• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

2002 Test Drive.

Joined
28 November 2002
Messages
5
Location
Long Island, NY
Hello everyone,
I've been a reader of this board for around a year now... however I never really had the desire to post anything, being I've never driven an NSX, only an avid follower. Although, today... it all changed. I went to a dealer, looking for some info on a pre-owned one, 50K range or so. Unfortunately, all they had in stock was 2 different 2002's. We spoke numbers (which were MUCH cheaper then I would have thought, however still a BIT out of my price range). And decided to take a test drive, being I was already there.
I must say, I've heard some very colorful descriptions of what it's like to actually drive this car... but frankly, there aren't any words to accurately describe it. I'm not sure how the 2002 compares to the older models, however if a 92 model gave me 1/2 as much satisfaction, there's a good chance I'd sell my soul right now for the title.
My first impressions were just how low this car sits; pictures really do not give it justice. Getting into the car was simple; the sets were very inviting and comforting. I know it's been mentioned many times before, the balance between luxury and sport which the NSX possesses... however it really does ring true. The car is as timid as you'd like, slow driving was very easy, steering was a cinch, the throttle was responsive in the lower RPM's, however not jerky at all. Keeping up with traffic, this was just like any other car, with an exception of all the staring and pointing and smiling.
After asking permission to "let her extend her legs a bit" (bear in mind, the salesman was in the other seat), its VERY easy to understand why this is a supercar. Now, I don't have a lot of experience with driving cars of a faster nature, however this car really does beg to be driven hard. The engine turns from a purr into a grunt with enough force to keep you firmly planted in your set. However my eyes were too busy being wide open with excitement and scanning the traffic I was quickly coming closer to (much quicker then I originally thought) to enjoy the moment. The car's suspension was much softer then I would have thought (hearing from some people on this board), and I really do believe that Honda / Acura got the ergonomics just right.
I'm trying to keep this as brief as possible, I just wanted to tell my story to others out there who may always be dreaming of this car, yet never had the opportunity to drive one. I now know how to break the piggy bank open this spring. >=o)
 
How cheap is cheap? I wonder if '02s will drop once '03s start appearing.
 
In your range, you should be able to find a 97 Targa with mid-high miles (50k). The difference between the 97 and the 2002 is purely cosmetic. The performance should be near identical. A 92 would not feel near as fast because of the smaller motor (less power and torque)and long gear ratios.

If I could, I would get a 97 over a 96, even if it meant saving up for an extra 6 months. It is worth it.
 
Originally posted by Elroy303:
It was quoted to me @ approx. 73K.

eek.gif
That's EXCELLENT!!!

BTW, the biggest mistake most people make on their first test drive is failure to get the engine into the upper part of the rev band. That's where it sings - and remember, a singing engine is a happy engine.
wink.gif
 
This post reminded me of my first time in an nxs.It was 95 and I was able to test a 92 red/tan on Long Island at power motor cars.I was a lowly no pot to piss in resident but had a dream and Joe at power let me in.It was like yesterday I remember the fine background valve noise and the induction honk.It was tight and felt right(i'm rappin).Anywho,that was magical to me.
 
Granted 73K is a great price, but it could have been 63K and made no difference... when your out of budget, you're simply out of budget =)
I took the test drive @ Rallye Acura in Roslyn, they have a Spa Yellow on the floor, however it was the Silverstone they have locked up in the garage they let me take.
Believe me when I tell you I did my best to keep it between 5 - 8,000 RPM, however when in a virgin car, doing this WITHOUT attracting too much attention to yourself (I.E. Nassau County Police on Northern Blvd in an NSX no less) gets to be a bit tough.
I'd love to join the club; however I still need to get my pre-requisites in order first. =)
On more thing, by the way … The salesman was VERY lenient with me… besides giving me a approx. 30 minutes of test time in the car (which he had NO problem with, he actually encouraged me to KEEP going), and allowing me to drive the car exactly how it is supposed to be driven (or to my best extent)… he ALSO let me go to pick up my girlfriend who works just 5 minutes from the dealership. He gladly got out of the car, let her in and waited about 5 minutes for us to get back. Even more amazing, my girlfriend became 100% supportive for my “NSX ENDEVOR” in the 5 seconds it took to go from 0 – 60. Telling me, “Now I can understand why you always wanted this car, you have my full support.” Haha, I guess this was my lucky day.
 
