A state-of-art car that utilizes hybrid technology and anything else Honda wants to huck for the next decade is similar to a commercial. Commercials cost, but do lead to sales. NSX is a good aspirational car. How many customers wanted an NSX back in the day and bought a Civic and/or became a part of the Honda family after their initial purchase? NSX is a tool to bring customers in the door and advertise their trickle down technology. Will the next NSX make any money? Who knows, but my guess is probably not unless they can get as long a life cycle as they did with the old NSX. Being made in USA does offer better margins on NASA sales than one made in APAC.

Would much rather see a V10 based NSX off of their F1 technology. That was a great engine and that car had one of highest top speeds of any F1 car at the time.

 

I think the problem with this statement is that you're stating it as fact. It's not. Honda has always been about making money. Period. End of story. The "fun" cars of yesteryear were fun because of crazy VTEC crossovers and great manual transmissions and didn't weigh much, not necessarily because Honda insisted that their cars be fun. They still make great transmissions but the former has been tamed with technology and the latter with safety requirements. Thus, you're left with a virtual impossibility of making something similar today. It will invariably be heavier, less frenetic and more polished and thus, less "fun".

Let's face it - cars have "grown up" and only the most exotic or most focused ones are "fun" today, and even then it's mostly due to power, not pure driving engagement. They're (more or less) universally faster, safer, more efficient and....less fun. Everything has electric power steering, it seems. The NSX originally had NO power steering at all! Why? Weight savings and driver feel. Today, that'd be unheard of - people expect to have their cake and eat it too. Even a 911 GT3 has lots of amenities and it's the "track car" from Porsche. Buyers have changed dramatically and the manufacturers have responded with cars that sell.

Compare a 280Z to a 370Z in terms of weight, amenities and features. Do the same for a 911 from 20 years ago to a current one, a Ferrari 328 to a 458 (700 lbs heavier, I believe!) or even an older Integra GS-R to a modern Civic Si. You'll see it's all the same story.

As I have mentioned (ad nauseum) in this forum, sports cars don't sell. Shared components on compromised cars sell (Mustang and Camaro). Everything else is peanuts and almost certainly a loss leader for the company. Nice to have sports cars but after the GFC and then the tsunami, Honda's priorities are quite a bit different than Ford's. Mazda, arguably the "funnest" common vehicle manufacturer, went bankrupt in North America. Why? Poorer fuel economy and less gadgets than some of the competition. People didn't want fun, they wanted a bunch of other different things.

It's not Honda. It's everyone. The market has changed and us enthusiasts are getting left behind. The FR-S / BRZ are a flickering candle in a dark universe right now with not much hope in sight that we'll see anything similar from others...

 

Sorry, but producing the S2000 wasn't about making money.

My main point, which may have been too subtle, is that there's more to a company's list of values than making money.

 

The S2000 was a celebration car. The NSX was a statement car. Honda used one to prove a point (and technology) and the other to celebrate their history.

Future sportscars will be for similar reasons. They're not in the sportscar business as a rule, they're in it occasionally to show what is possible. Sport compacts? Sure. Sporty versions of basic cars? Absolutely. Pure sports cars with bespoke chassis and drivetrain? The exception, not the rule, and that's quite obvious from their history.

Honda has never been a sportscar company. You're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.

 

I think every once in a while Honda sets out to make a sports that everyone will follow. I mean when the NSX came out and seeing how good it was, Ferrari and all those other super car makers had to go back to the drawing board.

 

They don't? OMgoodness there are a lof of mfr's producing them and a lot of them on the market. Facts seem to escape you. Honda sports cars don't sell because they don't make any.

Do sports cars make as much as X cookie cutter saloon, no, but sports cars make money or a whole bunch of them wouldn't be on the market today.

You say that bullshit only because Honda doesn't make any, any more.

 

 

Pull the stats (that I've listed already in other threads) and then come talk.

Nissan 370Z sells about 600 per month, the Miata a little less, the GT-R about 100 per month, the Boxster and Cayman less than 300 per month combined. Those are 2012 numbers. Sales were much worse (in general) in 2011 and 2010.

 

Egad - two different opinions! How is this possible?!?!

 

Just to back up this statement, I was at the local Porsche dealership recently. The salesperson told me they sell so few Caymans and Boxsters, they rarely even keep them in stock anymore. Even the new 911 is selling slowly. What's moving? Cayennes and Panameras. Seriously, the SUV and the bloated station wagon.