Why did the NSX and Civic Type R fail for Honda this year?

Fail how?
You not liking it?

>>17438573
They are mediocre at best.

Sales for the NSX has been poor due to it being a hyvrid and the new civic is FWD with an ugly design.

If honda made a cheap rwd sports car with 250+hp to compete with the Toyota 86 it would be GOAT. But sadly honda cannot into RWD anymore

>>17438575
>new civic is FWD
are you kidding me?
>and its ugly
doesnt mean its a failure

>>17438575
every civic is fwd with an ugly design you dumbass

Honda is truly revolutionary. They've taken steps to move into a new era of design and aesthetics.
In 2-3 years time you'll see how many manufacturers take a more 'radical' shift in their design culture. I thought the FD2 Type R was ugly as fuck when it just came out, but now I'm actively looking to buy one.

>>17438847
>Honda is truly revolutionary. They've taken steps to move into a new era of design and aesthetics.
they make hotwheels cars

File: Screenshot_20170618-212618_01.png (241KB, 1080x1172px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1080x1172px

They needed to clamp down on their dealers. The mark ups is what killed sales.

>>17438572
NSX was too much of a compromise. They didn't appeal to the really high end market and don't really compete with the poor mans supercar like the Hellcat or the Corvette.
The civic is a civic. It's a fwd sports car. lul.

>implying the first US Type R civic failed

Ugly, sure. Watch them hold a 20k+ value for the next decade though. They're also catching way more attention from normal people because of the boatload of rice, it's not the direction /o/ wants but regular people won't see it as the 3k shitbox of old.

>>17438572
honda got really clueless after 2006

>>17439035
>NSX was too much of a compromise. They didn't appeal to the really high end market and don't really compete with the poor mans supercar like the Hellcat or the Corvette.
So exactly like the original NSX?

>>17439163
The original NSX was cheaper.
It cost around $60k for an entry model.
The 1991 Corvette cost around $32k.
A 1991 Ferrari F355 was over $120k.
When you could have bought both the NSX and a new Corvette with change left over instead of a Ferrari, I don't think your argument holds up.

File: dsc_9806[1].jpg (106KB, 1013x675px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1013x675px

This is why, nobody want factory riced shit

>>17439181
MSRP for a Ferrari 488 is $250k, you can buy an NSX and have money left over for TWO C7 Corvettes

>>17439202
So how is that not a point in my favor?

>>17439279
You're an idiot, no point in wasting energy explaining anything to you because you're determined to shit in the NSX and will move goalposts around the entire field several times in the process

>>17439313
>calls me an idiot
>immediately creates a strawman
Thank you for saving us both some time lol

>>17439342
You k ow it's true. You're blinded by your hatred

>>17439362
>obvious troll is obvious
is it just for the (you)s? reading a book or getting a job would benefit you more.

>>17439368
>he doesn't agree with my narrative, he must be a troll!

>>17438572
I wouldn't say fail, but a disappointment? Yes.

90s Honda was amazing in terms of car design, both physical and mechanical. A lot of this transfered into the early 2000s. Now we've seen an NSX that isn't a superb drivers car that beats out supercars even though it's down on power, and we've seen a Civic Type-R with fake vents and unnecessary rice that is underpowered compared to the competition.
The new Civic is also riced out to a ridiculous point.

They haven't failed completely, but they're stumbling the wrong direction and it really makes me sad. 90s Honda needs to make a comeback.
Lightweight drivers cars are the way to the car enthusiasts heart.

>>17439382
The Type R is faster then the competition and the new Civic is selling like hotcakes

>>17439382
>underpowered compared to competition

300HP is about as much as FWD ever needs, and it blows other stock Type R stats out of the water while staying sub 3000lbs.

Granted, I think that the EP3 Type R is perfection as far as civic looks go but muh rice isn't a good reason to shit on an actually fast economy car at a reasonable price point new.

>>17439199
I saw a thread where people were shopping panels over the fake vents a la the WRX's fog light covers, made the car look way better.

File: Screenshot_20170627-093020.png (595KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1080x1920px

>>17439410
>Over $40k for 5.7 0-60
>Reasonably priced

>>17439447
>0-60 is all that matters
Go back to your Model S.

>>17439447
If you want 0-60 times buy a muscle car. It's a pointless fucking metric

>>17439457
>>17439453
You said it's fast

>>17439465
Around a track, yes it is. Especially for a hopped up FWD econobox.

>>17439465
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2017-honda-civic-type-r-captures-nurburgring-lap-record/

Go away shitposter

>>17439470
>0-60 is a useless metric
>Here's the burgerking time after removing the infotainment and has non Factory tires!

>>17439537
>Honda installed a full roll cage for safety reasons, and it canceled out that weight gain by removing the infotainment
>used a "road legal, track-focused" tire
You're the kind of idiot that thinks people put all seasons on 911s

>>17439558
So how is 0-60 a useless metric and a gutted, roll caged, and $300 a pop track tires is?

>>17439580
Because you touch yourself at night

>>17438572
Nobody wants a chink sportscar

>>17438572
>civic type r
the fuckers are selling it for 20k more than esrp

>>17439396
>Faster than it's competition
No it's just not. It's definitely not in a straightline where it's 0-60 is 5.7 seconds. Even my stock 2003 WRX is quicker than that. Also, it gets beat on every track besides the Nurburgring which is a meme track anyways AND the only reason it got that record is because they stiffened it with a roll cage, put road legal slicks on it, and probably removed all the weight they could. It wasn't a showroom new car.
And the Civic always sells, I'd be more interested to see sales of those model vs when the last model was first introduced. And I still wouldn't be surprised if it was higher because the general public are idiots and sportier is better in their eyes. In a car enthusiasts eyes, only sport cars should look sporty and giant fake vents are heresy.

>>17439410
Well it'd better be faster than the last one, and I'd still rather have the last one. And muh rice is a great reason. The STI has rice but it looks fucking good. The Civic is so busy it's ridiculous. Like the roof spoiler? Like the 4 huge fake vents? Like the fucking extra trim they slapped on?
All the other Type-Rs have been fairly subtle. This screams LOOK AT ME THIS IS A TYPE R.

>>17439695
>muh 0-60
>muh meme tracks

>>17438575
How can you use sales as a metric for success and not talk about how the type R is sold out twice over

>>17439715
If I have one piece of shit, and some idiot buys it for a dollar, that means when I was selling my shit it completely sold out!
Then if his idiot brother comes buy and gives me his money for my next shit then I have sold out twice over!
Wow!

File: 14.gif (118KB, 384x408px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 384x408px

>nsx with a honda badge

>>17439708
0-60 is the most important aspect on the street because you're constantly starting and stopping. It's one of the few performance metrics you can actually do legally on the road.

Also I was saying how the meme track doesn't matter, a group of tracks is much more important and on tracks across the world, the new Type R isn't the fast FWD vehicle, must less faster than AWD hot hatches. So we agree on the meme track.

>>17439735
The original NSX only came with a Honda badge in Japan. Acura was only for pandering to the U.S. market.

>>17439586
Of course I do

File: muh.jpg (71KB, 1423x1067px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1423x1067px

>>17438830
You take that back!

>>17439749
pretty sure its still honda nsx in japan

>>17439749
>0-60 is the most important aspect on the street because you're constantly starting and stopping
Yeah, back in the 60s when your average shitbox took 20 seconds to get to highway speeds
>It's one of the few performance metrics you can actually do legally on the road
Using launch control and getting a 2.8 second 0-60 will get you a fat ticket. Go on and explain to the officer how you weren't going to go over 60

File: 1491827951857.jpg (326KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 1280x854px

>>17439749
yeah i know. i wish the nsx here was under honda not acura, looks way better with the honda badging imo

>>17438572

Because the NSX is too expensive, and the Type R could have been the Kia Stinger, but it's not.

File: civic tr.jpg (15KB, 473x90px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 473x90px

>>17439778

>>17439781
What car can you buy for under 50k that does a 2.8 0-60?
0-30 is what you do and feel every day. You can launch a Focus RS from a stop light and get up to 40 and not faster and a cop won't pull you over.

>>17438572
NSX is too expensive for what you get, Type R is fuckugly and the only thing it has going for it atm is a faked track time

>>17438572
>$45k for a civic USED

That's why.

>>17439735
I'd kind of like to think that Arabs and Russians are the biggest badge whores but in reality US are the actual No.1.
Either that or the nation is controlled by mainstream media and they are unable to think for themselves. It won't sell if won't be advertised well enough.
Obviously I'm talking about the majority. I'm not hating people because of their nationality or race.

oh i'm sorry, did they fail because that's all you've been reading on a peruvian quilt making forum? the CTR hasn't even been out for a month yet and it's already a failure? the nsx isn't a failure, it's made leaps in automotive technology (like the original nsx) and is around the same price as the original nsx in the 90s, adjusted for inflation
but you wouldn't know any of that because you're a fucking BUSRIDER who doesn't have their license yet

>>17439798
Yes they will you tard

>>17439986
Not while he's riding his bus

>>17440038
Your wife likes riding my bus

>>17440549
Did you just assume my sexuality?

>>17438572
How did the new type r fail?

>>17440569
All competitors in the US have AWD, thus are immediately quicker at certain speeds. Not necessarily a failure, rather it is the odd man out

>>17440588
>falling for the AWD makes you faster meme

>>17438572
I was hoping that would be a webm of both cars launching hard.

Because Honda used to make some nice stripped out (R) or minimal (NSX) cars, now they make fat riced out shit with all kinds of tacky crap stuck on them (civic). The new NSX I don't hate, but they should sell a stripped out no hybrid 3pedal version and not the full fat squashed down MDX that it is.

File: fuck wheel drive.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>17440607
Hey, if it were a meme we would have FWD supercars. Thats all im saying

>>17440621
Is it ever specified how much the batteries & co. add to the NSXs weight?

>>17440638
Yet you're insisting that the Impreza would be faster than a Civic because it's AWD
>durr supercars use AWD, that means my mom's shitbox Subaru is good too

File: DSC_0327.jpg (322KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

322KB, 1600x1062px

>>17438830
>every civic is fwd with an ugly design

Nah. This is still easily the best looking Civic ever made imo. EP3 comes very close.

>>17439181
The nsx in 1991 was $110k in todays money for the base. In 2005 it was $115k in today's money. The new NSX is $156k and has a TON more stuff on it and it WAY faster.

>>17441488
It's faster yes, but fast in comparison to it's competition? No. The old NSX was underpowered but it could still keep up with cars well over twice its price.
The new NSX is more expensive than it should be, and it's not a good performer when compared to the competition.

It's like height when you're a kid. Of course when you're 10 you're going to be taller than when you were 7. But when you were 7 you were taller than all your friends and at 10 you're shorter than all your friends. You aren't growing at the rate of the competition.

Granted I try and give Honda a little bit of a pass on the NSX because it is supposed to be an experimental sports car for Honda to try new things out on and learn from. It's not meant to be the best sports car in it's range, which is good, because it isn't.

>>17440822
I don't think he was implying that. There's a reason the majority of performance vehicles use AWD and RWD vs FWD.
FWD has its benefits, especially in economy and wet/snow traction at low speeds. BUT one of its benefits is NOT the best performance possible and denying that is idiotic.

File: giv.png (45KB, 778x512px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 778x512px

>>17439778

>>17441583
>not a good performer compared to the competition
>only slower than literal million dollar hyper cars

File: NSX vs C4.png (219KB, 330x363px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 330x363px

>>17441583
>The old NSX was underpowered but it could still keep up with cars well over twice its price
uh..
>The new NSX is more expensive than it should be, and it's not a good performer when compared to the competition.
The performance per dollar is still superior to the old one in its own time though.>>17441583

>It's like height when you're a kid. Of course when you're 10 you're going to be taller than when you were 7
when the NSX was 7 it wasn't taller than all its friends though.

>Granted I try and give Honda a little bit of a pass on the NSX because it is supposed to be an experimental sports car for Honda to try new things out on and learn from
That's the entire point of its name and the car so i'm glad you agree.
>It's not meant to be the best sports car in it's range, which is good, because it isn't.
Neither was the last one if we're just benchracing.

I think that the reasoning behind people liking the old NSX is as follows:

1- The old NSX was famous for being an 2WD N/A sports car when every car or japanese sports car was using AWD or Turbo or both
2- It got development help from ayrton senna
3- I think it just looks better

Compared to the current NSX:

Its a turbo AWD car. Place the engine on the front and remove the hybrid system and WOW! ITS A NISSAN GTR!

The car in some parts looks awfully familiar to the civic for no reason. I find it terrible when companies reuse the same front grill or design across several cars. Makes them look lazy.

The car overall less original than the previous counterpart, and it still tries in design and interior to be too much like an hypercar in some features.

I personally just like the look of the previous car tho. If it was a longitudinal MR V6 or a flat 6 it would probably stand much better to this day.

>>17441752
>completely change the car and its a Nissan GTR

>>17438572
>NSX
>hybrid
>not tuned by Senna

>Civic Type R
>smaller displacement
>turbo
>not high revving

>>17441752
>>17441769
>"""""tuned by Senna"""""
>literally drive it like once and told them to stiffen it

>>17441762
>remove hybrid engine that its just a drivetrain assisted tool that gives extra torque for staring up the car to move
>change engine placement
>"HURR DURR YOU ARE CHANGING THE WHOLE CAR"

No i am not. Its still a lot like the GTR. Same auto-only tranny, same dependance on electronics and turbos. Same need to use AWD. Even the same ego injections to the guy that buys one and drives them. Maybe less so for the NSX one since the NSX isn't as popular as the GTR nowadays.

>>17441777
He test drove it several times and gave the designers several tips about how to improve the steering and suspension and stiffening the chassis.

If he didn't do that the NSX wouldn't be as good as it is.

>>17441785
Changing the engine placement literally changes the whole car, stop talking about things you have no idea about

File: acura-nsx-reveal-das2015-033-1500x1000.jpg (288KB, 1500x1000px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 1500x1000px

>>17441752
>If it was a longitudinal MR V6 or a flat 6 it would probably stand much better to this day.
What do you mean? as in it would be more popular or faster? a Naturally aspirated MR V6 would never be faster than today's cars in a million fucking years unless they made a Bac Mono and called that an "NSX".

>>17441785
You can't just change the engine placement without going back to the drawing board on the whole car though. pic related. its not possible with how the current setup is. some FR cars can move their engines to the back but no MR could ever go FR.

>>17440638
It weighs 500 pounds more than the mclaren p1(RWD), 200 more than the porsche 918(also AWD), and 400 more than the ferrari la ferrari.

The weight differences between them are probably due to them having heavier engines than the NSX but making it up by using way more carbon fiber and aluminum in their construction than the NSX.
I remember from Top Gear that the P1 had an electric range of 6 miles, the 918 did 18 miles, and the laferrari doesn't have an electric only mode but the battery is 2.3 kWh 480 V lithium-ion.
It's hard to get a good read on the NSX because they're not well talked about

File: 1474611667853.jpg (201KB, 586x629px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 586x629px

>>17441794
oh the irony

>>17441805
>What do you mean?
A longitudinal MR would give it a slightly better weight distribution left to right considering that they do not have to balance the tranny position and the such.

As for the flat 6, it would allow them to set the engine lower and reduce secondary vibrations.

>>17441847
It is a longitudinal MR you tard

>>17441840
Still has no idea what he's talking about

>>17441826
Funny thing is that the NSX still weighs less than the GTR

File: nsx-motor1[1].jpg (146KB, 677x508px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 677x508px

>>17441859
Wanna get proven wrong again?

>>17441864
Ok. Changing the engine placement will require major change to the bodywork and design of the car and change the weight distribution. But my point is not "how easy it is to do it" but "how much does the new NSX has in common with the GTR" because i still believe that the NSX ditched whatever the old NSX had going for it just to be more like the GTR.

>>17441870
We're talking about the current NSX you mongoloid
Pic related >>17441805

>>17441870
I thought that was transverse?

