I am considering buying a new NSX (currently have a '91). I went to look at them and noticed two unsightly plugs in the front bumper. The highly knowledgeable sales staff could not tell me why they were there. Does anyone know? It really isn't very appealling for $90M.
new 2002 models
- Thread starter ZENSX
- Start date
No car is worth $90M
Originally posted by 8000RPM:
No car is worth $90M
I'm afraid that everything is relative, is a Chevy, or Ford worth $30M I don't think so but that's what they sell for.
I work for a Ford dealership which is next to a Chevy and Dodge dealership and have NEVER seen any of them carry a new or used car on their lot for $30M, let along $90M.
Maybe $30K
------------------
ALL NSX
92 RED/BLACK 5-SPEED
- Joined
- 10 April 2001
- Messages
- 662
$30k maybe.
$30M?
Oh, and like I said, no car is worth $90M
Originally posted by 92NSX:
I work for a Ford dealership which is next to a Chevy and Dodge dealership and have NEVER seen any of them carry a new or used car on their lot for $30M, let along $90M.
Maybe $30K
You are truly entitled to your opinion, I'll wave to you as I go by!
I think he meant $90M in Japanese Yen.
Thanks for the support!
You really can't complain about the prices on these cars.
I guess a McLaren for $1.2mil would be out of the question also!
You really can't complain about the prices on these cars.
I guess a McLaren for $1.2mil would be out of the question also!
- Joined
- 4 October 2002
- Messages
- 569
The "M" in 90M is the notation used by the Romans to illustrate a multiple of 1000. The English notation is "K".
Some Italians I know still use M to specify 1000x
Some Italians I know still use M to specify 1000x
K is actually from the Greek, kilo.
M is sometimes used to denote thousands, and sometimes used to denote millions.
In some cases, you will see the notation MM to denote millions, to avoid ambiguity.
M,K, both are acceptable. I really would like to know why they put two plug looking things in the new NSX front bumpers.
In Greek:
K = kilo = 1'000 (in computer = 1024)
M = Mega = 1'000'000 (in computer = K x K = 1024 x 1024 = 1048576)
In Italian:
M? I never saw this but M could be both MILLE (1000) or MILIONE (1'000'000)
K = kilo = 1'000 (in computer = 1024)
M = Mega = 1'000'000 (in computer = K x K = 1024 x 1024 = 1048576)
In Italian:
M? I never saw this but M could be both MILLE (1000) or MILIONE (1'000'000)
In what country?
The below are the commonly accepted prefixes based on my experience:
k = kilo = 1 x 10^3
m = mega = 1 x 10^6
g = giga = 1 x 10^9
t = tera = 1 x 10^12
p = peta = 1 x 10^15
e = exa = 1 x 10^18
Sorry for beating this one to death.
Now back to the original question.
[This message has been edited by 8000RPM (edited 23 October 2002).]
They are just to cover the access openings to the bolts that hold the bumper to the body. Before, the bolts were behind the turn signal assembly on each side. But now since '02 the turn signals are in the headlights so Acura had to do something to allow access to these bolts. Hope this helps.
------------------
'00 NSX-T, silverstone/blk, #252
Who likes the visible headlights of the current model better than the older "pop ups" ? (Or am *I* the only one ?)
You're the only one.
However, I like having HID headlights.
However, I like having HID headlights.
Ah well, that's OK. One of the reasons I like the NSX so much is (in my estimation) if you drive around 100 miles or so you'll see (roughly) 20 Corvettes, a dozen or so Porsches of all different flavors, but nary a single NSX. (grin)
I was at an Acura dealer a week ago and noticed the NSX on the floor had 18" rims all around and Potenza S02 (?) tires.
I had a '98 with 17" in front. One of the greatest things about the NSX is it's use as a daily driver and relatively very low maintenance costs (compared to other "exotics") EXCEPT for those damn tires (at least back then).
Talk about "sticker shock" After 4K miles I need $1,000 worth of tires ??? Holy shit. 12K miles a year, $3,000 in tires ??? (and only about $60 in oil changes (LOL))
How are these new S02's on the '02 NSX ? Any other choices, recognizing of course that longer wearing tires usually give less than ultimate performance. frankly, I don't drive my cars all that fast and almost never take it to "the limit". I'd readily give up the ultimate performance for better (?) ride and (considerably ?) less cost.
I was at an Acura dealer a week ago and noticed the NSX on the floor had 18" rims all around and Potenza S02 (?) tires.
I had a '98 with 17" in front. One of the greatest things about the NSX is it's use as a daily driver and relatively very low maintenance costs (compared to other "exotics") EXCEPT for those damn tires (at least back then).
Talk about "sticker shock" After 4K miles I need $1,000 worth of tires ??? Holy shit. 12K miles a year, $3,000 in tires ??? (and only about $60 in oil changes (LOL))
How are these new S02's on the '02 NSX ? Any other choices, recognizing of course that longer wearing tires usually give less than ultimate performance. frankly, I don't drive my cars all that fast and almost never take it to "the limit". I'd readily give up the ultimate performance for better (?) ride and (considerably ?) less cost.
S02 are quite old Bridegstone, at least 3-4 years old. Now it is very difficult to find them since more than one year ago Bridgestone offered the S03. I have to say that both these models are pretty good (among the best) aftermarket tires!
You should only be replacing the rear tires that frequently, not the front tires. And even stock rear tires should last longer than 4K miles, unless you're driving a lot of those miles on a racetrack.
Also, you got larger aftermarket wheels that required more expensive tires. The stock tires don't cost that much. You might want to go back to using the stock wheels and tires.
If you are reporting your tire costs accurately, they are substantially more than normal. Normal tire costs on a '97+ NSX every 30K miles, using current Tire Rack prices for the Bridgestone RE010 OEM tires, are five sets of rears ($1990) and two sets of fronts ($676). So if you drive 12K miles a year, that's $1066 per year in tires, not $3000.
They could have been S-03's but i'm fairly sure they were 18 inchers although now i look on the Acura website and the standard wheels are still 16 front, 17 rear.
I could have sworn the '02 I saw on the floor had 18 inchers all around (and they were the "normal" NSX wheels). I'll have to go back.
Wouldn't handling be affected with new rears and semi-worn fronts (and later on perhaps mostly worn rears and new fronts) ?
Shouldn't all four corners be re-shoed at the same time or is that not necessary ?
I could have sworn the '02 I saw on the floor had 18 inchers all around (and they were the "normal" NSX wheels). I'll have to go back.
Wouldn't handling be affected with new rears and semi-worn fronts (and later on perhaps mostly worn rears and new fronts) ?
Shouldn't all four corners be re-shoed at the same time or is that not necessary ?
The 2002 NSX comes from the factory with 17" wheels front and rear, with Bridgestone Potenza RE040 tires. Acura's website has not been updated for the 2002 specs and is still showing the specs from 2001, when it came with 16" wheels in front.
The stock 17" wheels and tires on the 2002 NSX look like this:
except that cars sold in North America have the Acura logo on the center caps, not the Honda logo shown here.
That is not necessary. It is generally recommended that the same type (brand and model) tire be used front and rear, but the amount of tread depth can vary. I generally go through 2-3 sets of rear tires for each set of front tires.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 29 October 2002).]
I use Z rated Dunlops and get approx. 15,000 miles on the rears and almost twenty on the fronts. I originally had the Yokohomas and I can't really tell the difference except for the longer wear cycle.
Similar threads
