Last edited:
And Then?
- Thread starter MiamieNeSeX
- Start date
The car looks hot, no question. Let's just hope it has the power to back up the looks. -- if it ever comes out. :biggrin:
NoMiEzVR4 said:
Honda F1 Racing said:
Ditto
NoMiEzVR4 said:
WTF??? I remember when Ford screwed up big time in the 90s with its Windstar minivan. They had bad consumer research saying that people didn't care about a left side sliding door on a minivan so they designed it initially with only a right side slider, even though everyone else had two sliders on their minivan. They said later that it cost Ford 2 billion to redesign the minivan for another door on the left side as well. My point is that if it cost that much to just engineer a sliding door and redesigning a minivan, then 8 billion for an outstanding performance car from the ground up doesn't seem to be bad at all. You gotta spend some to make some and 8 billion for a completely new car and platform is not terribly out of line in today's costs.
Doc C said:
I see the joke but I dont get the punch line................... have you any idea how much "8 BILLION" dollars is?
Armando
MiamieNeSeX said:
I agree. I think that is a LOT of money to spend on development of any one car.
MiamieNeSeX said:
Isn't that enough for the development of a couple fighter jets?
I really like the HSC front. The back needs a bit of work though.
Well, to completely retool a production facility and get a vehicle through all the appropriate reliability, crash, and federal requirements is a very expensive undertaking. The costs for developing the new Toyota Sienna were estimated at over 5 billion. Why does 8 billion seem so high for a possible supercar with carbon fiber and aluminum construction?? The cost to run an F1 team is in the 100s of millions a year, and they don't have emissions,crash,reliability,EPA, etc.... to worry about. So, I don't understand why this cost is so shocking.
BTW, when fighter jets and bombers cost in the billions to buy, I'm sure that their development costs are considerably more than that of a sports car from Honda.
BTW, when fighter jets and bombers cost in the billions to buy, I'm sure that their development costs are considerably more than that of a sports car from Honda.
Doc C said:
Apples and oranges, the Sienna developement may have well been in that price range, but if Im not mistaken they sell quite a few more of those than they do of the NSX.
PS Let me know at what dealership I couold pick up a B1 bomber, last I checked the government needent turn a profit as they have unlimited funds and a longer arm to reach into all our pockets.
Armando
MiamieNeSeX said:
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into perspective in one of its releases:
A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
A billion minutes ago there had been no world wars.
A billion hours ago our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.
So you're saying that because Honda sells less NSXs than Toyota does Siennas that it costs less to develop it??? You made my point exactly!! The HSC would be a specialty built vehicle that's not mass produced and is made of way more exotic materials than something like a Sienna. That's why an NSX costs $89K vs a Sienna at $38K. The tooling costs and design and fabrication costs are similar whether a manufacturer sells 100K vehicles vs. 100 vehicles a year. So, while the vehicles themselves are apples and oranges, the costs of design development and manufacturing are quite similar.MiamieNeSeX said:
The govt doesn't need to turn a profit, but Lockheed, Boeing etc. certainly do. I agree about the long arm of the government though. Good luck on the search for the B1-B though!!! :smile:
I believe the consensus is that HONDA never turned a profit when it came to the NSX, so it is easy for those that dont have to sign the checks to say"Build me another NSX" I also think that whoever had the "hard on" back in the late 80s to develope and then produce this sweet car is no longer.Doc C said:
Armando
steveny said:
That was a great way to see exactly how much a billion really is......
I'll have to remember it and share it with my friends.
Thanks a million, :smile:
Gene Greer
MiamieNeSeX said:
That's true. However, that has nothing to do with the production costs. It has to do with horrible marketing, and lack of keeping the vehicle fresh from the very beginning. When was the last time anyone saw an NSX commercial? Ever. Porsche advertises the hell out of the 911 in magazines and on TV. Honda will lose its ass again if it builds the HSC with the same mind set it's had with the NSX over the last 7-10 years. The Accord would probably only be selling 200 a year as well if they had the same Accord as they did in 1991 and with NO advertising!!!
