Considerations for early NSXs

[Albertan]

Hi. I've recently decided I would like to purchase an NSX. After researching the cars I thought I would like to get an '02 or newer silver car. In fact, I was planning on holding out for an '04 or '05 with under 10,000 miles. But I've come across a nice '92 with 30,000 miles and for half the price I thought it miht be more of a bang for the buck. It's truly amazing how well these cars have held up over the years. I've never seen 30,000 mile cars with zero wear on a leather driver's seat before. Anyways, I understand there were some mechanical issues with the '91 to '93 MYs. I've tried to pinpoint them here but I am not having much luck with the search function. If anyone could shed some light on this for me it would be greatly appreciated. Or even perhaps someone could post a link to the appropriate threads.

Also, could someone please help enlighten me on the cosmetic changes made between the 91-96, 97-01, and 02-05 cars? I found a really nice site for that, but have since lost it. Oh and finally (I promise), can anyone who has owned the 3.0 and 3.2 litre NSXs comment on the difference in performance? I think with what's out there today, I'm going to have to put a CTSC on in short order but I was still curious how much improvements there are on a newer model.

I think that's it. These must be three of the more common questions asked in this forum. Maybe if they get answered really, really well it could be made into a sticky. Thanks again in advance. :tongue:

 

[silversurfer22]

Helpful link straight from HONDA.
http://world.honda.com/NSX/

 

[nsxtasy]

I understand there were some mechanical issues with the '91 to '93 MYs. I've tried to pinpoint them here but I am not having much luck with the search function. If anyone could shed some light on this for me it would be greatly appreciated. Or even perhaps someone could post a link to the appropriate threads.

The most serious problem is the snap ring problem (described here) but that shouldn't be a showstopper, only a way of negotiating a slightly reduced price. Another common problem is the window regulators, described here.

Another serious issue on older NSXs isn't a problem with the car, but with the owners: deferred maintenance. Like any car, the NSX has a maintenance schedule recommended by Honda, with mileage and time intervals. Some people ignore the time intervals, and this is a serious problem. For example, they recommend changing the timing belt every 90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes first. But you have some older cars with timing belts that haven't been replaced for 8, 10, or even 15+ years which is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

could someone please help enlighten me on the cosmetic changes made between the 91-96, 97-01, and 02-05 cars?

You'll find information on changes by year here.

Have you taken a look at the FAQ (answers to Frequently Asked Questions)?

can anyone who has owned the 3.0 and 3.2 litre NSXs comment on the difference in performance?

The 3.2 is four to five tenths of a second faster in 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration (typically 4.9 vs 5.3 and 13.3 vs 13.8).

 

[sahtt]

The 3.2 is four to five tenths of a second faster in 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration (typically 4.9 vs 5.3 and 13.3 vs 13.8).

Which is mostly due to the gearing and exhaust systems and not the actual bump in displacement of the engine. Short gears and a better exhaust system and you'll be at or faster than a standard 3.2 ltr. Plus the early year coupes were the lightest NSX's. You can't lose either way IMO.

As nsxtasy wisely noted, double check to make sure the major maintenance was done in a timely fashion.

 

[Albertan]

Thanks for the replies guys. I just got home from a five hour road trip and I'm going to go through that info now. I just talked to my best friend/engine builder/tuner on the way home (760hp/980tq pump gas Syclone amongst other toys he's built me ) and he suggests the 3.2 since I am thinking about forced induction. I'm sure I'll have a few more questions after I research a bit more. Thanks again.

 

[Tanto2]

I think it comes down to whether you want a targa or not, and whether you are a purist about handling. The Targa's have a softer suspension and are heavier. The old car with the short gears will be about as fast as the later car because of the weight difference. I believe most FI builders would tell you the older car will be a lot easier to FI because it's OBD. If you are going to modify heavily, you should plan on the potential for a new engine at some point. A used 3.0 will be 1/3 the price of the 3.2.

 

[sahtt]

Thanks for the replies guys. I just got home from a five hour road trip and I'm going to go through that info now. I just talked to my best friend/engine builder/tuner on the way home (760hp/980tq pump gas Syclone amongst other toys he's built me ) and he suggests the 3.2 since I am thinking about forced induction. I'm sure I'll have a few more questions after I research a bit more. Thanks again.

His overall experience probably makes him inclined to favor the bigger displacement engine, but in the case of the NSX the 3.0ltr is probably your overall better bet if that is your long term goal. Same applies to an all out n/a application. Both will work great but the 3.0ltr is cheaper if something goes wrong, OBDI, and a little thicker where it counts. Some n/a engine builders only accept the 3.0ltr motor.

 

[Albertan]

Could someone please tell me what the differences in the blocks are? I am working my way through the references but haven't come to that yet I guess. Thanks again. This is great information for someone like myself that isn't terribly familiar with the car.

