95&96 vs 97
- Thread starter freeon
- Start date
There is a difference, but not a huge one in maintenance cost. The larger cost differential lies in performance mods are more expensive in the 97+ cars as a general rule.
Are you looking to buy one? If so, get the 97+, it's worth it over a 95-96 NSX.
Are you looking to buy one? If so, get the 97+, it's worth it over a 95-96 NSX.
The big difference in maintenance cost is in the price of the clutch, which is $1000-1500 more for the later cars, resulting in the total cost of a clutch replacement around $2000-2500 for a '91-96, $3200-4000 for a '97-05.
That really depends on your budget and priorities, and how much the slightly better performance is worth to you.
Slightly
I know this is a sore subject...however the performance difference is significant when comparing a 97 to a 95 or 96. It will be quite noticeable; less so for a 91-94.
may be worth it to you but not him.
maybe he wants to track it and likes stiffness a coupe offers along with the lower weight. maybe his budget won't allow for 97+
I think that you telling him to get newer model is a bit premature until you know what he wants it for.
JMHO
If he's considering it, clearly it's an option for him. No one is twisting anyone's arm here.
He asked a question, I offered my opinion, that's all. We're all here to help right? :smile:
PS. 95 & 96 cars aren't known for their 'light weight', are rarely coupes nor the ideal track car option.
Let's ask him....
Freeon - what do you want the car for? Daily driver, track rat, T-top weekend cruiser? Any NSX in well maintained condition is an excellent choice. Find the best example you can, with all the maintenance done and you'll be happy with it for years.
Last edited:
Well, differences are relative. The difference in acceleration between a '91-94 3.0-liter NSX Coupe with 5 speed and a '97-05 3.2-liter NSX-T with 6 speed is around half a second in both 0-60 (typically 4.8 vs 5.3) and 1/4 mile (13.3 vs 13.8). Can you feel that by driving both? Yup. But it's not like comparing either one to a Viper or C6 Z06, or to an Accord or Integra Type R, where you're talking about differences of a full second or more.
Whether you consider a difference of half a second to be "slight" or "significant" thus is just a matter of semantics; either way, it's a difference of half a second.
Well, differences aren't relative--they're quantifiable. Obviously some cars have a bigger difference than others. I am only looking at the 95-96 T vs. the NA2 T. The 0-60 times for the 95-96 T are around 5.8 sec. The 97-05 T is--as you stated--around 4.8 sec. That's a full second difference which you yourself admit would be significant.
I was simply trying to point out that the 95-96 NSX in particular is even slower than the 91-94 and therefore the performance difference between the 95-96 and a 97+ will be even more pronounced than a 91-94. :smile:
Last edited:
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Messages
- 612
I want the car as T-top weekend cruiser.So I'm looking for a 95 plus.But wasn't shore if it was worth the extra money to buy and maintain but if clutch is the only thing i would probably consider either one.At this point It will probably be the first i can find that i like.Hopefully soon.
I'm going to go a bit off topic but will get back on track by the end of my post..I promise.:smile:
I have driven quite a few, more than 30 I'd have to say, maybe more, I haven't really kept count.
I have noticed a one thing that I feel that made various cars feel slower or faster than others more than the year or engine size.
Larger size wheels/tires 18/19 and up tend to make a NA car feel slower IMO.
I believe proper or improper modding of a car you can quickly erase any "advantage" or "disadvantage" that the year or engine size may bring.
Back on track:biggrin:
As for the original question on this thread, from one used car to the next, I would be more concerned about the condition and the actual driving impression a particular car offers.
The financial advantage that a NSX of one year offers over another, in regard to the factory or aftermarket price difference in like replacement parts, in my opinion, should be of lessor importance or significance in the buying decision.
Drive as many as you can before you buy.
I have driven quite a few, more than 30 I'd have to say, maybe more, I haven't really kept count.
I have noticed a one thing that I feel that made various cars feel slower or faster than others more than the year or engine size.
Larger size wheels/tires 18/19 and up tend to make a NA car feel slower IMO.
I believe proper or improper modding of a car you can quickly erase any "advantage" or "disadvantage" that the year or engine size may bring.
Back on track:biggrin:
As for the original question on this thread, from one used car to the next, I would be more concerned about the condition and the actual driving impression a particular car offers.
The financial advantage that a NSX of one year offers over another, in regard to the factory or aftermarket price difference in like replacement parts, in my opinion, should be of lessor importance or significance in the buying decision.
Drive as many as you can before you buy.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Messages
- 612
I would like to test drive a bunch if i could but as there are no nsx around were i live it's next to impossible.And if i have to start flying away to test drive cars it might get expensive.I think it's going to come down to the first low mileage nsx that catches my eye.I think either way I'll be happy regardless of it being 95&96 or 97 up.Although at this point i think i would prefer a 97 plus.
A lot of NSX owners were probably dealing with the same issue you have raised before buying their first NSX. Personally, I too wanted the removeable top cruiser (and probalby drive topless 95% of the time) however I noticed the '95 was priced quite less than '97 and up models. I wanted a non-modded low mileage NSX with no stories and ended up with a '95 with 46Kmi. Three years later, the car now has 55Kmi and has caused zero problems. I'd like to step up to a NA2 because of the 6-spd transimission and the better exhaust (the 3.2 liter doesn't personally impress me as a big plus).
Still - If I end up keeping the '95 NSX - let's just say "LIFE IS GOOD"!
So - if you want the NSX experience - just get one. If as you note above - the top off driving is a preference, then go for a '95 or up. You'll have a grin on your face no matter what year you buy provided it has a good history and does not require any surprise maintenance.
Good luck and I wish you well on this adventure. Brings back fond memories of when I was in your shoes.
I think it is odd that the exhaust of a NA2 would be by itself a factor to favor the NA2.
I think the NA2 power advantage over the NA1 is 20 hp. The 20 hp was gained by a combination of thinks including displacement and exhaust. NA2 performance is further improved by the 6spd.
For me: I knew I wanted a 97+ because of the horsepower, 6 speed, and improved brakes. The T wasn't important to me so the 95-96 models simply weren't a candidate for me. I would have considered a 91-94 because they are coupes. If I found a 93-94 in the right condition I would have considered it. I also would have bought a 2000 at the right price because I liked the interior upgrades (mostly perforated leather).
I think the NA2 power advantage over the NA1 is 20 hp. The 20 hp was gained by a combination of thinks including displacement and exhaust. NA2 performance is further improved by the 6spd.
For me: I knew I wanted a 97+ because of the horsepower, 6 speed, and improved brakes. The T wasn't important to me so the 95-96 models simply weren't a candidate for me. I would have considered a 91-94 because they are coupes. If I found a 93-94 in the right condition I would have considered it. I also would have bought a 2000 at the right price because I liked the interior upgrades (mostly perforated leather).
If the 20hp is a must or the C32B in general, can't an engine swap be done on 91-94 3.0>3.2, or are engine swaps not very common with NSXs?
Sorry if this is a little off topic.
Sorry if this is a little off topic.
I would think this engine swap in quite uncommon. However, there is plenty of interest in converting 5-spd to 6-spd on the earlier NSX 3.0L platform (or short gears). Also, NA1 owners like the better designed headers of the NA2 exhaust (while we're talking about swap) due to the horsepower gains it provides.
I think it was Nate in DC that has an early NSX who told me his butt dyno could feel the differnce between the stock NA2 header compared to the NA2 header he installed. I keep thinking that this would be a rather inexpensive mod (acutally one might consider it a stock part) since these headers can be found for about $250 if you're patient. The only thing that keeps me from doing it is that the install is rather extensive - I'm not very mechanical.
I think it was Nate in DC that has an early NSX who told me his butt dyno could feel the differnce between the stock NA2 header compared to the NA2 header he installed. I keep thinking that this would be a rather inexpensive mod (acutally one might consider it a stock part) since these headers can be found for about $250 if you're patient. The only thing that keeps me from doing it is that the install is rather extensive - I'm not very mechanical.
- Joined
- 9 July 2006
- Messages
- 612
Hearing you guys talking about exhaust brings me to my next question.I've only heard one nsx run and not shore what he had for an exhaust.But I've heard that the stock nsx exhaust doesn't sound that good.Is this true.Should i plan on after market exhaust if i buy one with a stock one.
Definitely a personal preference question. I suggest you do some searches on this forum as there are many, many posts regarding exhaust. The reason to choose aftermarket exhaust can be due to sound, but also due to reduction of weight and resistance to exhaust flow (i.e. more horsepower).
The stock exhaust is quiet from the cabin. I've not had an opportunity to listen to it as a spectator. If you want to hear a throaty exhaust - you will need to go aftermarket.
The stock exhaust is quiet from the cabin. I've not had an opportunity to listen to it as a spectator. If you want to hear a throaty exhaust - you will need to go aftermarket.
I always recommend NOT getting a '95-'96 model... and preferably the 1997+.
My reasoning... (I'm only referring to stock manual transmission cars here.)
I believe the NSX is best when it has:
1) 3.2L,
2) 6-speed,
3) coupe.
Pre-1995 were all coupes. (I like coupes better than Targas)
1997+ were all 3.2L, 6-speeds (I like 3.2L 6-speeds better than 3.0L 5-speeds)
Which leaves all '95-'96 cars. They are 3.0L, 5-speed, Targas and have NONE of the features that I like. There was ONE '96 manual coupe, so that car is okay if it still exists and is for sale.
In other words, if you can't get all three (3.2L, 6-speed, coupe), then get either a coupe (pre-1995) or get the 3.2L, 6-speed (1997+).
If you're lucky enough to find one of the nineteen(19) 1997+ coupes with 3.2L, 6-speed (or one of the 51 1999 Zanardi models), that would be the best.
There was a long list of upgrades in 1997, not just the engine and gears. So, that is why I prefer 1997+ cars. (2000+ cars were even better.)
So my rating goes as follows:
Best - 1997+ 3.2L, 6-speed, coupe
2nd - 1997+ 3.2L, 6-speed Targa
3rd - 1991-1994 3.0L, 5-speed, coupe
4th - 1995-1996 3.0L, 5-speed Targa
Worst - Automatics. (Though I would buy one for the wife. :biggrin: )
.
My reasoning... (I'm only referring to stock manual transmission cars here.)
I believe the NSX is best when it has:
1) 3.2L,
2) 6-speed,
3) coupe.
Pre-1995 were all coupes. (I like coupes better than Targas)
1997+ were all 3.2L, 6-speeds (I like 3.2L 6-speeds better than 3.0L 5-speeds)
Which leaves all '95-'96 cars. They are 3.0L, 5-speed, Targas and have NONE of the features that I like. There was ONE '96 manual coupe, so that car is okay if it still exists and is for sale.
In other words, if you can't get all three (3.2L, 6-speed, coupe), then get either a coupe (pre-1995) or get the 3.2L, 6-speed (1997+).
If you're lucky enough to find one of the nineteen(19) 1997+ coupes with 3.2L, 6-speed (or one of the 51 1999 Zanardi models), that would be the best.
There was a long list of upgrades in 1997, not just the engine and gears. So, that is why I prefer 1997+ cars. (2000+ cars were even better.)
So my rating goes as follows:
Best - 1997+ 3.2L, 6-speed, coupe
2nd - 1997+ 3.2L, 6-speed Targa
3rd - 1991-1994 3.0L, 5-speed, coupe
4th - 1995-1996 3.0L, 5-speed Targa
Worst - Automatics. (Though I would buy one for the wife. :biggrin: )
.
Sorry if this has been mentioned before,but the 95-96 are a hybrid ,they have the 3.0 liter motor but have an ob-2 ecu and throttle by wire,which bridged the gap to the 97.In this regard the 95-96 are harder to modify.One potential upside is the ability of these cars to accept the 3.2 liter motor in a swap,as I have done in my 96.
I don't believe that the '95-96 NSX-T is that slow.
Magazine tests use standard procedures (all standard equipment on board, full gas tanks, bone stock) and the results are generally quite consistent. There were a lot of tests of the '91-94 NSX 5-speed, and the results all cluster within a tenth of a second of 5.3 and 13.8. Similarly, there were a lot of tests of the '97-01 NSX-T 6-speed, and the results all cluster within a tenth of a second of 4.8-4.9 and 13.3. These results are consistent with Bob Butler's model using the car's actual torque curve to calculate rates of acceleration; it predicted 0-60 times of 5.31 and 4.93, and 1/4 mile times of 13.67 and 13.39.
There weren't a lot of magazine tests of the '95-96 NSX-T. Just like there weren't a lot of magazine tests of the '97-01 NSX Coupe. One of the latter came up with some extremely fast test times, and some of the former came up with some extremely slow test times. There are lots of possible explanations; for example, some cars (as well as some drivers, even professionals) are simply faster than others. I would prefer to believe Bob's figures as more accurate and representative of all NSXs - and Bob has calculated that a difference of 100 pounds, the difference between the Coupe and the -T, results in a difference of 0.16 second in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration times.
And if you want to test it for yourself, and see what that 0.16 second feels like, it's easy enough to do. Find a 100-pound person - a small woman or older child - and do some acceleration runs, with and without that person as a passenger. You'll see that it feels like... a sixth of a second.
Last edited:
And that was years before the Prius! :biggrin:
Glad someone spoke up about the 1 second differential from 0-60. I found that hard to swallow as well. Still, if a 97+ comes up for a price that fits, it is naturally a better choice in my book.
But for the first time buyer that wants the removable top feature, a '95 is still a valid entry level car to go for. Some buyers also consider resale value (not all of course but some). The way I see it, the 91-94 NSX's are strong due to qualities noted earlier in this thread and a good condition car sells for in the low to mid $30K and establishes the lower price in the NSX market. Due to the "hybrid" features of the '95-'96, (especially the removeable top) I strongly feel these two years will always fetch a few more thousand compared to the earlier coupes. If the 91-94 models continue to hold value at current level (I personally think they will) then that keeps the 95-96 value held as well.
On the other hand, as years go by - I see the 97+ models depreciating closer to the price of the 95-96. I guess it's possible that the pressure of the NA2 models would actually shove the price of a 95-96 down below a 91-94 model, but I just don't believe it will happen. (Guess time will tell)
So what's the meaning of my rant? I think the NA2's will depreciate faster than the NA1's and quite possibly the NA1's won't depreciate at all. Heck, I paid $35K for my '95 NSX over 3 years ago and unless someone gives me $36.9K for it as stock - I'll keep her and all the wonderful driving experience that goes along with NSX ownership.
But for the first time buyer that wants the removable top feature, a '95 is still a valid entry level car to go for. Some buyers also consider resale value (not all of course but some). The way I see it, the 91-94 NSX's are strong due to qualities noted earlier in this thread and a good condition car sells for in the low to mid $30K and establishes the lower price in the NSX market. Due to the "hybrid" features of the '95-'96, (especially the removeable top) I strongly feel these two years will always fetch a few more thousand compared to the earlier coupes. If the 91-94 models continue to hold value at current level (I personally think they will) then that keeps the 95-96 value held as well.
On the other hand, as years go by - I see the 97+ models depreciating closer to the price of the 95-96. I guess it's possible that the pressure of the NA2 models would actually shove the price of a 95-96 down below a 91-94 model, but I just don't believe it will happen. (Guess time will tell)
So what's the meaning of my rant? I think the NA2's will depreciate faster than the NA1's and quite possibly the NA1's won't depreciate at all. Heck, I paid $35K for my '95 NSX over 3 years ago and unless someone gives me $36.9K for it as stock - I'll keep her and all the wonderful driving experience that goes along with NSX ownership.
I'm pulling those figures right from the FAQ:
95 T Cpe C&D Jul-95 3.0 V-6/4A 0-60, s. 5.80
95 T Cpe MT Jun-95 3.0 V-6/4A 0-50, s. 4.50
0-60, s. 5.80
As mentioned I couldn't find any other 95-96 tests as they're hard to come by.
I will say that in all likelihood the figures you describe are probably closer to reality. Using Bob's model of .16 sec increase for every 100 lbs added one arrives at:
91-94 Cpe 0-60 = 5.2-5.4 sec;
95-96 T 0-60 = 5.36-5.56 sec;
97-05 T 0-60 = 4.8-4.9 sec.
That brings us to a figure of approximately .56 seconds to .76 seconds as the actual difference between the 95-96 T and the 97+. While not as drastic as a 1-second difference I would still categorize 0.56-0.76 seconds as significant--particularly when comparing the same model car.
0.56-0.76 second differences are a little easier to grasp when looking at, say, the difference between a 97+ NSX (4.8-4.9 sec 0-60) and the Viper or ZO6 around (4.0-4.1 sec 0-60). Roughly the same difference as the 95-96 NSX to the 97+ NSX. And even Ken pointed out that the difference between a Viper and a ZO6 would be noticeable.
Once cars reach a certain age - with the NSX, it appears to be at around 10+ years - the market values stop declining, and tend to be a function primarily of mileage and condition, rather than age.
The '95-96 NSX-T still has an edge in value over an otherwise similar '91-94, typically in the range of $4-6K. A '97+ NSX-T still has an edge in value over an otherwise similar '95-96, typically in the range of $6-10K for a '97, more for a newer one. Given that the '97 is ten years old and prices have flattened out pretty well, I would expect the current values to be pretty stable in coming years. There is currently a big price differential between, say, a '97 and an '05, due to newness; I would expect that, over time, the prices of the newer ones ('02-05) to decline and approach those of the '97.
