I'm not sure, but I think it was in place by late summer.
Edmunds Review of the 2003 NSX...
- Thread starter NSXaholic
- Start date
I'm not sure, but I think it was in place by late summer.
One things for sure; the longer you wait the less you will sell it for! The pre-'02 cars will all seek their own level in the not too distant future. Sure the 98 will be worth more than the comparable mileage/condition 97 and so on, but the differences will be much, much closer than today. This being said you will see the 01, 00 & 99 (Zanardi excluded?) decrease in value precipitiously over the next 18 months until they are much more on par with the 97/98's.
my .02 based on years in the car business!
I agree with Paul65K.
Note too that the value of cars of different years tends to vary partly as a function of time, partly as a function of improvements. To demonstrate this, there's less difference in price between a '91 and a similar '94, than there is between a '94 and a similar '95. Why? Because the '95 has the removable roof panel that the '94 doesn't, and this feature is worth a significant "bump" in price. There is a similar "bump" between the '96 and the '97 because of the numerous enhancements done for '97. But over time, as prices for the newer cars drop, I would expect the "bump" for a '97 over a '96 to continue, whereas price differences between, say, a '97 and a '01 will probably narrow.
Note too that the value of cars of different years tends to vary partly as a function of time, partly as a function of improvements. To demonstrate this, there's less difference in price between a '91 and a similar '94, than there is between a '94 and a similar '95. Why? Because the '95 has the removable roof panel that the '94 doesn't, and this feature is worth a significant "bump" in price. There is a similar "bump" between the '96 and the '97 because of the numerous enhancements done for '97. But over time, as prices for the newer cars drop, I would expect the "bump" for a '97 over a '96 to continue, whereas price differences between, say, a '97 and a '01 will probably narrow.
For the record, I *love* the tape deck. The easiest and cleanest way to hook literally anything up to the car stereo is with a good old reliable car kit. For ten bucks, I've had laptops, pocket PCs, MP3 players and portable DVD players all feeding through the car speakers. It makes life really easy and it's a feature I really miss on my BMW.
I'm sure I'll join in on the beating Midnight Hour received, but I need to comment. Cars are never (or at best very rarely) a good investment. I typically keep cars 2-3 years, and as such try very hard to stay away from brand new cars and go for 1-2 year old cars to avoid that 1st year depreciation hit which is usually brutal.
The exception is new cars/big changes that I just can't wait 1-2 years for. I bought a Z3 when they 1st came out because I fell in love and couldn't wait. 3 years later when everyone, their mother and most of there children had one, plus larger engine options and mine was worth little when I sold it with high miles, but in showroom condition.
I don't have the cash on hand for a new NSX, so it's not really an issue, but if I was in that range I would almost certainly go for a '97-00 range, add I/H/E, SC and NavPod for the same price. That gives me more power and a better looking/handling car than others in that range (911s come to quickly to mind).
I think the best idea would be if Honda could work a deal for BBSC or CTSC as options as a way around the 300hp agreement (or just say to hell with it). Forget $7,500 dealer incentives, tack on SC’s and then who’d need an incentive? Let’s see who reviews it as underpowered at 400hp and 3100lbs, not me.
All that said, my NSX is screwing up my typical scheme because it is the 1st car I've owned that I'd consider keeping for 5-10 years. My current predicament is what to do with my stock '91. Should I start adding mods now, or wait a year or two and get a '95 or '97 and mod them later? I try hard let good sense lead the way over emotion with cars, but it's never easy.
[This message has been edited by tpearsall (edited 16 February 2003).]
The exception is new cars/big changes that I just can't wait 1-2 years for. I bought a Z3 when they 1st came out because I fell in love and couldn't wait. 3 years later when everyone, their mother and most of there children had one, plus larger engine options and mine was worth little when I sold it with high miles, but in showroom condition.
I don't have the cash on hand for a new NSX, so it's not really an issue, but if I was in that range I would almost certainly go for a '97-00 range, add I/H/E, SC and NavPod for the same price. That gives me more power and a better looking/handling car than others in that range (911s come to quickly to mind).
I think the best idea would be if Honda could work a deal for BBSC or CTSC as options as a way around the 300hp agreement (or just say to hell with it). Forget $7,500 dealer incentives, tack on SC’s and then who’d need an incentive? Let’s see who reviews it as underpowered at 400hp and 3100lbs, not me.
All that said, my NSX is screwing up my typical scheme because it is the 1st car I've owned that I'd consider keeping for 5-10 years. My current predicament is what to do with my stock '91. Should I start adding mods now, or wait a year or two and get a '95 or '97 and mod them later? I try hard let good sense lead the way over emotion with cars, but it's never easy.
