Which year version of the NSX is better?

[Patricio]

No-power steering years are very desirable because they are more similar to the newer Zenardi aproach, which is basically a 91 with a 3.2L

as far as 3.2L vs 3.0L goes...
After I/H/E the 3.2L makes only 10hp more, but is also 200lbs heavier and less rigid.

Reliability is not a concern with any year NSX. more so condition and maintnance than anything. A 60k maintnance costs you the same as a 120k maintnance. The only thing that is expensive on these cars is the timing belt (2k)and the clutch (2k) every thing else is like upkeeping a 10 year old BMW. an engine is actually cheaper than blowing up a new M3.

 

[jond]

I vote for 97+.

6-speed (extra gear and much improved gear ratios)
Bigger engine (12.9second 1/4 mile)
Bigger brakes rotors
Bigger brake caliper pistons
Fiber reinforced cylinder linings
Larger connecting rod bearings
Double synchros on 3rd through 6th gears
New aluminum alloy in selected body areas to reduce weight and increase rigidity
And better looking wheels.


It all really comes down to money though. A 1991 can be just as fast with a few thousand dollars. When I was shopping what I found though, is that to get new wheels, new shocks, get the HP up by 20, I would have spent almost as much as I would have to just buy a 97+

If I had the money, the BEST year would be a 2005


.

 

[NSXGMS]

I vote for 97+.

6-speed (extra gear and much improved gear ratios)
Bigger engine (12.9second 1/4 mile)
Bigger brakes rotors
Bigger brake caliper pistons
Fiber reinforced cylinder linings
Larger connecting rod bearings
Double synchros on 3rd through 6th gears
New aluminum alloy in selected body areas to reduce weight and increase rigidity
And better looking wheels.


It all really comes down to money though. A 1991 can be just as fast with a few thousand dollars. When I was shopping what I found though, is that to get new wheels, new shocks, get the HP up by 20, I would have spent almost as much as I would have to just buy a 97+

If I had the money, the BEST year would be a 2005


.

Hmmm...

"B" grade 1991 NSX: $30,000

"B" grade 1997 NSX: $45,000

Set of coilovers: $2,500

Headers + exhaust: $3,000

__________

Wheels: $9,500??

I'm not sure how the mods you describe would make up the difference between a 1991 and a 1997...the way I see it you'd still have quite a bit left over with the 1991. And I've given you the benefit of the doubt with $2,500 coilovers and $3,000 H/E.

I do agree, the 1997 is a great value which is why I think it's the third best value year after a 1991 or 1992 NSX. It's the cheapest NSX with all the goodies.

You do raise a very good point. An 1991 NSX can be made as fast or faster than an NA2 and still cost less than a 1997 out the door by $10,000 or more. Just another example illustrating that it's very hard to beat the bang-for-the-buck of the 1991.

I do wholeheartedly agree that if you have the means and are cool with the T-top and power steering the 97 is the car to shoot for.

 

[WingZ]

as far as 3.2L vs 3.0L goes...
After I/H/E the 3.2L makes only 10hp more, but is also 200lbs heavier and less rigid.

NA2 isn't 200 lbs heavier than NA1 is it? Where'd you get those numbers

 

[NSXFRIEND]

The only thing that is expensive on these cars is the timing belt (2k)and the clutch (2k) every thing else is like upkeeping a 10 year old BMW. an engine is actually cheaper than blowing up a new M3.

Unless of course you have a NA2 single disc clutch then dealer wants $4grand to replace it.:wink:

Also A/C evaporator is $3grand I have receipt on my car.lol

 

[jond]

Hmmm...

"B" grade 1991 NSX: $30,000

"B" grade 1997 NSX: $45,000

Set of coilovers: $2,500

Headers + exhaust: $3,000

__________

Wheels: $9,500??

I'm not sure how the mods you describe would make up the difference between a 1991 and a 1997...the way I see it you'd still have quite a bit left over with the 1991. And I've given you the benefit of the doubt with $2,500 coilovers and $3,000 H/E.

hahhahahha. Yeah I never revisited my line of "reasoning" after I bought my car. I just put it to the back of my mind and tried to forget about it. This may be just self-delusional rationalization on my part for me to spend more money than I wanted to. I actually made an excel spreadsheet though with formulas including how many miles the clutch had on it, if it had TB change, mileage on shocks, etc, etc to figure out the ~exact value of the car I was looking at based on what I wanted.

