1991 nsx vs 1994 nsx

[cambotwist]

1991 vs 1994 nsx

I have the option of buying a 1994 w/50k or a 1991 w/17.5k acura nsx, there both for the same price.Im just worried about the performance issue; so I cant decide which one to buy. I hear the 1991 does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and the 1/4 in 14.5, while the 1994 does 0-60 in 5.3 seconds and the 1/4 in 13.6. So, if you guys can, please let me know which one is faster and if these numbers are correct.

APPRECIEATE IT

 

[D'Ecosse]

There is no performance difference between a '91 & '94; the engines & transmissions are identical; differences are cosmetic - wheels, cup holder (joke!), passenger airbag are the most obvious.
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/changesbyyear.htm

Incidentally this should have gone in new & prospective owners forum, not off topic.

 

[NSX 3.0]

Re: 1991 vs 1994 nsx

Here are some numbers.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Technical/performancenums.htm

 

[chumch]

Re: 1991 vs 1994 nsx

The 0 to 60 times will be the simialar for both cars with any advantage going to the 91 ...the times quotes are most likely from different sources. the two cars are identical in terms of powertrain...same HP, same torque, similar weight (the 94 might be very slightly heavier due to wheel size increase which could also cause the 94 to be slightly slower)

 

[cambotwist]

Well, which one would you guys rather own a 1991 w/18k or a 1994 w/50k + comptech exhuast, intake, and chip?

 

[JChoice]

The 94 has more issues resolved.

The 91 may be in snap ring range, has window regulator problems, etc. All of which, are addressable but still, takes more time, money, and energy on your part unless they have already been addressed.

If you are going to drive it a lot, get the 94. Fewer issues.

If you plan on having a garage queen then the 91 is the way to go. You can keep the miles off of it and feel good about your "fresh" car.

 

[4AU4LIFE]

Out of curiosity, why is acceleration/speed so important. If you are looking at this car(NSX) for that type(drag) driving, you are looking in the wrong place. There is so much more to this car than just raw numbers.

 

[cambotwist]

i've owned a 93 rx7 twin turbo, s2000, nissan 350z and even a g35 coupe. All these cars do a particular number in 0-60 and 1/4 miles. If im going to buy another car, my dream car (the acura nsx), it must atleast out perform the previous cars i've owned; i want it to perform enough to be able to gloat to a few but yet not see myself passing by. I want that that timless body and manuveribility that the acura nsx owns. Besides nothing wrong with wanting more.

:biggrin: a GOOD nsx IS GOOD BUT if there is BETTER nsx then i rather HAVE the BETTER.

 

[nsxsupra]

it must atleast out perform the previous cars i've owned; i want it to perform enough to be able to gloat to a few but yet not see myself passing by..

Regardless of 91 or 94, both NSXs will kill S2000, 350Z, G35 coupe in terms of acceleration. You will not be disappointed.

RX-7 on the other hand, it might outperform NSX both in straightline and turning slightly assuming it does not break.

The choice you have is a tough one for anyone to decide. If the 91 is slightly cheaper, I would definitely go with 91, lighter is always heavier.

 

[Osiris_x11]

very capable cars...

... lighter is always heavier.

Lighter is always better?!?

Remember to consider the maint/service-histories of both NSX's...

The 4yr/60k ($650-$850) & 6yr/90k ($1250-$1450) services are very important for the NSX. If neither was done, that's atleast $2500 just to get it upto specs'. Also, there are other wear-n-tear items & consumables, anticipate the costs of those if they need replaced (seals, gaskets, rubber hoses, weather-stripping, brake pads & discs, filters, tires, clutch, etc...)!

Performance wise, the numbers for the '91 you have posted seem on par w/ the automatic 4spd transmission (252bhp). NA1 3.0 5spd NSX's usually do 0-60 in 5.1-5.3s & 1/4mi in 13.6-13.7s. Throw in I/H/E & some basic weight reduction (engine-cover, spare-tire, tool-kit/compressor, Jenny Craig, etc...), those performance numbers are further improved!

Goodluck.

 

[evof575gtc]

assuming it does not break.

LOL!

i'd pick the one that saves me the most money.
i think if you take ownership of an NSX, you'll never look back to any of your previous cars you've mentioned.

 

[MCM]

Drive them both and buy the one you like better.
Color combo, Maint History, Number of prev. owners all play a part.
(clutch, T-belt, any paint work?, shocks, tires, brakes, how it shifts, corners etc)

94's give you 16/17 alloy wheels, Pass air-bag, updated A/C with (R134),
a few minor but nice interior changes, & you dont have to check for it being in snap-ring range, & last yr. of the coupe in the US not counting Zanardi's.

I am a sucker for low mi. but when I drove my 94 with 58k
I knew it was the one I wanted (I liked its few mods & cond.) I test drove
{is that a word?} (8 or 9) 91-94 NSX's during my search with 9k to 75k mi. all well maintained with complete history. (ran 100 carfax's & 500 phone calls / e-mails) Was initally after super low mi. but this car changed my mind.
Folks here said the same thing, they were right.
On the road there was really no difference between them.
They were all clean, detailed, tight and rattle free.
I cant say that about any other used cars I have test driven.
Good luck!

 

[4AU4LIFE]

i've owned a 93 rx7 twin turbo, s2000, nissan 350z and even a g35 coupe. All these cars do a particular number in 0-60 and 1/4 miles. If im going to buy another car, my dream car (the acura nsx), it must atleast out perform the previous cars i've owned; i want it to perform enough to be able to gloat to a few but yet not see myself passing by. I want that that timless body and manuveribility that the acura nsx owns. Besides nothing wrong with wanting more.

:biggrin: a GOOD nsx IS GOOD BUT if there is BETTER nsx then i rather HAVE the BETTER.

If you buy an NSX, you certainly won't see yourself passing by hardly ever. If the NSX is truly your dream car, why would it make a difference on being able to out perform your prior cars? You should just be over joyed to get it.

 

[satan_srv]

94 has power steering..so theoretically more engine power is diverting running the ps belt..but it's minor.

 

[MCM]

"94 has power steering"


(same as 91-96 right?) 97 and later electronic power steering,
is that what your thinking of?

 

[MJK]

94 has power steering..so theoretically more engine power is diverting running the ps belt..but it's minor.

91-94 manuals have no EPS.
I *think* 91-94 autos and all 95+ do (not sure about zanardis)

To the OP, MCM's & Jchoice gave you good advice. With regards to the other cars you mentioned, a test drive ought to cure you of them. If not, RUN - this car is not for you.

 

[cambotwist]

thanks yall