• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

Where are all the Production deliveries ??

Jinks,

Sadly, I don't think $130K is even going to move these cars.

Today, I had one of the most insightful conversations with a sales rep at a local dealership. I've bought a number of new cars from him and he is a genuine car enthusiast. I've repeatedly purchased vehicles from him due to his honestly and willingness to work with me on price. During our discussion of the NSX, he felt that it was a sales disaster. He admits that having the units at the dealership does increase foot traffic and people taking pictures, but few, if any, real buyers call or pursue discussions about purchasing the car. He did state that the car is fast but not enthralling, overall the speed of the car is more than many can handle. His take was that two key factors really turn-off buyers.

1) Price. From his perspective, at $120K the car would be an easier sell. The $200K car on his showroom floor is priced in a category where other cars that have are more visceral and exciting exist. He did not believe that there would be any immediate incentives that would bring the price down to a level that would entice buyers. When I inquired whether there would be a glut of 2017 models still lingering around in 2018, he felt that the odds were pretty high.
2) Hybrid drivetrain. Like others, he thought that the car's ICE could have been tuned to a point where it could have provided similar performance as what exists in its current incarnation with the hybrid drivetrain without the added weight, complexity and cost. One aspect that I wasn't aware was that he believed that in the used marketplace, the hybrid drivetrain would diminish its desirability.
 
I'm going to agree. It's not pricing, but it's branding. Honda is never going to be a best seller with their conservative marketing. They seem to be do ok in racing for the time being, and that may help, but brand image is what sells cars.
 
I agree as well. I had opined a $120k max price point w/regard to their actual brand capacity/limits in 2014 and again in 2016 even before delivery of VIN#001 to R. Hendrick's.

A sales rep who someone here knows and trusts and bought numerous times from is calling it "a sales disaster"? Well I'm concerned that dealerships will need to get prepared for another one which I think will occur after they put the pentagon grill on the front of the refresh. This move can essentially kill the brand of the NSX in the mass majority of the few minds of those who car shop in this price point and can afford it. There are so many reasons for this, the real buyer does not want a car that looks anything like/resembles a fleet of a bunch of <$60K value cars that are mediocre at best (sans the MDX), the current lack of brand prestige, etc. but if this move happens it will again be reflective of Acura treating their lineup like they are at a much, much, much higher perceived branding level in the minds of tangible consumers than they really are.

This wouldn't be the first time for them to think that their own opinion is smarter than the market (for ex. the beak insistence w/complete disregard to market feedback). I've mentioned it before that this is always a treacherous path for a business because in theory no company is "smarter" than its customer because it is the customer who decides what he will spend his money on :wink:. You've heard sayings like, "If you just open your doors, they WILL come!" or, "If you just build it, they'll buy it!" This is not market theory...this is just wishful thinking. If the pentagon grill happens I am very concerned for this amazing ride and believe it will negatively affect sales even further for YEARS to come. It would also be reflective of a marketing/design dept still not being able to realize the ramifications of what this act symbolizes along with a failure to grasp where the Acura brand's truly at in the minds of consumers at this moment in time. And potentially by default, unintentionally sabotaging the NSX by transplanting the face of how the marketplace really views their brand (NOT how Acura views themselves in the mirror) onto the face, right smack-dab-front-n-center of their truly mighty-fast and more-than-enough-fun halo car.

Question for Acura: Which Ford in the Ford lineup does the Ferrari-fighting, twin-turbo, 3.5 liter V6, 7-speed dual-clutch automatic, that costs more than $450,000, is completely sold out of for 2 yrs, and requires being personally pre-approved for, have the same fascia grill as?
 
Last edited:
Ya know, the one thing I cannot stand about the whole Honda/Acura brand is that the Honda's always look so much better than the Acuras. Which is what I do not understand. This is supposed to be the premium car. Yet it still comes with a lame front wheel drive V6 unless it's an SUV. Then there is the nsx which somehow doesn't fit either side of the spectrum.

I see many civics out on the road that I would pick easily over a ILX or even a TL in terms of styling. The writing is on the wall and it seems so easy to make updates to the Acura brand. But it just keeps getting worse in my opinion.
Sorry for the off topic. I just do not see Acura as a premium brand of performance or even luxury.
 