[This message has been edited by tpearsall (edited 16 February 2003).]
I read the review a couple days ago. I'm surprised they even mentioned the Z06. I agree that a couple year old NSX is still the way to go for the most bang for the $$$.
The review to me was more of a, "Here's the NSX and its still a great car, but expensive and there are two cars (one expensive, the other less) that appeal to me more." They can stick it.
The AMV8 is going to be priced at least $125k. Aston Martin's goal for price is slightly less then the DB7 to appeal to those who do not want the DB7 but still want an Aston Martin and don't want/can't afford the Vanquish. Check out the press release info.
[This message has been edited by JaguarXJ6 (edited 17 February 2003).]
The review to me was more of a, "Here's the NSX and its still a great car, but expensive and there are two cars (one expensive, the other less) that appeal to me more." They can stick it.
The AMV8 is going to be priced at least $125k. Aston Martin's goal for price is slightly less then the DB7 to appeal to those who do not want the DB7 but still want an Aston Martin and don't want/can't afford the Vanquish. Check out the press release info.
[This message has been edited by JaguarXJ6 (edited 17 February 2003).]
Isn't value and beauty a perception issue? There will always be someone against what a person sees as beautiful or a good value. One mans treasure is another mans trash! Or, you may think you have the most beautiful wife or girl friend in the world. Someone else may think she is just average looking or a dog. It's all about persons perception.
There are those that will pay top dollar for a car, a house or almost anything for that matter. Value is detrmined by a person perspective. Car manufacturers' places value on their work and their materials in the form of MSRP. Whether or not anyone is willing to pay MSRP is up to the consumer. Their decision to buy is in the form of perceived value. Value isn't always based on the car alone, there are many other factors that can influence values. The majority of consumers don't buy cars on dilegent research, they buy cars on emotions. Car dealers know this way too well. EX: Joe Schmoe walks into the dealer to buy a budget car and walks out with a overpriced Mini Van. Why? Because the salesperson played with the emotions of the buyer. Buyers of high-end cars are typically different. Because they know what they want and price is the only variable.
Why did I buy an NSX? Because of what the car is to me, which is my perceived value. The shear elegance of the body lines, the engineering, the reliability and quality of Honda/Acura products. Is the NSX worth $89K - it would appear so otherwise Acura wouldn't sell 200+ of 'em every year. The small percentage of the cars left over at the end of the year are pretty much the only ones the get larger discounts as far as I know. Did I pay sticker? No! Would I have paid sticker? Yes and No! Does the Acura Dealer know this? Of course - they sold the car to me for what I was willing to pay. They could have sold the car for full MSRP - the $7500 from Honda. Did they? No, because they knew what I would pay and what the market would bear.
Ragging on the NSX for being a 12 year old design is a valid point. But how many cars could retain a contemporary look for that duration? That is why every other car on the market today changes its style and features a gazillion times. Because they can't maintain popularity and must change the look and feel of their cars in order to make them sell. With the NSX they haven't needed to do this they have maintained a number to keep the production line and the execs at Honda happy. Someone else mentioned the Porsche. They had the same design for years. Did this stop those owners from buying? Obviously not otherwise they wouldn't be Porsche owners.
In conclusion, everyone would like to see the NSX updated. But, if Honda only made changes to the powerplant there are 200+ folks in the USA that would gobble them up. Some of those at full MSRP. Even with a 12 year old chassis and ONLY a tape deck!
There are those that will pay top dollar for a car, a house or almost anything for that matter. Value is detrmined by a person perspective. Car manufacturers' places value on their work and their materials in the form of MSRP. Whether or not anyone is willing to pay MSRP is up to the consumer. Their decision to buy is in the form of perceived value. Value isn't always based on the car alone, there are many other factors that can influence values. The majority of consumers don't buy cars on dilegent research, they buy cars on emotions. Car dealers know this way too well. EX: Joe Schmoe walks into the dealer to buy a budget car and walks out with a overpriced Mini Van. Why? Because the salesperson played with the emotions of the buyer. Buyers of high-end cars are typically different. Because they know what they want and price is the only variable.
Why did I buy an NSX? Because of what the car is to me, which is my perceived value. The shear elegance of the body lines, the engineering, the reliability and quality of Honda/Acura products. Is the NSX worth $89K - it would appear so otherwise Acura wouldn't sell 200+ of 'em every year. The small percentage of the cars left over at the end of the year are pretty much the only ones the get larger discounts as far as I know. Did I pay sticker? No! Would I have paid sticker? Yes and No! Does the Acura Dealer know this? Of course - they sold the car to me for what I was willing to pay. They could have sold the car for full MSRP - the $7500 from Honda. Did they? No, because they knew what I would pay and what the market would bear.
