What Year NSX?
- Thread starter RX-8
- Start date
6 speed and 3.2 litre come together for all post '97 models. The automatic versions still have 3.0 litre. Various prime members reported remarkable improvements for the newer one compared to the 5 speed models. You should start a search in the FAQ or the forum.
NSX/MR2
Suspended
RX-8 said:
Not every 91-92 have that problem. I owned two in those years already. The differences in performance are close that it will usually come down to the driver. Or else, you can always lighten a 91-92 up by about 50lbs and it will perform a little bit better.
Generally, the best deal for an early model is the 1994. It doesn't have a lot of upgrades from the previous years, but they're nice.
The best deal for later model years is the 1997. The first year to have 3.2L, 6speed, etc.
The best deal for later model years is the 1997. The first year to have 3.2L, 6speed, etc.
You should get familiar with the FAQ. Most of your questions are answered in the Changes by Year section, under the General Information heading.
There is no reason to steer clear of the '91-92.
Basically, the NSX falls into a few distinct categories (and I'll leave out the automatic versions):
'91-94 NSX Coupe: Least expensive, high structural rigidity
'95-96 NSX-T: For those who want open-air motoring and are willing to pay a bit more for it, but don't want to pay the price bump for the '97+ cars
'97-03 NSX-T: For those who want open-air motoring and the more powerful engine and six-speed
'97-01 NSX Coupe and '99 NSX Zanardi: Very rare. Highest performance, highest structural rigidity.
There is no reason to steer clear of the '91-92.
Basically, the NSX falls into a few distinct categories (and I'll leave out the automatic versions):
'91-94 NSX Coupe: Least expensive, high structural rigidity
'95-96 NSX-T: For those who want open-air motoring and are willing to pay a bit more for it, but don't want to pay the price bump for the '97+ cars
'97-03 NSX-T: For those who want open-air motoring and the more powerful engine and six-speed
'97-01 NSX Coupe and '99 NSX Zanardi: Very rare. Highest performance, highest structural rigidity.
For 95-96 you should add slowest as they weigh more than the 91-94's and still have the C30a.
Good point. In terms of acceleration, the four models rank as follows, starting with the fastest and going down the list to the slowest:
'97-01 NSX Coupe
'97-04 NSX-T
'91-94 NSX Coupe
'95-96 NSX-T
'97-01 NSX Coupe
'97-04 NSX-T
'91-94 NSX Coupe
'95-96 NSX-T
Where would the Zenardi edition fit into the list? Would it not be at the top?
Some of the opinions about the 1995 to 1996 version of the NSX may be a bit tainted due to pre-1995 ownership. Even in the NSXPRIME FAQ the changes to the 1995 model which are carried over to the 1996 are significant such that the reported 0-60 times by Road and Track had the 95-96 version faster than the earlier models (though clearly other mags said different).
Here is what you get with the 95-96 over the earlier models:
-the obvious--they are newer
-change to the limited slip differential (translating to increased speed of 10%+ out of corners over the earlier models)
-throttle by wire
-better brake cooling (modified airflow)
-low speed power steering
-different exhaust tips
-change to 2nd gearing
-bumper reinforcements changed to extruded aluminum from stamped steel
-BUT you get about +120lbs for 95 plus 10 more for 96.
Motor Trend 7/93 0-60 5.6 sec
Road & Track 6/96 0-60 5.3 sec
The 0-60 times are interesting as some mags have the pre 95 cars faster in a straight line; however, the number of changes made suggest the 95-96 cars are comparable if not quicker overall on, for example, a track comparison that includes corners giving the 95-96 an advantage.
Here is what you get with the 95-96 over the earlier models:
-the obvious--they are newer
-change to the limited slip differential (translating to increased speed of 10%+ out of corners over the earlier models)
-throttle by wire
-better brake cooling (modified airflow)
-low speed power steering
-different exhaust tips
-change to 2nd gearing
-bumper reinforcements changed to extruded aluminum from stamped steel
-BUT you get about +120lbs for 95 plus 10 more for 96.
Motor Trend 7/93 0-60 5.6 sec
Road & Track 6/96 0-60 5.3 sec
The 0-60 times are interesting as some mags have the pre 95 cars faster in a straight line; however, the number of changes made suggest the 95-96 cars are comparable if not quicker overall on, for example, a track comparison that includes corners giving the 95-96 an advantage.
FGG said:The 0-60 times are interesting as some mags have the pre 95 cars faster in a straight line; however, the number of changes made suggest the 95-96 cars are comparable if not quicker overall on, for example, a track comparison that includes corners giving the 95-96 an advantage.
I would be curious to know the basis for the statement that the 95-96 cars, being targas, were quicker on track than a 3.0 liter coupe, such as the 91-94.
Everything I have read or heard, from well-respected sources in the dealership and automotive network, including folks connected with Real Time racing and responsible for extensive track preparation of NSXes indicates otherwise. On more than one occasion I have heard statements to the effect of the targas being relatively poor track cars given the reduction in structural rigidity and the increased weight.
Brahtw8 I would be interested in reading any info you are referencing that would directly compare the 91 to 94 with the 95 to 96 that would establish that the modifications to the 95-96 are outweighed (no pun intended) by the weight gain such that a comparison of lap speed, for example, would be faster with the older coupe. ( I expect rigidity being less with the targa could affect handling; however, would not the improvement with cornering speed, due to the change in the limited slip diff. help to offset the negative impact of weight?)
FGG said:Brahtw8 I would be interested in reading any info you are referencing that would directly compare the 91 to 94 with the 95 to 96 that would establish that the modifications to the 95-96 are outweighed (no pun intended) by the weight gain such that a comparison of lap speed, for example, would be faster with the older coupe. ( I expect rigidity being less with the targa could affect handling; however, would not the improvement with cornering speed, due to the change in the limited slip diff. help to offset the negative impact of weight?)
In terms of what I have 'read' I should have added "on this site". And I am speaking of general statements regarding coupes vs. targas, not something as specific as the model year comparison you mention.
In terms of other sources, I know the folks at Acura of Brookfield have indicated a preference for coupes as track cars on many occasions, having disliked the body flex and rattle of the tracked targas.
As far as the LSD change, I could guess it may be a wash in terms of the structural rigidity loss, but I don't really know. However, if you increase the breakaway torque (if I remember the concept correctly) of the older car's differential from 40-60 lbs to 100 lbs or so, (as was recently done on my 93) I am told it will improve cornering. How it would stack up against the later car, I don't know.
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
brahtw8 said:
Having owned and tracked both, I think that is a serious exaggeration of the difference between the the coupes and targas. If I were to start from scratch to build a dedicated race car platform I would definitely start with a coupe (ideally a '97+ coupe if budget allowed), but for the average amature weekend warrior, the differences are so minor as to be negligable. All the fastest guys in the club I've talked to who have driven both agree that both make very good track cars. I think Andrie has even posted to that effect before -- try searching.
The '95-96 NSX-T is just not as fast as the '91-94 NSX Coupe, due to the added weight. And most of the alleged "performance" differences (such as changing the ratio on second gear from 1.727 to 1.800) are so insignificant as to be inconsequential. Make no mistake, the '95-96 is still an excellent car. But ~150 pounds is ~150 pounds, and that far outweighs any other changes. (Remember, the engine is identical and the transmission is almost the same too.)
Bob Butler has calculated that a difference of merely 100 pounds will increase 0-60 times by 0.16 second and 1/4 mile times by the same amount. Extrapolating this to the weight difference of the NSX-T shows that these times are higher by 0.24 second. That's a significant difference.
As for the discussion of the suitability of the '95-96 NSX-T for track use, keep in mind that many of the groups that hold track events - including the BMW CCA, which holds the most track events for any marque club that does not require ownership of its members - do not allow open-top cars to participate in their track events. (Some clubs permit them only with full roll cages, and others don't even allow open-top cars with cages on the track.)
Bob Butler has calculated that a difference of merely 100 pounds will increase 0-60 times by 0.16 second and 1/4 mile times by the same amount. Extrapolating this to the weight difference of the NSX-T shows that these times are higher by 0.24 second. That's a significant difference.
As for the discussion of the suitability of the '95-96 NSX-T for track use, keep in mind that many of the groups that hold track events - including the BMW CCA, which holds the most track events for any marque club that does not require ownership of its members - do not allow open-top cars to participate in their track events. (Some clubs permit them only with full roll cages, and others don't even allow open-top cars with cages on the track.)
The Zanardi is very very close to the '97-01 NSX Coupe. Remember, most of the weight reduction of the Zanardi from the NSX-T (95 pounds out of the 149-pound difference) is from making it a fixed-roof coupe. The additional 54 pound weight difference would reduce times by another 0.08 second. You can decide whether that is worth making a distinction over.Dash Rip Rock said:
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
If you plan to track the car definitely check your local organizing groups' event rules re: open top cars, but it seems to be very regional. I have never run across a track event anywhere near me that restricted targas and BMWCCA is barely a blip on the track event radar in my region. Even SCCA classifies a targa car with a rigid roof in place as a closed car.
As for the weight difference, drive a '91 with a 150 pound passenger and you'll know roughly what a comparably set up '96 feels like. Even with me in the passenger seat of his naturally aspirated '95 NSX-T, Docjohn had no problem reeling in an instructor-driven Viper at Infineon during NSXPO... So all this theoretical bench racing only goes so far in the real world because "on paper" the Viper should have reeled us in.
Just buy the car you like and enjoy it on the street and the track. Of course that's just my opinion.
As for the weight difference, drive a '91 with a 150 pound passenger and you'll know roughly what a comparably set up '96 feels like. Even with me in the passenger seat of his naturally aspirated '95 NSX-T, Docjohn had no problem reeling in an instructor-driven Viper at Infineon during NSXPO... So all this theoretical bench racing only goes so far in the real world because "on paper" the Viper should have reeled us in.
Just buy the car you like and enjoy it on the street and the track. Of course that's just my opinion.
