which year NSX is best, in your opinion?

[GBL1]

1991 all the way. Lighter, more rigid, no passenger side air bag taking up all your glove box space...then just find & drop a late model 3.2L w/ 6sp thranny in it, and you have the best of both worlds.

I worked at Acura when they came out with the "face-lift" in 2002. And just like most Hollywood face-lifts, it came out looking worse...they should have left well enough alone...(what year Mitsubishi 3000GT did they steal those headlights from?).

Not a fan of how they came out looking...and the perforated leather? Please, can we make the interior look more like everyone else's out there?

Sure the later ones are faster, but they "look" so much heavier (check out those "filled-in" rocker panels under the doors...the car looks bloated.)

 

[tbromley]

I owned a '91 and when I get another NSX it will definately be another '91. I have driven a NA2 but did not care for the chassis flex and there is less headroom. It has been well known that a NA1 with headers and exhaust is just as quick as the NA2.

Other differences of the '91 compared to later years

Single compartment center arm rest. (more room)
No power steering
No passenger air bag
OBD1 (better for engine mods)
R12 in the A/C system uses less pressure

You mentioned something here that I experienced - there is more head room in the early coupes! I thought it was the seat cushion - what makes the difference Big D. BTW glad to see you posting again. Like your comment on the 91s - I love the coupes - haven't had any seat time in an NA2 but I like the way mine scoots just fine. When I sat in my buddies car it was quite noticeable for me that I felt higher in the seat and I didn't like that too much! Interesting - please read this and chime back in on what the difference is. Maybe it's the targa top?

 

[usafdarkhorse]

what makes the difference Big D. Maybe it's the targa top?

It is. You lose about an inch of headroom with the T top on versus a coupe.

 

[bee_are_bee]

It is. You lose about an inch of headroom with the T top on versus a coupe.

This is good to know for I am all torso. I'm 5'10" but sit as tall as a 6'5" friend. Matter of fact, my head exceeds the height of the windshield and rollbar on my S2000 Coupe it shall be :wink:

 

[nils]

like splitting hairs...

which year NSX is best, in your opinion?

'any year'......

:biggrin:

 

[Big_D]

You mentioned something here that I experienced - there is more head room in the early coupes! I thought it was the seat cushion - what makes the difference Big D. BTW glad to see you posting again. Like your comment on the 91s - I love the coupes - haven't had any seat time in an NA2 but I like the way mine scoots just fine. When I sat in my buddies car it was quite noticeable for me that I felt higher in the seat and I didn't like that too much! Interesting - please read this and chime back in on what the difference is. Maybe it's the targa top?

Like usafdarkhorse said...The coupes have at least an inch more headroom because the top is thicker on the NSX-T.

Thanks Tim, I try to peruse these threads from time to time in case someone is looking for my 2 cents...

 

[WingZ]

Are you guys just preferring the 91 as it's the cheapest NSX to get

I mean the Zanardi or NA2 coupe is still superior in everything you mentioned plus better aluminum, brakes , tranny etc. Zanardi is lighter as well than the 91.

 

[tbromley]

Are you guys just preferring the 91 as it's the cheapest NSX to get

I mean the Zanardi or NA2 coupe is still superior in everything you mentioned plus better aluminum, brakes , tranny etc. Zanardi is lighter as well than the 91.

Of course everyone would like a late model coupe or a Zanardi but they are rarer than hen's teeth - so if one is more realistic then the early coupes are great. Not because they are the cheapest but because they have something to offer you can't get without getting really lucky - make sense....

 

[WingZ]

Of course everyone would like a late model coupe or a Zanardi but they are rarer than hen's teeth - so if one is more realistic then the early coupes are great. Not because they are the cheapest but because they have something to offer you can't get without getting really lucky - make sense....

Yeah but people keep saying 91 specifically. I'm confused because the 93-94 coupes are the same thing ( well minus Snap ring )but more expensive being later models. I could see if people are saying NA1 coupes but these last couple of posts are just 91.

In general with these best year threads 90% of the time end up with OP's saying they got a good price on a 91. If price point is the main end people should just say so. Nothing wrong with a "I want an NSX what year is the least expensive thread"

Also there's a 99 coupe and a Zanardi on Autotrader right now. Rare but available :biggrin:

 

[oscar_driver]

So funny!

So a STOCK Na2, there you have a car that is slightly heavier, but has better brakes, power, gearing, slightly better displacement, somehow better aluminum etc etc etc, so, other than a very minor "chassis flex" that doesn't really slows you down @ the track -that btw, can be almost solved completely with the type-R front and rear bars- ... so other than that, still the 91 NSX is a better overall car right?

