Unofficial Thread - How Honda Failed NSX & Vice Versa

[Ski_Banker]

Unofficial Thread - How Honda Did/Not Fail the NSX

Note: I think this should be a "sticky" thread, just because the subject comes up in every other thread in "2nd Gen NSX" discussions. If we keep all our rants (and raves) together, it will be easier to eventually email [email protected] :wink:


I'll be the first batter.

If *I* were a management consultant (which I'm not, thank god) I would open my Porter or strategy book and say that Honda's brand is Technology and Innovation. As an enterprise, Honda will succeed by taking action in support of Technology and Innovation. Nothing new...

The NSX is a perfect example of just such a strategy. Also on that list, you can add: Honda Insight, Honda Jet, others?

My point: The NSX did exactly what it should have - revolutionized the top-tier automotive world. Can it be done again, at a price level that is even remotely related to Honda? Probably not. The competition in the $100k+ space is just too great now, and the margin between "the best" at <$250k and "the good" at $80k is just too slim. This actually makes sense, economics-wise, because the high cost of technological innovation is first spread to those with the deepest pocket books. Then everyone else gets it. Like your plebian Razr phone and VTEC Civic.

To conclude, I don't think Honda "failed" the NSX (although some simple updates should be been done) but that the market has just done a much better job at innovating than Honda expected, when proposing NSXv2 every year over the last 8 years. And, a new NSX that isn't groundbreaking, is a waste of the company's time.

As a final point, the fact that the NSX has remained in the marketplace for 15 years actually strengthens the point that the vehicle was revolutionary for its time. They could probably run some pretty neat advertisements with the NSX side by side of world events and other cars over the last 15 years.

(Nevertheless, I would like to see a V10 mid engined revolutionary rocket ship in one of the "H" or "A" dealerships in the next few years :wink: ).

 

[khappucino]

man you busted out Porter =)
can i get a five force + value net? :biggrin:
i would agree that in this segment of the auto market seems to be difficult to really differentiate from the other players unless you do something ridiculous for the same cost

 

[BD]

18000 cars, have of them sold the first two years of production, not exactly a failure.

BUT, I do have my two cents. Honda should have offered Type S and Type R in the US!!!

 

[Ski_Banker]

man you busted out Porter =)
can i get a five force + value net? :biggrin:
i would agree that in this segment of the auto market seems to be difficult to really differentiate from the other players unless you do something ridiculous for the same cost

Well put, much more succinct than what I wrote. :smile: I completely agree, even a "clean" Honda MR version of the Z06 would be fantastic performance-wise but not groundbreaking. Only thing I can think of would be something hybrid like, since I think electric motors can potentially offer better performance.

 

[Bear]

Is Honda really motivated to attempt the impossible (a better supercar for less)?

Even if it were possible, the thought of a car that's hardly evolve'able is not profitable in the long run. Does Honda really want that?

This is where Porsche hits a homer. The 911. Evolution personified. It simply keeps getting better. It sells very well. It's the Honda Accord of sports cars. A super car but not a 'supercar'. It's made Porsche one of the most profitable companies on earth. ..And, IMO, results in a better car than blowing your entire development load on one model.

 

[liftcontrol]

Bear, what you have stated is very true indeed. If Porsche was able to take a fundamentally "wrong" design of the 911 [with the engine hanging behind the rear axle] and over the decades continued to improve upon it, imagine what Honda could have achieved with periodic improvements of a fundamentally VERY sound platform. A little tweak here in the suspension, a little improved torque there for the next year, an upgraded interior for the next, etc. etc.

Fifteen years from the time the NSX came about, we could now have a car that could still hang with the 911 Turbos and the F cars that it fought so masterfully when initially introduced.

 

[Bear]

Bear, what you have stated is very true indeed. If Porsche was able to take a fundamentally "wrong" design of the 911 [with the engine hanging behind the rear axle] and over the decades continued to improve upon it, imagine what Honda could have achieved with periodic improvements of a fundamentally VERY sound platform. A little tweak here in the suspension, a little improved torque there for the next year, an upgraded interior for the next, etc. etc.

Fifteen years from the time the NSX came about, we could now have a car that could still hang with the 911 Turbos and the F cars that it fought so masterfully when initially introduced.

Yeah, Honda missed the boat on that one. Think about the increase in wealth throughout the 90's and today, that Honda didn't cash in on with the NSX.. and think about the sports car heritage they squandered. My realtor has no clue that Acura made a sports car, and she drives an 05 RL. Porsche milks that heritage angle for all it's worth.

 

[Ski_Banker]

As nice as a "constant upgrade 911" model would be for the NSX, it really isn't the point for Honda. Just like it won't be for the Ford GT -- you build a great car to prove your capabilities. But Ford and Honda aren't competing in the high performance sportscar market (like Porsche). A constant upgrade NSX wouldn't help the brand the same way as a revolutionary car every decade or two might. Just my hunch. Believe me...I wish it weren't so. :frown:

 

[Ski_Banker]

My realtor has no clue that Acura made a sports car, and she drives an 05 RL. Porsche milks that heritage angle for all it's worth.

Bear, I have you beat there my friend :wink: . My administrative assistant saw me in the work parking garage recently and said "Wow, I just love your car! It's an Acura right? I've gotta get one."

I just smiled and said "Thanks! I really love it."

 

[steveny]

If GM can produce the Z06 with 505 hp and sell it for 80k, I bet Honda will break ground with the new NSX for sure.

 

[BD]

If GM can produce the Z06 with 505 hp and sell it for 80k, I bet Honda will break ground with the new NSX for sure.

For me to afford an 03 is a difficult task. The price point is hark to word with. However, I like Honda to make it affordable, BUT, please don't give us the cheap interior, leaf spring suspension found on the Vette. I think $120k will be a good point for a 500hp mid-engine car.

I hope they don't make it FR platform I hope the rummor they have is for the S2k replacement, not the NSX replacement.

 

[effer]

One very big mistake IMHO, Honda should have developed the Mc Laren F1 engine.

Later ( after Mc Laren F1 end of production ) Honda would have been in a very respectable position to improve the NSX project!


I think also that it was a mistake also to not keep the goal of winning Le Mans in the GT1 division.

 

[NSXGMS]

As nice as a "constant upgrade 911" model would be for the NSX, it really isn't the point for Honda. Just like it won't be for the Ford GT -- you build a great car to prove your capabilities. But Ford and Honda aren't competing in the high performance sportscar market (like Porsche). A constant upgrade NSX wouldn't help the brand the same way as a revolutionary car every decade or two might. Just my hunch. Believe me...I wish it weren't so. :frown:

I agree with this. I have no problem with Honda making halo cars. But a halo car can't hang around for 15 years. It's time for the HSC/equivalent. I'm not saying that I would have preferred the NSX take the 911 route (actually I wouldn't like that.) Do it Ford GT style or don't do it at all.

 

[Bear]

..Do it Ford GT style or don't do it at all.

Problem with this was outlined in the first post. It just may not be possible, unless you don't mind an NSX that sells for $140k+. Most of us want to buy it when it comes out. Plus, you end up with a better car in the long run by taking the 911 route. Initial 'compromised flaws' can be engineered out over time, little by little, and you can gauge peoples reactions to it and adjust to stay competitive and maintain higher sales.

The problem with halo cars is that their flaws are accepted as 'charm'.

What if it didn't evolve towards the 911, but instead more towards a lotus Exige.. Don't add navigation and door airbags which add weight. Evolve into a slicker, lighter, high performance car that can be a grocery getter as well as a 911 killer. Offer a touring pack for the dentists wife and a track pack for us. I'll take the barely street legal version thank you.

 

[lowellhigh79]

Problem with this was outlined in the first post. It just may not be possible, unless you don't mind an NSX that sells for $140k+. Most of us want to buy it when it comes out. Plus, you end up with a better car in the long run by taking the 911 route. Initial 'compromised flaws' can be engineered out over time, little by little, and you can gauge peoples reactions to it and adjust to stay competitive and maintain higher sales.

The problem with halo cars is that their flaws are accepted as 'charm'.

What if it didn't evolve towards the 911, but instead more towards a lotus Exige.. Don't add navigation and door airbags which add weight. Evolve into a slicker, lighter, high performance car that can be a grocery getter as well as a 911 killer. Offer a touring pack for the dentists wife and a track pack for us. I'll take the barely street legal version thank you.

Halo cars are for bragging rights. The manufacturer gets to show off what it can do, and the loyal fans have something to rally behind. Not just owners of the halo car itself, but all enthusiast fans of that manufacturer. When the NSX came out, all the civic and integra owners also had something to brag about "its a Honda man!" Honda blew it by not constantly upgrading. More power, more brakes, more tire. If the NSX had evolved, let's say on pace with the 911, we would have seen NSX performance equivalent to the NA2 NSX-R by 1997! I'm an original owner 1992, but I found no reason to buy a new one, even with the 3.2/ 6 speed/ bigger brakes in the 1997 models. Currently, Honda needs to jump start its performance image. Think of all the potential Civic and RSX buyers they have lost to the WRX, EVO, SRT-4, and now the Mazdaspeed 3. Heck, owners of those platforms regularly brag of their NSX kills. I've owned the NSX long enough to have heard all the ergonomic/ balance/ feel reasons that the NSX is unique. I say BULLSHIT! Give me something that will kick a F430 in driving experience and looks and has some respectable horsepower numbers, even if it is real peaky. People focus on numbers more unless they know the car well.

Regards,

Danny

 

[MvM]

Personally, I think Honda should have kept evolving the NSX.
When they started work on the NSX, the engineers could start with a blank sheet. An enormous amount of effort went into creating a 'halo' car that did show all other manufacturers what was possible.
The 2002 NSX-R has shown what was possible with the car when tuned for a track. Now think of that same NSX-R but now with a 3.6 Litre engine and 360 HP instead of 280 HP.
The basic NSX-chassis is really really very very good. Acutally, I think the basic chassis is almost perfect and little is or was needed to keep it on par with any competitor out there. And now, really, just how much would an interior upgraded have costed Honda.
Even though it is not the history of Honda to keep improving their models, going the 911-route would have created a halo-car just because of the heritage it would have created by itself. And sales would have been better if newer and improved models would have appeared from time to time.
Actually, I have written down my opinion on this subject and it would have come out a little like this:

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48245

 

[randomharmony]

i agree, instead of keep on improving upon a very sound, proven platform, honda has let us hang dried. maybe they made it too good at the beginning, but continue refinement adds prestige to a terrific product and at the same time with lower tooling cost, which can translate to more competitive pricing. if nissan is able to do it with the skyline, i don't see why honda can't handle the nsx.

Personally, I think Honda should have kept evolving the NSX.
When they started work on the NSX, the engineers could start with a blank sheet. An enormous amount of effort went into creating a 'halo' car that did show all other manufacturers what was possible.
The 2002 NSX-R has shown what was possible with the car when tuned for a track. Now think of that same NSX-R but now with a 3.6 Litre engine and 360 HP instead of 280 HP.
The basic NSX-chassis is really really very very good. Acutally, I think the basic chassis is almost perfect and little is or was needed to keep it on par with any competitor out there. And now, really, just how much would an interior upgraded have costed Honda.
Even though it is not the history of Honda to keep improving their models, going the 911-route would have created a halo-car just because of the heritage it would have created by itself. And sales would have been better if newer and improved models would have appeared from time to time.
Actually, I have written down my opinion on this subject and it would have come out a little like this:

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48245

 

[NSXGMS]

Honda obviously wanted to update the NSX however "day late, dollar short" was never more appropriate.

Each NSX update should have occurred one era before it did, i.e. 3.2L 6-speed in 1994; facelift and even more power in 1997. Come on--even the Supra had 320HP and a 6-speed in 1993!

This should have culminated with the release of the HSC in 2001 as a 2002 model. Even with ~350HP the HSC would have stayed competitive--maybe would have led the pack. After that the release of a Type-R/S with maybe 400HP would have been sufficient.

Instead, Honda procrastinated again, failing to unveil the HSC concept until 2003 at which time the F430 was just around the corner and Honda (wisely) pulled it knowing it would be a laughingstock.

This to me is the general theme at Honda with the NSX. The "NSX needs help" memo gets moved from inbox to inbox until it simply can't be ignored anymore and with no time for serious R&D they stick a band-aid on the car.

This is most clearly evident when considering the C30 block. Hmmm, it took Honda only 4 years to completely re-work the Legend block into the C30. It's perplexing to think that Honda had 6 years to play with the C30 block (1991-1997) and all they could manage to do was bore it out by .2L.

Surely they could have engineered something better--even a completely new engine platform. But when you procrastinate and delay and then rush to improve it's no surprise what you get. :frown:

Honda clearly had better things to do then R&D on the NSX and they played a large part in the poor sales numbers. I've dogged the 2005 NSX before and perhaps I was a bit out of line but I still maintain the 2005 NSX's status is due mostly to the greatness of the 1991 NSX.

 

[enesexdreamer]

The way I see it,.. NSX's sold the most in 91-94. Around that time the NSX was still very competitive. Remember Japan has/had a law, cars produced must be under 300hp, so .2 is all they can do to improve and also comply with the country's regulations.

As far as Honda failing the NSX,.. I don't really think so. If the NSX was improved every other year or so to keep up with the competition it would take away from its true essense and purpose of conception. Upgrades also means higher prices. I mean common, the current NSX is still a good track competitor after all these years and minimal updates.

If the NSX was updated everytime to keep up or stay ahead of the exotic market, it wouldn't be the legend as we know it today.

 

[randomharmony]

for the sake of discussion.

...

As far as Honda failing the NSX,.. I don't really think so. If the NSX was improved every other year or so to keep up with the competition it would take away from its true essense and purpose of conception. Upgrades also means higher prices....

any product, in the nsx case, a very good one, is not immune to further improvement or will face distinction. i don't know what's the "true essense and purpose of conception". nsx off the bat, has a pretty high price already, upgrades may increase it more, but it also adds more value.

...
If the NSX was updated everytime to keep up or stay ahead of the exotic market, it wouldn't be the legend as we know it today.

no, look at the popularity of M3/Skyline/Sti/Evo has spawn with its continuous updates. nsx has its special place in automotive history, but most ppl don't care about a good story to tell on a car.

 

[enesexdreamer]

what i mean by 'true essense and conception' is that when it was produce in the late 80's, obviously the boys at Honda did they're research and when it launched the first year NSX it was an automotive break though, not just for the exotic world but for Honda's line up as well.

The other cars mensioned M3/skyline/evo/sti, are not low production, hand made exotics. And these cars have plenty of generations. these cars are very capable but don't project the aura and respect of the NSX even when underpowered.

The way i see it, if the NSX was updated/upgraded drastically in its 15 year lifespan, it would cloud over its formula 1 history, and jeopardize its superb balance. And all it would be doing is keeping up. As to when it came out it was the best in its class period. And it wouldn't be the low production car we know it. From 91 to 05 not much of a 'huge' difference in styling and performance numbers. but the pricing is very different. Now that the early models have dropped in price it is very attainable to those true fans who couldn't afford one but always wanted one. Its a supercar for everyone.

Everybody loves a good story, especially about the NSX.

 

[NSXGMS]

The way I see it,.. NSX's sold the most in 91-94. Around that time the NSX was still very competitive. Remember Japan has/had a law, cars produced must be under 300hp, so .2 is all they can do to improve and also comply with the country's regulations.

As far as Honda failing the NSX,.. I don't really think so. If the NSX was improved every other year or so to keep up with the competition it would take away from its true essense and purpose of conception. Upgrades also means higher prices. I mean common, the current NSX is still a good track competitor after all these years and minimal updates.

If the NSX was updated everytime to keep up or stay ahead of the exotic market, it wouldn't be the legend as we know it today.

Unfortunately Honda doesn't agree with you. They clearly wanted to update the NSX. If you hadn't noticed the NSX went through quite a few changes. My opinion is that those changes reflected minimal, if any, R & D and were introduced too late. It's "essence and purpose of conception" was already on the way out by 1997.

The 300hp rule I believe played a bit of a part in Honda's reluctance to increase power. But it certainly wouldn't have stopped them from introducing the 3.2L in 1994-1995 like they should have. When the Supra came in at 320 HP and with the F360 around the corner the gloves should have been off. Instead Honda sat on the fence continuing to cite rules than had already been broken and concentrating on other enterprises until it was too late.

The only people who see the NSX as wholly "legendary" are we NSX owners. I hate to break it to you but the rest of the automotive world sees a fossil, albeit an important fossil. They acknowledge the NSX as groundbreaking but were glad to see it go. Nearly every automotive publication I read in 2005 echoed that sentiment: "what a great car--time to go now"

Updating is the lifeblood of the automotive world. Formula One makes multiple changes per year. Ferrari doesn't seem to have issues pushing the boundaries. Even after the F348 debacle they powered through. The NSX caused everyone else to re-think their approach. Well, they took the challenge. And they are now much better. And the NSX stayed where it was and was surpassed long ago. "Staying competitive" is nonsense for a car like the NSX. That was not their philosophy in 1991. Then it was, "beat the best." When you debut as number one I think you should really try to stay that way. Listen, even the Enzo has cars nipping at it's heels. How long has that thing been out? 3 years? Well, Ferrari's already working on the replacement folks. They know. And who would say the Enzo isn't "legendary"?

All I see over the NSX's lifespan are missed opportunities to make the car better and to keep it the best in it's class. As some of the others have said if Honda wanted to build a "legendary" car they should have done it Ford GT style--limited run. Do you think there will be a waiting list for Ford GTs when the 2019 model comes out? Particularly when it looks darn near identical to the 2005 Ford GT with the exception of maybe 50 more HP and a re-designed nose?

I think we can all agree that Ford would be insane to leave the Ford GT out there until 2019 virtually unchanged. But that is exactly what Honda did with the NSX. When even lowly Ford has it figured out Honda needs to take a real deep breath and get their bearings straight.

 

[enesexdreamer]

Ok, first of all Honda's philosophy is all about efficiency and manufacturing affordable quality cars for all people. Honda was never known for exotic supercars in the late 80's/early90's, but when the NSX was released it proved to the world what Honda was capable of doing. Why change an efficient V6 over a gas guzzling heavy V8? that will just be going against what they planned on conceiving in the first place. Might as well start from the drawing board and make a totally different car. remember the NSX is the humble supercar, daily drive capabitily, good gas mileage, excellent reliability, and not to mension its high potential chassis. hence the eXperimental. What other exotics can you say that has those credentials? NSX a fossil? I don't think so, fossils are dead, and our NSX's run and see more miles than the newer exotics out there. fossil, no. relic, maybe. The NSX is in a class of its own.

Secondly, alot of the NSX's success was from the input of the late great Ayrton Senna. Imagine what he would say about the Targas? I assume the 3.2/6speed was produced to balance the heavy and not so rigid targas. 94 was when he passed away (last year of the coupes) 95 targas was introduced, again, I assume Honda's way of marketing. Also the 02 facelift. Why drastically change something thats already a masterpeice. The NSX is like the Michael Jordan in the automotive industry. You can figure out the anology for yourself.

 

[randomharmony]

again, for the sake of discussion,

With a great respect to Senna, and as much as i love driving my nsx everyday, the stock nsx is FAR from being optimal, no where close of being perfect.

And as much as i love basketball, i wouldn't compare nsx to Jordan either. it would be a shame, there is no comparison. Air at his prime was at top of the competition for more than a decade, and even him has evolved his game over the years as he got older to combat with age. Arguably the most gifted and talented player ever, Jordan has never stop refining his skills to stay on top.

HONDA at the other had, clearly fail to keep up with nsx. as NSXGMS mentioned, updating is the lifeblood of the automotive world.

 

[NSXGMS]

Ok, first of all Honda's philosophy is all about efficiency and manufacturing affordable quality cars for all people.

Then why make an inherently inefficient 2-seater? Why throw your hat in the super-competitive exotic ring? Why put any money whatsoever into Formula One?

Why did Honda develop a V6 in the first place? It's more inefficient that a 4cyl, right? Come on, the NSX isn't efficient--it's the most inefficient car Honda ever made. But it's relativley efficient--compared to the competition. Honda has already committed to developing a V10. Why? That's inefficient--but Honda's still going to do it. Why do you think that is?

I don't believe Honda's approach to the NSX was efficiency. It may have been relative efficiency, or "let's be as efficient as we can," but it was not pure efficiency. If you want to be efficient go play in another sandbox. You're in the exotic car sandbox now. Honda knew that.

Again, I have no problem with Honda developing the NSX. But to leave it hanging in the breeze for 15 years is irresponsible and self-defeating. If Honda had discontinued it in 1994 it surely would be legendary and Honda could walk away with their heads high. Just like Ford will with the GT.

NSX a fossil? I don't think so, fossils are dead, and our NSX's run and see more miles than the newer exotics out there. fossil, no. relic, maybe. The NSX is in a class of its own.

I don't think you appreciate how ruthless and how rapidly changing the automotive world is. Strictly speaking the NSX was outdated by 1995. The Supra had already become the most powerful Japanese car and was just as daily driveable and comfortable than the NSX and F355 almost equalled the NSX on every level (except reliablilty, of course). The 996TT was no slouch and the 997 was around the corner as was the C5 Vette. Scary stuff...

Also, ask any modern car designer how outdated the NSX looks. We may think it's beautiful, and it is, but the simple facts are that the design is old, the performance numbers have been eclipsed by just about every other exotic in the past 8 years and it is not the same package/philosophy as delivered in 1991. The 2005 NSX may be a great value and the best NSX ever but take it for what it is. A 1991 car with a lot of band-aids.

Secondly, alot of the NSX's success was from the input of the late great Ayrton Senna. Imagine what he would say about the Targas? I assume the 3.2/6speed was produced to balance the heavy and not so rigid targas. 94 was when he passed away (last year of the coupes) 95 targas was introduced, again, I assume Honda's way of marketing. Also the 02 facelift. Why drastically change something thats already a masterpeice. The NSX is like the Michael Jordan in the automotive industry. You can figure out the anology for yourself.

Coupes were always available on special order. Honda also dropped the ball not offering the Type-R/S during the production run. Senna having owned several car dealerships I think he very much understood the need to constantly update and provide upgrades within the existing framework of the car. BTW, he probably was aware Honda was going to offer the Targa as the decision was most likely made prior to his death. Maybe he crashed at Imola intentionally when he heard...

Indeed, Michael Jordan's game evolved very progressively throughout his career. He was able to stay so good so long because of it. There comes a time when experience makes up for losing a step physically. He became much more of a defensive player sacrificing fast-break points. Towards the end, he was still one of the best players on the court, but nearly every commentator called for his retirement. It was time. He wasn't the best in the game anymore.