I think the 1991's I was looking at were in the $33-35k range if I remember right. I think the difference in price between a 91 and 97 when I was looking was closer to $10-12k.

So....
Timingbelt - $2000
Shocks/springs - $2000
Wheels - $2000
Header/Exhaust - $3000

Right there you have $9k and you still have smaller brakes a 5-speed, and it's 6 years older. I would be willing to pay another $1-3k just for it to be 6 years newer.


But really it depends on what you want. I would say using the term "better" is getting into a very subjective relm. Obviously Honda made the changes it thought would make the car better in 1997 and didn't make mechanical changes after 1997. If you think Honda knows what they're doing, that should be proof enough. Now does the cost of a 97+ justify it's performance? I don't know, but I would say it's close.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

But really it depends on what you want. I would say using the term "better" is getting into a very subjective relm. Obviously Honda made the changes it thought would make the car better in 1997 and didn't make mechanical changes after 1997. If you think Honda knows what they're doing, that should be proof enough. Now does the cost of a 97+ justify it's performance? I don't know, but I would say it's close.

You bring some good points here. Drive by wire is what Gordan Murray used copying the NSX. Some would argue cable actuated is better depends on how you take it. Few changes IMO are negative and a direct result of the intended Market in this case USA being the biggest market airbag compliance OBD2 all which adds sensors, weight, objects to save your life and enviornment yet creating more waste.

Are newer cars more advanced sure, but does that mean its more reliable probably not IMO.

 

[WingZ]

hahhahahha. Yeah I never revisited my line of "reasoning" after I bought my car. I just put it to the back of my mind and tried to forget about it. This may be just self-delusional rationalization on my part for me to spend more money than I wanted to. I actually made an excel spreadsheet though with formulas including how many miles the clutch had on it, if it had TB change, mileage on shocks, etc, etc to figure out the ~exact value of the car I was looking at based on what I wanted.

I think the 1991's I was looking at were in the $33-35k range if I remember right. I think the difference in price between a 91 and 97 when I was looking was closer to $10-12k.

So....
Timingbelt - $2000
Shocks/springs - $2000
Wheels - $2000
Header/Exhaust - $3000

Right there you have $9k and you still have smaller brakes a 5-speed, and it's 6 years older. I would be willing to pay another $1-3k just for it to be 6 years newer.


But really it depends on what you want. I would say using the term "better" is getting into a very subjective relm. Obviously Honda made the changes it thought would make the car better in 1997 and didn't make mechanical changes after 1997. If you think Honda knows what they're doing, that should be proof enough. Now does the cost of a 97+ justify it's performance? I don't know, but I would say it's close.

Yeah people quickly forget the 15/16 wheel combo on the 91-93 models it's an instant $2k price increase to get rid of those as soon as you buy the car.

Plus don't forget he's financing to. Seems logical that the older cars are better deals when paying cash.

 

[swerve2007]

"...as far as 3.2L vs 3.0L goes...
After I/H/E the 3.2L makes only 10hp more, but is also 200lbs heavier and less rigid..."

how did you figure that? there are posts here proving dyno rwhp of 15-20hp gains with i/h/e. (more torque as well)
also, the nsx-t is less rigid only with the top removed- with the panel in place it becomes a structural member as it is pinned to the windshield and rollbar. there have been a lot of small improvements like the "door and window thingies" etc. personally i really like the bigger brakes and the 6speed.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

"...as far as 3.2L vs 3.0L goes...
After I/H/E the 3.2L makes only 10hp more, but is also 200lbs heavier and less rigid..."
how did you figure that? there are posts here proving dyno rwhp of 15-20hp gains with i/h/e. (more torque as well)
also, the nsx-t is less rigid only with the top removed- with the panel in place it becomes a structural member as it is pinned to the windshield and rollbar. there have been a lot of small improvements like the "door and window thingies" etc. personally i really like the bigger brakes and the 6speed.

I like the smaller sunvisor on the T and the cupholders.:tongue:

 

[Big_D]

Price..the 91-93 is most affordable and less likely to depreciate.
Performance...the 2002+ seems to dyno higher numbers.
Collector...I think the 91, the Zanardi, and the 05 are going to be more collectable.

