HSC would've competed so well

[WingZ]

Geez I see stuff like this where the Germans are going less power and weight and think "Man the HSC would've been ahead of it's time and perfect competitor for what was to come":frown:
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/03/13/rendered-speculation-bmw-z10-ed-to-tackle-audi-r8/

 

[Wes_R]

I agree, especially up against that and the r8. What were they thinking scraping that design.

 

[WingZ]

Well at that point the HP wars were just starting and the HSC was criticized heavily for only having a 3.5 V6. In light of everything that's going on currently Honda really should revisit that platform and find a way to reduce costs.

If it could use the 3.7 that's currently out and give it a performance tune along weight savings it would save some money to bring down sticker.

 

[NSXrebel]

I'll take an HSC with a longitudinal mounted V6 or V8.

 

[NSXGMS]

Well at that point the HP wars were just starting and the HSC was criticized heavily for only having a 3.5 V6. In light of everything that's going on currently Honda really should revisit that platform and find a way to reduce costs.

If it could use the 3.7 that's currently out and give it a performance tune along weight savings it would save some money to bring down sticker.

I think the HSC as it was presented was pretty good, engine choice notwithstanding and could have been great and IMO most of the negative opinions stemmed from the fact that we thought there was definitely going to be some NSX replacement and if this was going to be it it fell a bit short. But of course comparing it to what we have now (nothing) it was great!

I know I was also highly critical of the V-6 in the HSC. Even at the time I was of the thought that the CTSC should have been offered as a factory option on the NSX. There was (and still is) no excuse for Honda not developing a V-8 in some form and Honda could have created a hell of an engine and the benchmark for all high-output V-8s with a 4.0-4.5L, 450-500 hp V-8 engine. It would have been perfect for the HSC and the car could easily have put up better numbers than the yet-to-be-released F430.

Along with a great SH-AWD and a good F-1 tranny (both of which Honda should be able to do better than anyone) the HSC could have been an incredible car--maybe even better than the original NSX. The price could have been kept under $120K easily and with the NSX badge could have been very successful, particularly against the 911 and the F430.

I don't think there's anyone out there that wouldn't agree a slightly-design-tweaked HSC released in 2003-2004 with the best SH-AWD and F-1 tranny in the world, performance numbers better than the F430 and a < $120K price tag wouldn't have been successful.

When I think about it today I suppose I was much more disappointed that Honda just didn't prepare for the HSC by supporting the NSX or developing a V-8. I really think (and thought) the design and approach of the HSC was very good and with a few tweaks here and there could have been outstanding and on par with the original NSX.

The fact is that the HSC could not and should not have been released with anything other than the above. The bottom line is that no, I wouldn't have wanted to see a non-SH-AWD 6-speed 350 hp V-6 HSC that looked exactly like the concept and released in 2005.

In those terms I don't regret the HSC not being produced. I regret Honda letting the NSX die a slow death and failing to develop improvements to make the HSC what it could have been. The HSC was only a very good body design that could have been great. That's it. I guess when I think about the HSC I think about what could have been if Honda had their act together more so than the actual failure to produce the HSC design that was displayed.

 

[Honcho]

I think a J37-powered HSC would be perfectly positioned to capture the sports car market today, but Honda would have to slightly change focus. The original NSX was targeted at the Ferrari 328 and priced at $60,000. It gave you better performance for a fraction of the price plus Honda reliability. Consequently, Honda sold about 4,500 NSX's in the US during 1991 and 1992. As we all know, the competition got better while the NSX stayed largely the same and got more expensive. In 2005, Honda sold 248 NSX's in the US.

I think Honda needs to use the same price/performance strategy as before but change the target market this time around. Let's face it, the F430 is really not in the same market position as the 328 was back in 1989. Probably as a response to the Gallardo V10 and Audi R8, Ferrari had to move the F430 to the higher end of the price/performance spectrum to keep the clientele happy. A $200,000 near Enzo-level car should not be Honda's target.

