2nd gen NSX as an investment?

[Computron]

I’ve been seriously contemplating getting a second gen NSX, but I’m wondering what you guys think about its future depreciation. I know all cars are pretty much bad investments as far as holding value, but do you think these 2017 cars will bottom out at some level like say 50% of msrp and not go much lower because of exclusivity and the small numbers made? Or will they keep sinking like all cars?

Also thinking about a Tesla p100D but I have a feeling those things will drop value like a boat anchor as newer models keep getting better.

What do you guys think? In a way, I’m looking for justification to myself that the $150k+ is not all lost over time with the nsx.

Any thoughts appreciated! Thanks!

 

[Heavymetals]

I don't think the NSX is going to be an exception to the rule although scarcity might slow depreciation.

I think 50-60% drop is about as low as it will go.

Forget depreciation and figure out what the car will cost you.

My insurance and registration fees average out to roughly $10@day.

 

[marcus321]

I don't think the NSX is going to be an exception to the rule although scarcity might slow depreciation.

I think 50-60% drop is about as low as it will go.

Forget depreciation and figure out what the car will cost you.

My insurance and registration fees average out to roughly $10@day.

That's pretty high insurance you are paying.

 

[Heavymetals]

That's pretty high insurance you are paying.

The insurance is for two cars and not too bad.

The registration fees for this year was $1,313.00 on the NSX.

 

[Brylek]

I say don't do it. It's a toy, if one day you wake up and it's worth good money then great but buying it solely as an investment is very risky.

Look what happend here:
http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showt...A1158MT000897?highlight=1991+chicago+original

3 guys came together and each came up with 20 000 to buy this 60 000 car, 20 years later they maybe got what they paid for it, considering inflation and storage costs they lost a lot of money. Maybe they unloaded it too soon, maybe today the car could be worth 120 000 which is double the original MSRP but that would still maybe cover costs, inflation and storage fees. If these guys bought a Porsche turbo, Ford GT or something else that happened to appreciate by a lot then that would be a different story buy you just never know.

In my opinion Honda vehicles are made to be driven, not collected. They seem to be relatively inexpensive when new, easy to live with and don't depreciate all that much after you put some serious miles on them. If you want a good investment then take the same money and maybe get a Ferrari F430 in manual (last Ferrari from that segment offered with manual transmission), some late model limited production Porsche or see if you can find a decent deal on the 2004-2005 Ford GT.

Just my opinion.

 

[The King]

I highly doubt the OP would be buying the new NSX as an investment only. Would probably spend a fair amount of time gazing at it in the garage, and may actually ring it's neck once an awhile.:chargrined:

 

[RPM217]

I say don't do it. It's a toy, if one day you wake up and it's worth good money then great but buying it solely as an investment is very risky.

Look what happend here:
http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showt...A1158MT000897?highlight=1991+chicago+original

3 guys came together and each came up with 20 000 to buy this 60 000 car, 20 years later they maybe got what they paid for it, considering inflation and storage costs they lost a lot of money. Maybe they unloaded it too soon, maybe today the car could be worth 120 000 which is double the original MSRP but that would still maybe cover costs, inflation and storage fees. If these guys bought a Porsche turbo, Ford GT or something else that happened to appreciate by a lot then that would be a different story buy you just never know.

In my opinion Honda vehicles are made to be driven, not collected. They seem to be relatively inexpensive when new, easy to live with and don't depreciate all that much after you put some serious miles on them. If you want a good investment then take the same money and maybe get a Ferrari F430 in manual (last Ferrari from that segment offered with manual transmission), some late model limited production Porsche or see if you can find a decent deal on the 2004-2005 Ford GT.

Just my opinion.

Just a FYI, the Ford GT model years were 2005 and 2006, a total of 4038 cars made.

 

[Computron]

I highly doubt the OP would be buying the new NSX as an investment only. Would probably spend a fair amount of time gazing at it in the garage, and may actually ring it's neck once an awhile.:chargrined:

YES EXACTLY what The King said here... Fair amount of time gazing, and driven once in a while on sunny weekends in the Pacific Northwest. Just trying to figure out how much I can expect to lose in value for the privilege of gazing whenever I want in my garage!

 

[Heavymetals]

Just a FYI, the Ford GT model years were 2005 and 2006, a total of 4038 cars made.

