which one?

[stevie]

I know the differences between years, I'd like to know which you would buy and why? Both are stock, properly maintained and documented.
91, blk, 25,000 miles
95, red, 55,000 miles

 

[gsr-nsx]

Price??

 

[Tomrev]

My preference would always be for the coupe, no matter what the mileage: stiffer, lighter, non-boosted steering, and IMO nicer looks with black roof. Everyone's different, just my taste.

 

[clr1024]

I know the differences between years, I'd like to know which you would buy and why? Both are stock, properly maintained and documented.
91, blk, 25,000 miles
95, red, 55,000 miles

I would pick the 91, prefer a coupe, for stiffness. I don't think I would use the targa much, also the 95 and 96 were the slowest NSX's out there. FWIW, if I was going to get a targa I would look at a 97+ to get the 3.2 and 6spd.

 

[stevie]

Price is exactly the same!!!

 

[heySkippy]

I would (and did) go for the 95 because the power steering and targa roof is nice to have and the difference in performance for someone of my skill and driving habits is negligible.

 

[KooLaid]

What's more important to you, performance or crusing down the main drag in more style?

The targa is nice in respect to asthetics and getting more sun and air flow through the cab. The P/S is also nice for those slow parking lot maneuvers.

The 91, is the better choice in overall performance if you're looking for just that extra bit more.

I have a 93, but I'd go for a targa 2nd time around because I'd be willing sacrifice that "bit more" performance for that open air sensation. I don't care for power steering.

 

[scorp965]

My #1 choice for an nsx would be a '99 Zanardi coupe, second choice would be a '94 coupe... the closest you have on your list of two is the '91... I would look for a '93/'94 with slightly higher miles.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I know the differences between years, I'd like to know which you would buy and why? Both are stock, properly maintained and documented.
91, blk, 25,000 miles
95, red, 55,000 miles

Let me put things in perspective. On *ANY* other car, the 95 would cost a lot more money. The reason they are the same, is only because the NSX holds its value incredibly well. Is that really justified? I don't know. If you ask me, I would say no. I don't mean any disrespect, but I think a lot of owners on this forum do not have a clear take on what a high end car does on the market. They are somewhat spoiled by the way the NSX holds its value.

I would get the 95. I know a lot of people talk about the coupe being stiffer than the Targa, and if you think you will never use the targa, they are right. But honestly... unless you are going down a track at Mach I, the targa, certainly with the top on, has plenty of torsional rigidity. And when its nice and sunny, I for one certainly do enjoy hearing the sounds of my car with the top off. And so do my passengers.

Everytime I dig deep into my NSX, I see little things that are different from other "02+" cars. Honda, like many manufacturers, makes routine and unanounced updates. It can be a piece of foam behind a panel to keep it from rattling... but so many of these changes happen... and to the person that does not know, a 91 is the same as a 94, a 95 same as a 2001, and a 2002 same as a 2005. "Same", is a very relative term.

One car is 4 years newer than the other. Yes, a little more milage but it is a Honda. If you want to keep this thing as a garage queen and baby it all the time, then yes get the 91 and don't drive it much. If you want to actually drive the car, get the 95.

 

[ETLMD]

My #1 choice for an nsx would be a '99 Zanardi coupe, second choice would be a '94 coupe... the closest you have on your list of two is the '91... I would look for a '93/'94 with slightly higher miles.

I would also prefer a '99 Zanardi as my top choice. My second choice would be a '91-'94 coupe. I really don't care for the targa. If you want open air motoring, get a car that was originally designed as a convertible (like an S2000, etc.).

 

[SilverStone05]

Let me put things in perspective. On *ANY* other car, the 95 would cost a lot more money. The reason they are the same, is only because the NSX holds its value incredibly well. Is that really justified? I don't know. If you ask me, I would say no. I don't mean any disrespect, but I think a lot of owners on this forum do not have a clear take on what a high end car does on the market. They are somewhat spoiled by the way the NSX holds its value.

I would get the 95. I know a lot of people talk about the coupe being stiffer than the Targa, and if you think you will never use the targa, they are right. But honestly... unless you are going down a track at Mach I, the targa, certainly with the top on, has plenty of torsional rigidity. And when its nice and sunny, I for one certainly do enjoy hearing the sounds of my car with the top off. And so do my passengers.

Everytime I dig deep into my NSX, I see little things that are different from other "02+" cars. Honda, like many manufacturers, makes routine and unanounced updates. It can be a piece of foam behind a panel to keep it from rattling... but so many of these changes happen... and to the person that does not know, a 91 is the same as a 94, a 95 same as a 2001, and a 2002 same as a 2005. "Same", is a very relative term.

One car is 4 years newer than the other. Yes, a little more milage but it is a Honda. If you want to keep this thing as a garage queen and baby it all the time, then yes get the 91 and don't drive it much. If you want to actually drive the car, get the 95.

Well said.