Ragging on the NSX for being a 12 year old design is a valid point. But how many cars could retain a contemporary look for that duration? That is why every other car on the market today changes its style and features a gazillion times. Because they can't maintain popularity and must change the look and feel of their cars in order to make them sell. With the NSX they haven't needed to do this they have maintained a number to keep the production line and the execs at Honda happy. Someone else mentioned the Porsche. They had the same design for years. Did this stop those owners from buying? Obviously not otherwise they wouldn't be Porsche owners.
In conclusion, everyone would like to see the NSX updated. But, if Honda only made changes to the powerplant there are 200+ folks in the USA that would gobble them up. Some of those at full MSRP. Even with a 12 year old chassis and ONLY a tape deck!
OK OK... so some of you still use your tape deck! But seriously, to not have an in-dash CD player is totally silly. It is, IMO, the ONLY thing that makes the interior look dated. If they would just replace that unit with a factory in-dash CD, I think there would be virtually nothing to complain about. And serioulsy.. if they did that, how many of you would order a factory in dash CD to replace the tape deck. I am betting it is a pretty good percentage. I know I sure would.
I was just at the Canadian International Auto show yesterday and they had a GORGEOUS 2003 NSX, blue with blue interior. It was SWEET. There were also a TON of people around it. That made me feel good because in dallas last year at the auto show, NOBODY even looked twice at it.
Anyway, the most impressive car there was the cadillac CIEN. It is truly awesome. I hope they put it into production. Then the Enzo, Lambo, Aston Martin.. etc. I also saw the RX-8. It is not bad, but not great by any means. I'll post pics tomorrow.
I was just at the Canadian International Auto show yesterday and they had a GORGEOUS 2003 NSX, blue with blue interior. It was SWEET. There were also a TON of people around it. That made me feel good because in dallas last year at the auto show, NOBODY even looked twice at it.
Anyway, the most impressive car there was the cadillac CIEN. It is truly awesome. I hope they put it into production. Then the Enzo, Lambo, Aston Martin.. etc. I also saw the RX-8. It is not bad, but not great by any means. I'll post pics tomorrow.
Well, it depends on whether you care most about preserving market value and minimizing depreciation (as noted in your first paragraph) or getting what you want (as noted in your last). Mods are usually a very poor investment in strictly economic terms. Assuming you purchase them new, they are rarely worth more than half that amount, either in the market value of the car or when sold separately, and anything you spend on installation is gone forever.
That doesn't mean that you shouldn't mod your car, only that you should do so because they are worth their cost in the enjoyment they give you, not in any expectations of adding to your car's market value.
From an investment standpoint, the best you can hope for in a car is one that will depreciate slowly if at all. I believe the best NSX investment is a low-mileage mint-condition stock NSX, the older the better. A cherry '91 sells for about as much today as it did 5-6 years ago. So, if you care primarily about minimizing your depreciation, just hold onto your '91.
That had been true in earlier years, but that was not true of the 2002 NSX. It went on sale around March, and by late summer the $7500 dealer incentives from Acura were in place. These were largely responsible for the selling prices of $73-75K that have been reported here ever since then.
You have to take the review columnist opinion and first critique the source. Edmunds believes the Ford Taurus is a great vehicle. Come on guys, obviously the column was written by some idiot that has no appreciation for the details that make the NSX. Remember that an NSX is not a brute horsepower car or really a brute at anything. Instead it offers a great combination of more than adequate power, handling, looks and reliability.
You can go fast in a Mustang GT. An NSX offers so much more. In comparing a Porsche 911 resale wise new '99 80K used today 40K all day. New NSX 75- 80K used 65K.
I think you have to look at cost of ownership. Take purchase price less maintenance and repairs then subtract selling price and you can arrive at your actual cost. In the long run, the NSX wins in my book and I never have to fix it.
You can go fast in a Mustang GT. An NSX offers so much more. In comparing a Porsche 911 resale wise new '99 80K used today 40K all day. New NSX 75- 80K used 65K.
I think you have to look at cost of ownership. Take purchase price less maintenance and repairs then subtract selling price and you can arrive at your actual cost. In the long run, the NSX wins in my book and I never have to fix it.
I have never driven the NSX or the 911 or a Ferrari. I have owned the Supra TT, the 300ZXTT, the Miata and a few German cars. I do understand performance in a sports car and I feel after reading the posts here and elsewhere that the good people who have paid for and enjoy their NSXs are very (very) "loyal" to this fine sports car. However, objectively speaking, it appears to me that the owners seem to feel that the car is perfect in almost every way even though it has remained essentially unchanged for the past more than a decade now.
All the good things said about the NSX, it's style, the handling, the glorious sound of the engine and the reliability are true and yet I cannot see why or how a car costing between 70 and 80k dollars should have less power than cars costing 1/3 as much. Performance alone cannot justify it for much cheaper cars can match or out do the NSX now (Lancer EVO, WRX sti for instance. I am only talking about performance, not looks or resale, or presence. In other words the NSX costs as much as it does not because of it's performance but because it is an NSX, just the same argument holds for a 911. It follows then that the reason the NSX was so desirable when it was introduced a decade ago (performance for a bargain price) and the reason it was chosed by a few enthusiasts over the 911, is no longer valid.
For the NSX to continue to be a bargain or a car more desirable than the competition either of two thing would have to happen. Either the price would have to drop or the performance would have to go up. Otherwise, as people are doing all over the world, they will vote with their wallets and pick Porsches, BMWs and Mercedes over this fine machine. The advantages of the NSX are no longer compelling for the price it sells for.
This is an objective view, I have nothing for or against the NSX.
Those who have bought it for it's current price or any price will still enjoy it greatly as there is little doubt that it is a very fine sports car indeed. I myself would not consider it at this price especially with so many options becoming available over the next few years. The Z is to have a turbo charged version and the Supra is rumored to return not to mention the Nissan GT-R's first arrival into the US.
------------------
powerofvtec
All the good things said about the NSX, it's style, the handling, the glorious sound of the engine and the reliability are true and yet I cannot see why or how a car costing between 70 and 80k dollars should have less power than cars costing 1/3 as much. Performance alone cannot justify it for much cheaper cars can match or out do the NSX now (Lancer EVO, WRX sti for instance. I am only talking about performance, not looks or resale, or presence. In other words the NSX costs as much as it does not because of it's performance but because it is an NSX, just the same argument holds for a 911. It follows then that the reason the NSX was so desirable when it was introduced a decade ago (performance for a bargain price) and the reason it was chosed by a few enthusiasts over the 911, is no longer valid.
For the NSX to continue to be a bargain or a car more desirable than the competition either of two thing would have to happen. Either the price would have to drop or the performance would have to go up. Otherwise, as people are doing all over the world, they will vote with their wallets and pick Porsches, BMWs and Mercedes over this fine machine. The advantages of the NSX are no longer compelling for the price it sells for.
This is an objective view, I have nothing for or against the NSX.
Those who have bought it for it's current price or any price will still enjoy it greatly as there is little doubt that it is a very fine sports car indeed. I myself would not consider it at this price especially with so many options becoming available over the next few years. The Z is to have a turbo charged version and the Supra is rumored to return not to mention the Nissan GT-R's first arrival into the US.
------------------
powerofvtec
The price-value relationship for the NSX is at least as good as most of the cars you mention here. The Porsche cars that are equivalent in performance to the NSX are equivalent in price (NA 911) and those that are higher in performance are higher in price (911 turbo). BMW has only one exception, the M3. And every Mercedes which is equivalent in straight-line performance to the NSX is higher in price (and will NOT match the NSX on a racetrack).
Furthermore, all of those marques can have the same accusations of price-value thrown at them, in comparison with a 350Z or a Mustang.
There are many great cars on the market today, and more on the way, such as the Evolution or WRXSTI. No matter what car you choose, there is usually something for less money that can be described as a better value. If you think there are other cars on the market that are superior in every way, or if you judge cars only based on horsepower numbers and not refinement, fine - buy something else instead.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 26 February 2003).]
I do think there is enough about the car to justify the price. If your looking for a mid-engine sports car for under 100k, what are your options?
Toyota MR2
Porsche Boxster
Lotus Esprit V8
Acura NSX
Out of those 4, I would only consider the Lotus and NSX. The fact that the NSX is probably more reliable swayed me to the Acura.
[This message has been edited by wctsao (edited 26 February 2003).]
Toyota MR2
Porsche Boxster
Lotus Esprit V8
Acura NSX
Out of those 4, I would only consider the Lotus and NSX. The fact that the NSX is probably more reliable swayed me to the Acura.
[This message has been edited by wctsao (edited 26 February 2003).]