For the record, I don't plan on going nuts with the car. I am tired of ultra high strung cars that are really little more than unreliable money pits. I would buy a stock car and just supercharge it for a little extra kick. As great as the NSX is, the fact remains that I haven't had a "toy" with less than 500hp for some time now so that's a bit of a concern to me. I don't want to get stomped too bad by a Z06. :tongue:

 

[soloracer951]

Get the early model with the 3.0 and put the Lovefab turbo kit on it. There is a member in Calgary with this combination and it rocks - he walked a new Z06 with it. If I'm not mistaken the later model cars are harder to modify because everything is electronic - including the steering. Which I believe means that the stock ECU can't be switched out - no AEM EMS to keep things under control and thus much more difficult to put forced induction on. Your tuner friend may prefer the 3.2 just because of displacement but no offense to his skills if he doesn't know the NSX he's going to be giving you poor advice.

 

[Albertan]

Thanks for the info. I'll read up on the FI forum. I have two possible routes to go. The first is a low mileage '04 or '05 and leave it stock. The other I guess then is a '91 to '96 and go forced induction...a turbo would be my choice if there is a kit available as that is what I am familiar with. The anal part of me wants to go the first route since I always like to have the best of the best with my cars, meaning in this case the newest and lowest mileage. But the practical part of me that wants to use the car as a daily driver in the Summer would probably be better served by an earlier FI car that I don't have to fret over as much if I get caught in the rain. Decisions decisions. I'll ponder than while I am researching the car more. Does anyone have any links to any SAE papers on the car or any more technical information on the drivetrain? Thanks.

 

[Jetpilot3]

I went the NA1 Coupe route because I plan on tracking the car (yay for coupe). Also paying half the value of a newer NSX appealed to me in order to modify it and put it where I want it.

Let's say you go with the 04 or 05 model - you'll easily be paying north of $60K, then add your Turbo, other parts, etc. then your looking at close to $70K.

Why not get a 91 to 94 coupe then mod it like you want and then if you still prefer the 02 look then get a Downforce Conversion Kit (I am ). Yes you won't have the Targa, slightly improved interior, etc. but you'll have a very affordable NSX.

Remember NSX parts are also expensive. Either or hope you get one!

Jetpilot

 

[Jetpilot3]

Oh just to add these are the mods I have on my car if that helps and I LOVE IT!

Eibach Sport Lowering Springs
JDM NSX-R Short Gears installed by Mark Basch
JDM NSX-R Ring and Pinion 4.23 installed by Mark Basch
Centerforce Clutch w/ Dali/Titon lightened flywheel
Taitec headers
Science of Speed ECU w/EPROM socket
Science of Speed Big Bore throttle body
Science of Speed tuned intake manifold
Walbro HP255 fuel pump
AEM fuel pressure regulator
Injectors cleaned/blueprinted/flow tested at RC Engineering
Powerslot brake rotors

*Coming - Downforce +02 Conversion*

 

[nsxtasy]

The 3.2 is four to five tenths of a second faster in 0-60 and 1/4 mile acceleration (typically 4.9 vs 5.3 and 13.3 vs 13.8).

Which is mostly due to the gearing and exhaust systems and not the actual bump in displacement of the engine.

Not true. Put a six-speed into a '91-96 manual transmission car and the 1/4 mile times only improve by .11 second. Virtually all of the rest of the improvement is due to the 20 extra horsepower of the engine itself, not the freer exhaust.

Yes, you can make drivetrain mods that will gain you 20 horsepower and similar time improvements. But the difference between the stock 3.0 5-speed and the stock 3.2 6-speed is primarily due to the added torque and horsepower of the engine, not the gearing or the exhaust.

Incidentally, the figures above are typical for the 3.0-liter NSX Coupe and the 3.2-liter NSX-T. The difference between the drivetrains is actually more like six or seven tenths of a second; however, that's offset by a disadvantage of a couple of tenths of a second caused by the greater weight of the NSX-T.

 

[goldNSX]

Another serious issue on older NSXs isn't a problem with the car, but with the owners: deferred maintenance. Like any car, the NSX has a maintenance schedule recommended by Honda, with mileage and time intervals. Some people ignore the time intervals, and this is a serious problem. For example, they recommend changing the timing belt every 90K miles or 6 years, whichever comes first. But you have some older cars with timing belts that haven't been replaced for 8, 10, or even 15+ years which is a ticking time bomb waiting to explode.

The more owners the more difficult to get a clear history of the car. The problems described only cost money (ok, in the case of a failed TB BIG money :wink BUT the main problem you can run into with older cars is the higher likelyhood of crashes as they've been longer on the road. That's what I'm inspecting first before I drive it and let my emotions decide whether to buy or buy not. A once heavily crashed but 'repaired' NSX will never drive as it should.

TB change intervals of 8 years is ok if you drive 5k per year IMO. If it's >= 8 years it's a good opportunity to deal on the price and change it immediately.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

Not true. Put a six-speed into a '91-96 manual transmission car and the 1/4 mile times only improve by .11 second. Virtually all of the rest of the improvement is due to the 20 extra horsepower of the engine itself, not the freer exhaust.

Yes, you can make drivetrain mods that will gain you 20 horsepower and similar time improvements. But the difference between the stock 3.0 5-speed and the stock 3.2 6-speed is primarily due to the added torque and horsepower of the engine, not the gearing or the exhaust.

Incidentally, the figures above are typical for the 3.0-liter NSX Coupe and the 3.2-liter NSX-T. The difference between the drivetrains is actually more like six or seven tenths of a second; however, that's offset by a disadvantage of a couple of tenths of a second caused by the greater weight of the NSX-T.

The increased dispacement in the NA2 resulted in increased lower end torque. Gearing change resulted in quicker revs, higher top speed from 168 to 173. Extra gear allowed extra 500rpm from the 6th gear and all the improvements = 5mph. Some of the changes were the use of lighter parts i.e. starter, better headers exhaust etc....

 

[nsxtasy]

The increased dispacement in the NA2 resulted in increased lower end torque. Gearing change resulted in quicker revs, higher top speed from 168 to 173. Extra gear allowed extra 500rpm from the 6th gear and all the improvements = 5mph. Some of the changes were the use of lighter parts i.e. starter, better headers exhaust etc....

We were talking about the rate of acceleration, not the top speed of the car.

Top speed is usually a function of aerodynamics as much as other factors. The top speed of the '97-01 3.2 6-speed NSX was exactly the same 168 mph as of the '91-94 3.0 5-speed NSX. It improved to 175 mph with the aerodynamic improvements in 2002.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

We were talking about the rate of acceleration, not the top speed of the car.

Top speed is usually a function of aerodynamics as much as other factors. The top speed of the '97-01 3.2 6-speed NSX was exactly the same 168 mph as of the '91-94 3.0 5-speed NSX. It improved to 175 mph with the aerodynamic improvements in 2002.

I am sure the top speed change is not just a result of aerodynamics changes but a combination of reduction in weight, changes to gearing and aerodynamics. Back on topic the rate of acceleration did change from 91 to 97 as noted in the following articles.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/magazines/sci1298-f.jpg
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/magazines/rt200106-3.jpg

You can see a half second difference between the quarter mile and 0-60 time acceleration. Having driven both I can sense the faster acceleration in the 6 speed but requires faster gear changes.

I do see your point about putting a 6 speed in a NA1 which will not put as fast times as an 97NA2 because of all the additional improvements with the 97 NA2 . On the same note putting NA2 nose and lights on an NA1 will not increase top speed without all the changes of 02 and a 6spd.

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

 

[nsxtasy]

I am sure the top speed change is not just a result of aerodynamics changes but a combination of reduction in weight, changes to gearing and aerodynamics.

The weight didn't change significantly in '02, and the gearing didn't change at all. Only the aerodynamics did.

Back on topic the rate of acceleration did change from 91 to 97 as noted in the following articles.
.
.
.
You can see a half second difference between the quarter mile and 0-60 time acceleration.

Yes, as I noted above.

Having driven both I can sense the faster acceleration in the 6 speed but requires faster gear changes.

As you note, the faster acceleration is mostly because of the added horsepower, not because of the gearing. You can install a six-speed transmission in a '91 with the 3.0-liter engine (the one that accompanied the five-speed) and 1/4 mile times will improve by 0.11 second. You can install a six-speed transmission and a 3.2-liter engine in a '91 and 1/4 mile times will improve by six times that number. Over 80 percent of the improvement is due to the engine's torque and power, not the gearing. The gearing is only a small part of the actual improvement in acceleration.

However, the added gear of the six-speed is often perceived as being significantly quicker than the actual improvement. That's because, with the extra gear, you are in each gear for a shorter time (to a lower speed). As a result, it takes significantly less time to reach redline, and that gives the perception that the car is a whole lot quicker, beyond the actual small improvement, because the car spends less time in each gear. But because it doesn't reach as high a speed in each gear, the actual time to reach any given road speed isn't as great. For example, with the stock gearing, you reach redline in second gear at 81 mph; with the six-speed, you reach redline at 74 mph. So the actual improvement in acceleration - the time it takes to accelerate from zero to 74 mph - improves by a few tenths of a second*, but what is perceived as acceleration - the time it takes to accelerate from zero to redline in second gear - improves by more than a second. That's why it feels to you like the gearing is a huge improvement, even though the actual differences in the rate of acceleration are quite small.

*The primary advantage of the six-speed is in this range. The five-speed actually accelerates quicker than the six-speed above 70 mph.

I do see your point about putting a 6 speed in a NA1 which will not put as fast times as an 97NA2 because of all the additional improvements with the 97 NA2 . On the same note putting NA2 nose and lights on an NA1 will not increase top speed without all the changes of 02 and a 6spd.

Yup, exactly.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

The weight didn't change significantly in '02, and the gearing didn't change at all. Only the aerodynamics did.

As you note, the faster acceleration is mostly because of the added horsepower, not because of the gearing. You can install a six-speed transmission in a '91 with the 3.0-liter engine (the one that accompanied the five-speed) and 1/4 mile times will improve by 0.11 second. You can install a six-speed transmission and a 3.2-liter engine in a '91 and 1/4 mile times will improve by six times that number. Over 80 percent of the improvement is due to the engine's torque and power, not the gearing. The gearing is only a small part of the actual improvement in acceleration.

However, the added gear of the six-speed is often perceived as being significantly quicker than the actual improvement. That's because, with the extra gear, you are in each gear for a shorter time (to a lower speed). As a result, it takes significantly less time to reach redline, and that gives the perception that the car is a whole lot quicker, beyond the actual small improvement, because the car spends less time in each gear. But because it doesn't reach as high a speed in each gear, the actual time to reach any given road speed isn't as great. For example, with the stock gearing, you reach redline in second gear at 81 mph; with the six-speed, you reach redline at 74 mph. So the actual improvement in acceleration - the time it takes to accelerate from zero to 74 mph - improves by a few tenths of a second*, but what is perceived as acceleration - the time it takes to accelerate from zero to redline in second gear - improves by more than a second. That's why it feels to you like the gearing is a huge improvement, even though the actual differences in the rate of acceleration are quite small.

*The primary advantage of the six-speed is in this range. The five-speed actually accelerates quicker than the six-speed above 70 mph.

Wow thats interesting I did not know second gear only goes to 74 in 6 speed, you would think reaching the redline faster will allow you to utilize vtec extra horse power helping acceleration.

According to this the following changes occured from 91 to 97.

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

95 changed gearing of 2nd gear in Manual Transmission the final gear did not changing so 6th gear in the 1997 NSX results in 6.9% higher vehicle speed than 5th gear in the 1996 model, Larger connecting rod bearings,Larger intake valves 36mm, Different cylinder linings, fiber reinforced (FRM),Different exhaust manifolds, now stainless steel and free breathing.

Interestingly a 95 which is slower than 91-94 reached 100 mph in 12.73 and a 97 12 flat.

http://www.car-videos.net/performance/speed.asp

Zinardi reached 100 in 11.8 seconds
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/magazines/cd0799-c.jpg

 

[goldNSX]

Is there any info on the exact weight of every year? I've read but don't believe if NSX getting more weight over the years. The numbers were 1370 kg in 1991 and 1500 kg in 2002?

3.0 <-> 3.2: Half of the more HP/TQ came with the deletion of the old 'header' design.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

Per 91 service manual, Gross vehicle weight rating for 91 is 1610kg 3550 59.4 front 60.2 rear, ground clearance 5.2inches, not sure about dry weight.

 

[Chendawg]

so if one were to supercharge the engine, is there any consideration whether it's NA1 or NA2?

 

[goldNSX]

Per 91 service manual, Gross vehicle weight rating for 91 is 1610kg 3550 59.4 front 60.2 rear, ground clearance 5.2inches, not sure about dry weight.

Yes, that's fine. But how about the weight changes over the years. There have been additions and deletions like wheels, passanger airbag, different body parts thickness, different brakes, wheels, lights, ABS system, EPS and even the cupholder. Is there an source for the weight per year of NSX?

 

[NSXFRIEND]

Yes, that's fine. But how about the weight changes over the years. There have been additions and deletions like wheels, passanger airbag, different body parts thickness, different brakes, wheels, lights, ABS system, EPS and even the cupholder. Is there an source for the weight per year of NSX?

I gota read my entire NSX collection to find all the weights. Yeh it looks like the 94+ wheels are heaver than 91-93 but other parts are lighter in 97+ models etc.. .

Zinardi looks like dry weight.

http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/magazines/cd9907.htm
http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z54/default.aspx

2970 lbs | 1347.2 kg 0-60 4.8 top 168mph. Quarter mile 13.2

 

[Big_D]

I have driven both and a NA1 car with headers and a good exhaust feels just as quick as the NA2... from a roll. From a dead stop, I think the NA2 is better because of the gear ratios from 1st gear to 2nd.