Quoting vf2ss:
The NSX 1.0 actually did this "overall" branding thing when it first came out...no "NSX" model name was even on the back or front, no "A" emblem on the back or sides...just one "A" emblem on the front and two "NSX" emblems on the side and "Acura" one the wheelcaps and tail center. Their grill did not match the style of any other car they had made before, their headlights did not match the style any other car they had made before, their parking lights did not match the style of any other car they had made before, their wedge front bumper did not match the style of any car they had made before, etc. Yet everybody that mattered to its success in the car world knew "ACURA NSX".
In contrast, the NSX 2.0 headlights (now DOT approved with amber marker and barbed design) now just look like the TSX, MDX, RDX, etc. headlight. The front beak (although now scaled back) just looks like the TSX, MDX, RDX, TL, RL, ILX, etc. front beak. One can argue that that was the point, but it is just my opinion that this consequently actually affected the design of the front of the 2.0 in a negative way because it actually forced them to have to hold back because they had created these design parameters...something the 1.0 was never subjected to. It was totally possible for them to stick with the tiny slit headlights that were so slick on the concept and looked so aggressive.
Again, some will say that was the point and from a design stand point I get that but there's more to it than that to make a prestigious brand. I just think that it would have been better for the purpose of focusing on their target market's prestige factor (for all we really know is that they have $160,000+ to spend on a car) to not have strong noticeable resemblances to their TSX/MDX headlights, an RL/TL grills, etc. (like the 1.0 did not to its line up) and just delegated the brand affiliation quotient to the emblem and the bigger picture of how awesome the car's gonna be.
In this scenario, the beak and headlight pattern is not necessary on the halo so it can then have a look that is distinct and separate from the lineup; and ideally with more resemblance to the legendary 1.0 front for greater recognition and design heritage. Which ultimately would really allow the prestige buyer in this exclusive price range to be able to spend this kind of money and still really feel a cut above the rest vs. not feeling like (I did not say is like) that they had just spent 160 grand on an overpriced middle-class-looking luxury car.
vf2ss, I couldn't have said it better myself. The original NSX looked nothing like its' Acura siblings. It was made to LOOK like a supercar. It was an extraordinary HALO car that other Acuras were nowhere near it from a mechanical or design standpoint. It's technology was supposed to have the trickledown effect. All aluminum chassis, titanium connecting rods, electric power steering, etc... The new NSX, besides it's bespoke engine is almost backwards. Electric motors and SH-AWD already introduced by the RL. I agree with you about the new NSX looking a lot like the rest of the lineup, but I would even go a step further and say it's a squished Accord coupe just like the 911 is the squished beetle.
When you said nobody wants to spend a 160k on a car that looks half ass exotic, that struck a cord with me. Isn't it common sense to know that a customer who's gonna fork over 150k plus from a non exotic established brand is gonna expect nothing but a home run out of the park styling wise? No one is gonna say "Hey can't you tell from the beak and headlights it's a Honda?" They're gonna want to hear what's commonly asked of the first gen NSX when they see it: "What the f*** is that?" Is it a Ferrari, Lotus,?... No, it's an NSX"
My only gripe with the new NSX is the styling. I greatly dig the hybrid/internal combustion set-up. I wish you were in the corporate/future product meeting when the new NSX was a thought. Man only if someone with clout had the same sentiment.
The NSX 1.0 actually did this "overall" branding thing when it first came out...no "NSX" model name was even on the back or front, no "A" emblem on the back or sides...just one "A" emblem on the front and two "NSX" emblems on the side and "Acura" one the wheelcaps and tail center. Their grill did not match the style of any other car they had made before, their headlights did not match the style any other car they had made before, their parking lights did not match the style of any other car they had made before, their wedge front bumper did not match the style of any car they had made before, etc. Yet everybody that mattered to its success in the car world knew "ACURA NSX".
In contrast, the NSX 2.0 headlights (now DOT approved with amber marker and barbed design) now just look like the TSX, MDX, RDX, etc. headlight. The front beak (although now scaled back) just looks like the TSX, MDX, RDX, TL, RL, ILX, etc. front beak. One can argue that that was the point, but it is just my opinion that this consequently actually affected the design of the front of the 2.0 in a negative way because it actually forced them to have to hold back because they had created these design parameters...something the 1.0 was never subjected to. It was totally possible for them to stick with the tiny slit headlights that were so slick on the concept and looked so aggressive.
Again, some will say that was the point and from a design stand point I get that but there's more to it than that to make a prestigious brand. I just think that it would have been better for the purpose of focusing on their target market's prestige factor (for all we really know is that they have $160,000+ to spend on a car) to not have strong noticeable resemblances to their TSX/MDX headlights, an RL/TL grills, etc. (like the 1.0 did not to its line up) and just delegated the brand affiliation quotient to the emblem and the bigger picture of how awesome the car's gonna be.
In this scenario, the beak and headlight pattern is not necessary on the halo so it can then have a look that is distinct and separate from the lineup; and ideally with more resemblance to the legendary 1.0 front for greater recognition and design heritage. Which ultimately would really allow the prestige buyer in this exclusive price range to be able to spend this kind of money and still really feel a cut above the rest vs. not feeling like (I did not say is like) that they had just spent 160 grand on an overpriced middle-class-looking luxury car.
vf2ss, I couldn't have said it better myself. The original NSX looked nothing like its' Acura siblings. It was made to LOOK like a supercar. It was an extraordinary HALO car that other Acuras were nowhere near it from a mechanical or design standpoint. It's technology was supposed to have the trickledown effect. All aluminum chassis, titanium connecting rods, electric power steering, etc... The new NSX, besides it's bespoke engine is almost backwards. Electric motors and SH-AWD already introduced by the RL. I agree with you about the new NSX looking a lot like the rest of the lineup, but I would even go a step further and say it's a squished Accord coupe just like the 911 is the squished beetle.
When you said nobody wants to spend a 160k on a car that looks half ass exotic, that struck a cord with me. Isn't it common sense to know that a customer who's gonna fork over 150k plus from a non exotic established brand is gonna expect nothing but a home run out of the park styling wise? No one is gonna say "Hey can't you tell from the beak and headlights it's a Honda?" They're gonna want to hear what's commonly asked of the first gen NSX when they see it: "What the f*** is that?" Is it a Ferrari, Lotus,?... No, it's an NSX"
My only gripe with the new NSX is the styling. I greatly dig the hybrid/internal combustion set-up. I wish you were in the corporate/future product meeting when the new NSX was a thought. Man only if someone with clout had the same sentiment.
