 HP
Acura NSX 3.0L: 270 HP
Volvo S80: 268 HP
TL/CL Type-S: 260 HP
Ford Mustang V8: 260 HP
Nissan Maxima: 255 HP
Ford Thunderbird: 252 HP
Volvo C70 T5: 247 HP
Jaguar S-Type 3.2: 240 HP
Pontiac Bonneville/Grand Prix: 240 HP
Buick Regal/Park Avenue: 240 HP

(some HP ratings are DIN, some are SAE but either one is within a couple % of the other)

Wanting more power is not related to driver skill or how often someone drives 10/10ths at the track. It takes no skill for me to stomp the throttle on the interstate to pass someone or punch it down a straight stretch of some fun back road. By the logic of "the car is better than I am," everyone should be DETUNING their NSX down to their ability. Hogwash.

If I floor it, I AM using the car to 100% of it's acceleration ability. When I do that in my "supercar" I expect it to get up and GO.

The philosophy of the NSX was never to have the best power-to-weight ratio - it was to have a good power-to-weight ratio and a balance of everything else that makes a great GT car. When they designed the NSX they plotted various cars on a graph. More sporting was on one axis. More luxury was on the other axis. They picked a spot in the middle for the NSX, which is what we all like about the car - it does everyhing well but isn't the best at any one thing. When the NSX was introduced it offered front-of-the-pack performance all around plus great value and reliability. THAT is the essense of the NSX. However, the rest of the field has shifted and if the NSX wants to stay in that sweet spot, it needs considerably more power or considerably less weight to stay competitive on the sporting axis while at the same time maintaining the luxury, value and reliability which define it's niche in the sports car world.

Personally I am not satisfied with the power of the 3.0 or 3.2 stock NSX. I am happy with the power of my supercharged NSX for now. In another few years, I expect Honda to offer more. If the 2nd generation NSX does not offer BETTER performance than the same model-year offerings from Ferrari, Porsche, etc. while COSTING LESS and offering BETTER RELIABILITY, NOBODY, INCLUDING ME, IS GOING TO BUY IT. Tough job? You bet - I wouldn't want the job of designing the 2nd generation NSX. But if they cannot do it, they may as well scrap the car because a 350 HP NSX weighing 3200 lbs in 2004 would be a day late and a dollar short, period. Of course that's just my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 16 June 2002).]

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Originally posted by Lud:
Japan needs to wake up. There IS a horsepower war going on...

...However, the rest of the field has shifted and if the NSX wants to stay in that sweet spot, it needs considerably more power or considerably less weight to stay competitive on the sporting axis while at the same time maintaining the luxury, value and reliability which define it's niche in the sports car world.

Personally I am not satisfied with the power of the 3.0 or 3.2 stock NSX. I am happy with the power of my supercharged NSX for now. In another few years, I expect Honda to offer more. If the 2nd generation NSX does not offer BETTER performance than the same model-year offerings from Ferrari, Porsche, etc. while COSTING LESS and offering BETTER RELIABILITY, NOBODY, INCLUDING ME, IS GOING TO BUY IT. Tough job? You bet - I wouldn't want the job of designing the 2nd generation NSX. But if they cannot do it, they may as well scrap the car because a 350 HP NSX weighing 3200 lbs in 2004 would be a day late and a dollar short, period. Of course that's just my opinion.

LOL. This is EXACTLY the point Ive been trying to make.

If honda wants to get its foot in the door, its going to have to get the buyer's attention. While styling plays a part, I think big HP numbers (regardless of the real performance gains) will be what draws in the average Joe off the street. Besides, Honda JUST TRIED the styling approach with 2002 and the sales numbers at the start of this thread shows what little good it did.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
The 1995 Accord EX got 145 hp. So did the 1996 and 1997. So, from 1990 to 1997, there were two "bumps" for a grand addition of 15 hp. Sheesh. And, during that period, the NSX was introduced AND a new model was added with an extra 20 hp, more than the two Accord bumps combined.

This is turning into a nit-picking contest... but I'll bite....
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/generations/articles/46009/article.html

Can't ANYBODY here get any facts right?

My thoughts exactly =)

But seriously, ignoring the fact that they threw in the 170HP V6 and then upgrading it to 200HP in 1998 serious mistake. Buyers and magazine reviews wont make the same distinction you are making. They will only care about the big HP numbers -- even if its just an Accord. (getting sidetracked again)

The key issue is that the customers want more power. They will not justify forking over $90K for a 290HP NSX in 2003 because "it's simply unrealistic to expect changes to be as frequent as for the bread-and-butter models". In their mind, thats Honda's problem and not theirs. They paid the cash, they want the goods.

In addition, the excuse that they cannot afford to upgrade it is a self-reinforcing argument. Since they dont have the sales number, they cant justify upgrading it. Since they dont upgrade it, they wont get the sales numbers. Sitting around and twiddling their thumbs for another few years isnt going to change the outcome.

Jeez. Im starting to sound like a broken record. I think I need a supercharger now =)




[This message has been edited by JoeSchmoe (edited 16 June 2002).]

 

[nsx2000]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Wrong. The 1990 Integra was a new model when it came out at the end of 1989. The NSX came out almost a year later, in September 1990.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------...

I am not going to argue about the month, day the integra appeared in the Acura showroom. But you should not count out the 1990 model. Even if you count that as 1989, you should not count out the current model in your comparasion. Your memory of the Integra started from the 1994 Integra. If I see an ad for 1989 Integra, I assume is the older (86-89) model.


quote:

Originally posted by nsxtasy:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bumpers and lights that were changed in 1998 are virtually indistinguishable unless you've got two Integras sitting side by side.And the Type R version was added in the States in 1997, not 1998.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------...

Wrong, I never owned the Integra, but I can name all the changes on the improvements. the changes made are more noticible than the NSX's update on the color roof and rims (I am sure there are more than I dunno...). Tell you what, My parents, my wife, everybody else I know can't tell the different on the 91 nsx and 97 nsx from the outside or inside.

Once again, I am not going to argue about the actual date and time the Type-R hit the showroom and the model year. But your short memory only shows you forgot the car that once rocked the car industry. However, you do remember the appear date.


quote:

Originally posted by nsxtasy:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yup, wrong again. Try 190 hp for the E30, 240 for the E36 (which came out in 1995, not 1994), and 333 for the E46, which was released as a 2001 model.

If you want to make a point, get your facts straight first...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...

Sorry, I didn't have all those specifaction data sheet in front of me because I was in my office. Ok, I am sure you have you are correct. If E30 has 190hp, E36 had 240hp, E46 had 333hp. Then the once a lower model BMW have already passed the NSX performance territory. You don't get the point? Do you?

Quit messing around with the actual date it hit the showroom and the model year. Do you think if I say "they came out about the same time" means the Integra and NSX came into all Acura dealer on the same date and time together??? You might be a wise car nut guy. But, I (ordinary guy) see both cars came out about the same time. Sorry, I was still in high school, while living in one of the poorest area in California (Oakland) in 1990. NSX was rare and our neiborhood Acura dealer "never" stocked an NSX. So, I have no idea of what you were saying when you said the NSX came out in Sept 1990. That is news to me.



[This message has been edited by nsx2000 (edited 17 June 2002).]

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by nsx2000:
I have no idea of what you were saying

That is news to me.

Obviously.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 16 June 2002).]

 

[Tom Larkins]

Let me make my statements clear;
My wish would be to have more power, but its good as is for most of us Statement made in regards of early posts for those whom like the power they have now. Don't include me in that ! I mentioned that I had only owned this car for 6 weeks and its power is good for me right now. From early posts on this topic it appears that other are satisfied with what they have now, and I can understand that because they won't want to push it to far w/o wrapping their car around a telephone pole. I respect that opinion from those whom don't track the car. I don't want to do that myself, but I didn't say NO MORE POWER. This car can be made much better than what it is now, it has to if its gonna compete in the marketplace with others.

 

[NSX-00054]

Originally posted by Tom Larkins:
Let me make my statements clear;
My wish would be to have more power, but its good as is for most of us Statement made in regards of early posts for those whom like the power they have now. Don't include me in that ! I mentioned that I had only owned this car for 6 weeks and its power is good for me right now. From early posts on this topic it appears that other are satisfied with what they have now, and I can understand that because they won't want to push it to far w/o wrapping their car around a telephone pole. I respect that opinion from those whom don't track the car. I don't want to do that myself, but I didn't say NO MORE POWER. This car can be made much better than what it is now, it has to if its gonna compete in the marketplace with others.

I guess horsepower is like drugs. Once you get used to one dose, you need more for the same rush.

Originally posted by nsx2000:

If you compare to the BMWs
The 1990 US M3 had 220 horsepower
The 1994 US M3 had 270 horsepower
The E46 M3 has over 340 horsepower?
(I might be wrong with the horsepower #)

What has this horsepower increase done to the resale values of the '90 and '94?

 

[JoeSchmoe]

Originally posted by NSX-00054:
I guess horsepower is like drugs. Once you get used to one dose, you need more for the same rush.

I think Doug Hayashi coined the term "go-fast-crack pipe"... and we are all suffering addicts

 

[nsx2000]

Originally posted by NSX-00054:
What has this horsepower increase done to the resale values of the '90 and '94?