Probably OP should have asked, "which year NSX is for affordable, in your opinion?"

Then Primers instead 91 would end up saying a 01 is better because has pop ups but also is newer and doesn't need maintenance or fixing issues etc etc .. so we all would end up beating more dead and dead horses non stop forever and ever, the nsxprime style!! LOL

Oscar

 

[HBui39]

Yeah but people keep saying 91 specifically. I'm confused because the 93-94 coupes are the same thing ( well minus Snap ring )but more expensive being later models. I could see if people are saying NA1 coupes but these last couple of posts are just 91.

In general with these best year threads 90% of the time end up with OP's saying they got a good price on a 91. If price point is the main end people should just say so. Nothing wrong with a "I want an NSX what year is the least expensive thread"

Also there's a 99 coupe and a Zanardi on Autotrader right now. Rare but available :biggrin:

91-92 are the same, except white was available in 92.

93-94 is not the same... passenger airbag was introduced, which added weight and made the glovebox tiny... 94 was also when they color coded the roof.

95-01 powersteering and mostly t-tops.(except zanardi)

2002+ got a slower steering rack.

the Zanardi weighs more than the 91-92 from what i gather... the NSX-T weighed 3160, minus the 149lbs the Zanardi saved still leaves it at more than the 91-92 which was under 3000lbs.

anyways, yeah i like my 91... and it was in better condition than other 91-92's i could find. that was ultimately the deciding factor... i guess you can say 92 was the best since that ensures its out of snap ring and you had white as an option. but then again 91 is the first year... 91 is already a classic... first year models hold more value as collector items. i'll stick with 91 being best. :wink:

 

[WingZ]

91-92 are the same, except white was available in 92.

93-94 is not the same... passenger airbag was introduced, which added weight and made the glovebox tiny... 94 was also when they color coded the roof.

95-01 powersteering and mostly t-tops.(except zanardi)

2002+ got a slower steering rack.

the Zanardi weighs more than the 91-92 from what i gather... the NSX-T weighed 3160, minus the 149lbs the Zanardi saved still leaves it at more than the 91-92 which was under 3000lbs.

anyways, yeah i like my 91... and it was in better condition than other 91-92's i could find. that was ultimately the deciding factor... i guess you can say 92 was the best since that ensures its out of snap ring and you had white as an option. but then again 91 is the first year... 91 is already a classic... first year models hold more value as collector items. i'll stick with 91 being best. :wink:

Sorry but let me clear up some misunderstandings

1. Passenger airbag added 10lbs on the 94. That against the passenger not having it is not even worth bring up.

2. 91-05 Auto had the power assist so it's been there from the beginning.

3. 95-05 all have the same steering. Check the prime wiki. Honda redesigned it on the 95+ so as to be four pounds lighter.

4. Every 91 NSX test came in at 3010-3020lbs. Zanardi tested weight came in at 2970 with bigger engine , larger wheel tire combo , six speed etc.

5. 92 Also had snap ring issues. Again check prime wiki

Nothing wrong with loving what you have but make sure you know your fact:biggrin:

Side bar: Even with the extra weight the 97+ still outperform stock to stock 91-94. So the most it really comes down again is just price and what your willing to pay.

 

[HBui39]

Sorry but let me clear up some misunderstandings

1. Passenger airbag added 10lbs on the 94. That against the passenger not having it is not even worth bring up.

2. 91-05 Auto had the power assist so it's been there from the beginning.

3. 95-05 all have the same steering. Check the prime wiki. Honda redesigned it on the 95+ so as to be four pounds lighter.

4. Every 91 NSX test came in at 3010-3020lbs. Zanardi tested weight came in at 2970 with bigger engine , larger wheel tire combo , six speed etc.

5. 92 Also had snap ring issues. Again check prime wiki

Nothing wrong with loving what you have but make sure you know your fact:biggrin:

Side bar: Even with the extra weight the 97+ still outperform stock to stock 91-94. So the most it really comes down again is just price and what your willing to pay.

uh i have a manual 91, so no power steering. the 95+ manuals did however. (aside from the zanardi) why even bring up automatics?


wiki has weights listed: 2,976 lb (1,350 kg) (91-92) 3,093lb(1,403kg)(93-97) looks like more than 10lbs between model years... even if the airbag is only 10lbs i dont want it.


the Zanardi is 149lbs lighter than the 1999 NSX-T... which weighs 3160lbs based on Honda's own figures. based on the figures above, i am still correct.


and i reiterate, 2002+ NSX's have a slower steering rack. more turns lock to lock than the old. check the Wiki.


performance difference? headers and JDM gears... many have mentioned those mods making the performance difference a non-factor. honestly, if speed were an issue, i wouldn't own an NSX. its far from the fastest thing on the road for the money...

anyways, you ask why someone wants a 91 other than price and i give you valid reasons why i prefer it, which you dismiss instantly... clearly you don't care to know so i am done with you.

 

[socalx]

53601-SL0-A04 * RACK ASSY., POWER STEERING 1997 NSX 5765.80 4324.35 Qty:**
53601-SL0-A04 * RACK ASSY., POWER STEERING 2005 NSX 5765.80 4324.35 Qty:**


This thread fails. Above are the part numbers for the 1997 rack versus the 2005 racks THEY ARE THE SAME RATIO

Instead of playing this bs debate on the computer why dont you go drive three nsx"s. A early coupe. A na2 1997- 2001. And a 2002-2005 na2 nsx

This thread is which nsx is BEST. Not which nsx is the best value. If it were best value then 1991-1992 or 1997 or 1998.

This thread is not which is most common if it was the answer would be 1991.

If this were the cheapest the the answer is an nsx with previous biddy or frame damage



I understand the tall or super long torso liking a coupe for the .75 inch extra headroom. But for everyone else. Stock for stock newer is better.. This is after all Honda we are talking about. There is cintinuous refinement going on. Despite the 1991 and 2005 roughly looking the same EVERY MAJOR COMPONENT and almost every detail of the car was improved. There are 10x more 1991-1994 nsxs then the later 1997-2oo5 na2's and the early ine are cheaper but not the best
The best is as in my 2nd or third post on this thread. The na2 coupes and zanardis. The the na2's then the na1's

 

[socalx]

Most common nsx 1991

Cheapest nsx Nsx with body or frame damage or salvage history

Most value. 1991 / 1992. Or 1997 / 1998

Best nsx. 1997-2001 coupe, zanardi, 02-05

This thread is best nsx!!!

 

[WingZ]

uh i have a manual 91, so no power steering. the 95+ manuals did however. (aside from the zanardi) why even bring up automatics?


wiki has weights listed: 2,976 lb (1,350 kg) (91-92) 3,093lb(1,403kg)(93-97) looks like more than 10lbs between model years... even if the airbag is only 10lbs i dont want it.


the Zanardi is 149lbs lighter than the 1999 NSX-T... which weighs 3160lbs based on Honda's own figures. based on the figures above, i am still correct.


and i reiterate, 2002+ NSX's have a slower steering rack. more turns lock to lock than the old. check the Wiki.


performance difference? headers and JDM gears... many have mentioned those mods making the performance difference a non-factor. honestly, if speed were an issue, i wouldn't own an NSX. its far from the fastest thing on the road for the money...

anyways, you ask why someone wants a 91 other than price and i give you valid reasons why i prefer it, which you dismiss instantly... clearly you don't care to know so i am done with you.

I brought up the auto because you were implying 95-01 was when it first started but they had since the start.

Wiki is very off as it's stating a 100lb difference between 91-92 and 93-94. I crossed checked between two tests one Car and Driver and one Motortrend and Edmunds. All list 3010 for a 91 NSX. For the 94 all three list 3020.

Here's the link C/D actually weighed the car
http://www.nsxprime.com/FAQ/Media/magazines/cd9907.htm

We're talking about best year so best performance is part of the equation not sure why your bringing the other info in when I did say stock to stock. If you put the same mods on a NA2 it's going to be faster than the NA1 as it was faster to start so that's a moot argument.

I thought we were being friendly with the discussion but you're going all drama queen and saying your done with me ... seriously??

53601-SL0-A04 * RACK ASSY., POWER STEERING 1997 NSX 5765.80 4324.35 Qty:**
53601-SL0-A04 * RACK ASSY., POWER STEERING 2005 NSX 5765.80 4324.35 Qty:**


This thread fails. Above are the part numbers for the 1997 rack versus the 2005 racks THEY ARE THE SAME RATIO

Instead of playing this bs debate on the computer why dont you go drive three nsx"s. A early coupe. A na2 1997- 2001. And a 2002-2005 na2 nsx

I understand the tall or super long torso liking a coupe for the .75 inch extra headroom. But for everyone else. Stock for stock newer is better.. This is after all Honda we are talking about. There is cintinuous refinement going on. Despite the 1991 and 2005 roughly looking the same EVERY MAJOR COMPONENT and almost every detail of the car was improved. There are 10x more 1991-1994 nsxs then the later 1997-2oo5 na2's and the early ine are cheaper but not the best
The best is as in my 2nd or third post on this thread. The na2 coupes and zanardis. The the na2's then the na1's

This argument was the same for people who bought new ones and were told by primers who bought used the NSX wasn't worth the price new and that buying a used NSX was the only thing that made sense.

Apparently with a lot of people the NSX is only good used and for a fraction of it's original cost.

 

[usafdarkhorse]

Yeah but people keep saying 91 specifically. I'm confused because the 93-94 coupes are the same thing ( well minus Snap ring )but more expensive being later models. I could see if people are saying NA1 coupes but these last couple of posts are just 91.

That's because since all NSXs are fairly slow cars in today's standards, and with the car approaching classic/historic status with newer examples differing fairly little from the original 1991, might as well get the most classic year: Either the first, 1991, or last, 2005.

All are going to be fantastic cars no matter what year you get, but there's something about the first or last year produced that matters historically. It just so happens that, yeah, they produced more 1991s than any other year and they happen to be the oldest and, therefore, the cheapest to acquire usually.

I love black/ivory cars with a passion, and they only came in 91-93. I'd actually rather have a 91 than a 92 or 93 just because.

 

[WingZ]

That's because since all NSXs are fairly slow cars in today's standards, and with the car approaching classic/historic status with newer examples differing fairly little from the original 1991, might as well get the most classic year: Either the first, 1991, or last, 2005.

All are going to be fantastic cars no matter what year you get, but there's something about the first or last year produced that matters historically. It just so happens that, yeah, they produced more 1991s than any other year and they happen to be the oldest and, therefore, the cheapest to acquire usually.

I love black/ivory cars with a passion, and they only came in 91-93. I'd actually rather have a 91 than a 92 or 93 just because.

I agree they are all fantastic:biggrin:

 

[socold57]

wingz is corect also how you compare cr to nsx

2002+ nsx ftw


i had a 2004 s2k but never got to drive a cr:biggrin:

 

[WingZ]

wingz is corect also how you compare cr to nsx

2002+ nsx ftw


i had a 2004 s2k but never got to drive a cr:biggrin:

Real fast CR is AWESOME! Can't compare to base NSX as my NSX has a lot of suspension mods. CR is best S2K ever made. I had 02,04 and 06. CR is great DD and track car. Buy one if you get the chance!

 

[socold57]

haha if i get the chance ill buy another 2002+ nsx

blue/white/red/orange in that order of the colors:smile:

 

[GBL1]

It has been well known that a NA1 with headers and exhaust is just as quick as the NA2.

I hate to play both sides (I don't mean to...), but what happens to an NA2 when you add headers & exhaust...just sayin'....

It's like when Ford bought a 360 Modena, torn it down, copied what they could, then added a supercharger (I've got an article about the development of the GT...they openly mention the 360 eight times!), called it the "Ford GT" (someone else trademarked "GT40" when Ford was asleep at the wheel), then proudly proclaimed "Ford beat Ferrari!" ....let's add that supercharger to the Ferrari and see where the Ford GT falls...second place, I'm betting.

Sure the 3.2 w/ 6spd is faster like the 328 is a better/faster/more refined car than the 308, so as far as NSX goes, I just need a '91 w/ a 3.2L & 6spd dropped into it.

 

[OneRedNSX]

I hate to play both sides (I don't mean to...), but what happens to an NA2 when you add headers & exhaust...just sayin'

The na2 exhaust is much better than the na1... Especially the headers. Swapping out the crappy na1 manifolds for na2 headers usually eats up a lot of the ground between the 3.0 and the 3.2. Gains on a na2 are nowhere near the ones from a na1... Put I/h/e on both and the 3.0 still gains substantial ground on the 3.2... Its not a huge gap to start with.

 

[BD]

As some of you know my take on this, NSXs produced after May of 2002. So far almost all the dyno numbers are showing around 15 HP more then the NA2 prior. My 2003 with only Intake and Exhaust dyno'd at three different systems, 295 to 302 to the wheels. All three events were dyno'd with other NSXs, includes NA1. By far, 2002 1/2 all have more RWP.

 

[usafdarkhorse]

However hokey that may sound, which it indeed does (a 15rwhp bump given displacement and everything else equal sounds silly), all NSXs are still inherently slow, so the data is null and void. :biggrin:

If you're using which NSX is faster than the other NSX, you're missing the point of the NSX.