The question about the 170 GeV prediction is obsolete now. 

But the issue:

> **to drive the Higgs mass to the lower bound**, rather than to the upper
> bound, in an altered version of the noncommutative standard model

remains relevant and has been addressed indeed by an updated almost-commutative spectral extension of the standard model. This extension according to http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.8050 claims basically that:

> [the] obstruction to lower [the Higgs mass] was overcome in
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1030 simply by taking into account a scalar
> field which was already present in the full model which [was]
> computed previously in http://arxiv.org/abs/1008.3980. One lesson
> which [was] learned on that occasion is that [one has] to take all the
> fields of the noncommutative spectral model seriously, without making
> assumptions not backed up by valid analysis, especially because of the
> almost uniqueness of the Standard Model in the noncommutative setting.


Incidently this new **neutral singlet scalar field (σ)** comes originally from some Majorana term in the spectral action responsible for a type I see-saw mechanism implying existence of heavy right-handed neutrinos (http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610241). It is worth mentioning that this σ field can purpotedly stabilize the Higgs coupling and prevent it from becoming negative at higher energies **thus make it consistent with its mass of 126 Gev**, providing a vev for σ of the order of $10^{11}$ GeV compatible with the Majorana mass that could explain the actual neutrino phenomenology.