- Joined
- 27 May 2016
- Messages
- 831
Yes, they have "his and hers."
Racewife is cool. Met her at a playstation event a couple years ago.
Where are all the Production deliveries ??
- Thread starter thunderNSX
- Start date
Racewife is cool. Met her at a playstation event a couple years ago.
Good memory about the $450K. From one of the playbooks at the car's introduction:
Good memory about the $450K. From one of the playbooks at the car's introduction:
Fantastic.
Surely the average age buyer is somewhere in his 50s.
Really it's not so much the level of income, but the level of disposable wealth.
There are definitely plenty of owners who are budgeting a monthly payment into their annual finances, but the true market for six figure sportscars has always been the old guys.
What you say makes perfect sense, but is unfortunately a departure from reality. :frown-new:
- Joined
- 3 July 2016
- Messages
- 249
Maybe a departure from reality for Acura, but not for their biggest competition, Audi, who already did it with the R8 RWS.
https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/future-cars/a19746251/2018-audi-r8-rws-pricing/
- Joined
- 23 February 2016
- Messages
- 2,592
Wouldn't the R8+ be more like where we would expect the the NSX-R to be?
This thread.:biggrin: the type R is a fantasy. It would most likely cost more than the current nsx, which no one is buying without steep discounts. Sorry, that sounded rude. But man, I just don't understand what is going on with Acura right now... Come on Rocky, FIGHT!!!FIGHT!!!@DocL, when they pick up your car would you shell out a few more bucks for a type R and take it to one of those sweet Acura dealerships that know their buyers so well?
But what if it comes with type r floor mats? I know you don’t wanna miss out on that one.Fuck you Jinks. You should start modding your new car.
Considering they charge $1200 for upgraded floor mats currently, I'd rather get kicked in the nuts.
:biggrin: I think you passed that already. They have red piping though and they’re only 1500.00
You know, here in Cleveland, a 2G NSX is plenty baller even among the very few 720S and similar hypercars. This ain’t NYC or LA. Nowadays, even a 1G NSX is considered reasonably baller around here considering the greatly increased cost to procure one.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2016
- Messages
- 249
*Sigh*
So, call it something else then. Call it the NSX Lightweight. Who cares. The point is, make a cheaper version if you want this car to survive.
- Joined
- 23 February 2016
- Messages
- 2,592
Honda is a big company and they are hunkering down for more challenging economic times. Continuing to run the PMC at half (or less) volume is more an annoyance than anything else.
I am with you but everything Honda puts into a show room has some R and D behind it. With this car I would imagine the development team is overly techy. How are you going to get them to simpler/cheaper? To me, for Honda to offer a lower cost version of the NSX, it would have to have a lower cost gas engine (kind of like what Chevy is doing with the C8 (you want one for $70K, then it's OHV for you, you want the modern OHC engine, 6 figures for your car).
- Joined
- 3 July 2016
- Messages
- 249
It seems to me that everyone on the Second Gen NSX forum loves to take the pessimist's view on the very car they chose to buy.
If Honda has such an issue continuing to support and put some small R&D dollars into this car, then so be it. My viewpoint is coming from the optimist's side, that Honda is a great company with a history of success in performance cars (see current Civic Type R as an example) that has the ability to revitalize the new NSX.
No, they would not need to simplify the engine to reduce costs. I laid out various ways they could reduce costs a few posts back - by removing features on the current NSX that no enthusiasts are really asking for, such as the front motors that are dubious in whether they even improve the car. The retort is "but that will cost R&D dollars" - yeah, so does everything else in the automotive world. If Honda wants to not spend any R&D dollars on their products, they should, in theory, shut down all operations and cease to exist as a car company. That argument is ridiculous.
Edit:
And, if the NSX team is too "techy" to make the car simpler, fire the NSX team and send this project to the people who did the current Civic Type R, which is a simple and effective performance car that is selling by the bucketloads.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 February 2016
- Messages
- 2,592
I am thrilled with my car. Half of my brain is allocated to bean counting (the other half in cancer drug development but that won't play well here). Prior to production starting, some H Management mouth piece was saying the average customer would be waiting 2-3 years for delivery of their car (not a great prediction).
I would love to see a R version with 700 HP and 100kg less girth.
The gaps I would go for before anything else are the nose lift so you can take the effin car to work (i.e. normal parking garage), and an open top (cuz rich folks love to be seen in their toys).
The hybrid stuff could be removed but it terms of branding, the hybrid stuff and SH-AWD are key marketing aspects for Acura. Removing them from the halo car would create an inconsistency.
I would love to see a R version with 700 HP and 100kg less girth.
The gaps I would go for before anything else are the nose lift so you can take the effin car to work (i.e. normal parking garage), and an open top (cuz rich folks love to be seen in their toys).
The hybrid stuff could be removed but it terms of branding, the hybrid stuff and SH-AWD are key marketing aspects for Acura. Removing them from the halo car would create an inconsistency.
- Joined
- 3 July 2016
- Messages
- 249
I get that. But, to me, this is the sort of BS from marketing and accounting departments that creates an inability for auto companies to make great products. Just make the best car, and the car that people want - Acura's so-called brand identity is not good right now regardless, why would they let their halo car be constrained by it?
Nissan has sold a very respectable number of R35 GT-Rs in the USA, and it's because they delivered what the people wanted from a GT-R - a brutally fast car that could destroy the competition (at launch) and cost half the money. NSX fans wanted a new version of the original NSX idea - a simple supercar that came packed with Honda ingenuity and reliability.
The original NSX was $63k at launch, which is around $120,000 in today's money. Getting the current NSX from $160k -> $120k or $130k isn't such a huge leap of faith, and will at the same time help create the simpler car that NSX fans actually wanted.
The point of the NSX should be to get as many as possible out there, making Acura look good. The people who see them are going to think, "Acura is awesome," not, "Why doesn't this NSX have SH-AWD like my neighbor's Acura." Nobody who doesn't own an Acura even knows what SH-AWD is.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 23 February 2016
- Messages
- 2,592
I agree with you but those folks move a lot of SUVs. Kind of tough to get a more "best in class" mindset group in at this point.
I really appreciate Nissan's approach with the R35. Not too crazy a car to build (built in the same plant as my Q50, great quality), continuous support and meaningful improvements over the life cycle.
I also agree that the SH-AWD is not a must for the car. I can't tell you how many people over the years of bringing the NSX to cars and coffee had no idea the car is a hybrid or has AWD.
I really appreciate Nissan's approach with the R35. Not too crazy a car to build (built in the same plant as my Q50, great quality), continuous support and meaningful improvements over the life cycle.
I also agree that the SH-AWD is not a must for the car. I can't tell you how many people over the years of bringing the NSX to cars and coffee had no idea the car is a hybrid or has AWD.
After the NSX he was promoted to a VP.
If you remove the TMU from the front wheels, then why would you need a battery pack at all? Without the front motors, you could scrap the entire hybrid system. But then the NSX would lose it's uniqueness.
FWIW, the FK8 is a success simply because the engineers at Honda decided to throw away everything from the 9th Gen Civic and build the FK8 as part of the 10th Gen Civic program from the ground up. The 9th Gen Civic was an utter and complete failure and a reflection of the lack of focus by Honda Corporate during the gestation period for that generation of the Civic.
The FK8 R&D costs were amortized as part of the 10th Gen Civic development program, so the FK8 Civic Type-R didn't just show up out of the blue, it took a complete failure for Honda to be forced to regroup and regain focus on that market segment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 3 July 2016
- Messages
- 249
You would need it for the more powerful rear electric motor that is sandwiched between the crankshaft and transmission.
I would imagine removing this motor would be a much more involved process than removing the front motors which basically just sit by themselves, not connected to anything else that's important. The car would also lose all of its torque-fill abilities if the entire hybrid system was deleted.
- Joined
- 3 July 2016
- Messages
- 249
You are correct that the Type R was always part of the plan for the 10th gen car, but to imply a successful performance variant must be amortized as part of the original plan makes no sense.
If you want to look at Type R history, the original Integra Type R was extremely successful with almost 30,000 units sold in Japan alone, and that was a car that was not part of the original Integra plan as evidenced by the extensive chassis changes necessary on the car. Honda actually lost money on the early cars due to the special processes needed to build it, but what they gained was the beginning of the legacy of Type R which has paid dividends for the Honda brand ever since.
Last edited:
Similar threads