The GT40 has gone through 4 reiterations and was first introduced in the 60's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT40

 

[whiteNSXs]

The GT40 has gone through 4 reiterations and was first introduced in the 60's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT40

Ford GT and GT40 are different cars.
The GT was made in 2005 and 2006. They resemble the original GT40 but are much bigger.
The GT is NOT a GT40.
Steve

 

[Heavymetals]

Ford GT and GT40 are different cars.
The GT was made in 2005 and 2006. They resemble the original GT40 but are much bigger.
The GT is NOT a GT40.
Steve

As I said, it has gone through 4 reiterations.
GT40 is a trademark now owned by someone else.
They are all GT's but different (MK1-MK4).

 

[stuntman]

I'd bet the new NSX will depreciate far more than 50%. Nothing was Revolutionary about the car, and it doesn't hold any special place in history like the original. If you have the money and like it, but it. But viewing it as an investment would be foolish.

 

[Computron]

I'd bet the new NSX will depreciate far more than 50%. Nothing was Revolutionary about the car, and it doesn't hold any special place in history like the original. If you have the money and like it, but it. But viewing it as an investment would be foolish.

Do you think the limited production and low number of units would make a difference in the long term value of this car?

 

[Dq10]

The Tesla p100d is an amazing car and won’t depreciate as fast as most cars, no Tesla’s do..It’s hard to improve on o-60 in 2,3 seconds and with over the air up dates the car is in a constant state of change not to mention that they were built to last an extremely long time..Having said that I’d wait for the refreshed model most likely coming out later this year..

 

[Computron]

The Tesla p100d is an amazing car and won’t depreciate as fast as most cars, no Tesla’s do..It’s hard to improve on o-60 in 2,3 seconds and with over the air up dates the car is in a constant state of change not to mention that they were built to last an extremely long time..Having said that I’d wait for the refreshed model most likely coming out later this year..

Which do you think will hold value better, the P100D or the 2017 NSX?

 

[jeffreygebhart]

I'd bet the new NSX will depreciate far more than 50%. Nothing was Revolutionary about the car, and it doesn't hold any special place in history like the original. If you have the money and like it, but it. But viewing it as an investment would be foolish.

I remember the "California Car Duster" commercial where the owner was dusting his late-model American car and saying "I protect my investment with the California Car Duster!". I always had a good laugh over that one. I agree with stuntman...if you want the car, then buy it, but don't try to justify it as being an investment. Few new cars would qualify as such. But if you're lucky then depreciation will be low and if you hang onto it long enough then maybe, just maybe, you'll break even. A fun toy? Yes. An investment mechanism? No. Save the investment cash for the stock market.

 

[Dq10]

Tesla vs NSX depreciation-
No idea..I think the Tesla 100d will always hold its value vs the Model 3..Who knows how many variants of the NSX will be released..I’d bet on an NSX R version without the electric motors if one ever comes out, that’s the NSX I’d prefer..

 

[docjohn]

Have you ever watched a mecum or BJ auction.....have you seen the current prices of precious 7-12 y/o amg,M5-6,bentleys...ect?

 

[Jinks]

I think you’ll be waiting a few decades for this car to in an investment state where you’re coming out on top from purchase price.

 

[whiteNSXs]

......late model limited production Porsche or see if you can find a decent deal on the 2004-2005 Ford GT.

Just my opinion.

Just a FYI, the Ford GT model years were 2005 and 2006, a total of 4038 cars made.

RPM217 owns a 2005 Ford GT and he simply corrected Brylek's "2004-2005" error as the said GT were only made in 2005 and 2006 but both were referring to the first generation Ford GT. There are so far 2 generations of Ford GT, 2005-2006 and the 2017-

The GT40 has gone through 4 reiterations and was first introduced in the 60's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_GT40

It sounded to me that you were correcting RPM217 that the GT were introduced in the 60s but in fact they are NOT the same car at all. Different names and different cars.
Many people are confused with the names of the cars. The original ones in the 60s are "GT40" and they are tiny little things. The 2005-2006 homage cars are just "GT" and are entirely different and cannot be considered a "reiteration" of the original GT40. The GT is huge and only looks like a GT40 and that's about it. The confusion was further complicated by the fact that the Ford GT was introduced as a concept car named the "GT40 Concept" but the production car is just "GT"

As I said, it has gone through 4 reiterations.
GT40 is a trademark now owned by someone else.
They are all GT's but different (MK1-MK4).

