Acura NSX Details Emerge - in Today's Autoweek

[Dhalsim]

Either way please continue....

 

[N Spec]

I meant worldwide not counting US.

 

[fastaussie]

Woo, I just re-read my post and it's a huge wall of text. I would be surprised if you or anyone reads this Lol

holy crap, you weren't joking about that. i'm gonna ignore most of that insanely long text and just reply to a random quote here and there because i've been flying all over the country the last week and pretty tired this evening. kidding, i'll only ignore a small amount of it. :smile:

- - - Updated - - -

The F1's unique seating pattern was for the experience, but when you say "only" reason, that is never the case for anything in this world. Gordon could have still chose to only put one seat to the right of the driver and leave the left side for cargo space, but he didn't, because an open seat can still be used for cargo space. This was the more efficient path

since it is again "literal day" here on Prime, and because robr, docjohn and SFNSXguy are really enjoying the exchange of bantor, i'm gonna go ahead and change the "only" from my F1 seating arrangement statement, to a "primarily". hence my updated sentence now reads as follows:

"however it was primarily designed that way because Gordon Murray wanted the driver sitting in the middle of the car, like a race car, for the optimum driving position with the best vantage point"


- - - Updated - - -

The drawback of the Corvette is exotic appeal, aesthetics (more so on the interior), and fit/finish. There is no exotic appeal to me for any Porsche except the Carrera GT, even if their fit/finish is much better and thus price reflects that. There is no doubt the 911 and Corvette are top sellers, but that has more to do with price, history and market segment command.

somebody take a picture of this before i change my mind, i am in agreement with N Spec on this note. i'm not a huge Porsche fan, but i do like them. they have an extensive and honourable racing history. Corvettes, can't stand 'em.

- - - Updated - - -

i am at this time refusing to further debate any comments concerning the Lexus LFA or practicality in general. i think? for now? most likely...

- - - Updated - - -

Like those who made the close-minded grandma statement, I once viewed the NSX as rubbish too. I had a twin turbo 300ZX and questioned how the hell can a 290 hp car be $90K?

this is incredibly interesting, as there is no question you are the Gen 1's biggest cheerleader. but we all know horsepower and speed figures greatly impact public perception of a performance vehicle, and in turn sales to a certain degree. which is why the NSX has to be somewhere in the ballpark of the other headliners.

- - - Updated - - -

You obviously have been bitterly replying to those kinds of people "that Sports cars are not meant to be practical" and have been taking idealistic approach to heart.

nah mate, i could care less what anybody thinks. if i did, i'd have another Ferrari at the moment. i bought the NSX because i like it...

- - - Updated - - -

People keep making the comparisons of the 458 or Mclaren to the new NSX, but the price difference is going to be huge and they are not in the same market.

they make those comparisons because those two particular cars are the cream of the crop, they have the bullseye on their backs. as far as pricing goes, the story is no different now than it was when the original '91 NSX debuted. it was roughly half the price of the top Ferrari F-car at that time:

when the NSX was released in 1991, it's target was the Ferrari 348. the 348 had 300hp at the time, and the NSX 270. the 348 cost around $120k for the base model. the NSX cost $60k. so about half price roughly. in 2002, a base model 360 with 400hp retailed at $150,000. a 2002 NSX with 290hp retailed for $88k. not exactly half, but relative. the retail price of a 2013 Ferrari 458 with 560+hp is now $230,000. so if Acura's rumoured target price of $110k to $130K is correct, the pricing scale has remained almost exactly the same over 20 years...

- - - Updated - - -

Nonetheless, I think you bringing up sales as a argument is sign of soreness in this debate. You've been ranting on and on about flagship cars like the LFA only needing 500 units, but then you make an argument for sales? You are not the only one to have brought sales up, but I think it's sort of funny that people compare NSX sales to Corvette or 911 sales numbers. I don't want the NSX to sell Corvette/911 numbers and I am sure Honda does not either.