A better target market in my opinion for an HSC-derived NSX is the Porsche 911 customer. These people buy a lot of cars and are demanding of the qualities that made the NSX so great: performance, comfort, driveability, luxury and price. The 2009 911 roster includes the following models at the following price points:

911 Carrera 3.6L RWD 345hp 1415kg $76,300
911 Carrera S 3.8L RWD 385hp 1415kg $87,000
911 Turbo 3.6L AWD 473hp 1440kg $130,000

Honda could compete very well with the following lineup:

NSX 3.7L RWD 350hp 1350kg $60,000
NSX Type-S 3.7L RWD 390hp 1300kg $75,000
NSX Type-R 3.5L Turbo SH-AWD 480hp 1400kg $90,000

All engines could be J37-derived DOHC, 8000rpm with dry-sump oiling and OEM headers. The turbo could source variable flow technology from the RDX with a smaller bore for cylinder strength. Combine with a 6-speed manual or F-1 style sportshift along the lines of what NSXGMS described and you have one wicked performer at a discount price point- the same marketing strategy that sold the original NSX in such great numbers.

 

[NSXGMS]

I think a J37-powered HSC would be perfectly positioned to capture the sports car market today, but Honda would have to slightly change focus. The original NSX was targeted at the Ferrari 328 and priced at $60,000. It gave you better performance for a fraction of the price plus Honda reliability. Consequently, Honda sold about 4,500 NSX's in the US during 1991 and 1992. As we all know, the competition got better while the NSX stayed largely the same and got more expensive. In 2005, Honda sold 248 NSX's in the US.

I think Honda needs to use the same price/performance strategy as before but change the target market this time around. Let's face it, the F430 is really not in the same market position as the 328 was back in 1989. Probably as a response to the Gallardo V10 and Audi R8, Ferrari had to move the F430 to the higher end of the price/performance spectrum to keep the clientele happy. A $200,000 near Enzo-level car should not be Honda's target.

A better target market in my opinion for an HSC-derived NSX is the Porsche 911 customer. These people buy a lot of cars and are demanding of the qualities that made the NSX so great: performance, comfort, driveability, luxury and price. The 2009 911 roster includes the following models at the following price points:

911 Carrera 3.6L RWD 345hp 1415kg $76,300
911 Carrera S 3.8L RWD 385hp 1415kg $87,000
911 Turbo 3.6L AWD 473hp 1440kg $130,000

Honda could compete very well with the following lineup:

NSX 3.7L RWD 350hp 1350kg $60,000
NSX Type-S 3.7L RWD 390hp 1300kg $75,000
NSX Type-R 3.5L Turbo SH-AWD 480hp 1400kg $90,000

All engines could be J37-derived DOHC, 8000rpm with dry-sump oiling and OEM headers. The turbo could source variable flow technology from the RDX with a smaller bore for cylinder strength. Combine with a 6-speed manual or F-1 style sportshift along the lines of what NSXGMS described and you have one wicked performer at a discount price point- the same marketing strategy that sold the original NSX in such great numbers.

I think any car manufacturer is really going to have a very tough time competing with the 911 and just surviving in that price range. The economy really doesn't support introducing a car like that now and the 911 is an absolute beast of a brand.

The HSC would have had to be a real value, just like the original NSX was. The NSX may have been designed with the 328 as a base but it ended up being even superior to the 348 and nearly on par with the 355--almost a full generation ahead of Ferrari! I think the formula of superior performance to whatever the Ferrari V-8 MR car is (now the 430 Scuderia) at 2/3 the price (~$120K) and competing with the 430, R8, 911 TT and Gallardo would have been the way to go.

The only reason the GT-R is doing well is because the value is so great. The R8 is just very limited production. I just don't see another less-than-world-class performer in the $70-80k range doing well.

