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

[BB]

Audi pretty much invented 4wd for mainstream cars, pushed forced induction when it was shunned by almost all other manufacturers for production vehicles and is one of the body successful rallying brands of all time if not the most. It DOES have pedigree along with those other characteristics mentioned.

The first brand with 4WD in a mass produced car for the street was Subaru, not Audi. Audi's first mass produced 4WD system for the road came 8 years after Subaru! And Subaru has been a major force in rally sport too. Yet if Subaru was about to release an R8 or NSX type car I doubt we would we hear anyone babbling "I'm going with the Subaru cause it's got pedigree."

Regardless you're missing my point which was why does Audi have "pedigree" but Honda allegedly doesn't? Not only has Honda been involved in racing for a long time, but they have more technology firsts than Audi. What you're really talking about is "prestige"-- i.e. my peers will be more impressed to learn I bought an Audi R8 than they will the new NSX.

There's a reason brands like Honda have had a cautious attitude towards forced induction-- it tends to reduce a car's reliability. It's apparent that German brands such as Audi are more willing add a turbo charger and other technologies onto a car without performing the same level of long term quality engineering that goes into the typical Honda product. I truly believe this is a design philosophy difference and not one of superior technology. This is why the value of Audi cars typically drop like a rock once the warranty period is over.

Check out the long term reliability rating for the Audi RS6. Being from their Quattro division it's the closest thing I could find to the R8. Elsewhere on their site they say the Audi RS6 is the absolute least reliable car of all those sold in the UK....

http://www.reliabilityindex.com/reliability/search/23

 

[Adamantium]

I said pretty much invented 4wd for mainstream. There's a reason why pretty much was in that sentence.

I know exactly what I mean by pedigree, and I would argue Subaru have it too also for their rallying history. It's the reason why manufacturers compete in motorsport, the parts prowess of motorsport success rubs off and helps them sell cars.


I'm not missing your point at all, I'd argue that Honda does have pedigree too. To me Honda is known as one of the two great engine manufacturers of all brands alongside BMW.


Is agree with you about prestige, but that's a function of the average price point of each car in a range. Honda has a model in each segment that can compete on price. Audi does not, its base car price is always more expensive than the equivalent ford or gm car. I don't know about Honda's U.S. pricing but in the UK, they are slightly more expensive but have fewer options as they come included, the net result is that they are on a par with Ford and GM etc on a like for like spec basis.


Because of this Audi competes at a higher price point and so also has prestige with badge snobs who judge things by price.


As for your reliability survey being determined by the level of research going into long term specification policy, I have no idea from where you get the information to make that assumption. Do you have a psychic connection to third minds of millions of people?


It's also inconsistent across the band. I have an a5 and a q5, both hold their value better than ant equivalent in their sector. Perhaps the great informed publix who are so focused on long term brand engineering strategy are willing to overlook Audi's misgivings where these models are concerned?

 

[SebringSilver]

People are too defensive. Audi has unquestionable racing pedigree, as does Honda. If anything, it's "Acura" that's the weak link.

Nevertheless, I'm very keen to pick up the new NSX. It'll make a great alternative to the dime-a-dozen Porsche 911, and will look nice next to the R8.

 

[BB]

As for your reliability survey being determined by the level of research going into long term specification policy, I have no idea from where you get the information to make that assumption. Do you have a psychic connection to third minds of millions of people?

It's also inconsistent across the band. I have an a5 and a q5, both hold their value better than ant equivalent in their sector. Perhaps the great informed publix who are so focused on long term brand engineering strategy are willing to overlook Audi's misgivings where these models are concerned?

In the US outside of a few rare specialty models (e.g. R8, M3, etc) almost none of the German cars hold their value as well as similarly priced cars from Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus. For instance the 60 month residual for the Acura MDX is 42% while the similarly priced Audi Q5 is only 33%. And the older both these two vehicles become the more that gap continues to widen. The most likely explanation for this gap is buyer's perception of long term reliability and thus the cost to maintain the vehicle. How otherwise can you explain the Q5 being as appealing as the MDX when new, but as the Q5 grows older it becomes far less appealing?

It would appear these buyer's reservations towards long term Audi ownership may not be wrong as Audi ranked nearly dead last in this survey....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9815860/German-cars-lose-out-in-reliability-survey.html

Or this one that ranks VW/Audi as one of the least reliable brands after 10 years....
http://www.kia-forums.com/attachmen...mer-reports-april-2011-cr_mfr-reliability.jpg

As for why attitudes in Europe may be different despite the strong evidence against German brands being reliable, perhaps you can answer that for us? My guess is that the public there is not as willing to pay a premium price for a Japanese car as are Americans. It's as if Japanese cars are not as well respected in general. For evidence of this note how cheap Japanese brands like Daihatsu sell well in Europe while a "premium" Japanese brand like Honda has trouble selling.

