why is most people perfer 91-94 and 97+ and not 95 and 96?

[jeffchai]

just like the title says i seen alot of post saying people looking for 91-94 nsx and alot of them looking for 97+ i mean ofcourse 97+ have the better engine and transmission but whats up with the 91-94 and not the 95 and 96? reason i am asking is because i am looking to purchase a 1996.
thanks

 

[NSXGMS]

just like the title says i seen alot of post saying people looking for 91-94 nsx and alot of them looking for 97+ i mean ofcourse 97+ have the better engine and transmission but whats up with the 91-94 and not the 95 and 96? reason i am asking is because i am looking to purchase a 1996.
thanks

Well, 91-94 are the most plentiful and the cheapest NSXs available due to their age so it stands to reason they're more "popular."

The 95-96 NSXs are technically the "slowest" NSXs because of the increased weight of the T-top and the 3.0L 5-speed. As of 1997 all Ts had the 3.2L and 6-speed. It's logical that those would be the most "avoided" NSXs. They have also not totally bottomed out in price as the 91-94s have making them a worse investment (as much as you can call a car an investment) than a 91-94 as far as depreciation.

Since there are so many years of production the price range is becoming closer with age and it's not much more to purchase the superior 97 over the inferior 95-96. IOW it's well worth the extra money, so people tend to pay it.

 

[ashman]

Since the vast majority of 95-96 models are targas they have the heavier chassis (added structural support) coupled with the smaller 3.0 engine making them mathematically the poorest performing (excluding auto trans) if that terminology is even applicable for any model NSX:biggrin:

Nevermind my post, NSXGMS types faster then I do and provides a more detailed answer.

 

[NSXGMS]

Since the vast majority of 95-96 models are targas they have the heavier chassis (added structural support) coupled with the smaller 3.0 engine making them mathematically the poorest performing (excluding auto trans) if that terminology is even applicable for any model NSX:biggrin:

Nevermind my post, NSXGMS types faster then I do and provides a more detailed answer.

No problem man, we're seeing a lot of double posts and delays lately due to Sitko... I'm also seeing that donkey wayyy too much. Damn lying pedophiles! :biggrin:

 

[ediddynsx]

I agree with the guys about the 95-96's....no one will debate about that. But you are splitting hairs when comparing newer 97+ NSX's to earlier 91-94 NSX's. Yes there is a 6 speed update and .2 liter difference and some minor improvements here and there. But thats where it stops in my book.......Theres nothing you can't do to a 91-94 NSX that a 97+ NSX doesnt have or better.

A lot of the mods for major power were made for NA1 OBD1 NSX's. I was debating on getting a 6 speed 97+ and even a 2002+ NSX before I bought my 91 NSX. Luckily I talked to Jon Martin who asked me on what I wanted to do with the car before I made my decision. If you plan to keep the car stock then probably a 97+ would be a good decision. I wanted a coupe also so that helped a lot in my decision.

 

[jeffchai]

so what you guys think a clean title 1996 nsx with 65k origional miles from 2nd owner with comptech intake, dc header, and exhaust, add on body kit C west kit. no accident for 32k.

 

[NSXGMS]

I agree with the guys about the 95-96's....no one will debate about that. But you are splitting hairs when comparing newer 97+ NSX's to earlier 91-94 NSX's. Yes there is a 6 speed update and .2 liter difference and some minor improvements here and there. But thats where it stops in my book.......Theres nothing you can't do to a 91-94 NSX that a 97+ NSX doesnt have or better.

A lot of the mods for major power were made for NA1 OBD1 NSX's. I was debating on getting a 6 speed 97+ and even a 2002+ NSX before I bought my 91 NSX. Luckily I talked to Jon Martin who asked me on what I wanted to do with the car before I made my decision. If you plan to keep the car stock then probably a 97+ would be a good decision. I wanted a coupe also so that helped a lot in my decision.

I think we were actually acknowledging that the 91-94 is a great car--much more desirable than the 95-96 even though they are newer.

The OP was really asking why it seems there is little desire for a 95-96 and that is a logical question. It's true. The performance is measurably worse than the 91-94 and really looks slow compared to an NA2 (around .75-1.0 sec slower 0-60).

As far as performance goes you are correct--a 91-94 NA1 can very easily be made as quick as an NA2. The 95-96 NA1 takes a little more and will never be as fast as an NA2 with bolt-ons alone. We established that in a thread a few weeks back. Close, but not quite there.

So what you get is the 91 and the 97 being the most sought after years of NSX. They are the cheapest of their respective versions, the NA1 and NA2. Naturally, the 95, 96 and 01 are the least desirable years because they were the last years before changes. 95 gets hit really hard but 96 is clearly the least desirable year of all NSXs. For a few bucks more or less you can get a faster NSX. Very unusual situation.

 

[NSXGMS]

so what you guys think a clean title 1996 nsx with 65k origional miles from 2nd owner with comptech intake, dc header, and exhaust, add on body kit C west kit. no accident for 32k.

See for yourself:

Pricing chart is located here.

According to it, a 96 NSX with average mileage (which 65K is) and in excellent overall condition otherwise would be in the "B" category and indicates a price of $40-45K, probably closer to $40K.

A 96 NSX with average mileage and average condition would be considered in the "C" category worth $35K-40K, probably closer to the $35K figure.

It's a buyer's market right now and I would assume that a 96 for $32K would be an average condition car priced to sell soon. IOW if the car is in anything except stellar, babied condition it's nothing more than a fair price. If the car were pristine, no deferred maintenance and no accidents--nothing--with those miles, I would expect it to be listed closer to $37-$39K to move.

So, whether or not it's a good deal depends greatly on the condition. IMO those mods are almost worthless. I'd add no more than $750 for all the bolt-ons and that's generous--only b/c it's a Comptech exhaust. I'd give zero for the body kit. If you like the body kit, want the bolt-ons and the car is really clean $32K might be a good deal.

But keep in mind, as we've been discussing, an average-mileage (~55K miles) average condition 97 can be found for less than $40K these days. For just 5-6K more you get a quicker, lower mileage, newer car.

 

[BD]

i am asking is because i am looking to purchase a 1996.
thanks

First off, if you are looking for a 96, you should up the fund a little for a 97, as you have indicated, larger engine and one extra gear. The difference in price is almost none-exist.

Lots of people want a earlier car mainly for three major reasons: coupe, cheaper price, and OBDI.

If you track your car, coupe is more desirable because the chassis is more rigid; if you plan on doing force induction or stroker kit, OBDI will be easier to tune, also OBDI is running on cable throttle instead of drive by wire.

Coupe also offer slightly more headroom.

Earlier cars (NA1 1991 to 1996) also have more aftermarket parts available, so you can have more fun with it if you have deep pocket.

BTW, from what I understand, NA2 coupe is a little heavier than NA1 coupe because Honda also used some of the structural improvements found on the "T" cars.

1997 and up does give you more driving pleasure if you don't plan on doing any of those listed above. You can still do FI with Comptech Supercharger kit because it has a piggy back unit for the ECU.

Good luck.

 

[davidf]

so what you guys think a clean title 1996 nsx with 65k origional miles from 2nd owner with comptech intake, dc header, and exhaust, add on body kit C west kit. no accident for 32k.

That is still a very decent price IMHO.

 

[TomCat]

That is still a very decent price IMHO.

I say GREAT price!

 

[heySkippy]

I think a LOT of people have no problems whatsoever enjoying their 95/96 model NSX. I'm not sure the 2 tenths of a second faster from 0-60 makes the 97+ worth the extra bucks for most folks.

 

[synth19]

I like the updated look of the 2002+. It doesnt make sense to me to get a 1997-2001 NSX because one in excellent shape will put you in 2002 dollars after doing the conversion. Hence, it makes sense to just get a 2002+ and not worry about modding/converting it.

 

[hofffam]

I think a LOT of people have no problems whatsoever enjoying their 95/96 model NSX. I'm not sure the 2 tenths of a second faster from 0-60 makes the 97+ worth the extra bucks for most folks.

The 97+ may only be 2 tenths faster than 91-94, but is much quicker than a 95-96.

I didn't recheck the changes by year, but I believe 97+ has bigger brakes too.

 

[NSXGMS]

I think a LOT of people have no problems whatsoever enjoying their 95/96 model NSX. I'm not sure the 2 tenths of a second faster from 0-60 makes the 97+ worth the extra bucks for most folks.

But the NA2 they pay extra for is also newer and has presumably less mileage. It's not the identical car plus .2 sec quicker 0-60. It's not just faster--it's a better car. One could find a beat-up 97 for the same price as a nice 96--is that a "better" purchase?

Anyways, it's closer to a full second between a 95-96 and a 97 taking into account more hp, weight and gearing advantage of the NA2.

True, many people do enjoy their 95-96 and the advantage is lower price than a more recent model--that's all. Other than that the 97 has many advantages over the 95-96 and the 95-96 has no advantage over the 97.

 

[gsr-nsx]

I currently have a 96 and a 98. In my opinion, the 98 feels faster. Maybe that's because I can feel the slight torque difference or because of the extra gear.

I don't track, so I'm not as concerned with 0-60 times. In fact, I only care that I have an NSX...

 

[heySkippy]

Anyways, it's closer to a full second between a 95-96 and a 97 taking into account more hp, weight and gearing advantage of the NA2.

What weight advantage does the 97 have over the 95/96?

Is there a difference in cost replacing a 5 speed clutch versus a 6 speed clutch? What advantage does the 6 speed offer for a street car?

And why are you rolling your eyes at me?

 

[NSXGMS]

What weight advantage does the 97 have over the 95/96?

Is there a difference in cost replacing a 5 speed clutch versus a 6 speed clutch? What advantage does the 6 speed offer for a street car?

And why are you rolling your eyes at me?

You're correct, I'm smoking crack. The cars weigh the same.

I'm rolling my eyes at the .2 sec 0-60 difference you claim which is far from reality. Between the 6-speed and the increased hp the difference between the stock 95-96 and the NA2 is nearly a second. I would consider that significant. This was discussed last week or so but I can't search b/c of Sitko.

Using Bob Butler's charts the extrapolated 0-60 times for the 95-96 are around 5.7-5.8 seconds and the NA2 consistently tests around 4.8-4.9 0-60.

Gearing is much shorter overall for the 6-speed. And yes, the clutch replacement in a 6-speed is about 50% more expensive, give or take--certainly a negative aspect of owning an NA2. So the 95-96 does have one advantage over the NA2...

 

[ryan1926]

You can always get the 91-94 or 95-96 and go down the FI route with the extra $$$ that you save if acceleration concerns you that much.

 

[Quix-Draw]

Well Skippy,

Looks like having the "least desirable" color (to some of our color-sensitive contemporaries) in the "least desirable" year (to some of our before-and-after-the-dark-times sensitive contemporaries) by default puts us in a pretty unique and special category... I, for the life of me, can't imagine driving a nicer example of automotive engineering grace...regardless of color or year. I think the model-year arguments are easily left to the Detroit-muscle groups and their wide range of "I-can-go-hellaciously-fast-in-a-straight-line" forums, of which the 'vette seems to be the only one to make the corner and stay out of the sand. Maybe Acura should have badged a 4-cylinder Ghia version made out of steel...or a 'Z' version with a CF V-10 to tempt us into a 3rd mortgage, but they didn't. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of the world has JUST caught up to what most of the veteran and 2nd generation NSX owners know and appreciate. Lovin' my [stock] '95 Brooklands, Baby!!

Tim

 

[heySkippy]

Lovin' my [stock] '95 Brooklands, Baby!!

Preach it! :biggrin:

Although I have to admit I succumbed to temptation and installed I/H/E last year.

I'm 3 months away from my 3rd anniversary with it as my daily driver. Couldn't be happier.

 

[Floyd]

Didn't Pete Cunningham post better lap times at a past NSXPO in a stock machine? Point being that he went faster than many heavily moded machines with a stock car that according to #'s shouldn't do so well.

Just spend some money moding the nut behind the wheel and you'll be fine.

Don't forget the free 70 and 120k mile free point and plug smog servien from Honda for the 95's.

OK, I'm done definding my pig

 

[SWIFTVISION]

I went looking for a 95-96...they are/were about 8k cheaper then a 97+.

Mine is faster then a 97+, handles better then a 97+, and breakes WAYYYYY better then a 97+.

So a 95 works for me.:smile:

 

[oscar_driver]

sometimes i get frustrated i didn't wait and got a older nsx ... honestly 32K it's a fair very fair price ...
Oscar

 

[oscar_driver]

Using Bob Butler's charts the extrapolated 0-60 times for the 95-96 are around 5.7-5.8 seconds and the NA2 consistently tests around 4.8-4.9 0-60.

I Agree, i do a steady 5.5-6.0 on 0-60's on my s2k (with exhaust+kn filter) .. i did many runs with nsx's and with the NA1's i can always keep up (keep up not me been faster) from stop and go, rolling etc ... but the NA2's they always walk on me .. well like a second but that looks like they are walking on me ....
Oscar