A turbo V-6 is just rehashed philosophy IMO. A cutting edge V-8 would have been perfect for the HSC and made it really stand out and justified a higher price. I absolutely agree the $125K+ range is unwise. You see Toyota struggling with the LF-A which I had a feeling they would and the Lexus brand is much stronger than Acura's.

The NSX would have done just fine if Honda had updated the car to stay ahead of the 911 and Ferrari in performance and looks. The 3000+ units Honda expected to move in the US annually was a bit generous but the fact that they didn't had a lot do do with bad timing during that recession. I think Honda could have moved as many as 2000+ units annually if they had really stayed on top of the car by introducing the NA2 in 1994-5 and an NA3 in 1997-8 and marketing the car properly.

Again, we're talking about how great the HSC would be now but Honda could have introduced such a car in 2003! Imagine GT-R or F430 Scuderia performance back then. Honda was more than able to do it but the failure to develop the technology during the NSX's production left them with nothing for the HSC.

 

[WingZ]

I think the HSC as it was presented was pretty good, engine choice notwithstanding and could have been great and IMO most of the negative opinions stemmed from the fact that we thought there was definitely going to be some NSX replacement and if this was going to be it it fell a bit short. But of course comparing it to what we have now (nothing) it was great!

I know I was also highly critical of the V-6 in the HSC. Even at the time I was of the thought that the CTSC should have been offered as a factory option on the NSX. There was (and still is) no excuse for Honda not developing a V-8 in some form and Honda could have created a hell of an engine and the benchmark for all high-output V-8s with a 4.0-4.5L, 450-500 hp V-8 engine. It would have been perfect for the HSC and the car could easily have put up better numbers than the yet-to-be-released F430.

Along with a great SH-AWD and a good F-1 tranny (both of which Honda should be able to do better than anyone) the HSC could have been an incredible car--maybe even better than the original NSX. The price could have been kept under $120K easily and with the NSX badge could have been very successful, particularly against the 911 and the F430.

I don't think there's anyone out there that wouldn't agree a slightly-design-tweaked HSC released in 2003-2004 with the best SH-AWD and F-1 tranny in the world, performance numbers better than the F430 and a < $120K price tag wouldn't have been successful.

When I think about it today I suppose I was much more disappointed that Honda just didn't prepare for the HSC by supporting the NSX or developing a V-8. I really think (and thought) the design and approach of the HSC was very good and with a few tweaks here and there could have been outstanding and on par with the original NSX.

The fact is that the HSC could not and should not have been released with anything other than the above. The bottom line is that no, I wouldn't have wanted to see a non-SH-AWD 6-speed 350 hp V-6 HSC that looked exactly like the concept and released in 2005.

In those terms I don't regret the HSC not being produced. I regret Honda letting the NSX die a slow death and failing to develop improvements to make the HSC what it could have been. The HSC was only a very good body design that could have been great. That's it. I guess when I think about the HSC I think about what could have been if Honda had their act together more so than the actual failure to produce the HSC design that was displayed.

Hmm I thought the HSC was supposed to have SHAWD as I remember people complaining ( as is typical of of Honda fans ) that they wanted RWD instead.

Also the HSC wasn't going to be handmade and was supposed to cost around $65k right

 

[bruce91nsx]

I personally would buy an HSC based on its looks and mid-engine design. Horsepower vs. weight would weigh into the equation, whether V-6 or V-8, or V-10. This car should have been built.

 

[NSXGMS]

Hmm I thought the HSC was supposed to have SHAWD as I remember people complaining ( as is typical of of Honda fans ) that they wanted RWD instead.

Also the HSC wasn't going to be handmade and was supposed to cost around $65k right

Well, RWD wasn't the future. Naysayers were simply wrong. I have no problem with a very good SH-AWD.

And the car couldn't have cost $65K and been competitive. Anyone who thinks that is delusional. Just like the ASCC wouldn't be competitive at that price. And it doesn't need to be $65K. The LF-A on the other hand needs to be $125K or less as does the HSC. The 911 TT and the R8 set the price points for the class, period. The Lambo and Ferrari can be any price they want.