There is nothing exotic about 30,000 cars per year! That's me yelling :wink:

again, the LFA sales numbers were intentional. and for sure, none of us want to see 30,000 NSX sales a year. please keep your voice down, it's late. what i'm saying is its not about selling 30,000 NSX's, it's about prospective NSX buyers taking their cash over to Chevy for the much cheaper horsepower. not everyone is NSX mad, some shrew customers will simply crunch the numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

Now this discussion is getting interesting. I like your most recent post fastaussie

there you go robr, hopefully you'll dig this one too. enjoy mate. and...i'm out!

 

[N Spec]

this is incredibly interesting, as there is no question you are the Gen 1's biggest cheerleader. but we all know horsepower and speed figures greatly impact public perception of a performance vehicle, and in turn sales to a certain degree. which is why the NSX has to be somewhere in the ballpark of the other headliners.

It's true. I was a Nissan fan long before I was a Honda (NSX) fan The 300ZX and NSX are kindred spirits though and are very similar in many ways, but the NSX's direction and execution was so much better. I still get a good chuckle when I see a Nissan versus Honda Meme online these days. True, Nissan has more presence in motorsports and makes sportier cars, but Honda makes better engines than Nissan and Toyota. I am fan of all three companies though.

when the NSX was released in 1991, it's target was the Ferrari 348. the 348 had 300hp at the time, and the NSX 270. the 348 cost around $120k for the base model. the NSX cost $60k. so about half price roughly. in 2002, a base model 360 with 400hp retailed at $150,000. a 2002 NSX with 290hp retailed for $88k. not exactly half, but relative. the retail price of a 2013 Ferrari 458 with 560+hp is now $230,000. so if Acura's rumoured target price of $110k to $130K is correct, the pricing scale has remained almost exactly the same over 20 years...

Well technically, the NA1 NSX and 348 put down roughly the same whp, which is ~235 whp, so you could say Honda exceeded Ferrari's output at the time, because it certainly showed in the performance stats. However, most people who bought the 91 NSX were paying closer to $100K and ultimately, the NSX ended up being $90K+ anyways. So it's technically never been half the price of the Ferrari, but more like 75%. So this time around, if it's truly closer to 50%, then you have to give some slack.

We are at full circle again, but I have been downplaying my hopes for Honda's rumored target of 550+hp to compete with the 458 simply because I would rather be surprised than have baseless hope and be let down again. Honda has been really tight lip about the specs so far so really all of the rumors could simply be speculation. The only way Honda could extract 550 hp+ from a V6 is using FI, because even though I support the move for hybrid tech, my realist mentally would never count that as reliable and consistent power, very much like nitrous.

again, the LFA sales numbers were intentional. and for sure, none of us want to see 30,000 NSX sales a year.

Trust me, if Lexus could sell more than 500 LFAs and actually make some profit or their money back, they would have lol. There is no company or even conscious human being that likes the idea of losing money. The $400K price tag and 500 units was basically a liquidation number that they could live with. This is why they are moving on to making more realistic sport cars that can actually make them some money. It's not like Toyota is hurting for money though, being number 3 and all.

and for sure, none of us want to see 30,000 NSX sales a year. please keep your voice down, it's late. what i'm saying is its not about selling 30,000 NSX's, it's about prospective NSX buyers taking their cash over to Chevy for the much cheaper horsepower. not everyone is NSX mad, some shrew customers will simply crunch the numbers.

I think the new NSX will do just fine. If the rumors of 900 units per year is true, it will not be hard to meet those numbers. I think Honda can manage to attract 3% of the Porsche or Corvette crowd. At 900 units per year, that is definitely exclusive exotic territory and I am quite pleased with that projection. 2-3K units per year should be the threshold IMO, but I think 900 is the average number across 8-10 years of production I reckon.

Setting a realistic volume of 900 per year, Honda can plan production accordingly with proper pricing and make a profit while also delivering a quality car. Toyota should develop a mid engine car that sells in similar quantities, instead of simply just 500 units of a so-so, decent super car (last plug I swear :tongue.

 

[simplife]

Volvo Coupe Concept tailights compared to new NSX.............hmmmmm

 

[JLCoolman]

This just became the best thread ever.