Only in the eyes of image-concious status seekers.

 

Look at the production numbers chart on nsxprime for USA.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/...ionnumbers.htm

The numbers peaked in its introduction year 1991. Intrestingly enough, sales also peaked that same year, then sharply...(extremely) sharply decreased. As a result...production was reduced. But an occult following was built and that was enough for Honda to keep it afloat, so corresbondingly...they only built just enough to satisfly the fanfare. And just to add...demand determines production...not the otherway around.

Now i will even admit that this arguement on my part is pretty weak, why? because almost all japense imported sports cars slumped in the 90's. rx7, supra, 3000gt. But to the fact that the NSX was atleast 30% more in MSRP than the rest of these other japanese sports cars...made it worse.

Look up the sales history of a succesful sports car.... corvette production/sales numbers and you will find a dramtic difference . It goes like this..C4 < C5

I will admit that the NSX was a great car for its price in the early 90's. And i will admit that it is certainly more rare simply by production #'s than a porsche. But lets not turn it into something more than it is....an overpriced antique, especially by todays standards and compared to other sports cars.

But i will end this debate by showing this...and by saying "Good bye to a great car, may you RIP"

 

Honda produced more to meet the relatively insane demand the first few years, then they scaled back production after that. They never expected to sell so many early on.

Antique? Not yet. Classic? Since 1990.

 

Wrong? Perhaps. Your Opinion? Since 1978.

 

I don't think that's always the truth. Especially when you're talking about limited production cars. Example: Ferrari Enzo. They could have sold more, but it was limited. I know that's extreme, but there is demand...and no more cars.

 

Ferrari and Honda are two totally different ends of the spectrum. First off, Ferrari's marketing banks around their image as restricted availabilty. secondly... I think you are getting some terms mixed up here. I refer to NSX's (limited) availbilty not as restricted, but diminished availblity. NSX's are not limited in the supercar sense, because anyone with 86k could buy it. You couldn't buy an ENZO even if you could pay 2x's MSRP.

Even Honda themselves said that this was the sports car aimed at an average audience, hell they made it so even a grandmother could drive it fast. That was mentioned numerious times in this thread. Also...there was absolutly NO IMAGE of restricted availbility for NSX's. Proof is by the numbers they produced in their introductory year. Over 3k of them were produced. Not even the Integra Type-R had those kind of production numbers back in 1997 when they brought it to the U.S. And this is a car that costs only a quarter of the NSX.

And to reiterate on how lousy of a comparison you just made...I will bet that Ferrari couldn't mass produce the ENZO even if they wanted to. They don't have the resources, or faculty to do so.

 

In this case it is a pretty good comparison. We aren't talking about a CR-V here. Honda used the NSX as a "halo" car to help with their image, It was never meant to sell like hotcakes, and Honda never intended to turn a profit from NSX sales.

It's still a good comparison. Have you seen the NSX production line? Granted, it was easier for Honda to make an NSX than it was for Ferrari to make an Enzo but neither could be mass produced. And neither was intended for mass production.

 

It was closer to 1989 or so.

 

I have been reading a lot of the post on this thread and I have skipped over a few so mind when I ask.....we are comparing the NSX to many cars on the market but in comparison are we comparing a "true" sports car against all types of cars or are we comparing "true" against "true" I noticed the Bimmer M3 was compared as well as the C6 and Audi's and so on. I don't know if these are fair comparisons. Yes a C6 can compare to a NSX but the Bimmers and Audi's I don't think compare they are in different classes. A NSX and C6 these cars are driver cars...what I mean by this is you don't want any bells and whistles the less electonic gagdets the better. Yes the C6 has navigation, traction control, abs and the NSX has abs and I believe TC and I believe these extras shouldn't be on these types of cars. These cars are race bred the more gagdets on the car the less the driver has feel for the car. The Bimmers and Audi's are very nice cars and really good daily drivers and they are very quick but they have to many electronic gadgets and are harder to mod compared to a NSX or C6 in my opinion....to many electrical things to go wrong. The vipers, NSX's, lotus, C6 of the world are "true" driver sports cars. If you watch Fifth Gear TV show on the Speed Channel or you watch Car and Driver on Spike TV the editors will nine times out of ten love the sports cars that give good driver response. With less electonic gadgets on cars the more response you will get and the more control you will have of the car. I don't think this car should be about price range comparison but compare the cars if you were sitting in them driving them. Numbers don't matter I beleive it's how fun the car is to drive on the streets and on the road courses. We shouldn't compare horsepower as much unless we are talking drag racing. Horsepower is not as relavent as how the car handles on the road. If you have all that horsepower but can't keep the car on the road then whats to compare? The NSX's, Vipers, C6's are cars for "drivers" that love the curved mountain roads and the road courses I feel these types of cars will beat the Bimmers, Audi's everytime on tracks and roads like these. Maybe my opinion is wrong and I know some will agree and some won't But I don't understand why we are comparing numbers I think we should compare how the cars perform with the feel of your ass. Yeah price is a factor but I believe how the car drives and feels should be the ultimate factor. For example if the NSX and C6 perform exactly the same on the street (which we know are different) but in any case if these cars performed exactly the same we all know we would pick the C6 because of the lower price. So price plays a little but if you are shopping for a sports car and you can spend up to $100,000 then the question should be what "true" sports car would you buy so price isn't really a factor other then picking a car under $100,000 the real debate is what car under $100,000 is the best driver car. I have drove a C6 and I love it but I haven't drove a nsx or rode in one so I can't really compare an NSX to any car. But as I said earlier about electonic gadget like TC, antibrakes, and any other electronic crap no ethusiast driver wants this crap it takes away from the driver feel of the car. The Ferrari Enzo F40 is a lot better car then the 2002 Ferrari Enzo...why do you ask? Because the F40 doesn't have electronic gadgets it is just a raw sports car. I watched a car review about these two cars and each car editor said the new Enzo is fast and fun to drive but the F40 is a better car for response and a lot more fun to drive then the compared car. So if I was choosing a car to buy under the $100,000 mark for a "TRUE" sports car that I would LOVE to drive and be the best driving car I would chose a car with the less electronics gadgets I could. Plus all these extras just add wait. This is my $0.02 have a happy New Years everyone.
-Justin

 

The new nsx is pure sex. v10 power. its not due till 07 or 08