Lots of things to consider...

 

[WingZ]

Collector is a 2000 hard top coupe! 05 , 91 and Zanardi you can find:biggrin:

 

[BATMANs]

Bah, who needs upgraded brake rotors.

Just go x-drilled/slotted with SS braided lines and some good pads and it's good enough.

Less unsprung mass compared to the larger brakes.

 

[Blood2blade]

Thanks a lot guys for all your input. As far as price I'm trying to max out a 40 grand, I still want to maintain a good standard of living, (Vacations, Diners, Mods on the car and my bikes, and most important house repairs). The year I was focusing on was 91, 95, and 97. I was going for a 91 because figure it may be the cheapest and first year sold in the Stated, may be the one that will be a collectable. Then I thought of the targa (kind of got spoiled with the 944 Turbo when I remove the sunroof, the sunroof is almost the entire roof). The 97 for the bigger engine 290 hp. On horsepower I want to max around 300hp (not that power hungry just more of what I got with great handling. So I wanted to know if it is really that much difference between the 3.2 and 3.0 because will mod just a little to get to that power range. Also, there is an area in Georgia call Suches that’s in the mountains, that cars (last time I meet 12 Porsche boxsters and 8 Pontiac Fieros I think a car club) and bikes ( lot of bike events) ride up in the mountains and handling is very important.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

Thanks a lot guys for all your input. As far as price I'm trying to max out a 40 grand, I still want to maintain a good standard of living, (Vacations, Diners, Mods on the car and my bikes, and most important house repairs). The year I was focusing on was 91, 95, and 97. I was going for a 91 because figure it may be the cheapest and first year sold in the Stated, may be the one that will be a collectable. Then I thought of the targa (kind of got spoiled with the 944 Turbo when I remove the sunroof, the sunroof is almost the entire roof). The 97 for the bigger engine 290 hp. On horsepower I want to max around 300hp (not that power hungry just more of what I got with great handling. So I wanted to know if it is really that much difference between the 3.2 and 3.0 because will mod just a little to get to that power range. Also, there is an area in Georgia call Suches that’s in the mountains, that cars (last time I meet 12 Porsche boxsters and 8 Pontiac Fieros I think a car club) and bikes ( lot of bike events) ride up in the mountains and handling is very important.

30k will get you nice low mileage 91. 40K might get you average miles 97 45k is more in the low mileage range. Yes the 3.2 is improved technology with the combination of headers it yeilds 20 more hp. This is needed to compensate for the additional 100 lbs learned from the 95-96 cars. Remember the acceleration is almost identical and top speed the same. The higher top end is a result of the facelift aerodynamic changes on the 2002 with .30 coef. I do know that is capible of 189mph and is not gear limited but drag limited with .32 coef.

http://www.nsxprime.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99684

 

[MCM]

You really should just ask yourself, do I want a coupe? Or a T top?
IMHO that's where you need to start.
Should be easy from there based on your budget.:smile:

 

[navyflydoc]

Find a clean and really low mileage '91-'94. It's the best bargain sports car in the world. For reference, I purchased my silver '93 with 35k miles for $36,000 three years ago. These early NSX prices pretty much bottomed out. Life is short, don't overanalyze this stuff, pull the trigger and start driving.

 

[HTN]

Find a clean and really low mileage '91-'94. It's the best bargain sports car in the world. For reference, I purchased my silver '93 with 35k miles for $36,000 three years ago. These early NSX prices pretty much bottomed out. Life is short, don't overanalyze this stuff, pull the trigger and start driving.

Best Advice I've heard so far.

 

[NSXFRIEND]

Find a clean and really low mileage '91-'94. It's the best bargain sports car in the world. For reference, I purchased my silver '93 with 35k miles for $36,000 three years ago. These early NSX prices pretty much bottomed out. Life is short, don't overanalyze this stuff, pull the trigger and start driving.

The world has seen light now everyone admits what the best exotic car for the money is.:smile:

 

[enesexdreamer]

How does a twin plate clutch produce a better exhaust note?

Due to less rotating mass, the RPM spikes/decelerates quicker than the single disc which is on the standard 6speeds. (NSX-R=6spd dual plate clutch) Coupled with a light flywheel, the exhaust note is phenomenal. :biggrin: