When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
^^ I just booked my hotel in Windsor, Canada for the Detroit Auto Show and for two nights it came out to like $280C ($230US) but the tax was almost $40
But I hear you can stop at the duty free station and get that money back haha So that's the plan.
i also have 2 sets of 2 door projectors. H and A free with first purchase of exled set.
I only used one of each on my drivers side rear just for laughs. could be taken apart and used to project elsewhere !
all will go on Black market later today tonight so if you guys want something. pm with offer.
Am jealous, so many good reveals there. I need a truck this year, so waiting to see the changes on the 2016 Tacoma vs getting a Tundra SR with the vinyl seats and 8 feet bed
Not sure why people thought it would be cheap. Its their halo car, competing with 911s/458s etc.
At the end of the day, at this level, its an emotional purchase. You look at it, if you fall in love with it, you buy it. Its discretionary income purchase.
I am curious to see how it does numbers wise against the GT-R, which locally is still a 95K car.
I never thought it would be cheap. But 150k is far from it. It should be in line with the GTR, maybe 15-20k more MAX. I don't care if the GTR is a Nissan and not an Infiniti. It's the pinnacle of performance road cars right now, and can be had for a very reasonable price. Acura isn't going to get many sales if they price their car at this 150k point. The brand itself has suffered enough as of late. It's no where near the level of Lexus or the euro brands. It needs to start at a softer point, make options bring up the price or something. It costs too much and we don't even know how it does compared to an R35 which has been around for a long time already.
edit:
Reason why the NSX died is because of its pricing. It was ~80k back in the day for a vehicle with less than 300hp. And let's face it, most people look at numbers before they even bother to do research on how well the car actually performs.
Acura isn't going to get many sales if they price their car at this 150k point. .
Halo cars aren't meant to just be a sales king. I think Acura will be fine if they don't get many sales.
Originally Posted by xtcnrice
The brand itself has suffered enough as of late. It's no where near the level of Lexus or the euro brands. .
As someone who owns Lexus and Acura, I don't disagree with you. However, Honda/Acura always beats to their own drum. They will never do V8, they will never compete with the LS. They won't do the RWD. People have been yelling about it since the death of the Legend, Acura does what it wants, not what hte consumer or forum wants.
Originally Posted by xtcnrice
edit:
Reason why the NSX died is because of its pricing. It was ~80k back in the day for a vehicle with less than 300hp. And let's face it, most people look at numbers before they even bother to do research on how well the car actually performs.
I never owned a NSX, but I have had two S2000. I put 195k trouble free miles on them. S2000 had the same issue as the NSX, that it wasn't really updated over its lifetime. My S2000 would get its butt kicked by WRX/STi at that time.
But Honda/Acura has never been about numbers. Its been about the engineering. I am not disagreeing with you, about what hte consumer looks at (numbers), but Acura/Honda refuse to deliver that.
I agree with your points, no doubt. However I just feel like 150k starting point is more of a no brainer for someone to cross shop, even if this car is love at first sight to the consumer who could afford it. There are many options is all I'm saying, and I feel like Acura has to prove itself not just via a halo-vehicle-inspired price tag. We know it'll be north of 550bhp, but how does it perform? I'm sure some will pay 150k because it's a nice looking car, but at 150k it better at least compete with other cars in the price range. If it's anything like the previous NSX (of its time), I'm sure it will have no problems. I'm sure you're 100% right Acura didn't come up with the NSX in hopes to save its brand/image via SALES. No way jose.
About your S2000s... hella jelly. My (affordable) dream car since elementary school, and still is!
I agree with your points, no doubt. However I just feel like 150k starting point is more of a no brainer for someone to cross shop, even if this car is love at first sight to the consumer who could afford it. There are many options is all I'm saying, and I feel like Acura has to prove itself not just via a halo-vehicle-inspired price tag. We know it'll be north of 550bhp, but how does it perform? I'm sure some will pay 150k because it's a nice looking car, but at 150k it better at least compete with other cars in the price range. If it's anything like the previous NSX (of its time), I'm sure it will have no problems. I'm sure you're 100% right Acura didn't come up with the NSX in hopes to save its brand/image via SALES. No way jose.
