Don't get an NSX, very bad engine, only a 5 speed tranny and you need will need 6 to do 65mph!
get a boxster
get a boxster
jaytip nsx said:I have never heard that said of the NSX engine before I'ts always been considered an excellent engine,especially the noise :biggrin:
sushi said:I dont particularly like the engine because it is low on torque...
sushi said:But the engine does not make the car....
CerberusM5 said:Personally, I think it almost does. The engine is definitely the centerpiece of most sporting cars. The Corvette, SRTs, M Series, AMG and many other cars all gravitate towards the engine as the focal point.
Granted, it doesn't make the car, but it sure is the most important ingredient to me.
Da Hapa said:Forget what the spec sheet says about torque. Honda did a fantastic job of engineering this car and both the 3.0 and hte 3.2L motors have fantastic torque curves that are big and flat. Combine that with excellent gearing and you're never really lacking in torque. Never.
sushi said:Unfortunately '97's are much more difficult to find, and the price for 97+ seems quite a bit higher than 93-95 :-(
At this point my heart tells me NSX NSX NSX NSX, and yes i am just trying to nit-pick, but thats what i always do before i make the plunge ;-)
- Repairs are very expensive...
sushi said:Unfortunately i haven't gotten to drive either car :-(
My budget is about 30k, i'm hoping to spend 25-30k on the car... for that price i should get a decent 93 or a 2000 boxster s... i do like the idea of a newer car, but i want the nsx more ;-)
sushi said:Thank you all for your responses... Here is a bit more background on why I'm looking into both these cars... Although my C5 is a sweet car, and having been supercharged it is super fast, while this is all good, i've been wanting something that handles like a dream and has a bit more "refinement" and better build-quality than a Chevy. So having said that, I looked into a few choices, all of them mid-engine config, this is another thing i wanted to go with... I looked at the Lotus Esprit V8, the Boxster S (not because its cheaper than the 911, but because its mid-engine and not rear like the 911), and the NSX...
qirex said:That said, How can you even consider a boxster vs an NSX?
The NSX is far more desireable, better looking and hell....serious.
The new 987 Boxster S is *huge* step up in the masculinity dept, but after driving one last week, it was difficult to be excited.
qirex said:oh for sure MR is ideal for f1 etc.
however, i was pointing out out that RR has its own merits too. Most ppl never get to drive, let alone *understand* the RR difference however. RR combined w/ AWD is especially effective. I cant believe I feel this way. Prior to getting my TT, I thought AWD was fast on the track, but not very entertaining. That was before 2 months of TT ownership.
btw...cerberus do you still have your TT?
Cars with back seat don't count, not to mention a big back seat like in the sapranos.Zennsx said:I guess you dont watch the Sopranos.
ferris3001 said:It's a tough call but I once saw a survey of car ownders of which car have more sex. BMW drives had the most sex and Porsche drivers had the least. For girls, Audi drivers had the most sex followed by VW's.
sushi said:NSX or Boxster S ? Help!