LUD appears to have the best analysis due to hands on driving of both cars. I am curious however as to the impact of the change in the LSD giving an 10%+ increase in cornering speed to the 95-96 over the 91-94. Depending on the track configuration, of course, it would seem that this improvement should work toward negating the weight gain impact on speed? To that end I presume that NSXTASY's comments are limiting the comparison to a straight line analysis (no cornering) such that the claimed .24 sec slower speed for 0-60 of the 95-96 only gives part of the comparison picture.
In addition, I have run a number of track events with the Alfa Romeo Owners Club and Shelby Ford Club at Waterford Hills in Michigan and have never seen targa type cars prohibited from running.
In addition, I have run a number of track events with the Alfa Romeo Owners Club and Shelby Ford Club at Waterford Hills in Michigan and have never seen targa type cars prohibited from running.
Happily I have not been excluded from NE tracks with the targa in place.Lud is spot on about the targa.Most of the discussions about track performance coupe vs t or even 3.0 vs 3.2 are theoretical.It comes down to driver/tires and susp/brake mods.We have seen time and time again that times are similar with NA vs supercharging as long as drivers are of similar skill and other supporting mods are similar.Included under the driver category is also local track knowlegde.BTW my car is a 96 and I did have Toyo ra-1 at xpo,but I think the viper as well as the other fast cars were on hoosiers.lud and I had fun,esp passing that BMW inside at turn 10 as we tiptoed on the ratty edge until trackout.
A 10 percent increase in cornering speed is a huge difference. I would like to know where that number comes from. Unless I hear a reference to a reliable source for it, I find it difficult - no, impossible - to believe. Especially considering that the change in the LSD is an extremely minor change, particularly in comparison with an increase in weight of 150 pounds, which would have a much more significant effect in slowing cornering speeds and increasing lap times. In addition to the slowing due to the weight increase, I would also be curious about how much the cornering speeds and lap times worsened due to the softening of the suspension on the '95 NSX-T. Sorry, but claims that the '95-96 is faster than the '91-94 on a road course just don't pass the "sniff test".FGG said:
This is true.FGG said:
In the Midwest - including Michigan - no one holds more track events than BMW CCA, except maybe PCA (which requires that members own one). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you can drive GingerMan twice a year, Road America twice a year, Grattan twice a year, Putnam Park three times a year, Gateway 2-4 times a year, and Mid-Ohio three times a year with the Alfa or Shelby clubs the way you can with BMW CCA. Not even close.FGG said:
As Lud suggested, check with the groups holding events in your area, for the type of events you're interested in. Keep in mind that some of these clubs only hold "time trials", in which the amount of actual track time is quite small (because they only have one or two cars on the track at a time) and the coverage by insurance in the event of an accident is iffy. Do some research because these are legitimate issues to consider.
Last edited:
docjohn said:
I agree completely.
I thought we were trying to figure out which car is theoretically faster, or more properly the pros and cons of the added weight, loss of rigidity, but improved LSD present on the 95-96 versus the lighter, more rigid, but older differential coupes.
I know many of you could spank me on a track with a lesser car.
nsxtasy said:
You probably already know this but his source for that info was the FAQ:
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/General/changesbyyear.htm
I, like him, would always consider it to be a reliable source, but I am no engineer. Interestingly, Honda/Acura has made this same claim when using this differential on the Prelude and CL models, so maybe it does have some merit.
Thank you.
I still find it difficult to believe. 10 percent???
I still find it difficult to believe. 10 percent???
Thanks Shumdit. As they say, "search is your friend;" which is where I got the 10% increase in speed info.
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
I think it's safe to say the 10% better speed in cornering from the LSD change is a what you call a Marketing Number. Obviously there cannot be a blankent 10% improvement in cornering speeds unless the LSD was the limiting factor in every case, which of course it is not. And the factory LSD tolerance is so amazingly wide that it makes a claim of 10% improvement sort of humorous anyway.
I am still curious to know what kind of improvement increasing the breakaway torque on the older LSD would have in cornering speed.
The folks at AoB have indicated they raise them from the stock 40-60# to 100# for aggressively driven street cars and 200# for dedicated track cars.
The folks at AoB have indicated they raise them from the stock 40-60# to 100# for aggressively driven street cars and 200# for dedicated track cars.
JMO: If you increase the breakaway torque of the LSD you may improve acceleration from zero in a straight line but you may decrease the "corner happyness" especialy in tight corners where the rpm of the outer tire is remarkably greater than the inner tire. From a certain percentage on unexperienced drivers may be slower in corners with more breakaway torque because the car behaves "weired". Experienced drivers would override that with a little slide.
An increase of 10% in cornering speed (imagine: 77 mph instead of 70 mph!) is so high that it can't be claimed to the LSD improvement only - at least nobody in our club with a newer model is 10% faster in track corners than the older cars. There are some drivers that are 10% faster than others but that's due to the skills or track against street tires.
An increase of 10% in cornering speed (imagine: 77 mph instead of 70 mph!) is so high that it can't be claimed to the LSD improvement only - at least nobody in our club with a newer model is 10% faster in track corners than the older cars. There are some drivers that are 10% faster than others but that's due to the skills or track against street tires.