I would absolutely pay $125K for a sub-3100 lb, 450+ hp, SH-AWD, F-1 tranny, slightly design-tweaked MR HSC. In a heartbeat. There's no other car I'd be interested in buying over that one. Surely I am not alone.

I personally would buy an HSC based on its looks and mid-engine design. Horsepower vs. weight would weigh into the equation, whether V-6 or V-8, or V-10. This car should have been built.

Absolutely. I think the best way to achieve that would have been a V-8 and seeing as how Honda could easily squeeze 120 hp/L out of any N/A 4, 6 or 8 cyl. engine a lightweight 4.0-4.5L V-8 would have been just phenomenal. With the weight under 3100 lbs (easily done) you've got a better hp/weight ratio than just about every car on the road.

It's not so much that the car should have been built but that Honda was in no position to build it, which is even more painful. No V-8, no worthy SH-AWD, no F-1 tranny. They really had nothing ready to go inside that spectacular-looking HSC shell. As good as the HSC looked a 350 hp V-6 wasn't going to cut it unless you sell it at 65K and at that point you start skimping on CF and Al and making the car competitive with the F430 which should be the goal. Even a CTSC V-6 would have been better than a 3.5L 350 hp V-6 that was well below Honda's capabilities.

The bottom line is that Honda and Fukui really were unprepared to make the HSC what it should have or could have been. I don't know that I would spend $65K on an afterthought HSC with 350 hp. I would rather spend $125K on the real deal.

That's why this ASCC stuff (as an NSX replacement) just kills me. Fine, make an ASCC and put a V-16 in it if you want. But don't call it an NSX replacement or expect it to compete with Ferrari for $65K as the original NSX did. The NSX shot for the top. The ASCC shoots for middle of the road. MR or not, that's not what I'm looking for.

 

[Silver F16]

A V8 HSC was what the market was ready for back in 2003. But now, with the downturn in economy and focus on efficency, the HSC with the 3.5 V6 may be quite ripe for today.

The HSC concept was RWD, not SH-AWD. Also, the pricing of $65K is in the ball park since the lanugage used by Honda suggested to be a price bracket lower than the NSX.

So what do you say Mr. New CEO? Little did you know that your 2003 HSC is the ripe design for today.

 

[WingZ]

Well, RWD wasn't the future. Naysayers were simply wrong. I have no problem with a very good SH-AWD.

And the car couldn't have cost $65K and been competitive. Anyone who thinks that is delusional.

I must be delusional as I disagree with you strongly there. The HSC with just 350+hp would've out performed the then upcoming 400hp Vette , Cayman S , 911 , 911S and R8. If they kept the weight down. It's unfortunate but because it's a "Honda" price has to be cheaper than all but the Vette.

Just like the ASCC wouldn't be competitive at that price. And it doesn't need to be $65K. The LF-A on the other hand needs to be $125K or less as does the HSC. The 911 TT and the R8 set the price points for the class, period. The Lambo and Ferrari can be any price they want.

I would absolutely pay $125K for a sub-3100 lb, 450+ hp, SH-AWD, F-1 tranny, slightly design-tweaked MR HSC. In a heartbeat. There's no other car I'd be interested in buying over that one. Surely I am not alone

We may never know how competitive the ASC would've been as I believe Honda was letting people think it was going to be an expensive car and then they were going to sell it for less than $100k.

It's below 3100 and you still want 450+ ..LOL

A V8 HSC was what the market was ready for back in 2003. But now, with the downturn in economy and focus on efficency, the HSC with the 3.5 V6 may be quite ripe for today.

The HSC concept was RWD, not SH-AWD. Also, the pricing of $65K is in the ball park since the lanugage used by Honda suggested to be a price bracket lower than the NSX.

So what do you say Mr. New CEO? Little did you know that your 2003 HSC is the ripe design for today.

OHMYGAWD Silver and I agree Gonna be an earthquake somewhere ..LOL:wink: