What's the target customer's profile for the new NSX?

[krea.tion]

I'm curious about what you think those little things should be? They've done a Seinfeld commercial, some concept and prototype displays at shows (including interior representations,) a concept display in a major movie, a drivetrain mockup display, Mid Ohio laps, have announced the reveal of specs will come in January, featured it on their website, and produced a teaser video that made the car news site rounds... What else is there to do? All I can think of is the release of orderable options/colors and prices therof - which might happen in January, being a reasonable thing to do, IMO, while/after the production car is first shown. Maybe send a letter to all registered NSX a owners letting them know about the Detroit show?

Those were all great things, but its the timing that I think they could have improved. The Seinfield commercial came 3 years before the car will be at dealerships. Avengers movie also more than 2 years ago which was then again replaced instantly with the R8 for Ironman 3. I guess everything Honda has done isn't bad and perhaps the timing wouldn't have seemed so off if they didn't take so long to develop and release the car. I guess I'm just not used to waiting around this long for a car to come to fruition or atleast some sort of relevant information ie. HP figures. It seems Honda is doing everything too early or too late, atleast for my tastes. It doesn't really take an expert to see that the NSX is kind of the joke of the automotive public. Pretty much every Youtube video or car article involving the NSX is littered with fans remarking about how its too little too late, already dated, will fail just like LFA because its taking too long, etc. I've even seen memes of the NSX on non-car related topics on things that are taking too long at the top of the comments page meaning that even non-car fans know of the "fail" that the NSX has been. I don't believe in this myself. Yes, the car is taking a long time but I think and HOPE that the car will exceed all expectations when it is released. Which is why I continue to hang out on this forum.

 

[Olyar15]

One group of people who wil NOT be buying this car are the badge snobs. Those will buy Porsche, Ferrari, even Corvette simply because of the badge, and will never look at an Acura or Nissan no matter how good the car is. Unfortunately, that seems to be a very large pool of buyers.

 

[N Spec]

Man, that's a tough position to take considering the 15 year lifecycle, a nose refresh, an extra gear, and a 20hp increase. Not to mention the 90's were great years for car sales. In fact, during the entirety of those 15 years, car industry sales in the US went from 12.5 million in '91 to 17.4 million in '05.

Yes a big leap for SUV and sedans. Where were the sports cars though? The Supra, MR2, 300ZX, Rx7 all bowed out after a few short years. Aside from the 300ZX and 3000GT, the other Japanese sports cars barely sold over 10K units their whole production run and they were fractions of the NSX's pricing.

Also, for some relevant data you can see the updates for the MR2 in 1993 for the US had no impact in sales increase which lead to only 93 units sold in 1995 that ended production in the US - This was a 20K sports car. You can also look at the major updates in Japan for the MR2 and see the updates had almost no impact in sales. We are talking about a huge leap in performance for the MR2 in 93 for Japan with bigger brakes, better suspension, and better turbos/engine/fuel/mapping that took it from 200 hp to 245 hp. It went from being a 14 second car to a low 13 second 1/4 mile car. Sales still struggled. Updates are nice but if the demand is truly not there, then it does not matter.

However, I think and I am also hopeful that demand for sports cars is back for the time being.

 

[Ponyboy]

In a demand equation, the demand curve shifts to the right for normal goods. In that same equation, demand shifts to the left for inferior goods. Right = good. Left = bad. I'd be interested in how you are quantitatively determining demand and if you know the total sales numbers for sports cars, sedans, SUVs, so you can make those determinations.

 

[nsxtasy]

the 90's were great years for car sales.

Not really. At the start of the 1990's, the economy was in recession. When the federal luxury tax was implemented on January 1, 1991 (on the sale amount exceeding $30K), sales of expensive luxury and sports cars crashed and were depressed for several years thereafter. Sales of low to mid priced cars were not affected, since there was little to no tax imposed on them.

 

[Ponyboy]

Not really.

And yet car sales continued to climb, from 14.1 million in 1990 to 17.4 in 1999, which includes one year of significant decline. Do you know what the exact sales were of "luxury and sports cars" throughout the 90's to validate your claims? Do you know the sales numbers of "low to mid priced cars" as well?

Because really, it's all just bad guesses and supposition without the data.

 

[N Spec]

In a demand equation, the demand curve shifts to the right for normal goods. In that same equation, demand shifts to the left for inferior goods. Right = good. Left = bad. I'd be interested in how you are quantitatively determining demand and if you know the total sales numbers for sports cars, sedans, SUVs, so you can make those determinations.

TBH with you, I don't have hard data for the sedans and SUV simply because I do not care for it. I imagine it would be just as easy to find but harder to quantify simply because there are so many different normal cars like SUVs/sedans/compacts/hatches/etc.. it would be a headache to tally them all up as a whole.

I wouldn't be so black and white and classify things simply as good or bad or left or right in a complicated situation like this though, especially when comparing sports cars vs. commuter cars. I understand you want to isolate the trend so it can be accurately identified, but looking it at qualitatively while extrapolating the quantities is best suited here IMO. I would be curious for a thorough comparison too.

The results speak for themselves and you can see the number dwindle to oblivion as 4-5 years goes by from 1990. All of the cars were much cheaper than the NSX and still struggled. They all happen to be just as fast too relatively speaking sans the best seller Miata and it also felt the pain. You can see the Supra and MR2 had a mid-model refresh in 97 and 93 respectively. It did nothing to aid sales. I threw in the domestic Viper numbers to show the trend also.

Again, mid 90s is when many manufacturers pulled out of making sports cars and as 1999 rolled around the sports car market was virtually barren. Today is a result of it. How many sports cars are still in production? Had sales been stable for the likes of the 300ZX, Supra, Rx7, etc. then we all would have seen new generations for them all. The NSX probably would have reached 15-20K units worldwide 6-7 years sooner and the next gen would have been out already. It wasn't Honda's fault directly.

- - - Updated - - -

It's beginning to look like the 80s again today though when sports cars were flourishing. Hopefully it may get like that again around 2017 or so, as there are so many rumors of several sports cars being revived like the BMW/Toyota Supra project, Ford GT revival/anniversary, persistent Rx7 rumors, and of course the NSX/S2000 rumor on the horizon.

 

[Ponyboy]

So did any of the models you listed have any substantial design changes (new chassis, body, or engine) in the years you listed? How do those compare with the three generations of the 911 or two of the Corvette/M3/Mustang/Camaro (just to round out the sports car universe in question) available in the 1990s? Are you open to the possibility that Japanese sports cars did not present the same value proposition (thereby an inferior product) that other sports cars did that had a more aggressive update schedule? Or even that other substitute vehicles in the same price ranges presented a better value?

Don't be afraid of the data. But you have to use examine it comprehensively, otherwise it's just garbage in garbage out, filled with pre-conceived biases.

 

[N Spec]

So did any of the models you listed have any substantial design changes (new chassis, body, or engine) in the years you listed? How do those compare with the three generations of the 911 or two of the Corvette/M3/Mustang/Camaro (just to round out the sports car universe in question) available in the 1990s? Are you open to the possibility that Japanese sports cars did not present the same value proposition (thereby an inferior product) that other sports cars did that had a more aggressive update schedule? Or even that other substitute vehicles in the same price ranges presented a better value?

Don't be afraid of the data. But you have to use examine it comprehensively, otherwise it's just garbage in garbage out, filled with pre-conceived biases.

They couldn't have major refreshes because none of them sold that well to last long enough.

The Viper had a major generation change in 1996. Look at the results. It sold even less.

The 300ZX had a convertible introduced in 1993. That's a huge body difference/change. Look at the result - 3.5K convertibles total versus the 89K total 300ZX sold in 6 years.

I forgot to add the 3000GT/Stealth into the list. It had a major refresh in the sense of 02+ style lights versus pop-ups, but it also saw demise from lack of sales in 1999:

The Mustang, Miata, Corvette, and 911 have an established brands that are almost immune. They all sell several 10K+ units year on average consistently. The Miata and Corvette certainly felt the pain in the 1990s. Look at how the C4 flourished in the 80s versus 90s.

Again, looking back retrospectively, it's easy to say, the NSX didn't sell well because it didn't have updates. In reality, the updates didn't come because it did not sell well, but Honda was proud enough to honor their initial contract of ~20,000 units to be produced and it took 15 years to reach that threshold. There's an article from the makers' mouth posted by Vance that confirms this.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.camaro-registry.com/production.htm

The Camaro started in the 80s with 189K units annually. That's not a typo, it sold 200,000 units annually in the golden days. It consistently sold 150K+ units in the 80s. 1990s, it averaged 70-80K units per year. In 2000s, it only did 40K units before being axed in 2002 and each generation ran for ~10 years. That's not exactly aggressive re-designing schedules for a car that sold so well.

Face it, the 90s was a bad time for sports cars.

 

[krea.tion]

All debate and discussion aside, Merry Christmas yall!! Hope Santa brings everyone here an NSX in the new year.

 

[Ponyboy]

Wow, there's a whole lot of conjecture and data there from three different decades without any statistical and quantitative analysis other than listing sales numbers (and leaving a bunch out i.e. IIRC, the Corvette sold in the 9k in 97, 30k+ in 98 and 99), restating your bias, and some guy named uance which likely is some anecdotal info. Please feel free to list it.

So with the simplistic (not knocking you) production number method, the sports cars that didn't have redesigns didn't last and the ones that experienced gains (sans the Viper) are the ones that are still around? Did you just validate my hypothesis? Did we just become best friends? lol

Listen, here's what I'll do: I'll work with you on developing simple stepwise regression models using SPSS and we'll keep filtering the independent variables until we get a legitimate adjusted R² and there you'll have a no BS answer(s).

FYI, I've done regression models for the 911 where sales was the dependent variable and…well, you can guess which one of the two independent variables drove sales the most. It'd be fun to do for the NSX and we could glean some interesting info.

 

[nsxtasy]

You can see the effect of the luxury tax imposed on 1/1/1991 by viewing Porsche sales in North America; they didn't recover back to the 1990 level until 1997 (ref):

1989 9,479
1990 9,140
1991 4,388
1992 4,131
1993 3,713
1994 5,820
1995 6,078
1996 7,524
1997 13,731

Similarly, as shown in the table above, Corvette sales didn't recover back to their 1990 level until 1995.

And, of course, NSX sales dropped during that same period. U.S. sales by model year:

1991 3,163
1992 1,271
1993 598
1994 513
1995 780
1996 508
1997 308

Regarding that luxury tax, "A 1991 study by AUS Consultants showed that the tax led to a 20 percent drop in sales of international brand luxury cars like BMW and Mercedes-Benz." (Ref) "Most of the pain was felt by luxury-car importers such as Mercedes. In the 1990-91 car year, Mercedes' sales fell 20,000 units. 'About half the drop' was from the effect of the luxury tax, says Michael Bosserman, president of Mercedes Benz, North America." (Ref) I can't find year-by-year U.S. sales statistics for BMW and M-B but as these quotes indicate, I'm sure they will show the same weak sales during 1991-1994 that these other cars did. It was all over the press at the time, as those of us who were in the car market at that time may recall; between the luxury tax and the recession, it was a very weak period for sales of expensive cars. (It was also a weak period for sales of new luxury boats, as these too were subject to the luxury tax.)

Incidentally, one of the reasons the luxury tax was considered a failure, and subsequently repealed, is that the revenues it generated were substantially less than initially estimated. That's because of its (possibly unanticipated) effect of depressing sales of the items it was taxing, so the tax was imposed on a lower level of sales. (Ref) Again, more proof that sales of higher-end cars experienced a decline in the early 1990s.

Sounds like you don't want to accept it because these numbers and quotes prove that your previous statement was flat-out wrong as applied to higher-end cars during the first half of the decade, but these are the facts.

 

[bngl3rt]

Listen, here's what I'll do: I'll work with you on developing simple stepwise regression models using SPSS and we'll keep filtering the independent variables until we get a legitimate adjusted R² and there you'll have a no BS answer(s).

FYI, I've done regression models for the 911 where sales was the dependent variable and…well, you can guess which one of the two independent variables drove sales the most. It'd be fun to do for the NSX and we could glean some interesting info.

Can you post that somewhere? Sounds really interesting.

 

[N Spec]

Can you post that somewhere? Sounds really interesting.

Yes, please. It would be cool to see. And Merry Christmas. Not trying to make an epic debate. I'm just going with the more accurate answer IMO. The NSX was not updated because it was a tough market for sports cars in general in that era and it did not sell as fast they expected. That's my strong belief.

 

[tucsonsx]

Interesting thread - lots of good points. I think the new NSX will repeat history. Excellent car, dismal sales, and no halo effect for Acura, which by Honda management's own assessment is a floundering brand. What I notice with my customers who have the wealth to buy or the income to lease a $100K plus car ( all BMW ) is that they own multiple cars and when one of them brings the X5 in for service and I say that I haven't seen the M roadster or M5 for a while they often say " my kid didn't want it so I sold it. " When I ask what they bought the answer is often " a Tesla ". That is the car that gets noticed in the hospital parking lot. Extrapolating into the future and given what I notice about the customers ( and women customers are a much bigger deal than they were 25 years ago ), if the lifespan of the model is going to be 15 years, then a sportscar is a poor choice for a halo car.
My take is that Acura could differentiate itself from Honda and offer a truly unique forward looking luxury brand by making all models hybrids ( using the IMA technology in the 2 wheel drive cars would not seem all that difficult ) and the halo car a pure EV. A more affordable " Tesla buster ".

 

[Ponyboy]

Can you post that somewhere? Sounds really interesting.

I'll post the results. The actual regression (p-value, r2, t Stat, ANOVA, etc) will make heads spin. So, among the independent variables: as per capita consumer income increased so did sales of the 911. As new models of the 911 (defined as product evolution) increased so did sales. The model explained 72.67% of the variation of the dependent variable adjusted for the sample size of 22 and the number of independent variables. The theoretical issues were an inability to accurately determine Porsche annual marketing spend and R&D across the 23 year study period.

I have a feeling that their marketing budget would have played a big role in sales increases but b/c the were a private company for some of the study, finding those numbers was impossible. Anecdotal info wouldn't cut it and, like I said early, the data is only as good as the data it comes from: garbage in, garbage out.

One interesting aspect of the study was that the BMW M5 and Ferrari 308/348/355/360, according to the data, were complementary goods. Meaning, that when the price of the those cars decreased, the demand for the 911 increased.

Yes, please. It would be cool to see. And Merry Christmas. Not trying to make an epic debate. I'm just going with the more accurate answer IMO. The NSX was not updated because it was a tough market for sports cars in general in that era and it did not sell as fast they expected. That's my strong belief.

I understand. Thank you for the cogent discussion.

 

[N Spec]

I understand. Thank you for the cogent discussion.

BTW. Here is the link for some very vital NSX history if you've never read it:

http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showthread.php/59527-Something-I-read?p=530642&viewfull=1#post530642

Lance used to be his username here which why I said Lance. I imagine there may be some loose translations, but there's not much to mess up when it comes to numbers.

4 years worth of 6,000 cars per year was the original contract. I was 4K off from memory. 18K units sold worldwide, half went to the US. Most of the other half to Japan and then, the rest of the world. The other 6K remainder are probably distributed and stored for possible repairs/body work/etc.

It took them 15 years to reach this threshold due to lag in sales, but a smart approach as it lays out the costs initially while establishing an exclusively limited supply making it rarer and more exotic in essence. The Ford GT did something similar and they were more cautious in choosing their own low volume numbers. I bet they have a similar contract for the new NSX, and much smaller too which has been hinted many times at 1,000 units per year. My guess would be a contract closer to ~10K give or take worldwide this time, but only time will tell.

 

[Ponyboy]

Thanks for that. A couple lines seem to stand out to me:

"Uehera jokingly mentioned, 'If the next generation NSX should last another 15 years production cycle. The car has to be a technological wonder; however, still allows major upgrades in order to compete with the future replacement of F430 and Gallardo.'”

"After all, the purpose for the existence of NSX is not to make money, but to showcase what Honda can do."

It sounds like Honda management realized that lack of significant upgrades made the car less than competitive and that slow sales were never a consideration in the NSXs development. Maybe there's a translation error there. However, considering the above, I wish they had updated it regularly. The chassis is more than capable of handling more hp. IIRC, of the three engine options Honda was choosing from (1) 280ps DOHC V6, 2) 300ps DOHC turbo, 3) 280ps DOHC V8), the turbo would have had more potential for major upgrades.

I wish more people could experience what an uncorked 3.6L does to the NSX chassis. It's everything you love about the NSX and nothing of what you hate - just spot on.

 

[N Spec]

Thanks for that. A couple lines seem to stand out to me:

"Uehera jokingly mentioned, 'If the next generation NSX should last another 15 years production cycle. The car has to be a technological wonder; however, still allows major upgrades in order to compete with the future replacement of F430 and Gallardo.'”

"After all, the purpose for the existence of NSX is not to make money, but to showcase what Honda can do."

I wish more people could experience what an uncorked 3.6L does to the NSX chassis. It's everything you love about the NSX and nothing of what you hate - just spot on.

Yes, it is a matter of pride and not so much money, although I am sure Honda was smart enough not to lose money like Toyota did on the LFA. The pride aspect excites me as much as the fact that they are going turbo this time around and there is no gentlemen's agreement holding them back. No handicaps this round.

There is a part of me that wants Honda to keep the new NSX NA, 3.7 or 3.8 V6 like you mentioned and squeeze out 130+ hp/liter, but the potential for upgrades/growth with turbos as we all know is much greater. I have nightmares still with Twin Turbo 300ZX ownership and the reliability/sensitivity issues related to turbo cars. I love the Z32 300ZX, but I really don't think I could own another turbo version because of so many problems with that car. The Turbo MR2s I've owned are much more reliable than the Z and more mod friendly, but there are still quirks like blow-by from boost and such.

None of them can hold a candle to NSX's reliability while delivering the same level of performance. Honda does build better engines though so I'm am very curious on the type of reliability that Honda will ensure.

 

[fastaussie]

I wish more people could experience what an uncorked 3.6L does to the NSX chassis. It's everything you love about the NSX and nothing of what you hate - just spot on.

always said a 4.0 V8 with 400 horsepower in the back of the 2002+ NSX's would have been absolute magic.

what's the 3.6L engine make for numbers?

 

[Zoom]

no halo effect for Acura, which by Honda management's own assessment is a floundering brand.

I'll give my 2 cents, from the rest of the world Acura is totally unknown, since it's a US-only brand. As opposed to Lexus or Infinity, which are sold under these brands here, even though people are perfectly aware these are luxury brand names for Toyota and Nissan. Here the Integra Type R or NSX were sold by Honda (and badged as such). That's true for China too.. So yes i agree the brand was never promoted properly, and keeping it limited to north america is the main issue.

 

[Ponyboy]

You can see the effect of the luxury tax imposed on 1/1/1991 by viewing Porsche...