Doc C said:
The NSX was never meant to make money, so even if it cost them twice what it did to produce, it had no bearing on wether thay manufacured the car or not as they built someones dream car and indirectly it turned into ours.
Armando
The HSC looks an awful lot like a reskinned NSX.
I suspect that if you add a TL like engine with a SC and Honda will be in business with a very nice car. Should not cost a lot of money at all. (Guess: $300M...with a break even at 5,000 cars, should be quite doable.)
The list is very short on things that need to be updated on the NSX: body panels, interior and a bit more HP. (Just like making a Mustang out of a Comet back in 1965. Or the C5 vs C6 corvette.)
In fact, I'm hoping for this very thing. It will extend the life of the current NSX's by providing essential parts for quite a bit longer. And allow upgrades of older cars with a newer drivetrain and such
Drew
For those asking for a V8 from Honda, that is very unlikely. Honda has pretty much committed NOT to keep tossing money down the black hole that is powered by gasoline.
I suspect that if you add a TL like engine with a SC and Honda will be in business with a very nice car. Should not cost a lot of money at all. (Guess: $300M...with a break even at 5,000 cars, should be quite doable.)
The list is very short on things that need to be updated on the NSX: body panels, interior and a bit more HP. (Just like making a Mustang out of a Comet back in 1965. Or the C5 vs C6 corvette.)
In fact, I'm hoping for this very thing. It will extend the life of the current NSX's by providing essential parts for quite a bit longer. And allow upgrades of older cars with a newer drivetrain and such
Drew
For those asking for a V8 from Honda, that is very unlikely. Honda has pretty much committed NOT to keep tossing money down the black hole that is powered by gasoline.
Last edited:
drew said:
Actually, I have a source that confirmed today it is a V8 and a launch in 2008/2009. But who knows.
Doc C said:
Building a pure carbon fiber car, with no steel or aluminum unibody or panels, is probably the most cost effective way to produce (when volume levels are extremely low). There's no tooling necessary; no hundreds of millions spent on aluminum stamping machines that push out 17,000 cars in 16 years. Case in point, look at Pagani: There's no way that company spent billions or even hundreds of millions of dollars on R&D. They'd never be able to recover it. Yet, producing something like 10 to 20 cars a year they're most likely profitable. Otherwise, being so small, they'd never be able to sustain such a loss as Honda is purportedly taking on the NSX.
Btw, I think that the FIA does use some sort of crash/rollover safety requirements.
MiamieNeSeX said:
They never meant to make money on the NSX?? Really?? Maybe not in direct NSX sales, but I think Honda absolutely meant to make a LOT of money by having a halo or image car like the NSX. It was about brand image. I don't believe for a second that they built the car intentionally planning on losing money based on someone's dream or a hard on. Honda is too successful a company to do things like that. Racing programs, advertising etc. are all about sales and profit. It draws people into showrooms. Ford was and in many ways still is on the brink if bankruptcy, yet it developed the Ford GT. Mr. Ford said they needed a halo car to help the brand image. They won't make back the costs of development on sales of the GT, but a hell of a lot of people will buy a Mustang or Five Hundred because of it. This will make the company money.
MoreRPMs said:
Absolutely right. But with that low of volume, do they have to meet federal crash standards?? What about emissions standards? DO you think a Pagani will hold up for 200K miles?? Panoz is another example of a small volume car manufacturer. They are nice cars. They have NVH levels that are crap and most of the underpinnings and drivetrain are from the Ford parts bin. They didn't have much R&D because they are using other people's parts. Hell, you can build a dune buggy in your backyard with an old VW engine and a piece of fiberglass if you want to. People on this site talk over and over about the amazing engineering in the NSX, but yet don't think that doesn't cost very much. I thought on here somewhere someone said to make every body panel on an NSX out of carbon fiber would cost well over $100K. Is that true??? Then, to me it seems the NSX would be VERY expensive if that's the case.
