Early NSX vs. Late NSX
- Thread starter robl45
- Start date
The problem with Lambo doors is that they look silly unless they are on a Lambo. :| Plus, I'm not a big fan of any mod that ADDS weight to the car. :|
robl45 said:
Average mileage for a 97 should be less than 50,000 miles so yes, it is high. The key is the maintenance. Everything should be done with complete records. As long as the complete 90K service has been performed and all other scheduled maintenance done on time I see no problem--just factor the mileage into the price.
According to the FAQ pricing chart a well-maintained 97 with 100K miles falls into the C/D category and should sell for between $40,000-$45,000. A 97 NSX with 100K miles and in less than pristine condition could sell as low as $30,000-$35,000.
Again, for resale just factor in the mileage. Extrapolating the data one could assume in five years a 97 with 150K miles could be worth as much as $30-$35K taking the current price of a 1992 and adding $5,000 for the more desirable 6-speed and 3.2L. If you got a nice deal on the 97 purchase for $40K and sold high at 35K I'd say you did very very well.
ryan1926 said:
ediddynsx said:
That cost money, tunning session for AEM usually is not cheap. I highly recommend saving two different tuned settings on the AEM from the start. This way you don't have to pay again when its time.ediddynsx said:
The price tag is hard to swallow, approximately $20k if you do it right with supporting mods, hardcore stuff. I am sure JM is hooking you up.
Quite frankly if I need to open up the motor and spend $20k+. I really can't think of any reason for me to turn down basic FX turbo 450rwhp/350rwtq. I want the quickest spooling turbo set up possible tailored to my liking and driving habbit. Just enough top end, while giving a ton more tq early down low. PT52 should do the job. I better stop thinking about it before it is too late.
As for reliability, the word from king of FI
What were you all arguing for? I said the NA2 will always be ahead mod for mod and you all just proved my point with graphs n crap lol. Um thanks.
And another reason why I don't like the 5 speed is because of what some of you mentioned. When I upshift I fall forward due to slowing down it's horrible and I can't stand it. I can't stand when I shift slightly slower that my tach falls back under 4,000 rpm's. It's no wonder poeple like the 6 speed better I mean common. Sensation of speed? Thats suppose to be a good thing.
Also, thanks for the 300rwp graph lol there you go NSXGSM. And by bolt-ons I mean stage 3 from SOS. They claim 52hp gain and includes Cams. I don't know I always considered cams a bolt on. Include a head build and your at 300 easy I'm sure. It's not that there are so few it's that not a lot of poeple who buy early models can afford to buy all these parts in the first place. People who buy later models obviously don't complain about the power as much. IMO 15rwp is a lot infact it's across the entire band being that it's a larger engine therefore if I had that I would not experience the slowing down affect when upshifting I hate that ahhh.
And another reason why I don't like the 5 speed is because of what some of you mentioned. When I upshift I fall forward due to slowing down it's horrible and I can't stand it. I can't stand when I shift slightly slower that my tach falls back under 4,000 rpm's. It's no wonder poeple like the 6 speed better I mean common. Sensation of speed? Thats suppose to be a good thing.
Also, thanks for the 300rwp graph lol there you go NSXGSM. And by bolt-ons I mean stage 3 from SOS. They claim 52hp gain and includes Cams. I don't know I always considered cams a bolt on. Include a head build and your at 300 easy I'm sure. It's not that there are so few it's that not a lot of poeple who buy early models can afford to buy all these parts in the first place. People who buy later models obviously don't complain about the power as much. IMO 15rwp is a lot infact it's across the entire band being that it's a larger engine therefore if I had that I would not experience the slowing down affect when upshifting I hate that ahhh.
nsxsupra said:You do know that some member spend $300k to mod an NA1
Wow, I didn't know that the Hennessey NSX was available yet :biggrin: :wink:
ediddynsx said:
NSSEX91 said:
The 2002+ motors are much stronger than 97-01 motors which I failed to mention. If you're using 290 BHP as a figure for 02+ motors than that is most likely wrong.
Vance's 03 NSX barely cracked 300 RWHP and would not be much faster, if at all faster than the lowest boost 91 CTSC setup, period. You claimed more than one person has dynoed these numbers. I don't see anyone claiming that other than Vance.