About your S2000s... hella jelly. My (affordable) dream car since elementary school, and still is!
I agree with you.
However, if you look at the customer demographics of the AVERAGE GTR/NSX buyer, you will notice it is VERY DIFF than the 911/Aston/Ferrari/R8 buyer.
Even in the same price range, demographics are important. You can see this in the Lexus LS world. The people who buy S class and 7 series often are not the same demographics as the LS buyer, even at the same 100K price tag.
There are guys who save every $ they have, and DD a NSX/GTR (not saying all owners are like that), but that isn't often the case with a 150K Aston.
NSX/GTR drivesr are younger, grew up in the Japanese car hey deys. I know, because I am in that demographic.
Yeah the AP1 was a great car. I put 165K miles on it. My Ap2 has about 35K. Drove it once (last week) in almost 36 months. I need to sell it.
^dunno. rumors perhaps. i didnt watch the press release.
Originally Posted by charliemike
By the time this comes out, the next R8 will be on sale and will probably be faster, lighter, and cheaper. The NSX had a lot of promise but now it is in a battlefield where other cars present a compelling alternative.
$170K gets into base 911 Turbo range.
This car should be competing at the $100-120K range.
I don't like the GT at all. This looks nicer.
Originally Posted by juniorbean
I agreed with most comments, but have to say, I agree with this one in its entirety. It's a very nice looking car and honestly, I am surprised. BUT, it's playing with the big boys in the $150k-$175k category and I'm not sure it can hang there. At $100k-$120k, I think it would be a runaway hit and put Acura back on the map.
I guess it's easy to speculate w/o seeing any numbers yet, but I think they hit a home run, then pulled a hammy rounding first base...
Hm I think I see your point. I too belong in the demographic that prefers Japanese vehicles over domestic/euro, and the more I think about it, I'd probably fall into the average as well and continue to own JDM goodness.
I guess the only thing I'm still thinking about is GTR vs. NSX. They both obviously carry Japanese heritage/blood and are likely to target the younger audience who prefers Japanese vehicles over others, even if the NSX is built in the USA. And since the NSX costs so much more than the GTR, wouldn't you think it would make it hard for someone of said demographic to without-a-doubt decide on the NSX over the GTR at a 50k price difference, if say the performance aspect was more or less on par? I guess you'd get the uniqueness factor of owning a new NSX... since there are GTRs around every other corner nowadays, and more refined styling (a little subjective, but the car did just come out whereas the GTR has been around quite a long time now). But it's still at heart, Japanese vs Japanese right? I guess even tho this is true, it likely won't be a problem for Acura since it's its halo car as you put it.
This is what I'm saying. I guess it won't be an issue for those who are loaded and are naive or just want something that is currently unique. But if it's going to cost an arm and a leg, if you're after a Japanese sports car (at heart), the GTR is the better buy.
I guess I'm thinking along the lines of charliemike and juniorbean as crab man quoted. You'd be naive to purchase an NSX over something else (vehicles targeting similar demographics or not) if uniqueness and styling and Honda/Acura heritage/brand was not considered. I don't know if these things would justify a 50k difference from a GTR for the average consumer of $100k+ performance-vehicles. For me they wouldn't.
You'd be naive to purchase an NSX over something else (vehicles targeting similar demographics or not) if uniqueness and styling and Honda/Acura heritage/brand was not considered. I don't know if these things would justify a 50k difference from a GTR for the average consumer of $100k+ performance-vehicles. For me they wouldn't.
edit:
triple post... ooops................
I wouldn't use the word "naive."
If you go to the Lexus forum, you will see the same kind of thinking towards the RLX. People in the real world can't fathom who purchases the RL or the RLX, when there are such "better" cars out there. But you have to realize, me and you are using logic. Not all consumers are using that.
Also if you use further logic, the GTR and NSX are horridly overpriced compared to the COrvette, which is the best bang for the buck.
Understanding people's choices and how they spend money is so complicated, me and you can write a PhD dissertation on them.
I have had quite a few Miatas (every generation) and I raced spec miata for many years. When I moved to S2000, 99% of my miata friends said "why would you spend 10K more. WHat are you really getting?"
Many will say with a GT-R you can take your kids to school, NSX is not that way. These thigns weren't considerations when I was younger, but they are now. My 2 seaters that I have, sit and collect dust, as if kids can't go with, they are almost a waste.
You have to also realize people who are dropping 100-200K on cars, aren't 19 year olds (outside of the UAE). They areusually 35-50 and at their peak earning years. So their life demographics (family ) and needs are diffiferent.
Also the higher the price of vehicle, the less difference in money/vs persformance come into play. At 30K a STi Vs Mustang may matter, about the last 1/10th of 0-60 time. But when you spend 150K, 25-30K isn't that important.
One of our collegues in the hospital has a LFA. He also a 16M Scuderia, Bentely Flying Spur, and DB9. Do you think when he bought the LFA he really thought about whether it is the best performance value?
Originally Posted by xtcnrice
This is what I'm saying. I guess it won't be an issue for those who are loaded and are naive or just want something that is currently unique. But if it's going to cost an arm and a leg, if you're after a Japanese sports car (at heart), the GTR is the better buy.
I don't want to rehash my above points, but what is a better buy and what people buy aren't the same.
THe IS-F is a "better buy" than the M5 and M3 long term, yet I see M5/M3 and AMG cars all day, and I barely see any IS-F.
Originally Posted by xtcnrice
Hm I think I see your point. I too belong in the demographic that prefers Japanese vehicles over domestic/euro, and the more I think about it, I'd probably fall into the average as well and continue to own JDM goodness.
I guess the only thing I'm still thinking about is GTR vs. NSX. They both obviously carry Japanese heritage/blood and are likely to target the younger audience who prefers Japanese vehicles over others, even if the NSX is built in the USA. And since the NSX costs so much more than the GTR, wouldn't you think it would make it hard for someone of said demographic to without-a-doubt decide on the NSX over the GTR at a 50k price difference, if say the performance aspect was more or less on par? I guess you'd get the uniqueness factor of owning a new NSX... since there are GTRs around every other corner nowadays, and more refined styling (a little subjective, but the car did just come out whereas the GTR has been around quite a long time now). But it's still at heart, Japanese vs Japanese right? I guess even tho this is true, it likely won't be a problem for Acura since it's its halo car as you put it.
How do you like the AP2 vs the AP1?
I think unless GT-R vs NSX comparisons are done on paper, it will be hard to say what is better. You are right $ to $, the GTR could be the better buy. Lot of people will buy the NSX for its engineering, 3 hybrid motots, etc. Lots of people are diehard honda/acura fans, and won't even cross shop the GT-R.
Who knows. I am not in the market for this new NSX, so all of this doesn't matter to me
I much prefer the AP2 vs the AP1. The AP1 had the higher rev range, that every laudes about, but after having put almost 200K miles (stock for stock), I MUCH prefer the AP2. It is a all around btter car. The small design changes make the AP2 look a lot more modern, whereas the AP1 looks dated. Plus I prefer the richer color of my Rio Yellow AP2 vs the more whitish yellow Spa AP1
Agreed 2012wagon, great discussion. Definitely put it into perspective when you made that Miata vs S2000 analogy. Many do wonder why would one pay 10k more for an S2000 over an MX-5. Thanks for that!
On a side note, I'm not too sure how I feel about the IS-F though. THAT vehicle is a good example of what's good on paper, and not so good in the real world. In all reviews I've seen of it, it's a rather rough/sloppy ride. Too much unusable power. Barely any of it gets put to the ground without wheelspin. I think like you said, one particular point is heritage and I suppose what's tried and true. The IS-F was the birth of the F brand, whereas M is tried and true. On paper, M is not a better buy. But the driving experience vastly favours the M.
I suppose it's hard for me to wrap my finger around the idea of an NSX being a purchase that mostly targets those who have more money than they know what to do with. It used to be the vehicle that would give performance european cars a run for their money, much like how the GTR fairs today with the costly european cars. But it makes sense that someone would purchase the NSX solely just to own one and drive on occasion; not that it's the fastest car in his/her lot.
On a different topic... it would be interesting to see if the NSX will gain much aftermarket support. It's pretty expensive... and based on what's on paper, quite an engineering marvel underneath the "hood". Would be awesome to see what other companies can do to "improve" upon an already seemingly wicked car.
^^
IS-F is very interesting. Around here, when I looked to grab one last year (there were two new 2014s here), dealer wouldn't move from MSRP. In the used world, they were in the mid 40s. So resale value was holding very strong. However, next to the new IS, it looks immensely dated.
My wife wants a convertible with a back seat. Her previous convertible was a 2010 PRHT Miata. So we looked at the current IS350C (which she prefers) vs a 335 convertible (which I prefer). Given the new RC convertible is hopefully coming (keeps fingers crossed), I would love to see how that looks.
But as you said, maybe heritage is important. Then again the first NSX didn't have much heritage and it has a cult following.
I think aftermarket is on demand and supply. At the end of the day they are all businessman. A friend of mine said that rich guys don't mod their cars, because they are happy with their product. However, I am not to far from Claud's CEC and he is balling out pretty hard. There are companies doing lots of 911 tuning, and if you go on 6 speed online, you can see that as well.
I do think this hybrid supercars will bring the tuning world to a new view.
I think NSX (at this price you guys are saying) will be a VERY interesting demographic.
I don't think the NSX is necessarily purchased by the peopel who have more money than they know what to do with.
If the numbers don't hold up, it won't be purchased by the hard core track addicts.
Honda/Acura fanbois will definitely be its customers, but will they go away from it towards the GTR?
It doesn't have the catchet of a Ferrari/Lambo, so in Beverly hills maybe the first few months it will be something people will be. Acura doesn't have the brand image.
Who knows, but definitely interesting to talk about and interesting market study
I never thought it would be cheap. But 150k is far from it. It should be in line with the GTR, maybe 15-20k more MAX. I don't care if the GTR is a Nissan and not an Infiniti. It's the pinnacle of performance road cars right now, and can be had for a very reasonable price. Acura isn't going to get many sales if they price their car at this 150k point. The brand itself has suffered enough as of late. It's no where near the level of Lexus or the euro brands. It needs to start at a softer point, make options bring up the price or something. It costs too much and we don't even know how it does compared to an R35 which has been around for a long time already.
edit:
Reason why the NSX died is because of its pricing. It was ~80k back in the day for a vehicle with less than 300hp. And let's face it, most people look at numbers before they even bother to do research on how well the car actually performs.
The new R36 GTR with it's hybrid drivetrain will be close to 150k also. 150k is 911 Turbo/SLS/R8 territory. The original R35 GTR with it's 70k msrp was in the M3/Vette/F-Type price region with the performance with that of a 911 Turbo, but with the new R36, it wil be 911 Turbo price with a hypercar level of performance. Right now the base R35 might cost 101k, but wait within 2 years when the R36 is unveiled. It will be very close to the NSX's price, most likely ~130k. The R35's lifecycle is almost complete. If I remember correctly, even the E60 M5 and R8 V8 were siginificantly cheaper then the current versions. Soon, the only sports cars in the 70-90k range new will be the Cayman, 4C, M3 and the like.
I like the new Ford GT, but to me it doesn't seem as special. It looks like lotus styled it (which is a good thing I guess), but the biggest turn off is the EcoBoost V6... The Flat Panel V8 in the GT350 seems a lot more special then the ecoboost V6. I mean it seems great and everything, but if it's 150k, why not just buy a 2012 MP4 for 180k or a V10 R8? With the NSX you get the electric drivetrain which is too me what differentiates it from the others.
I do wish tho they would made a 70k version.. 70k is a lot much more affordable then 150k for a lot of people.. You could make 150k and lease a 70k car lol..
VR1 that's a good point; the next GTR will likely be closer to the NSX in terms of cost. We'll see how this pans out for Acura. I hope an NSX will be in the showroom of my local Acura. That thing looks awesome!