>>17441876
>i talk about the old NSX
>"ITS LONGITUDINAL YOU RETARD!"
>get proven wrong
>"I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE NEW ONE!"

In no way in my comments through the context i could have hinted at me talking about the New NSX. In fact, the fact that i called it MR and not something like MAWD or M4 only confirms this. Its ok if you misunderstood it tho.

>>17441877
Yes it is. The pic shows its transverse.

>>17441875
Literally nothing in common with the GTR other than the twin turbo V6 and DCT
And even those are nothing alike, the GTR is a decade old and the NSX is all new using completely different technology to manufacture it

When they switched the new NSX from transverse to longitudinally mounted they had to start from scratch again

>>17441867
The funnier thing is is that even with all the added weight and double the power, it's still (barely) more fuel efficient than the OG NSX

>>17441886
No even the fact that that it's a thread about the new NSX and the guy posted a picture of the new NSX's drivetrain?

>>17441893
No one cares about fuel efficiency in supercars, these hybrids are for that added torque fill and vectoring

>>17441901
21 MPG city and 0-60 in under 3 is pretty damn cool though.

>>17441895
>the OP is about the new NSX
>the entire thread must be about the new NSX

Are you being a janitor here? if you misunderstood me that's fine. I was answering a question about why i believe that a flat 6 longitudinal MR would be better for the old NSX.
>>17441901
This. Questioning MPG in sports cars is fucking retarded beyond benchracing.

>>17441911
25 years later nothing's gonna change the layout

>>17441908
You know what's even cooler? Creeping around the streets in pure silence in a supercar that looks like it's going to eat your face

Shouty Ferraris and Lamborghinis are common in Toronto, no one looks at them twice

File: retarded baby.jpg (128KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1920x1080px

>>17439026

>340 miles and already sick of it

Ha.

>>17441932
More like a fuccboi got in way over his head

>>17441917
No shit? i cant tell the honda guys to remake the car the way i want it. That's retarded. I just said how i think it could have been improved.

>>17438572

The Civic was a brilliant success, what are you on about?

>>17441952
He's a butthurt poorfag

>>17441927
hell yea! its another reason why i love it so much. you get the quietness of an electric car and the sound of a ICE. quiet when you need it nice sounding and perky when you want it. its like something out of a Bond film.

>>17439695
>the only reason it got that record is because they stiffened it with a roll cage,

Floating roll cage.

>put road legal slicks on it,

Michelin Sport Cup 2, not slicks.

>and probably removed all the weight they could.

Only enough to offset the weight of the roll cage.

Your only legitimate criticism is the tires, but the Focus RS with its factory Sport Cup 2s still couldn't come anywhere close to the Type R's time. Even with the factory Continental tires, the Type R will whoop a Focus RS around a track.

>>17441674
It was considered by many to be the best in it's range and class.
You posted the comparison between the LT1, which was the other best performance for your dollar car at the time, as many Corvettes are, and it beat it out with how much less power?
Of course the performance per dollar is better than the old one, that's the same thing I was saying. It doesn't hold up in this day and age, it doesn't matter how much better it is than the past in terms of speed around a track.
I'm not trying to benchracer the old NSX. While it was good around a track, it was praised for it's driving feel and for being a great drivers car.

>>17441623
It's slower than almost all the performance cars in its price range.
I'm just glad that they did test our new technology like their electric motors and torque vectoring along with other new technologies. While I'm not happy with the car itself hopefully it will help Honda build better cars in the future.

>>17442110
Look at track times besides the Nurburgring..the Civic Type R often has substantially slower times than cars like the Golf R and Focus RS and STI.

I had high hopes for the Civic Type R, but I think the way it turned out is disappointing. Sure, it's fast, but it's nothing at all like an "old" Honda. The dealer markup is a separate issue, but is likewise sad.

>>17438572
My neighbor just had his NSX delivered yesterday and let me drive it today.
I don't have pics, he came over while I was cooking and I left my phone in my room.
AMA related.

>>17442958
how many dicks does he suck?

>>17442970
>He owns around a dozen cars, half are exotics
>NSX is his DD

>Won't stop talking about the modes and how quiet it is in electric-only

>I took it to 4800 rpm
>He said I drove it faster and harder than he ever has

So, a lot. At least figuratively. What would you expect from a 60 year-old midget Korean though?

>>17438572
because the Civic type R is a FWD shitbox and the NSX is overpriced for what it does.

>>17443003
I expect him to enjoy life. He probably was told stories from his family about how fucked up korea was during war time or during the threat of communism.

>>17439199
why the fuck does it have NON FUNCTIONAL FAKE AERO and vents?

Holy fuck wtf

>>17442958
>>17443003
Is it very comfy? Doug said it had the best ride of any car he's driven (and he's driven quite a lot)

Did you like the sound of the engine when you drove it?

How did the interior/seats feel to you?

Trunk bigger or smaller than you'd thought it be?

Such a dreamy car.

>>17443054
>Doug said it had the best ride of any car he's driven
best ride in class i mean* obviously an S-class or something will be more comfy.

>>17442551

Nothing you can really do about it unless Honda institutes some kind of policy to clamp down on it. Even that doesn't always help.

People should just sit tight and let it all die down. When the C7 was first available people marked it up way high as well - I'm sure that's not an issue any more now.

As far as the factory rice goes... yeah personally I hate it. You know what, though? Probably 50-75% of the dudes who will own a Type-R will start ricing it out. Maybe that's a good thing - a lot of those guys will buy the car and be like "yeah, just needs some tints, wheels, and a drop and it's perfect!" At least that's one thing you can give Honda - they give you all the rice for free while you'd have to pay $500 motherfucking dollars for a front lip from Subaru. You also get Nav, leather, and all the goodies for MSRP, too. The only thing you pay extra for are random shitty accessories like a door sill plate, rain guards, etc. A loaded STi is fucking $40k and you don't get any of the lip and side spoiler kits.

Sometimes I wonder if that's actually a bad thing - COBB's not going to be able to do a Stage 1 since the factory turbo is already boiling along at TWENTY THREE freaking PSI.

>>17438572
They look like memefuck transformers. Get some class chinks.

>>17438573
they're both shit.

The point of hondas is that they're cheap, light, easy to work on and easy to mod. There is absolutely nothing left of what made Honda good in the past and as a result they ended up with these abominations of a car that have absolutely 0 feel or soul.

>>17443095
More like you're poor

>>17443095
>entry levels hondas are like that therefore all hondas should be like that

NSX were neither cheap nor light nor easy to work on. Neither was the turbo celica.

>>17442515

Which tracks? Link? I don't see anything on google.

>>17441769
>smaller displacement
Except it's still a 2 liter?

>>17443130
Some civics are offerered as 1.5. Not the type R tho.

>>17443095
>$500 flash adds 30+bhp to the regular Civic Turbo
You couldn't make gains like that for a fucking Civic with that kind of money in the 90s

>>17443054
>Is it very comfy?
For a sports car, yes, very.

>Did you like the sound of the engine when you drove it?
The engine sounds reeeallly lame when you start it up and rev it at a standstill. Under load and at speed though, it's pretty nice. Not the best, but nice.

>How did the interior/seats feel to you?
Kind of cheap. At least not what I'd expect for $200k. From the inside, it felt like a regular Acura, similar to an RDX that my friend drives.

>Trunk bigger or smaller than you'd thought it be?
Smaller. I expected the trunk to be in front. Not even enough room for golf clubs (he tried) and there's a weird hump in the middle of it.

That said, I still jelly. It's the best power/weight ratio car I've ever been in, and it didn't disappoint. The braking and suspension showed real promise too.

>>17443135
And? The regular 1.5T paired with a fucking CVT is faster than the old Si despite being down 30 horsepower

>>17443138
So nothing. I am not the same anon you were arguing with. I am just stating why he said "smaller displacement".

>>17443141
He's pretty dumb for saying that when talking about the Civic Type R

>>17443135
>Not the type R tho.
Right, just pointing out he's full of shit

>>17439379
Ur pretty retarded either way

>>17443683
>can't admit he's wrong
>Ur
Fuck off to Facebook

Because there are better choices

>>17444181
>people like different things
Woah