As for your mocking tone regarding customers overlooking Audi's long term engineering strategy, you've clearly never been involved in having to design a complex system yourself. Nearly every design decision has both positive and negative consequences. Rarely do you gain something without having to give up something else. If you choose to implement the newest technology quickly it's likely your reliability will be worse. Consider direct injection. Audi implemented it a decade before Honda and Toyota, yet who had all the direct injection related carbon build up problems with their engines? Even today you still hear people talking about this issue on R8 message forums, whereas Honda and Toyota got it right first time yet were criticized for being technology laggards.

From talking with US buyers I am often surprised how many of them already have a basic understanding of what I'm describing. When asked about German cars they'll often express a belief that German cars are among the most desirable in terms of prestige and technology yet they'll admit they don't own one because they're uncertain of the reliability of these technologies and concerned about the cost to maintain.

 

[Adamantium]

In the US outside of a few rare specialty models (e.g. R8, M3, etc) almost none of the German cars hold their value as well as similarly priced cars from Honda/Acura or Toyota/Lexus. For instance the 60 month residual for the Acura MDX is 42% while the similarly priced Audi Q5 is only 33%. And the older both these two vehicles become the more that gap continues to widen. The most likely explanation for this gap is buyer's perception of long term reliability and thus the cost to maintain the vehicle. How otherwise can you explain the Q5 being as appealing as the MDX when new, but as the Q5 grows older it becomes far less appealing?

It would appear these buyer's reservations towards long term Audi ownership may not be wrong as Audi ranked nearly dead last in this survey....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/9815860/German-cars-lose-out-in-reliability-survey.html

Or this one that ranks VW/Audi as one of the least reliable brands after 10 years....
http://www.kia-forums.com/attachmen...mer-reports-april-2011-cr_mfr-reliability.jpg

As for why attitudes in Europe may be different despite the strong evidence against German brands being reliable, perhaps you can answer that for us? My guess is that the public there is not as willing to pay a premium price for a Japanese car as are Americans. It's as if Japanese cars are not as well respected in general. For evidence of this note how cheap Japanese brands like Daihatsu sell well in Europe while a "premium" Japanese brand like Honda has trouble selling.

As for your mocking tone regarding customers overlooking Audi's long term engineering strategy, you've clearly never been involved in having to design a complex system yourself. Nearly every design decision has both positive and negative consequences. Rarely do you gain something without having to give up something else. If you choose to implement the newest technology quickly it's likely your reliability will be worse. Consider direct injection. Audi implemented it a decade before Honda and Toyota, yet who had all the direct injection related carbon build up problems with their engines? Even today you still hear people talking about this issue on R8 message forums, whereas Honda and Toyota got it right first time yet were criticized for being technology laggards.

From talking with US buyers I am often surprised how many of them already have a basic understanding of what I'm describing. When asked about German cars they'll often express a belief that German cars are among the most desirable in terms of prestige and technology yet they'll admit they don't own one because they're uncertain of the reliability of these technologies and concerned about the cost to maintain.

My mocking tone? I'm surprised you can hear it all the way up there on your horse.


I'm a patent attorney by trade, specialising in the motor industry, I'll let you make whatever assumptions you like as to what that means but try to consider at what point the manufacturers bring me in on their bleeding edge technology projects.


As for the second hand values market, in amazed you can tune in to millions of minds and determine their generic consensus. Personally I think more expensive brands depreciate more because they cost more to fix after the wealthier first owners have degraded them out of warranty. Add in that Japanese cars in the UK tend to have a longer manufacturer's warranty.


Of course it could be because the entire market knows that a brand rushes to market unproven technology and therefore has no faith in that brand, but I very much doubt that conclusion could be drawn without extensive market research.


Are you a market researcher?

 

[docjohn]

......lol ....do you know what they call 100 attorneys at the bottom of the ocean?....:tongue:

 

[krea.tion]

Why is everyone on this board so damn sensitive? :/ The fact of the matter is is that there is a price to buy and a price to own. This is the reason why I can buy a 10 year old Mercedes S600 for under $10k. Great deal, a lot of people would say, considering that the MSRP for the vehicle was likely north of $100k but once you consider in how much potential services and repairs cost, there arent a whole lot of people willing to save now knowing that they are risking more in the future. Can't we just be excited that the production NSX will be reveal tomorrow? I'm stoked...

 

[Jetpilot3]

What you really mean to say is that Audi conveys a higher status within your aspirational social circle. Audi is more desirable not so much because you desire the car itself, but because you desire some quality of being that belongs to those who drive Audi. Audi is the brand that attractive and prestigious people buy. Honda is what your parents or grandmother would buy.

Not at all and you are speaking to the guy who has owned 3 NSX's to date and would love to consider the new one. I don't think of Audi like that...

Audi to me are rally specialists, the quattro experts and the team that continually wins LeMans. The R8 embodies, right out of the box when it was introduced, that way of winning and capturing the technology that Audi is known for.

If I wanted status it would be a Porsche. Done. By far the only marque that I feel can charge for its status.

 

[docjohn]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/detr...nsx-through-the-years/ss-AA84U3Q?ocid=DELLDHP

 

[nsxvtecvtec]

Why is everyone on this board so damn sensitive? :/ QUOTE]

welcome then? lol. seriously, I stop attending local meet a long time ago because of this reason.