a few questions from yet another newbie...

[lawguy]

....or more accurately, a "wanna be".

In the midst of a very early mid-life crisis at 35. I've loved NSX's for many years, and now am on the verge of splurging a bit and perhaps picking one up. Of course, I have oh sooooo many questions. However, I've been perusing this marvelous site (and many others) doing my homework, and I think I have answered most of my questions. I have a couple more, and I promise that I tried very hard to use the "search" feature to find old posts talking about the issues without success.

That being said, I guess my biggest question is for those people who have owned cars that were "pre 1998" and ones after 1998 with the HP boost - what kind of difference do you notice, if any. I realize the boost was rather slight - but, I wonder if its noticeable in any way, shape or form.

I guess my other question is whether the group here really believes these cars are as "bulletproof" as they seem to be described. I cant imagine I would buy one of these cars with more than 20K miles, but for those fellows with higher mileage (over 75K?), do you notice any slipping or decline in performance with your car? I previously had an Acura Legend (6 speed) many years ago and put 165K miles on it and never noticed any decline in its performance. Just wondering about these marvelous vehicles.

With 3 kids, I have to keep my BMW to haul around my posse...but, I definitely need something just for me.

I've debated an S2000, but it just doesnt do it for my soul. I had a marvelous Infiniti G35 Coupe a few years ago (which I loved dearly) and truly need a sports car in my life again.

Any other suggestions for a newcomer are much appreciated - although, I do hate asking such rudimentary questions.

This seems like an awesome forum, and i'm glad to be a part of it. Hopefully, I'll be an owner someday soon....

Pete

 

[N.S.X.]

I'm on my second one, and all the good things that're said are true. I can't speak to owning a pre and post hp gain comparo but the best advice I've seen is buy the best one you can afford. The NSX ia a hardy car,but like anything can break. Not many pit-falls...stereo amps blow and the A/C circuit board thing....weak struts for the lids and hatches...otherwise it's an Acura...Honda, that is...that help?

 

[RON98]

Hi Pete

Get the S2000. It is more manageable and more fun to drive. Owned 3 NSX with 2 in my posission right now and ..... had 3 S2k with 1 in the stable as of now.

The s2000 is just so much fun to drive. Its a total go kart and when you drop the top it really brings out the lighter side of life. its the NSX with out the "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME" ... apeal.

S2K is a very beautiful car and has good lines.

NSX ... its a show off car. The black one i got has a 6 puck in it so driving it is hard work, regardless, NSX requires more care and effort where ever you go. More questions to answer, more people gocking, more " i need to park away from everyone so i dont get my car dinged".

If you want something to show, get the NSX. If you want pure driving freedom and "chuckability" get the S.

NSX is fun to drive too ofcourse. Get both.:biggrin:

NSX seems pretty reliable. but i guess when sht hits the fan, you better know yours stuff or have a fat wallet with a strong box to back it up.

I had to trouble shoot my black one recently, it was something very minor but small things have a trend of turning to bigger affairs at the dealership.

Either know your trade or pay to play

Cash your kids college slush fund and treat yourself to a reward.

 

[NSXGMS]

Member Hugh's 1993 "Charlotte the Harlot" has 165K and, according to him, is just getting broken in. :biggrin:

It's a Honda. Same as your Legend. It's Honda bulletproof, if that's what you mean. My 91 has ~130K and it feels like a new car to me. Honest to goodness. I bounce off 8,500 RPM all day long and the occasional track event and it runs like a top. Didn't even need a valve job at 30K.

Clutch is $2,000 when it goes 40-90K mi., timing belt & water pump is ~$1,500 at 90K mi./7years, valves are $600 every 60K mi. (or longer)

Avoid the snap-ring issue in the 91-92 and you're golden. Also make sure your window regulators have been replaced/amended with the thingies (91-92only). That's it.

Other than that, compare the service to your Legend. Oil changes are a tad more though :tongue:

The HP of the 1997+ is a little overrated, I think. I think the real allure of the 97+ and something many NA2 owners fail to consider is the 6-speed tranny itself. The gearing of 1-5 is much closer resulting in better acceleration. I think this gives the impression that the motor is beefier than it actually is.

A stock NA1 w/ Intake, headers & exhaust should be faster than a bone stock NA2. It's also a coupe and lighter, but even so, it should generate more RWHP than a NA2. Throw in short gears and you'll be plenty quick.

Bottom line, any year is a good year and I think everyone here agrees it's as reliable as any other Honda product. Hope you join the club--it's a completely different animal than the S2000. The G35 will feel like a tank compared to it.

 

[BD]

You can find out all the information on the FAQ section.

NSX 101:
Pre 97: NA1 chassis code 3.0 liter 270HP and 5 speed
97 Plus: NA2 Chassis code 3.2 liter 290HP and 6 speed
91 to 94 Manual: No power steering
Post 95: All with Drive by Wire Throttle, and Electronic Power Steering (except the Zanardi Edition)

1999: 50 limited Zanardi edition was issued to the US Market, essentially the JDM Type S with all the US Federalized rules.

T model weight extra approximately 150 lbs over the coupe.

Post 2002: Newly styled aero with slightly faster acceleration and top speed, with exposed head light. With even bigger OEM tires.

Fastest NSX recorded by auto publications is the 2000 NSX with 4.5 second to 60mph.

There are 16000 plus NA1 produced in the world, and only about 2500 NA2 produced.

NA2 with 6-speed tranny pulls much stronger due to more HP and lower gear ratio. That is from my personal experience. I used to own a 95 and now a 03, the 03 is much faster, literally. All my local NSX Prime buddies all feel the same way. 02 spec felt much strong.

By observing the forum and talk to Autowave (NSX Specialist), NA2 engine will put out much higher HP when Comptech Super Charger is installed. But it is also tougher to tune due to OBDII system.

I came out of an S2000 and I will never give up my NSX for that car. The S2k is fun to drive, with less “worry” factor, but the NSX is just a much nice ride.

 

[BD]

Therefore, buy a 97 plus.

 

[DV8]

NSX 101:
Pre 97: NA1 chassis code 3.0 liter 290HP and 5 speed
97 Plus: NA2 Chassis code 3.2 liter 270HP and 6 speed
91 to 94 Manual: No power steering
Post 95: All with Drive by Wire Throttle, and Electronic Power Steering (except the Zanardi Edition)

I think the HP #s reversed, the pre 97 3.0 liter are rated at 270HP and the post 97 3.2 liter are 290HP.

And yes, the engines are bulletproof :smile: Just get one with all the maintenance up to date and if they're not, then get them done and you'll be set for a while. There might be some issues as mentioned with miscellaneous items such as trunk and hatch struts (have to get mine replaced soon) but that's an extremely small price to pay for the pure enjoyment of driving one of these fine machines:biggrin: I've driven an S2000 and they're fun cars, very gocart-like but they lack the low-end torque that the NSX has. Test drive an NSX if you can, you won't be sorry!

 

[NSXLVR]

The s2000 is just so much fun to drive. Its a total go kart and when you drop the top it really brings out the lighter side of life. its the NSX with out the "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME" ... apeal.

That statement made me think of that VW commercial, where all the drivers are yelling out the window in the megaphones..."Because I make more money than you" and "I'm compensating for my shortcomings" hahaha :biggrin:

I've driven the S2K and think it's an awesome car, definetly agree with the go-kart statement. But I'm going with an NSX, just becuase, I just rarely ever see the car driving around my city. S2k's are EVERYWHERE here.

 

[clr1024]

That statement made me think of that VW commercial, where all the drivers are yelling out the window in the megaphones..."Because I make more money than you" and "I'm compensating for my shortcomings" hahaha :biggrin:

I've driven the S2K and think it's an awesome car, definetly agree with the go-kart statement. But I'm going with an NSX, just becuase, I just rarely ever see the car driving around my city. S2k's are EVERYWHERE here.

having driven both the S2K and owning an NSX, I would get the NSX. I really appreaciate the V6 and I hate digital gauges that came in the S2K. The S2K handles great but as you said they are a dime a dozen.

 

[gordiphi]

I bought a NSX less than one month ago. I LOVE the car. Mine is a 1996 with 35700 miles which I got at a great deal. I never drove a 97 nor a 02+ NSX so I can't compare the two. The 1996 has all the power I need or can use without getting numerous tickets. 3.0L 0r 3.2L the car is great! I was told many times to get the post 96 NSX due to all of the upgrades, But I found a relatively low milage 96 for a great price thus here I am.
This car is more fun than any car I ever had in my 45 years of existence. The only car that comes close is a MR2 I had 10 years ago.
Again, buy the BEST NSX you can afford. To me quickness is more of an issue than top speed. You can only drive so fast. One speeding ticket in this car can cost you A LOT of money in insurance.
Service is also costly, but in the long run I think it will be worth it.
I have a NSX because I HATE to see another cars like mine on the road. But, with that comes A LOT of attention towards the car. People take pictures of my car constantly with their cell phones. I am very uncomfortable with this because my plates may give them to much information about me. Again, let me reiterate I bouhgt my NSX less than one month ago!
My upgrades will be a comptech AIS, headers and exhaust nothing else needed IMO.
Great choice in car just be careful who you buy it from.
Welcome
G

 

[NSX7]

I myself own a 91 and test drove a 2001 T and honestly could not find a big difference in both cars to justify paying that much more - it pulls a little harder (not much though) and the big difference was in the throttle response as it was a lot better in the 2001 but I think that could fixed for cheap in the pre 97 models - at the end of the day, I figured I will just put headers, exhaust, intake, and maybe a chip and save the money to put it towards a 996 911 carrera as a second car

 

[MvM]

....or more accurately, a "wanna be".

In the midst of a very early mid-life crisis at 35. I've loved NSX's for many years, and now am on the verge of splurging a bit and perhaps picking one up.

The NSX is a very solid car. I remember Honda mentioned that the chassis was designed for and expected to last 30 years. That is, if you keep it in one piece of course.

And about that 'very early mid-life crisis at 35', buying and playing with a NSX will take about 15 years (on average) from your biological age.

Trust me... :biggrin:

Of course, that will in the end only postpone your mid-life crises by 15 years. Just hope Honda will have the HSC ready by then to solve that problem again.

 

[lawguy]

Wow.............

.....thanks for all the great thoughts. I really appreciate it.

I'm a bit torn on what to do, as cost is (always) an issue - especially with 3 kids. I've wondered about whether I'd regret getting an earlier model if the newer ones were much more responsive, but it doesnt sound "significant" (what that means.).

I've driven a couple of M3 convertibles, which I like, but as everyone here has said....they are not DISTINCTIVE. My neighbor just bought a new C6 vettel, which is also a fun car, but again, a little more "common" than I might like.

I suppose its really down the S2K, an M3 convertible or an NSX. Obviously, i know where all of you would vote....LOL.

Thanks soooooo much for your thoughts. Until I take the plunge, I'll keep skulking around here, reading as much as possible, and salivating at the pictures of all of your cars.

- Pete

 

[djdrock]

There really is nothing else like it...it has all been said before, the NSX still gives me the warm and fuzzies after one year of ownership. :smile: If you go the route of the NSX, shop around, take your time, and no matter what the description of the vehicle is, look at it and have it inspected before you commit. The odds that you will find the car of your dreams in Indiana is slim, as was the case for me when I drove to Kalamazoo Michigan to get mine one year ago.

Where in Indiana are you from?

 

[TTony]

Re: Wow.............

I'm a bit torn on what to do, as cost is (always) an issue - especially with 3 kids.

Sounds like you should go with an earlier model. When using capitalone.com, you can finance a '91 for 5 years and make the payments very reasonable. You can keep the car for several years and not lose that much money on depreciation as compared with a newer model.

 

[Vendetta]

Even thtough the newer ones only show a 20 HP increase, it is much faster in a straight line due to gearing in the 6-speed. The US spec 5-speed has very tall gears and you fall below powerband on upshifts...especially in second gear. The 6-speed keeps you in powerband therefore helping it accellerate faster. The JDM shortgears are a remedy for this on US spec cars.

As for "bulletproof", that depends on what you mean exactly. The NSX is VERY reliable and the most reliable exotic in STOCK form, hands down.
When modded, the stock motor can't handle too much more than 400 RWHP. Things get very expensive beyond that point due to the fact that you'll want to upgrade internals etc... When I hear bulletproof as far as mods go, I think Supras. 800+ RWHP on stock internals and tranny. That's bulletproof

The NSX has that "cool factor" that you find in exotics 3 times the price of it (used). I noticed alot of people here love that "feature".

 

[nsxtasy]

Even thtough the newer ones only show a 20 HP increase, it is much faster in a straight line due to gearing in the 6-speed.

Absolutely not true. Changing the gearing to the six-speed improves 1/4 mile times by only 0.11 second. Adding 20 hp improves them by 0.43 second, about four times the improvement.

The US spec 5-speed has very tall gears and you fall below powerband on upshifts...especially in second gear. The 6-speed keeps you in powerband therefore helping it accellerate faster.

Also not true. There is no "powerband"; the torque curve for the NSX is relatively flat throughout much of the revband, as you can see in the chart below. The torque (and, therefore, the acceleration within any given gear) is actually less at 7500 RPM than at 4000 RPM. The acceleration benefit of being in a lower gear comes entirely from the gearing itself, not from greater torque at the higher revs.

The JDM shortgears are a remedy for this on US spec cars.

Also not true. The short gears close the gap between first and second gears on the USIM five-speeds; they improve acceleration after the upshift due to the better gearing, not because of greater torque at the higher revs. They also make the 3-4 and 4-5 upshifts considerably worse, for the same reason. In sum, they generally help acceleration between 40 and 70 mph, and hurt acceleration between 70 and 140 mph.

 

[Vendetta]

Absolutely not true. Changing the gearing to the six-speed improves 1/4 mile times by only 0.11 second. Adding 20 hp improves them by 0.43 second, about four times the improvement.

Also not true. There is no "powerband"; the torque curve for the NSX is relatively flat throughout much of the revband, as you can see in the chart below. The torque (and, therefore, the acceleration within any given gear) is actually less at 7500 RPM than at 4000 RPM. The acceleration benefit of being in a lower gear comes entirely from the gearing itself, not from greater torque at the higher revs.

Also not true. The short gears close the gap between first and second gears on the USIM five-speeds; they improve acceleration after the upshift due to the better gearing, not because of greater torque at the higher revs. They also make the 3-4 and 4-5 upshifts considerably worse, for the same reason. In sum, they generally help acceleration between 40 and 70 mph, and hurt acceleration between 70 and 140 mph.

Hmmm....I got this info from FAQ so maybe I'm misinformed. In the Technical - Gears section of FAQ, it states:

"The point of close-ratio gears is to keep the engine at the highest possible RPM and therefore HP. The stock gears are not optimal because there's a gap between 1 and 2 that makes the revs drop from 8000 to 4499, which is lower in power than the "short" gears, which make revs drop from 8000 to 5085. So far, so good (and this is why there's greater acceleration in that 40-60 mph band with the short gears)."

When the revs drop too low on an upshift, doesn't that make the car bog down a bit? On an upshift where the revs are higher, the car continues to accellerate hard without bogging. Correct? From what I gathered on FAQ, this helps out accelleration right?

Also from FAQ: "Therefore your acceleration (assuming higher revs means higher horsepower) "

"There is approx 29 more HP available at the higher short gear numbers that effects acceleration. Thats why we want-em, plain and simple. This is about a 14% increase in power at this point."

It does say however that past 115 MPH, the short gears actually hurt the accelleration.

....and you're saying the 20 extra (crank) horsepower really equates to -.43 in 1/4 mile times? I admit, I'm no expert so it's between you and FAQ.

 

[nsxtasy]

The FAQ does say that. It's wrong.

When the revs drop too low on an upshift, doesn't that make the car bog down a bit?

Yes, there's a big difference in the rate of acceleration, but it's because there is such a wide gap in spacing between first and second gear, not because of any gap in torque before and after the upshift.

On an upshift where the revs are higher, the car continues to accellerate hard without bogging.

Yes, and it's the same reason; because the rest of the gears are spaced closer together, there is less difference in the rate of acceleration.

Also from FAQ: "Therefore your acceleration (assuming higher revs means higher horsepower) "

"There is approx 29 more HP available at the higher short gear numbers that effects acceleration. Thats why we want-em, plain and simple. This is about a 14% increase in power at this point."

The problem with that unfortunate write-up is that the rate of acceleration depends on torque and gearing, not on horsepower. Within a given gear, horsepower is always higher at higher revs if the torque is higher (horsepower is torque times revs), but that's basically irrelevant. (I think the person writing that section of the FAQ didn't understand that at the time he wrote it.)

....and you're saying the 20 extra (crank) horsepower really equates to -.43 in 1/4 mile times?

Yes. Bob Butler did calculations showing the improvements and differences with various setups - different gearing setups, as well as the effects of adding power and of reducing weight.

 

[Vendetta]

^^ Gotcha

So I'd be better off reducing some weight and adding 20 horses rather than getting short gears? Adding 20 horses would probably be cheaper than parts and labor for short gears and definately cheaper than a 6-speed tranny conversion. That article really is throwing alot of people (like myself) off.

 

[ETLMD]

I love the driving experience in my NSX much more than my S2000. I'm just too paranoid parking my NSX places. The NSX attracts a lot of attention (both good and bad). If you have to park this car in public places, I highly recommend getting an S2000. You'll feel a lot more comfortable.

 

[nsxtasy]

So I'd be better off reducing some weight and adding 20 horses rather than getting short gears?

Strictly in terms of how much it improves acceleration times, yes. There is also the "feel" of the gear changes to consider, if that's important to you.

Adding 20 horses would probably be cheaper than parts and labor for short gears and definately cheaper than a 6-speed tranny conversion. That article really is throwing alot of people (like myself) off.

Yup.

 

[satx]

Bob Butler did calculations showing the improvements and differences with various setups - different gearing setups, as well as the effects of adding power and of reducing weight.

I have seen you post this on multiple occasions.......you seem to put alot of stock in these "calculations". Who is Bob Butler?

 

[nsxtasy]

I have seen you post this on multiple occasions.......you seem to put alot of stock in these "calculations". Who is Bob Butler?

He's an extremely knowledgeable engineer and NSX owner (and track driver) who wrote a detailed analysis of various gearing and performance options for the NSX. The numbers in his analysis are consistent with published reports of NSX performance.

Find a copy of the back issue of NSX Driver in which it was published and read it for yourself.