If you are talking about the used market since E46's introduction,
there is no effect on the 90' price with the M3's increased horsepower. The E36's price was stong before the E46 came into the market. Now the used E36 M3's price have dropped below to a new lowest priced 3 series. But, that is normal after a completely new style and more powerful model is out on the market.

I was just trying to make a point to show where the competition stands. And that also answers why people willing to pay over MSRP or put their name on wait list for the new E46 M3 last year.

2002 NSX on the other hand, is still the same NSX under a different skin to most people.

 

[Lud]

I think arguing about Integras and Accords is really missing the point. To see where the field is going, you need to look at the Viper, Corvette, Ferrari 360, Porsche 911, etc.

Please move any further discussion of Accords and etc. to Off Topic.

 

[nsx2000]

Originally posted by Lud:
I think arguing about Integras and Accords is really missing the point. To see where the field is going, you need to look at the Viper, Corvette, Ferrari 360, Porsche 911, etc.

Please move any further discussion of Accords and etc. to Off Topic.

Sure thing Lud, I am very impressed with your NSX's 400HP able to hang around with the 400HP F-360. I agree if the Supercharge if available as an option from the dealer, they will certainly make an impact on the NSX's sales.

Originally posted by Lud:
My Supercharged 3.2L NSX: 400 HP (estimate based on RWHP dyno * 1.12)
Ferrari 360: 400 HP (400 may be optimistic but it certainly has more than the NSX!)

 

[NetViper]

Ok,

So most of us agree that getting Acura to sell a factory SC.. either comptech or whatever, would be a good boost for NSX sales.

So why havent they done yet??

It is so simple. The mag reviews would not be able to say anything about lack of power. The acceleration would easily rival the 360 and beat 355's etc. It would probably also be able to lap the track faster than a z06. (going from R&T NSX vs. z06 vs 911 -- where there was a 1 second difference in time).

Who's butt do we need to kick to get a factory SC option for the 2003 NSX!

 

[NSX-00054]

Originally posted by NetViper:
Ok,

So most of us agree that getting Acura to sell a factory SC.. either comptech or whatever, would be a good boost for NSX sales.

So why havent they done yet??

It is so simple. The mag reviews would not be able to say anything about lack of power. The acceleration would easily rival the 360 and beat 355's etc. It would probably also be able to lap the track faster than a z06. (going from R&T NSX vs. z06 vs 911 -- where there was a 1 second difference in time).

Who's butt do we need to kick to get a factory SC option for the 2003 NSX!

Don't you think the Japanese would be more prone to develope their own supercharger than use an aftermarket product? (A pride thing).

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by Lud:
I think arguing about Integras and Accords is really missing the point. To see where the field is going, you need to look at the Viper, Corvette, Ferrari 360, Porsche 911, etc.

Then it's worth pointing out that the fourth generation Corvette was around for thirteen years ('84 through '96). The C5 is now in its sixth year, with the C6 not expected for another 3-4 years or more.

The first-generation Viper came out as a 1992, and it is just now about to have a second generation introduced as a 2003.

 

[s2ktaxi]

A little more hp is fine. But certainly give me even better handling. And maybe an even better sounding car.

 

[mlambert890]

Personally, I'd like to see Honda raise HP *and* lower weight. <3000 lbs, >400hp should be their goal.

I also think they should go with a sequential tranny instead of the auto. 6-speed standard, sequential gear box optional. No detuning... Same car, different tranny.

As for handling/braking/etc., nothing less than the abilities of a Z06, F360 or 911TT should be considered acceptable.

If Honda isn't willing to commit to this level of development, they should drop the NSX.

 

[jmsc]

Lud,

I agree 1000%. Add to your list the following future NSX competition:

Baby Lambo - Rumored V10 450+ HP
Ferrari F420 - Rumored V8 450 HP
Porsche 911 - Rumored (Very Recent UK Magazine) V8 TT 450 HP)
Corvette C6 - Rumored 450+ hp

For NSX to survive, they certainly have to increase horse power or else drop the NSX. If Acura (Honda) is serious about competing against Ferrari, Porsche, Corvette, in the sports car arena, then Honda must step up. Why would I buy a NSX when I could buy a 911 with more power and less $$$? Tell me.

 

[Tom Larkins]

Originally posted by jmsc:


If Acura (Honda) is serious about competing against Ferrari, Porsche, Corvette, in the sports car arena, then Honda must step up.

Tell me, other than a phone survey that was done with recent 2002 owners, does Acura really listen to what is said here. If they don't maybe the should, or are we as owners in this forum in the minority when it comes to the market they think they need to reach. Just wondering, do they know (Acura) this site exists and/or does it make a difference in their market research ?

[This message has been edited by Tom Larkins (edited 18 June 2002).]