Advice: Buy a 97 or a 93/94 plus upgrades?

[brutux]

I currently own a 1995 Toyota MR2 hardtop and a 1993 MR2 t-top as my "fun" cars. Given the fact that every kid on the block has one and I'm pushing 40 (read: midlife crises), I'm looking for something different. I've got roughly 50K to spend and checked out a Ferrari 348 - I love the look, handling and feeling of raw power but I can't get past the poor interior, engineering, maintenance costs, reliability issues, etc.

So the NSX looks like the ideal candidate - according to the pricing guide on Prime my budget should allow me to get a stock 1997 in grade A or B condition, or a 93/94 example in A or A+ condition with perhaps enough money left over for a SC and short gear upgrade. Since I live in California, I believe my only SC option is the 50-state legal Comptech model (feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this).

So my question is: As NSX owners, would you rather have a stock 97 (3.2L/290 HP engine, 6 spd M/t, targa) or a 93/94 coupe model with 3.0L engine w/SC and short gears? I understand both the targa and coupes have quite rigid frames (I'm a little worried about frame flex in an aluminum framed targa) - although living in Southern California the targa would be a plus. Any advice/thoughts/opinions are welcome. My time frame on a purchase is within the next 4 to 5 months (the wife is 7 months pregnant - too much going on right now, lol), but I want to make sure I get something I really enjoy as I'm particularly fussy about my cars and intend to keep my next purchase for a while.

Thanks!
Eric

 

[asylum]

California + sun + week end driving : I would say a 95+ targa. If you are more about racing - hard drive, the 93/94 coupe.

 

[paulviriyapan]

Your analysis of what you can get for the money is dead on. You can either get a '97 plus targa (with larger 3.2 motor and 6 spd) or can get an earlier coupe with SC and short gears for about the same price. What you get depends on you want out of your car. If you want the ability to 'cruise' and want a good performance car, get the 97 plus model. The times on these car (targas) are about 4.8-5.0 0-60 and 13.1-13.2 1/4. However, if you want maximum performance, get an early coupe, short gears and the SC and you will be much faster than the early coupes and the later targas. The 3.2 only has 20 more hp over the early coupes, but the big advantage is the gearing. (The 5 speed had second gear going up to 81 mph, which killed straightline acceleration as you had to wait for the engine to get into its powerband.) Short gears fixes the problem, and a SC will definately add more HP than the 3.2. It also be considered that the early coupe (NA1) weighs about 300 lbs less than the targa. (The NA2's with the exception of the Zanardi, all had power steering, and the targa has additional bracing to make it stiffer). For a baseline comparison a coupe 3.2 6 spd will do 0-60 in 4.5 and run 12.9 1/4 mile. With short gears and 70 more horsepower, you can ballpark what your straightline acceleration will be. Low 4's and mid 12's. The only thing you would miss is the targa. I asked a similar question here:http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63702

 

[rickysals]

BE careful when telling someone to get a 97+ coupe. If they then get their heart set on one, they will be waiting a LONG TIME. They are extremely rare. I've seen many more Zanardi's come up for sale, then non-Zanardi 97+ coupes. Mention they exist, but don't recommend this as an only option over a 93 coupe.

$50,000 – hmm... If you want both targa and supercharger, 95 and 96 NSX's have both your pricerange and targa top. You can get a 95-96 in the upper 30's. They aren't quite as sought after I guess as the early coupes, or the later targas. This will leae you the $10,000 extra or so to do the CTSC.

any decision you make, it'll be a good one

 

[djdrock]

I currently own a 1995 Toyota MR2 hardtop and a 1993 MR2 t-top as my "fun" cars.

Another MR2 fanatic huh? I have a 93 NA, owned a Spyder and 91 as well. Let me tell you, these are great cars, but once you get an NSX, you will be glad you did.

A 95 MR2 is as rare of a car as you will find these days. Are you going to sell it?

Good luck!:wink:

 

[Wheelman]

I had a 91 MR2 hardtop then a 91 MR2 turbo T-top before and let me tell you the NSX is on a different dimension. I went with the 1997 due to the 3.2 L engine, 6speed and targa. The head gasket is more durable on the 97+ up, The brakes are bigger, the traction control is tweaked..differences here and there that definitely improve an already awesome automobile. You will be happy either way but can always put a SC on the 97:wink: .


It is always fun to ask a girl if she wants to drive around topless:tongue: .

 

[Scin]

I think a lot of it will come down to how much do you want a targa? My budget allowed for an early coupe or an early targa (95-96). I went with a 94 coupe because I plan on tracking the car frequently and wanted the better performance (this is obviously offset in the 97+ by the 3.2 and better gearing).

I would suggest that you test drive or go for a ride in both, you may be perfectly happy with the performance of the 3.2 on a later targa. If at some point you decided you wanted to SC or do performance mods you may find that the 3.2 has a lot fewer options.

 

[brutux]

Thanks for all the great "food for thought." As a practical consideration I probably wouldn't take the car to the track - so it probably makes sense for me to get a 97+ targa for the most driving enjoyment now, and I can always add a SC at a later date if track use becomes something I want to do.

A 95 MR2 is as rare of a car as you will find these days. Are you going to sell it?

Less than 200 95 MR2's made it to the US, and of those I believe only 8 of them were hardtops. That probably makes it about as rare as a 97+ NSX coupe with the black painted top factory option. But I will probably wind up selling both my MR2's when I get an NSX - I can't imagine having a garage full of two seaters with a new baby in the house!

I really appreciate all the comments guys, and I look forward to meeting Prime members in the San Diego area when I get closer to making my purchase. This board is a fantastic resource!

Eric

 

[paulviriyapan]

BE careful when telling someone to get a 97+ coupe. If they then get their heart set on one, they will be waiting a LONG TIME. They are extremely rare. I've seen many more Zanardi's come up for sale, then non-Zanardi 97+ coupes. Mention they exist, but don't recommend this as an only option over a 93 coupe.

Whoops! I just realized I made some typos on my original post. I meant to say 97+ Targa. I've edited it now. For the sake of clarity as to what you should be looking for= the 97+ TARGA will do 0-60 in about 4.8-5.0, and low 13's for the 1/4. The early coupe (without SC and short gears) is SLOWER than the Targas with the bigger engine and 6 spd. What is the fastest and best handling of the breed is 97+ coupe, which is lighter than the targa. Yes for the price of a 97+ Targa, you can get an early coupe, add SC and short gears and you will be much faster than the 97+ targa. But the early models won't have the targa top. You could do that with a 95-96, but with the targa top it is a little more pricier than an early coupe and I don't know if you will see much of a price savings compared to just buying a '97 plus coupe to begin with. As a 'just enjoy it because I don't really want to mod my car that much' toy the 97+ seems like it is the best option for you.

 

[djdrock]

Less than 200 95 MR2's made it to the US, and of those I believe only 8 of them were hardtops. That probably makes it about as rare as a 97+ NSX coupe with the black painted top factory option. But I will probably wind up selling both my MR2's when I get an NSX - I can't imagine having a garage full of two seaters with a new baby in the house!

Wow, yes, rare indeed. Tell me more about it if you would...turbo, color, mileage etc...? And, apx. how much are you going to sell it for? :biggrin:

I bought my 93 over 3 years ago from a one owner with just 12,000 miles, never wrecked, original everything. I had to fly to the east coast to get it, but "stole" it for $8000 It has been my daily driver since.

 

[brutux]

Wow, yes, rare indeed. Tell me more about it if you would...turbo, color, mileage etc...?

I'd be glad to - I'll email you or PM before I get a reputation here for turning NSX threads into MR2 threads! That's an amazing price on your 93 BTW - that would be a tough deal to beat.

 

[alpinesilver19]

hey brut, have you considered a 93-98 single turbo supra? i live in socal and mine is for sale. the reason i say this is because most people who have responded to me about my car are middle aged men in their mid life crisis lol. if you want a fun car you should come check mine out and test drive it. it's pushing 420 rwhp on 91 octane. put 100 octane and your gonna push 450 rwhp. put the boost up and you'll reach 520 rwhp reliably. you can practically take on anything on the road, except maybe other supras pushing 700 or more hp. that's the standard nowadays lol. just giving you something to think about.

 

[alpinesilver19]

oh yeah i forgot to mention that it's a targa top also =).

 

[EIFFEL]

hey brut, have you considered a 93-98 single turbo supra? i live in socal and mine is for sale. the reason i say this is because most people who have responded to me about my car are middle aged men in their mid life crisis lol. if you want a fun car you should come check mine out and test drive it. it's pushing 420 rwhp on 91 octane. put 100 octane and your gonna push 450 rwhp. put the boost up and you'll reach 520 rwhp reliably. you can practically take on anything on the road, except maybe other supras pushing 700 or more hp. that's the standard nowadays lol. just giving you something to think about.

Make sure you check mine too, It's 96 civic with ITR motor, turbo/intercooled. lay down 340 whp at the wheel. Fast and furious! :biggrin: Oh! You want a NSX:wink: not a civic or SUPRA. My bad.:redface:
Buy the 97+ it is more user friendly( wife will enjoy it more) I wish I had 2 NSX, one for the track [91 NSX] and 02+ for cruise.:smile:

 

[blavenia]

No difficulty in this decision at all. Buy the 97 Targa. I just got my 95 Targa after looking at a 93 coupe, and man would I have been devastated if I had bought the coupe. The 97 will retain its value very well, also. I could not find one I could afford, so I stuck with the 95, and was lucky to find one in MINT condition.

Whatever you do, drive a 97 or newer stock first, then decide. You may not want the SC at all. The cars are darn close to perfect the way they come. Everyone thinks they need more power until the drive the car. At least that's come to be my experience in personal driving as well as the opinions of others whom I've allowed to samply my 95.

B

 

[khappucino]

For a baseline comparison a coupe 3.2 6 spd will do 0-60 in 4.5 and run 12.9 1/4 mile.[\quote]

actually i believe this 12.9 1/4 quoted is from the Magical Yellow NSX. I think this car had quite a bit more horsepower than standard NA2's. I don't know of many NA2 Targa's that can run a standing 1/4 mile in 12.9. If it was a 3.2 Coupe with a +20 lucky horsepower maybe?

If you MUST have an open top, then you might consider a 97+.
If the open top is not a HUGE issue, it would be much more efficient to get a 91-94 + Comptech SC, i dont think you need the short gears because the increased torque due to the SC makes up for the big 1st-2nd gear gap.
I think most people with the Comptech SC would tell you that the stock gearing works out better with their increased hp? I might be wrong though :biggrin:

 

[matteni]

With a child - you may want to again look at a very early coupe. I have read there are places that can deactivate your airbag but I am not sure I want someone working on an airbag and adding wiring/etc in my NSX. I have an early model coupe with I/H/E + short gears + HID + Dali hot chip + bilstein/eibach suspension + 2 piece rotors/hawk pads + stock 16/17 yokos and wouldn't trade the ride or performance of my car for a 97+ targa and consider it on par with a 97+ coupe. Of course I would like a newer NSX but I don't think you have to add a supercharger to get similar performance from an early coupe.

 

[SugrueNSX]

If I had 50k to spend on an NSX I would be looking at trying to find a Zanardi
That way you get the six speed and the 3.2 and the stiffness of a coup and no power steering. They are a bit hard to find but if you can get one I think it will hold it’s price well over the years.


Regards,

Patrick

 

[MJK]

91-94 +SC +6speed? Just like a Zanardi with a few minor mods, OBD1 and you don't have to get red.

 

[sahtt]

I'd go for a 97+ 6-speed, as in my opinion is a more mature and well rounded car. Resale will also be much stronger, and it never hurts to have one a few years newer as far as maint. goes.

I also have a soft spot for MR2's. I almost bought a turbo a couple years ago, but the circumstances just wouldn't allow me to pull the trigger. Dragged my significant other on a 4 hour one way road trip to test drive it as well. Ended up spending the money on a s2000 instead, for better or worse.

 

[my1stnsx]

I think if you want to go for performances, I would rather have the Zanardi plus its newer..but if you want a car thats just for fun in the sun you might as well go for the 97 and up..so that way you can have the 6 speed and the 3.2 engine. I have a 92 and I thinking about upgrading to the 97 and up in about 2 years or so but if i decide to keep mine than im gonna go for the sos 3.8 engine build so that way I can have a great perfornance car thats NA.

 

[brutux]

The Zanardi would be an interesting choice; from the feedback I've received here I'm thinking I should get a 97+ example whether a T, coupe or Zanardi. I'll be in Phoenix in a couple of weeks so I'll have to drop by SoS and see if their Zanardi is still for sale - although it looks like a sale on that car is imminent.

Supra's, Civic's - thanks but no thanks! Not that there is anything wrong with them... just not my thing.

 

[paulviriyapan]

For a baseline comparison a coupe 3.2 6 spd will do 0-60 in 4.5 and run 12.9 1/4 mile.[\quote]

actually i believe this 12.9 1/4 quoted is from the Magical Yellow NSX. I think this car had quite a bit more horsepower than standard NA2's. I don't know of many NA2 Targa's that can run a standing 1/4 mile in 12.9. If it was a 3.2 Coupe with a +20 lucky horsepower maybe?

It's from Car and Driver, which tested two different coupes at this number. 2001 C&D television, and 1998 article "0-150-0" (I have a copy if you'd like to see it). For reference:
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

 

[khappucino]

It's from Car and Driver, which tested two different coupes at this number. 2001 C&D television, and 1998 article "0-150-0" (I have a copy if you'd like to see it). For reference:
http://www.albeedigital.com/supercoupe/articles/0-60times.html

my bad, i missed the part where you said it was a coupe, for some reason i thought that was for the Targa.

i guess ive always been kind of skeptical about this particular time quote for 1/4 mile.
it seems that a 97 coupe that weighs 3050 + (driver ~ 150 lbs) doing a standing 1/4 mile in 12.9 seconds would need a wheel horsepower of 275 at a minimum based on rough calculation (best case scenario) maybe im just crazy but unless the car has 310-320 bhp (thus my magic +20 hp) at the fly wheel i dont see how they achieved this, but i digress :biggrin:

 

[paulviriyapan]

i guess ive always been kind of skeptical about this particular time quote for 1/4 mile.
it seems that a 97 coupe that weighs 3050 + (driver ~ 150 lbs) doing a standing 1/4 mile in 12.9 seconds would need a wheel horsepower of 275 at a minimum based on rough calculation (best case scenario) maybe im just crazy but unless the car has 310-320 bhp (thus my magic +20 hp) at the fly wheel i dont see how they achieved this, but i digress :biggrin:

Oh ye of little faith :biggrin: ---> http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39059