I'm sure the FIA has rollover standards and crash safety standards. Do they have to have a 5 mph bumper so there insurance premiums aren't sky high?? How about child safety seat anchors and curtain airbags??? How about EPA friendly climate control systems and CARB legal emissions certification??? Does the FIA have to worry about a class action lawsuit because of a poorly designed tire, or spontaneous acceleration, or because little Johnny cut his head off in the power window?? MY POINT was that there is a lot of CRAP that auto manufacturers have to swim through to develop and design a vehicle that a race team may not have to worry about. These add extraordinarily to the costs.
Completely off topic, miamenesex, Sung hi lee is gorgeous *sigh* even with her 'added' extras. :redface: :redface:
Doc,
I can't answer your questions on crashworthiness or emissions on cars that aren't even available in the U.S. (at least I don't recall the Zonda being for sale here) I'm also not a quality-control engineer (or an engineer of any kind) so I can't say whether or not the car holds up well after 100 or 200k miles. But, given that McLaren said their F1 would last indefinitely, and Pagani's construction is similar, I don't see why it wouldn't meet the same standards as the British car for longetivity.
Seems to me there are lots of these low-volume car makers around the world. Not even a half-decade ago I would've counted Lamborghini as one of them. Production of less than 200 Diablos a year certainly would qualify them as a non-major automaker. Hell, I would've labeled them as "some company building exotic cars out of a garage; averaging one-a-day". How's their durablity? Surely, there must be Countachs and Miuras, and Diablos for that matter with a ton of miles on them. And those are antiquated examples of technology. None of them even use aluminum extensively, let alone use carbon fiber and other types of high-tech construction.
So, I guess the answers to your questions would have to be answered by the companies directly, or by owners. I am neither. I would even venture to guess that I'll never see a C12 in person.
I can't answer your questions on crashworthiness or emissions on cars that aren't even available in the U.S. (at least I don't recall the Zonda being for sale here) I'm also not a quality-control engineer (or an engineer of any kind) so I can't say whether or not the car holds up well after 100 or 200k miles. But, given that McLaren said their F1 would last indefinitely, and Pagani's construction is similar, I don't see why it wouldn't meet the same standards as the British car for longetivity.
Seems to me there are lots of these low-volume car makers around the world. Not even a half-decade ago I would've counted Lamborghini as one of them. Production of less than 200 Diablos a year certainly would qualify them as a non-major automaker. Hell, I would've labeled them as "some company building exotic cars out of a garage; averaging one-a-day". How's their durablity? Surely, there must be Countachs and Miuras, and Diablos for that matter with a ton of miles on them. And those are antiquated examples of technology. None of them even use aluminum extensively, let alone use carbon fiber and other types of high-tech construction.
So, I guess the answers to your questions would have to be answered by the companies directly, or by owners. I am neither. I would even venture to guess that I'll never see a C12 in person.
Maybe a little bit off-topic here.
But just suppose...
Honda would build the HSC are base an major-upgrade of the 2002+ NSX on it.
With all the add features we all would have like to appear years before now like more HP, a little updated exterior and a major update on the interior.
And then back it up with the marketing that a car like that would deserve.
Just how much cars like the HSX (or NSX) would Honda need to sell to meet cost. I remember that back in '91 the NSX-factory was all set up to build something like 25 cars a day (that's about 9000 cars a year).
Would you not think that selling like 5000 HSC's a year (worldwide) at (let's say) 90K per car would still be a turn-over for a car like that. It might even bring the price down a bit just because of the pure production-volume.
But just suppose...
Honda would build the HSC are base an major-upgrade of the 2002+ NSX on it.
With all the add features we all would have like to appear years before now like more HP, a little updated exterior and a major update on the interior.
And then back it up with the marketing that a car like that would deserve.
Just how much cars like the HSX (or NSX) would Honda need to sell to meet cost. I remember that back in '91 the NSX-factory was all set up to build something like 25 cars a day (that's about 9000 cars a year).
Would you not think that selling like 5000 HSC's a year (worldwide) at (let's say) 90K per car would still be a turn-over for a car like that. It might even bring the price down a bit just because of the pure production-volume.
Similar threads