It really depends on how the new grille design ends up looking on the refresh, there's a chance for them to save the NSX if they do it properly... but I've been disappointed so many times through this project I'm not expecting it to happen.

I'm hoping the refresh has more power and more identity. Like so many others have said, the NSX doesn't know what it wants to be. The i8 might sell because it's a BMW but their designers somehow made their controversial styling look GOOD, whereas Acura sticks their beak on everything and it looks terrible.

I think the new grille looks okay on the MDX and TLX, but please execute it properly on the NSX, I love the hybrid concept and every other part of the NSXs shape.
 
I know of one dealer who sold new at dealer invoice (meaning dealer only made the $2k holdback on the sale).

What is dealer invoice? I'm looking at one with 205-6k msrp
 
Jinks is spot on...I have been noticing more and more Honda's on the road and wondering the exact same thing, "Why do these look better than the new Acuras!?" If you look at sales from last year [2016 Sales Report], the ILX (perhaps their most appealing looking vehicle at the moment) has negative DSR's along with the RLX/RL, RLX Hybrid, the TLX, and even the MDX from year-to-date! The new grille on the MDX and TLX is still in it's infancy stage and badly needing to be proven and because of that should never be experimented on the halo imo.

^Welcome to the forum sakanora! We hope you enjoy it here!

I respectfully disagree that it depends on 'how' the new grille ends up on the refresh. You said it yourself...that it looks "okay" on the MDX and TLX. If it just looks "okay"...it shouldn't go on a halo. That is sort of my point that it's a force-fit either way and therefore should not be attempted. Which front fascia/grille does the new Ford GT match of any of there lineup? Only the previous Ford GT. They really need to make the front fascia a fulfillment of your last statement..."I love the hybrid concept and every other part of the NSX's shape"...follow that lead and go all they way to the front and do not conform to a lesser fleet or any design restriction to match a brand perception that is really in trouble. [article from 1 yr ago].
 
FWIW.....I believe in stock cars designated as "demo's" (whether driven or not) stocking dealer receives a monthly depreciation credit from Acura.
Could reflect in how low they can go......
 
As I have said many times, if this car was 130k I would be seriously shopping for one. But it just isn't a reality.:frown:

I remember hearing this same sentiment from many others, it got me to thinking about if 2.0 pricing was in-line with the 1991 or even 2005 NSX pricing; it's not.

Using an inflation calculator, figuring a 1991 NSX (debut year) at $61,000 MSRP, 2.0 should cost $109,515 in 2017, it's debut year model.

Even figuring the 2005 NSX MSRP of $88,000, the 2.0 in 2017 would only cost $110,180, far less than the $156,000 base MSRP of 2.0.

If they could have kept the price in-line with the 2.0 equivalent to the NSX in today's dollar, and base priced 2.0 around $110K, those things would have been selling like MAD...even with some bullshit "market adjustment" added to the price by the stealerships.

Hmmm...get rid of all the video game computer silliness, and the Prius-inspired electric crap, add a bigger engine and a manual transmission option, mix in some Samurai engineering wizardry, and I bet they could have produced a hell of an NSX successor for under $120K.

Yes, I have too much time on my hands today...
 
Last edited:
What is dealer invoice? I'm looking at one with 205-6k msrp
as a point of reference
MSRP: $198,700
Invoice: $185,700.
Cost cost (car by itself, no options, no holdback) is different.

i cant imagine why a store would eat the FIFs unless they have 3 cars on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Ya know, the one thing I cannot stand about the whole Honda/Acura brand is that the Honda's always look so much better than the Acuras. Which is what I do not understand. This is supposed to be the premium car. Yet it still comes with a lame front wheel drive V6 unless it's an SUV. Then there is the nsx which somehow doesn't fit either side of the spectrum.

I see many civics out on the road that I would pick easily over a ILX or even a TL in terms of styling. The writing is on the wall and it seems so easy to make updates to the Acura brand. But it just keeps getting worse in my opinion.
Sorry for the off topic. I just do not see Acura as a premium brand of performance or even luxury.
accord sport is a good looking vehicle, but its basically a base car with nice wheels. we have people bring them in all the time to trade-in for a tlx after only owning for 2 years.
 
I remember hearing this same sentiment from many others, it got me to thinking about if 2.0 pricing was in-line with the 1991 or even 2005 NSX pricing; it's not.

