94 with low miles, or 95 with high miles?

mb2319 · 2 May 2001

I have a dilema, I have the chance to purchase a 94 with 25k miles or a 95 with 90k miles. The differences are listed below. What would you do?

94:
Brooklyns Green Pearl/Tan
5-speed
Chrome 7 Spoke
Stock
Great condition(needs nothing)
All records
10 hours away

95:
Black/Black
5-Speed
Targa Top
Aftermarket Rims(not bad ones)
Sway Bars
New tires
Major maintenance done last week(timing belt,clutch,water pump,etc.)
All Records
Local Owner

Both have never been wrecked and both owners are very nice guys. Hard decision for me...

Thanks

[This message has been edited by mb2319 (edited 02 May 2001).]

[This message has been edited by mb2319 (edited 02 May 2001).]

Jimbo · 2 May 2001

mb2319,

For me, this would be a very easy decision. I would absolutely go with the one with fewer miles.

It's not like you're talking about a year where there was a big change (i.e. 97).

A lower mileage, stock car in great condition would mean a lot more to me that a one year newer car.

My $0.02.

Jim

------------------
1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for a 76-79 Honda Accord

NSXocto · 2 May 2001

As a teen growing up,I always wanted
a 328GTS targa.
But to use as an everyday driver
the 95 NSX became the more logical
choice.

Targa top is major thing the 95 offers. Ask your self... Is an open top car important to you? It was to me!
Otherwise go with the 94.

flaminio · 2 May 2001

No brainer for me -- the '94 with low miles is the way to go.

-Bob ('94 #496 with a few more miles than that one

)

johndoh · 2 May 2001

What about price? Wouldn't that make a big impact on your decision?

bonzo · 2 May 2001

Michael,
Given that I'm slightly biased already ;-) with my own green '94, I would go for the car with low miles as well. Someone in a previous thread had commented that the coupe does have great visibility even without an open top. Also, I can attest to the rigidity and tight feel in handling of the '94. But, if you want the suntan, there's only one answer!!!

You'll be smilin' after either choice...good luck.

akira3d · 2 May 2001

I'd go with the '94 coupe over the '95 targa. Lower miles and a better all-around vehicle when you consider that the pre '97 targas are a bit lacking.

As I'm fond of saying, if you want a targa, go with a '97 or more recent (like me)...otherwise it's hard to beat the '94 coupe for price-performance and quality.

------------------
--akira3D ('00 NSX-T red/black #113)
"Reality is better than the dream..."

akira3d.com/nsx

scottjua · 2 May 2001

Here's a neutral stance seeing as how I own no NSX at all right now...

Go with the 94. You get less miles and a far more superior car for your money. Of course this is my opinion...but... The 95 is heavier, more flexy, has the same engine, and even a little pokey compared to the 94. The 94 was the last year of the non power steering, coupe only NSX. If you want a Targa top...I have to agree with Akira...go with 97 or newer. They have more power to offset the weight factor, and the 6 spd tranny.

If you're tall you might fit better in the Coupe than you would in the Targa. From what I understand...that Targa top cars have less headroom when the roof is on.

------------------
Got dat ol' vee six cilnder inder?

http://www.nextestdrive.net

PAUL M · 2 May 2001

I owned a 93 now a 95t after it was stolen.For me I love having the targa top. I dont track the car so for street driving i can live with the extra weight and body flex(which isnt to bad). if a targa top is important to you my advice would be to wait to find a 95 with lower miles.But nsx's are very reliable and high mileage isnt a problem.if i was looking for a 95 and mine was for sale with 90,000 miles on it I would buy it from myself

if you plan on tracking the car or every little bit of performance is important to you i would take the low mileage 94
good luck
Paul M

mb2319 · 2 May 2001

Thanks for the great feedback guys. Of course a targa is important or I would not have even posted this. Plus I really have no idea if the changes made to a 95 really made an improvement for the car. The feedback I am getting is that the 94 is a faster, and more nimble car. But the 95 is a targa. BTW, I read on this site that the 95, combined with the throttle by wire and new rear diff, made an overall 10% improvement in acceleration out of a corner. In my opinion, if the only difference is a targa roof, then the lower miles is obviously my choice.

Thanks again guys, you have been a great help...

CChung · 3 May 2001

I've had a '94 then got a '00 and the differences in acceleration seems much more significant than what the extra 20 horsepower belies. If you want a targa top, try to find a '97+ model with the bigger engine and 6-spd or go with the low mileage '94.

------------------
'00 NSX-T, silverstone/blk, #252

RyRy210 · 3 May 2001

Hello, I think this is a good place to ask a technical question regarding mileage, but with regards to what car I would pick, I probably would choose the T-top because the black on black combination is more appealing to me (and if the price is right ofcourse). But this is all personal preference. Okay, now back to my original question. I once read a car and driver article and also recently saw a documentary regarding used cars. The topic is that low mileage cars although might have a higher market value, mechanically might not be as good as a high mileage car. Their claim is that because most people who have low mileage car drive short distances, the time and speed the car is operating at does not allow the car to heat up to a point where friction is not a problem. Hence the car is subject to more wear and tear when driving short distances, especially during start up. There was also something about burning the condensation in the engine which happens less often when a car is driven short distances on surface streets. Anyone know anything more about this?

Bruce · 3 May 2001

A car driven daily with high miles that has had proper maintanence can actually be a better running car vs. cars rarely driven with low miles. Low miles tend to have gummy deposits and dried out oil and hydraulic seals.Because they never drove it, some feel they don't need to replace the fluids.All fluids will lose properties not only from use but just over time alone.Also optimum temperatures are never acheived to ensure a thorough break-in. As we all know,severe engine damage occurs on start-up when there is no oil.This is what low mile cars spend alot of time doing,...cold start-ups.Proper break in ensures uniform contact and through heat allows oil to actually impregnate the metal parts.Kinda like why your mom would season a brand new iron pan before using it.The reason why she dosen't use dish soap is because it will pull the oil out. Any Chefs out there that can explain it better?This is also why you should not use dish soap to wash your cars.Dish soap is made especially to remove grease and oil. Automobile paint is oil based and by using dish soap it pulls the oil out of the paint.(Back to subject)I'm not the expert to expand on this but,I have personally experienced it.A friend purchased Mercedes with only 12,000 miles.I checked it out for him and felt he couldn't go wrong,heck,low miles. After purchasing we drove it around town for a couple of days enjoying every minute of it.Then he drove it home from Bay Area to L.A. Well,... main seal gave out he ended up putting almost $20,000 to rebuild motor. I felt so bad because I had said exactly what most of you are thinking. BTW how about '95 NSX Twin Turbo w/60,000miles for sale on AutoTrader, owner is going below $54,000 now.Whoa, was that story a sales pitch or what.

NSXocto · 3 May 2001

What are you going to use the car for?
How much time on track ?
How much time on street?

dvkim · 3 May 2001

Actually, I think targa tops are kind of hassle. I had a Carrera Cabriolet that I recently sold, and bought a 94 X. Even with the power top, it was a hassle to put the bonnet on, etc. every time I parked the car I was paranoid so I'd put the top up. I would think that a Targa would be even more time consuming. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy open air driving, but would prefer a newer design ie 1999+ Porsche 996 were the top folds away neatly, at the push of a button. I think lower miles is the way to go.

aaron · 3 May 2001

you have to go with the lower miles! If your married to the idea of a targa, keep looking there're out there, but don't live with 90K just cause you want the top. Good luck. btw there are at least 6 NSXs for sale in the florida trader. If you want to look, private me and I'll scan the page for you.

kenjiMR · 4 May 2001

Well, I too might be slightly biased because I own a green '94 as well.

One other thing you may want to consider is the resale value. I've heard that greens may not resale for as high because the demand for them is just not there. I too didn't get a green because I absolutely had to have a green one... I just wanted one. All the other factors that the others mentioned regarding last year for non-power steering etc was the main reason I chose a '94. Because I'm not a rich old bastard... rather a young post-internet script kiddie, cost was an issue. I paid $42k for mine last year, but if I were to have done it again, I probalby would have looked for a clean '91 or '92. In any case, I've had extreme fun in my NSX so far and not regret it. The color is slightly annoying due to the fact that it gets dirty really easy. I don't have a garage, only a carport which I keep the flannel cover over during the week. I usually drive it on the weekends, but nonetheless it seems always dirty. If you want to see a lot of green NSXs in actin go to: http://www.granturismo.com/events

BigBull · 17 March 2005

Would it make it any easier to tempt you with a '94 with 12K miles? Blk/Blk 5-Speed outstanding condition. Stock with good rubber and clutch, timing belt service completed as scheduled. See my new post dated 3/16.

FNK

Malibu Rapper · 18 March 2005

edit: Good lord, I noticed this thread was 3 years old. haha

mickeylex · 18 March 2005

Funny. I just noticed the date too. So....was the dilemma ever solved?

dsf3g · 18 March 2005

Poor Fred... didn't realize he was trying to sell his car to a guy who probably stopped looking 4 years ago!

Internet's a crazy thing. It's like this post went on a trip to the Andormeda galaxy and came back the same age while we were all 4 years older.

Dave Hardy · 18 March 2005

It's obvious to me - The '95. Mainly because I can't stand the green ones. The Targa I'm sort of indifferent on, but given the same price for 2 standing next to each other I'd take a Targa.

94 with low miles, or 95 with high miles?

Similar threads