Can you filter the numbers down to the 911 since that's the specific model we're discussing? Also, how did total Porsche 911 sales differ from the decade preceding the 90s in total? It's interesting to see others note that sales declines and sales increases (recovery) in the same decade without listing the rest of the years so any analysis is incomplete at best.

We can certainly use luxury tax as another independent variable to determine how significant a relationship there is.

FYI, attempts at determining a strong relationship between two or more variables don't use articles by associations attempting to push legislation or editorial by news organizations that inherently carry bias - they are not "facts." The idea is minimize bias so that the data and its interpretation is as unprejudiced and objective as possible.

And what a sad attempt at provocation. Go bully someone more easily irritated.

Yes, it is a matter of pride and not so much money, although I am sure Honda was smart enough not to lose money like Toyota did on the LFA. The pride aspect excites me as much as the fact that they are going turbo this time around and there is no gentlemen's agreement holding them back. No handicaps this round.

I don't think Honda lost as much money on the NSX as Toyota did on the LFA. However, Toyota is a 200+ billion $$ company with 2.2 billion in Operating Income this year. Even if they recognized all the losses in the same year (maybe 100 to 200 million?), they'd still be profitable many times over with more than enough profits to not change their dividend ratio significantly. Although, obviously, no auto company wants to lose money, I always thought these types of cars were more marketing programs intending to showcase what the company could do than sales platforms focusing on either volume or high margin.

always said a 4.0 V8 with 400 horsepower in the back of the 2002+ NSX's would have been absolute magic.

what's the 3.6L engine make for numbers?

425(ish) at the crank.

 

[nsxtasy]

FYI, attempts at determining a strong relationship between two or more variables don't use articles by associations attempting to push legislation or editorial by news organizations that inherently carry bias - they are not "facts." The idea is minimize bias so that the data and its interpretation is as unprejudiced and objective as possible.

It is indeed a FACT that high-end car sales - sales for expensive makes and models - declined the first half of the 1990's. Sales numbers are what they are, sales numbers, and thus carry no bias. Thus it is also indeed a FACT that your statement that these were boom times for car sales was wrong, as applied to this part of the decade and this segment of the market. You can debate all you want about the WHY the sales declined, but it sounds like you're merely trying to distract from the fact that your earlier statement was wrong for this part of the market. Why not just accept it and go from there?

And what a sad attempt at provocation. Go bully someone more easily irritated.

Insults like this - as a response to objective facts with no provocation whatsoever - only prove that you're pretty darn irritated and overly defensive, and not interested in having an objective discussion.

 

[docjohn]

well at least you two haven't skipped a beat......:wink:

 

[Ponyboy]

It is indeed a FACT that high-end car sales - sales for expensive makes and models - declined the first half of the 1990's.

Do you have those figures? B/c they (the total for high-end car sales/sports luxury) weren't above in any of your posts.

numbers are what they are, sales numbers, and thus carry no bias.

Again, do you have those figures? B/c they weren't in any of your posts. You referenced total Porsche sales, a forward by an association president attempting to counter pending legislation, and two editorial pieces by newspapers. The latter three aren't considered unbiased sources. Total Porsche sales would be fine if you'd like to include that in the total for high-end/sports luxury cars.

it is also indeed a FACT that your statement that these were boom times for car sales was wrong

US auto sales, '80-'89 = 137.4 million

US auto sales, '90-'99 = 148.8 million

Hint: the composition of those sales figures can be found on Wards Auto. Feel free to look. However, you'll have to look at the decade preceding as well to compare. Again, I'd be happy to run regression (stepwise or monte carlo) models so there'll be statistical validation for whatever the data says. And interpretation can be made from there (luxury tax, lack of update, fuel prices, price increases, etc).

Insults like this - as a response to objective facts with no provocation whatsoever - only prove that you're pretty darn irritated and overly defensive, and not interested in having an objective discussion.

Unfathomable but okay, thank you for that. I'll be sure to do better next time.