95 vs earlier year nsx

[freeon]

They say that the 95 nsx is heavier than the earlier years because of the reinforcing needed because of the removable top but still has the same horsepower.Is there a noticeable difference in power just buy driving it.Or do you have to race or dyno it to see the difference.

 

[heySkippy]

There are people here with WAY more experience in multiple NSXs than me, but based on my driving a friend's 93 NSX and driving my 95 NSX, there isn't a noticeable difference.

Think of it this way. Drive your car alone and then pick up a passenger that weighs about 200 pounds and drive your car again. Can you tell a difference during normal street driving? I can't.

BTW, a dyno isn't going to know about the extra weight, is it?

 

[mickeylex]

They say that the 95 nsx is heavier than the earlier years because of the reinforcing needed because of the removable top but still has the same horsepower.Is there a noticeable difference in power just buy driving it.Or do you have to race or dyno it to see the difference.

You won't notice the difference by driving, unless you can somehow drive both of them at the same time. :smile: For street driving its not a material difference. For track driving it doesn't matter either, b/c your skill on the track is more important than the weight difference.

You won't see it on the Dyno either. Weight doesn't change horsepower numbers on a dyno.

 

[ryan1926]

You won't notice the difference by driving, unless you can somehow drive both of them at the same time. :smile: For street driving its not a material difference. For track driving it doesn't matter either, b/c your skill on the track is more important than the weight difference.

You won't see it on the Dyno either. Weight doesn't change horsepower numbers on a dyno.

Agreed! I bought a '95 because I wanted a Targa and it was considerably less than a '97+. I threw a CTSC on it with the $$$ that I saved and haven't been happier. :biggrin:

 

[mcano]

I suggest the 95 because of the T-Top, which I take off as often as I can, and becasue of the various improvemnets, see the following:

http://www.nsxprime.com/wiki/Changes_by_Year#Changes_for_1995

 

[freeon]

Agreed! I bought a '95 because I wanted a Targa and it was considerably less than a '97+. I threw a CTSC on it with the $$$ that I saved and haven't been happier. :biggrin:

That's exactly what i was thinking.Thanks for the info guys.Is there a noticeable
difference when upgrading to the 97 na-2.

 

[lowellhigh79]

I believe the 95 had a different exhaust, and quite possible different exhaust manifolds as well.

Regards,

Danny

 

[Shaun Ray]

I too chose the 95 over the earlier ones because of the removable top. 95% of my miles are with the top off. Personally, I couldn't own one with the hard top.

However, the purist will note the hard top is more rigid and yes, pounds lighter. Someone once said the 97 is the best year becaouse you get the best of all worlds. There's truth to this IMO.

I've been thinking of going to the NA2. One perception I have though is the clutch expense. Can't recall but I think a new clutch on the 97+ is way expensive. This is an expense that one can count on down the line so I'd confirm that one. It might not be bad, just something I recall.

Bottom line - buy an NSX and you'll be happy with whatever year you get!

 

[PoohBEAR]

I've had a 93, 91 and now 95....I don't feel any different. Just depend on your taste and wind in your hair preference. If I want a early year now, I would definitely chop it up and start another project.

 

[NormRD]

I had a 92 for 4 years and now my 96 for 3. Do not notice any difference in power or acceleration on the street. Do not notice the weight difference as that difference is the same as just adding another passenger. The only noticable difference will be the stiffness with the top off, but even that isn't that big. I love having the top off and have it off as much as possible and was the main reason for the upgrade.

 

[NSXGMS]

If the T-top is attractive to you and you don't plan on heavily tracking the car the 95-96 will be just fine. Yes, the coupe is more rigid but you'll only really feel that on a track.

I personally would try like heck to find a 97 though. Best of all worlds.

Shaun Ray: the OEM NA2 clutch is more expensive but an a/m clutch like the RPS is the same for all years, cheaper than the OEM NA2 and is rebuildable.

 

[bobert486]

why do people emphasize on the 97 as "best of both worlds"? is there sometime different about the 97 model or 97 and up.
correct me if Im wrong, but dont 97+ all have the 3.2l and 6speed targas (excluding zanardi and custom orders) for the US market? so other than the mechanics of the tranny and engine, were there any "structural" improvements the 97+ targas had over the older targas?

thanks
jackson

 

[NSXGMS]

why do people emphasize on the 97 as "best of both worlds"? is there sometime different about the 97 model or 97 and up.
correct me if Im wrong, but dont 97+ all have the 3.2l and 6speed targas (excluding zanardi and custom orders) for the US market? so other than the mechanics of the tranny and engine, were there any "structural" improvements the 97+ targas had over the older targas?

thanks
jackson

The 97 is significantly faster with the 3.2L and 6-speed which compensates for the added weight of the T. If you want a T-top but don't like the loss of performance due to the weight the 97+ is the way to go. That makes it the best all-around choice--certainly better than the 3.0L/5-speed 95-96.

The structural integrity of the T will always be inferior to the coupe. That's not debated. If you want a T-top there's no other choice. At least get the one with more power.

 

[mcano]

why do people emphasize on the 97 as "best of both worlds"? is there sometime different about the 97 model or 97 and up.
correct me if Im wrong, but dont 97+ all have the 3.2l and 6speed targas (excluding zanardi and custom orders) for the US market? so other than the mechanics of the tranny and engine, were there any "structural" improvements the 97+ targas had over the older targas?

thanks
jackson

I think people refer to the 97 only because it was the first year of the HP increase and various other up-grades, not because it is superior to any other year after 1997.

I wanted a T-top and would have preferred a 97 plus, but my budget only allowed for a 95/96. I ended up with a 95 auto and although not as fast as the 97 plus or even the 95/96 manual, its fast enough for me.

 

[Shaun Ray]

why do people emphasize on the 97 as "best of both worlds"? is there sometime different about the 97 model or 97 and up.
correct me if Im wrong, but dont 97+ all have the 3.2l and 6speed targas (excluding zanardi and custom orders) for the US market? so other than the mechanics of the tranny and engine, were there any "structural" improvements the 97+ targas had over the older targas?

thanks
jackson

One other thing to consider is the 5-spd vs. 6-spd. If I recall, Factor-X leans toward the 5-spd due to added strength when FI is used. I could be wrong, but that's my recall. If you are planning to increase HP of the NSX in the future, this might be of interest. (However, it might just be that the 5-spd is cheaper to fix when all those F-X horsies wear the tranny out).

Meanwhile, I've not driven a 6-spd and sort of want one! Buy my car and I'll trade up!:smile:

 

[bobert486]

i do like the rather short gearing of the 6sp, but its hard for me to compare since i have not driven a 5sp nsx, nor have i driven a hard top.....(sigh) decisions

 

[Jetpilot3]

Its funny I bought my 91 because it was the one I had as a poster on my bedroom wall not because it was a coupe or T....LOL

However, seeing as I've just sold my S2000 I wonder if a part of me will miss the open air experience. Regardless if I were looking for another NSX at this point in time ( I will be in 1-2 years) I'd be going +02 targa if funds allowed for it. If not I'd get the +97 model with the 6-speed.