Using an inflation calculator, figuring a 1991 NSX (debut year) at $61,000 MSRP, 2.0 should cost $109,515 in 2017, it's debut year model.

Even figuring the 2005 NSX MSRP of $88,000, the 2.0 in 2017 would only cost $110,180, far less than the $156,000 base MSRP of 2.0.

If they could have kept the price in-line with the 2.0 equivalent to the NSX in today's dollar, and base priced 2.0 around $110K, those things would have been selling like MAD...even with some bullshit "market adjustment" added to the price by the stealerships.

Hmmm...get rid of all the video game computer silliness, and the Prius-inspired electric crap, add a bigger engine and a manual transmission option, mix in some Samurai engineering wizardry, and I bet they could have produced a hell of an NSX successor for under $120K.

Yes, I have too much time on my hands today...

Another way to look at this in terms of "years salary"
In 1991 the NSX was ~2 years salary, today the 2017 NSX is ~2 years salary.
But for the people that are actually buying this car, it is much, much less than 2 years salary.

This car is not meant to be for the average consumer.
 
accord sport is a good looking vehicle, but its basically a base car with nice wheels. we have people bring them in all the time to trade-in for a tlx after only owning for 2 years.

When the lease was almost over on my 2014 RLX I looked an Accord Touring model. At $37k it was a nice car, but it's lacking some of the features of the RLX that I like. It's the little things like brake assist so I don't have keep my foot on the brake pedal, and the auto tilting and retracting side mirrors. The interior finish also isn't as nice as the RLX. For the price, the lease deal I got on a 2016 Tech RLX is great, and the car has as much, in technology than a comparable BMW, MB, Jaguar, and Infiniti.
 
Last edited:
Another way to look at this in terms of "years salary"
In 1991 the NSX was ~2 years salary, today the 2017 NSX is ~2 years salary.
But for the people that are actually buying this car, it is much, much less than 2 years salary.

This car is not meant to be for the average consumer.

It never was intended for average consumers, but the increase in price way exceeded inflation rates.
 
It never was intended for average consumers, but the increase in price way exceeded inflation rates.

That's a great point. I guess the same people in that class have a college and/or a post-graduate degree which has also exceeded inflation. I wonder what the statistics are on those owners of 2.0 that have a higher education.
 
You are right, but I doubt if a Civic has followed the rate of inflation either.

Actually it has fwiw...a brand new Honda Civic LX Sedan in 1991 w/options was $11K which translates w/CPI inflation to $18,878.42 today (actually MSRP $18,740).
 
FYI, In the NSX Launch "Playbook" (Issue #2 ) Acura tells dealers than NSX buyers are the "1%" and have average salary of $450K. This was pre-launch. I have no idea how that compares to incomes of the competition (or how things actually worked out).
 
From info I recently received, the target market has not changed (can't get into the details).

Inflation is a soft issue to reference for this kind of product.

Income and income growth may be more useful.

In my case, in 1991, the NSX was at least 1.5 years of gross income for me.

In 2016, between my Biotech job and my Real Estate side hustle, 4 months of income covered the car.
 
Actually it has fwiw...a brand new Honda Civic LX Sedan in 1991 w/options was $11K which translates w/CPI inflation to $18,878.42 today (actually MSRP $18,740).

Stop with this inflation crap.. there's no graph of what sport cars should cost in 10 years. Year 91 and now are way different eras.
 
as a point of reference
MSRP: $198,700
Invoice: $185,700.
Cost cost (car by itself, no options, no holdback) is different.

i cant imagine why a store would eat the FIFs unless they have 3 cars on the ground.

As of right now.. my deal is looking like
New:206,5 msrp
My price: 177

Used with 800 dealer miles no owner reported
Msrp: 205,5
My price:169
 
Acura should have followed the R35 GTR playbook.

Gen 2 should have been priced lower, like $115k. Then, later gens or updates should inflate the MSRP, thereby protecting early adopters and making the car eventually have a $150-75k MSRP. Idiots working over there, seriously.

Ravi
 
Jinks,

Sadly, I don't think $130K is even going to move these cars.

Marketed correctly from the jump, AND topping off at 130k (say 100k base) would have made a HUGE difference imo. The biggest mistake is that Acura (dealers mostly) assumed they would have no issues selling these cars at 200k. That's a different ball game with many well-branded options at that price point.
 
Back
Top