300 RWHP from bolt-ons on ANY NSX is extremely, extremely rare. It's not going to happen with a 98. Period. If you believe you will beat a CTSC 91 NSX with a lightly modded 98, even with cams, you are sorely mistaken.
You think 15 RWHP is a lot? I pointed out how my lightly modded 3.0L pulls only 6 less HP than a similarly modded 02 3.2L (with possibly more than 290 BHP). My 3.0L gained 14 RWHP on that 02 3.2L (Dyno model notwithstanding).
You're arguing against known facts. A large part of the 20HP gain on 97-01 3.2L motors is an improved header design. Yes, the 3.2L will always produce more power but not from bolt-ons. That's where the 3.0L makes up ground. And no, cams don't count as bolt-on.
What is the difference in the 02+ motor over the 97-01?
The FAQ here doesn't list anything as changed in the 02 engine.
The FAQ here doesn't list anything as changed in the 02 engine.
NSXGMS said:ediddynsx said:
reliablility is not an issue because the engine was designed very carefully over many years with the help of AEM. Jon and AEM spent a lot of money on engineering fees to get it right. But your right it is cheaper to slap on ctsc on. As I have stated if you have any questions you can talk to Jon about the n/a route, sc route or turbo route. He has installed many ctsc's, turbos, and n/a's. :smile: Jon Martin can be reached at 562.402.5281...cerritos acura.
I need to go pick up my car from him today too. :biggrin:
How's your chargers doing? :tongue:
One day we will have a football team.
Just to be clear with this, a properly tuned EMS should have no problem passing a sniffer test, but it will FAIL when the testor goes to plug into it.
If you need to run an EMS and get a plug in emmisions done, you have a few choices:
1) Find a friend who is a testor;
2) Find a very "expensive" testor;
3) Unplug your EMS and swap your injectors (if you had them) for the test (take it easy on the drive to and from if your high boost) and run stock computer.
If you need to run an EMS and get a plug in emmisions done, you have a few choices:
1) Find a friend who is a testor;
2) Find a very "expensive" testor;
3) Unplug your EMS and swap your injectors (if you had them) for the test (take it easy on the drive to and from if your high boost) and run stock computer.
ediddynsx said:
ediddynsx said:NSXGMS said:reliablility is not an issue because the engine was designed very carefully over many years with the help of AEM. Jon and AEM spent a lot of money on engineering fees to get it right. But your right it is cheaper to slap on ctsc on. As I have stated if you have any questions you can talk to Jon about the n/a route, sc route or turbo route. He has installed many ctsc's, turbos, and n/a's. :smile: Jon Martin can be reached at 562.402.5281...cerritos acura.
I need to go pick up my car from him today too. :biggrin:
How's your chargers doing? :tongue:
One day we will have a football team.
With all due respect there's no way to comment on reliability when a product hasn't been on the market very long. We know nothing about how it will hold up and for how long and what are the weak links in the system, if any.
I'm sure it was designed with all the care in the world and I wouldn't be opposed to even purchasing one now but I would do so with the understanding that we know nothing about its track record. Knowing that I would not venture far from SOS or JM if I were to do so.
I'm not saying CT is better in any way or safer but it has demonstrated a certain degree of reliablilty and safety over a considerable time period with hundreds and hundreds of examples worldwide.
Apart from that, Chargers are doing great. Really good since Oakland lost! :tongue: SD fans are really great actually and the Chargers look real strong. Playoffs should be a done deal!
hofffam said:
It's not a fact but there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that 02+ motors rate higher than the 290 BHP claimed by Honda. It's been suggested that 02+ NSX use the same balanced, blueprinted motor found in the NSX-R. This motor was also rated at 290 BHP but many claim it is considerably higher than that.
IMO the only way Vance could be capable of achieving 300+ RWHP in his 03 using bolt-ons is if his motor was baselined at around 270 RWHP or ~307 BHP before mods. That's 17 HP more than Honda claims.
NSXGMS,
With your logic you are saying that the bigger displacement engine will not respond as well to mods as the smaller one. I understand the header issue but mod for mod you will always be .2 litres ahead.
And remember it's not peak HP but the torque/power curv across the entire range that makes the big difference. I can care less about your 7,000 rpm 6 hp difference because that does not make a difference in the real world with traffic laws and speed limits but cruising around town in 2nd under 4,000 rpm's or upshifting to second in the 1/8 is what matters to most poeple.
For every dyno graph you show with an NA1 being close to an NA2 I'm sure there is another NA2 guy showing his numbers with the opposite affect.
And just because one guy spent 300,000 on his NA1 out of hundreds of thousonds of NSX owners I don't think your really proving a point there buddy so
1/4 mile stats tell the tale. 91 NSX 13.9-14.0 and 3.2 coupes 12.9-13.3 lol. Let's see if your headers can make up the difference. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills talking to you guy's.
With your logic you are saying that the bigger displacement engine will not respond as well to mods as the smaller one. I understand the header issue but mod for mod you will always be .2 litres ahead.
And remember it's not peak HP but the torque/power curv across the entire range that makes the big difference. I can care less about your 7,000 rpm 6 hp difference because that does not make a difference in the real world with traffic laws and speed limits but cruising around town in 2nd under 4,000 rpm's or upshifting to second in the 1/8 is what matters to most poeple.
For every dyno graph you show with an NA1 being close to an NA2 I'm sure there is another NA2 guy showing his numbers with the opposite affect.
And just because one guy spent 300,000 on his NA1 out of hundreds of thousonds of NSX owners I don't think your really proving a point there buddy so
1/4 mile stats tell the tale. 91 NSX 13.9-14.0 and 3.2 coupes 12.9-13.3 lol. Let's see if your headers can make up the difference. Sometimes I feel like I'm taking crazy pills talking to you guy's.
NSSEX91 said:
NSSEX91 said:
Your privious comment gave me an impression that you think NA1 owners can't afford to buy NA stage 1, 2 or 3 parts. Maybe you can't afford it, but that does not mean other can't. Looking at the NSX that you have hard time selling. It is not every well kept, a car say a lot about the owner. http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78212
The NA stage 3 simply gain very little for the money. For that amount of money you can going with other options. There are a ton of NA1 owner who have spent the money else where.
You need to do stage 1: exhaust, intake, filter
Stage 2: Header, TB, ECU
Stage 3: Cam shaft, valve spring, titanium retainers.
Yes, you gain 52 flywheel hp, but big chunk of that is from header and exhaust. After labor, you figure around $8k, and you will still most likely have less than 300rwhp unless you add AEM EMS then you might get close to 300rwhp. If you are going to spend this money, get short gears or fix your car man. Poor car.
You forgot to mention about the 130lb~150 weight gain on most NA2, the .2L difference very much offset the weight difference. Both actual performance gain and the sensation is from the 6spd. Losing that 130~150lbs is way harder than gaining 20rwhp.
The 1/4 mile stat you got is incorrect. You took the lowest time published for NA1.NSSEX91 said:
The correct time is 13.54sec~13.9. NA2 12.9~13.5sec according to faq
Header alone will not be enough to make up the difference. HP difference most likely, gearing disadvantage no. Add the 6spd + header then it will be about the same.
Last edited:
NSSEX91 said:
"You will always be ahead", yes, you will but not by much and certainly NOT mod-for-mod when it comes to bolt-ons. As I showed I made up 14 HP so the C32 will always be about 6 HP ahead. You're the one who noted how much you thought 15 HP was...now you change your tune and say it's nothing.
I said the larger displacement C32 will not respond to BOLT-ONS the same way a C30 will. The C30 will gain about 10-15 HP on the C32 once the same bolt-ons are installed. A C32 only has a 20HP advantage to start, most of which is attributable to better header design.
NSSEX91 said:
Oh really? This is an ignorant and speculative assumption. Evidence? Dynos? Just point out any threads. I'm waiting. Opposite effect? Are you kidding? That's just not the way it works, bud.
I'm not sure you understand the difference between an exception and a rule. Once and for all you are arguing against known facts.
A C32 97-01 motor will struggle to reach 275 RWHP with any kind of bolt-on combo you throw on. A C30 is fully capable of reaching 265-270 RWHP with the same bolt-ons. Not much difference. Ahead? Yes. But the point is the C32's increased power is due mostly to the better headers. You're structuring your argument as if the extra .2L alone results in 20 more HP and that's just not true. Look at the S2000. The new 2.2L produces the same HP as the 2.0 but it's more efficient. Displacement isn't always everything.