I do wish tho they would made a 70k version.. 70k is a lot much more affordable then 150k for a lot of people.. You could make 150k and lease a 70k car lol..
Income is hardly an indicator of the car you drive. My coworker makes 650K a year (Yes I know how much he makes, as the practice is obligated to show me the numbers), and he bought a USED 2011 Civic. LOL. Traded in his TOYOTA tercel!!
Our charge nurse (160K a year) drives a new CLS550. Had a A7 before.
Income is hardly an indicator of the car you drive. My coworker makes 650K a year (Yes I know how much he makes, as the practice is obligated to show me the numbers), and he bought a USED 2011 Civic. LOL. Traded in his TOYOTA tercel!!
Our charge nurse (160K a year) drives a new CLS550. Had a A7 before.
If you make 50K a year, in a place like CA (I made exactly that during fellowship), take home was $2300 a month.
One can live at home, and easily lease that 911 turbo,.
Oh ya, for sure. I'm just saying that if you really wanted one, it's be much easier to get your hands on a 70k car then on a 150k car for a lot of people. Like even if you made 100k/yr and really wanted a 70k car you could put a few k down and lease it. But if you made 100k and wanted a 150k car, it's gonna be a much harder to do so.
Oh ya, for sure. I'm just saying that if you really wanted one, it's be much easier to get your hands on a 70k car then on a 150k car for a lot of people. Like even if you made 100k/yr and really wanted a 70k car you could put a few k down and lease it. But if you made 100k and wanted a 150k car, it's gonna be a much harder to do so.
Oh I am not disagreeing with you at all. But being in the 38k-50K demographic for 7 years, I can tell you, TONS of people who make 50k or less are leasing BMW 3 series and 5 series. Pretty hilarious actually, that people are ok with a 300-500$ monthly payment, so they could appear rich, while they live in ghetto apartments.
There are parts of LA (I won't mention race), where they have leased Maseratis and 6 series outside, but they are sharing an apt with 3 roommates. LOL
Oh I am not disagreeing with you at all. But being in the 38k-50K demographic for 7 years, I can tell you, TONS of people who make 50k or less are leasing BMW 3 series and 5 series. Pretty hilarious actually, that people are ok with a 300-500$ monthly payment, so they could appear rich, while they live in ghetto apartments.
There are parts of LA (I won't mention race), where they have leased Maseratis and 6 series outside, but they are sharing an apt with 3 roommates. LOL
lol I see that from time to time.. I could see buying a mid-level house and having some baller cars, but no way I'd rent an apartment and lease a high end car. Renting an apartment is basically throwing away money.. buying a house def. would be the first thing to do.
lol I see that from time to time.. I could see buying a mid-level house and having some baller cars, but no way I'd rent an apartment and lease a high end car. Renting an apartment is basically throwing away money.. buying a house def. would be the first thing to do.
If you are ever in LA, I can give you the zipcodes. You will see apts for rent that are 1500$ a month, then check the garage. Brand new 4 series, brand new M3, lease Maseratis, 911, you name it
Of course NOT all apt dwellers are financially irresponsible. You could be very well off and live in Apt while your house is bieng built, or you relocated etc.
But I am talking about sub 25 year old guys, living 5 deep in a 2 bedroom, no one has a car under worth under 65K.
Fun socioeconomic observations in these places
When I was in Law School, I lived with 4 such people. I had a 1991 Civic Wagovan, after my 1991 Civic Si got stolen. Wagovan was worth about 2K (not like today, where its fashionable to have one), and everyone else had cars about 10-15x what I had. Remember we were ALL law students. Only one had a super rich parent.
When I was in med school, it was much less. Medical students are much less car people than law students are, but there were a few med students with super fancy cars. However they mostly had very wealthy parents. We had a student that drove a brand new Bentley Arnage. Not the wannabe rich Continental, a REAL Bentley. Her dad had a Silver Seraph and her mom had a Bentley Turbo R (at that time the fastest 4 door saloon car). You know how some families are ALL Honda families? She was an ALL BENTLEY family. LOL. Should have married her!
(this is not fact, but just my own life experience).
01-11-2015, 08:37 PM