When you said "4 reiterations", what are you referring to? The fact that the GT40 name is owned by someone else is irrelevant. The original GT40s might have been originally introduced as a "GT" but they should be only correctly referred as GT40. The name "Ford GT" only means the 2005-2006 and the 2017+.

Steve

 

[Heavymetals]

RPM217 owns a 2005 Ford GT and he simply corrected Brylek's "2004-2005" error as the said GT were only made in 2005 and 2006 but both were referring to the first generation Ford GT. There are so far 2 generations of Ford GT, 2005-2006 and the 2017-



It sounded to me that you were correcting RPM217 that the GT were introduced in the 60s but in fact they are NOT the same car at all. Different names and different cars.
Many people are confused with the names of the cars. The original ones in the 60s are "GT40" and they are tiny little things. The 2005-2006 homage cars are just "GT" and are entirely different and cannot be considered a "reiteration" of the original GT40. The GT is huge and only looks like a GT40 and that's about it. The confusion was further complicated by the fact that the Ford GT was introduced as a concept car named the "GT40 Concept" but the production car is just "GT"



When you said "4 reiterations", what are you referring to? The fact that the GT40 name is owned by someone else is irrelevant. The original GT40s might have been originally introduced as a "GT" but they should be only correctly referred as GT40. The name "Ford GT" only means the 2005-2006 and the 2017+.

Steve

My last comment on this: the Ford GT40 was introduced in the 60's and known as a MarkI

The Ford GT has been through 4 reiterations MarkI through MarkIV.

The only reason the newer Ford GT's were not called GT40's is the trademark was owned by someone else and the licensing fees were ridiculous.

There was also a GT90 concept.

They are all Ford GT's, some have a "40" designation except the 90 concept.

 

[whiteNSXs]

My last comment on this: the Ford GT40 was introduced in the 60's and known as a MarkI

The Ford GT has been through 4 reiterations MarkI through MarkIV.

The only reason the newer Ford GT's were not called GT40's is the trademark was owned by someone else and the licensing fees were ridiculous.

There was also a GT90 concept.

They are all Ford GT's, some have a "40" designation except the 90 concept.

You are just plain wrong on this. The Ford GT and the Ford GT40 are different cars.
The "Ford GT" name is very specific for 2 cars, period. The Ford GT has only 2 generations, the 2005-2006 and the current 2017+
The name GT40 with the "40" is given to it because it was 40 inches tall. So even the licensing of "GT40" was approved, the name was still not appropriate for the Ford GT which is 44 inches tall.
"There was also a GT90 concept." And your point is? The GT90 is only a concept car and it is not relevant to this conversation.
They are not all "Ford GT's". All of them are different cars. Ford GT is Ford GT. GT40 is GT40. GT90 is GT90. Ford Mustang GT is Mustang GT.
Steve

 

[stuntman]

Many people are confused with the names of the cars. The original ones in the 60s are "GT40" and they are tiny little things. The 2005-2006 homage cars are just "GT" and are entirely different and cannot be considered a "reiteration" of the original GT40. The GT is huge and only looks like a GT40 and that's about it. The confusion was further complicated by the fact that the Ford GT was introduced as a concept car named the "GT40 Concept" but the production car is just "GT"

When you said "4 reiterations", what are you referring to? The fact that the GT40 name is owned by someone else is irrelevant. The original GT40s might have been originally introduced as a "GT" but they should be only correctly referred as GT40. The name "Ford GT" only means the 2005-2006 and the 2017+.

Steve

I disagree. If it weren't for the trademark issue, the car would most likely have been called a GT40. That's like saying the 2009 Nissan GTR isn't a GTR because it's not a "Skyline GTR". Or by saying the retro Ford Thunderbird isn't a Thunderbird, or the retro Challenger isn't a Challenger, or the NSX isn't an NSX because it's a hybrid, etc...

Semantics aside, the Ford GT is the successor and part of the GT40 heritage. It's technically incorrect to call the 2004-present cars "GT40"s, it's not entirely appropriate to discount the lineage.

 

[docjohn]

hey did you guys know the FGT and the saleen S7 share the same frame.....btw I'm with Steve:biggrin:

 

[dragoon]

Have you ever watched a mecum or BJ auction.....have you seen the current prices of precious 7-12 y/o amg,M5-6,bentleys...ect?