And Vance's Dyno chart is not really applicable. You made the ludicrous assumption that a 91 CTSC NSX would be slower than a lightly modded 98. Vance's 03 C32 motor is *probably* more powerful out of the box than that same 98 C32. And you heard how Vance's car was not at all faster than a NA1 CTSC. Please do not use his exceptional unique results as the rule.
NSSEX91 said:
Are these stats for bolt-on modded NSXs? Also, the different gearing in the two cars plays a big part in those 1/4 mile times.
NSXGMS said:
I personally do not think the 02+ are any stronger at all. The only magazine to test one that I know of was Road and Track and the NSX's numbers were about the same as any other NA2 NSX.
As for underrating it, maybe so, but why would they rerate the motor at 290HP for the new SAE standards? (which they did on their website)
For me, If i were only goign to do light bolt ons, the 97 is the way to go.
For a highly modded car, the 91-94 are best because they can use the AEM without the adapter.
Let me make a few points:
1) Drawing any conclusions by comparing one car one day on one dyno against a different car on a different day on a different dyno is just inaccurate. Dyno's themselves vary by as much as 10-15% on their readings. Even less accurate are 1/4 mile time comparisons.
2) Anyone can talk about reliability, but there is only one really reliable engine. A stock engine. After that, so far there is only one company with a proven track record and that is Comptech. Talking about reliability in any other design requires speculation. Changing displacement of an engine is not a small "almost stock" undertaking. You may as well be building a new engine. If you want it to be street legal, Comptech is your only choice.
3) The most important thing is something no one yet knows anything about, your budget. A 35K budget and a 350K budget would yield totally different answers to this question of which year NSX to buy and mod. We can talk forever, but you really won't get any useful replies.
From reading the rest of your posts, I am going to make certain assumptions. Limited budget overall, daily driven car, you have never owned an NSX and are coming off a Corvette trying to "fix" what you see as weaknesses of the NSX and doing some research beforehand. I did the same thing.
If you want to build a car like Danny Young's 677 HP NSX, buying the cleanest car may not make that much sense as you will radically be transforming the car. That's not a daily driver. That's a project car.
From reading your posts, my suggestion to you start with the best stock car you can buy. If you can afford an 02+, get that. If you drop one notch, get a 97+. Down from that, get the cleanest 91-up.
Don't build a car in your head until you have owned it, driven it, and decided with time what the right mods are. I can guarantee you... and I am speaking from personal experience, that you will be shocked how different the car is than what you THINK it is.
1) Drawing any conclusions by comparing one car one day on one dyno against a different car on a different day on a different dyno is just inaccurate. Dyno's themselves vary by as much as 10-15% on their readings. Even less accurate are 1/4 mile time comparisons.
2) Anyone can talk about reliability, but there is only one really reliable engine. A stock engine. After that, so far there is only one company with a proven track record and that is Comptech. Talking about reliability in any other design requires speculation. Changing displacement of an engine is not a small "almost stock" undertaking. You may as well be building a new engine. If you want it to be street legal, Comptech is your only choice.
3) The most important thing is something no one yet knows anything about, your budget. A 35K budget and a 350K budget would yield totally different answers to this question of which year NSX to buy and mod. We can talk forever, but you really won't get any useful replies.
From reading the rest of your posts, I am going to make certain assumptions. Limited budget overall, daily driven car, you have never owned an NSX and are coming off a Corvette trying to "fix" what you see as weaknesses of the NSX and doing some research beforehand. I did the same thing.
If you want to build a car like Danny Young's 677 HP NSX, buying the cleanest car may not make that much sense as you will radically be transforming the car. That's not a daily driver. That's a project car.
From reading your posts, my suggestion to you start with the best stock car you can buy. If you can afford an 02+, get that. If you drop one notch, get a 97+. Down from that, get the cleanest 91-up.
Don't build a car in your head until you have owned it, driven it, and decided with time what the right mods are. I can guarantee you... and I am speaking from personal experience, that you will be shocked how different the car is than what you THINK it is.
Similar threads
