I think the problem is that the all-new "base" NSX is slower than the "S" or "+" variants of competitors (and/or platforms that have been massaged over many years).
I wonder if it would have been better for Acura to have, right off the bat, two variants (i) the existing car and (ii) a "Plus" (or whatever, but probably not a full "Type R") with 10% more power and more aggressive electrics. More performance is easy if you tolerate a slightly higher failure rate. That could be a $25K option package that (from Honda's perspective) would mostly fund higher expected warranty costs for the small number of people that would drive the souped-up car at its limits. Use this car to beat more of the competition in the magazine tests, but expect unit volumes to be higher on the "base" edition.
I wonder if it would have been better for Acura to have, right off the bat, two variants (i) the existing car and (ii) a "Plus" (or whatever, but probably not a full "Type R") with 10% more power and more aggressive electrics. More performance is easy if you tolerate a slightly higher failure rate. That could be a $25K option package that (from Honda's perspective) would mostly fund higher expected warranty costs for the small number of people that would drive the souped-up car at its limits. Use this car to beat more of the competition in the magazine tests, but expect unit volumes to be higher on the "base" edition.
Last edited: