More than I thought I would meet. So we are out there.
Do I count? Not sure...
I had a used 1998 in 2001, then had a new 2003 in 2003 bought new... but then sold that when the baby was on the way in 05 and jumped back into a fellow Primer's 1999 back in 09.
Anyone with $30K can tell you it's so.Ken, say it isn't so!!!!
There is no "abnormal rear tire wear". The relatively rapid tire wear on the NSX (rear tires only) is a function of the car's alignment, not the tire used, and the alignment can be adjusted to extend their treadlife.Aside from the abnormal rear tire wear with the original Yokos
Anyone with $30K can tell you it's so.
Hey, I still love the NSX! But I just haven't been driving mine. I'd rather have someone else enjoy it. I never bought it just to look at in the garage.
You've got some of that wrong. There was a class action suit, and it was settled by Acura changing the recommended alignment specs, offering free alignments to the new specs, and issuing certificates for free rear tires to owners. You can read more about it in the Wiki.My recollection was that I went through my first 2 sets of rear Yoko tires with an average of less than 5,000 miles travelled. The tires were fabulous being super soft and ultra sticky but the wear was still rather surprising to me. I naively thought that it should have been disclosed by the Acura rep in the pre-purchase discussions. Subsequently I tried Dunlaps and Michelins without adjusting the alignment and got far better mileage over the useful life of those tires (although I'm sure there was some performance sacrificed).
I thought that many other 91 NSX owners were unhappy with the Yoko tire wear and that there was a threatened class action lawsuit over the issue in the early 1990's which I think never actually materialized.
this ? pops up from time to time...http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125775&highlight=original+owners I'm an original 96 owner purchased from Greenwich acura.....