Btw, for mid $50s you should be able to get a 98/99 with medium miles. A 97 with mid-to-high miles should be under $50K now.

-Awais

------------------
2001 QuickSilver Corvette Coupe - Not Stock [503 RWHP, 545 RWTQ]

2002 Black Acura 3.2 TL/S

www.RacingFlix.com
 
So I thought that I was certain that I wanted a 95/96 NSX-T, and now I am reading that I really need to step up to a 97+!

When I forst started looking I was planning on spending ~35K, but after looking a while I have convinced myself that I probably should be thinking ~40K since I think that 95/96 pretty much got most of it right, at least until the 3.2 motor came out in 97 with the 6 speed.

So now I am telling my self that maybe $45 - 50K for a 97+ might make more sense. I plan to only drive this car 3 - 4K miles per year and "Baby" it like I did my last 911SC which I had for 19 years and just sold!

I would love to hear your advice, I can afford the extra $, but as this will mostly just be a very nice piece of art to enjoy and drive for pleasure, the looks are the same. Will I be happy if I go for the 3.2/6 Speed over the 3.0/5 Speed?
 
Unfortunately... the only reference I have is the 2002. I couldn't tell you the driving differences thru the years, 91 to 2002 ... however, I'm thinking my best bet may be to save up as much as I can until the middle of spring - early summer and get the best bang for my buck then.
 
Originally posted by Paul65K:
I would love to hear your advice, I can afford the extra $, but as this will mostly just be a very nice piece of art to enjoy and drive for pleasure, the looks are the same.

Hi Paul,

Think of NSXs in six distinct categories:

1. 1991-94 270 hp 3.0-liter 5-speed NSX Coupe
2. 1995-96 270 hp 3.0-liter 5-speed NSX-T
3. 1997-02 290 hp 3.2-liter 6-speed NSX-T
4. 1997-01 290 hp 3.2-liter 6-speed NSX Coupe
5. 1991-94 252 hp 3.0-liter automatic NSX Coupe
6. 1995-02 252 hp 3.0-liter automatic NSX-T

Here are the pluses and minuses of each category:

1. 1991-94 270 hp 3.0-liter 5-speed NSX Coupe

+ great rigidity
+ low weight
+ low price

2. 1995-96 270 hp 3.0-liter 5-speed NSX-T

+ open-air experience
- so-so rigidity
- heavier (by 200 pounds)

3. 1997-02 290 hp 3.2-liter 6-speed NSX-T

+ open-air experience
- so-so rigidity (better than the '95-96, not as good as the coupe)
+ higher power (290 hp)

4. 1997-01 290 hp 3.2-liter 6-speed NSX Coupe

+ open-air experience
+ great rigidity
+ higher power (290 hp)
- hard to find (50 '99 Zanardi cars, only a few non-Zanardi cars)

5. 1991-94 252 hp 3.0-liter automatic NSX Coupe
(category also includes a very small number of '95-01 automatic coupes)

+ great rigidity
+ low weight
+ low price
- lower power
(An automatic NSX is fine for those who prefer one, but not recommended if you prefer a manual.)

6. 1995-02 252 hp 3.0-liter automatic NSX-T

+ open-air experience
- lower power
(Again, an automatic NSX is fine for those who prefer one, but not recommended if you prefer a manual.)

All are nice. All look pretty much the same (aside from some minor changes in '02). Which one is best for you?

If you prefer a manual transmission, stick with categories 1-4; if you prefer an automatic, 5-6.

If you prefer to have a removable top for sunny days, stick to categories 2, 3, and 6; if this is not important to you or if structural rigidity is important to you, then 1, 4, and 5.

If you want maximum performance, stick with categories 3 and 4, particularly 4.

If you want the lowest price, stick with categories 1 and 5.
 
P.S. With regard to your last question:

Originally posted by Paul65K:
Will I be happy if I go for the 3.2/6 Speed over the 3.0/5 Speed?

The 3.2-liter six-speed offers higher performance over the 3.0-liter five-speed, because of the additional horsepower as well as the preferable gearing. Whether that performance is worth the additional money to you, only you can decide.

And, if you prefer a fixed-roof coupe to the removable-roof NSX-T, the five-speeds are a lot easier to find.
 
P.P.S. Before somebody points out that I missed one, category 1 also includes exactly one five-speed '96 NSX Coupe.
 
NSXtacy, thanks for your comprehensive reply.

It certainly summarizes the differences between the different years (Categories). I plan to use the car mostly for personal satisfaction (driving around with a smile on my face, looking at it in the garage with a smile on my face, showing it to my buddies with a smile on my face, etc…).

I am replacing a 911SC that I had for 19 years and loved, but now that I can afford it I think the time has come to indulge myself. So I have one more clarifying question for the Forum:

If you had to decide between a 96 NSX-T or a 97 NSX-T for ~$10K more, for similar mileage and condition, would YOU pay the difference based on your experience and what you know about these cars?

PB
 
Originally posted by Paul65K:
If you had to decide between a 96 NSX-T or a 97 NSX-T for ~$10K more, for similar mileage and condition, would YOU pay the difference based on your experience and what you know about these cars?

That depends on:

a. how much the additional performance matters to you (figure about 0.4 second improvement in 0-60 and 1/4 mile times), and

b. how much the extra $10K matters to you.

I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm trying to answer the question.

I'm sure that lots of people here are performance-oriented and say that the newer, faster car is a better car and that it's worth getting... and I'm just as sure that many of these same people are buying the older, slower car because they don't want to pay the extra $10K.

Since you're looking long-term, at a car you're going to own for ten or more years, ask yourself this question: Are you more likely to regret one purchase than the other? If you're more likely to be sorry you didn't get the extra performance, then get the newer, faster car. If you're more likely to be sorry you spent the extra $10K, then get the older, slower car.

Here's my own personal answer to your question, which clearly DOESN'T match your particular preferences:

Originally posted by Paul65K:
If you had to decide between a 96 NSX-T or a 97 NSX-T for ~$10K more, for similar mileage and condition, would YOU pay the difference based on your experience and what you know about these cars?

Yes, I would, as long as I could afford it - because I would be able to feel and use the difference in performance. (I use my NSX primarily for racetrack events, and have done this extensively.)

However, I still have my '91 NSX and have not traded up for a newer car. Why? Because when I buy a car, I buy new, and get the best car I can afford at the time, and maintain it to perfection and drive it for many years. I have yet to get rid of a car after owning it for less than ten years and 100K miles. So, in my own particular case, I do not find myself comparing a four-year-old car for $(X) vs a six-year-old car for $(X-10K). But, when I had the chance to buy mine, if I had the choice between getting a new 3.0-liter NSX or a new 3.2-liter higher-performance NSX, I would have gotten the better one if I could afford the price.

That's my final Jeopardy answer, and I'm sticking to it.
 
What Ken said, and if you are going to keep it stock get the 97 ,if you are a tinkerer and plan on playing the mod game,think 96 or older. you may want to save money up front plus there are more mod options for the 3.0 l cars.That said I would'nt hesitate to choose a 97 over the earlier cars,but you need to due your own cost analysis;with the wonderful data given above.I bet you would'nt get such informative and objective advice on too many other boards!
 
Probably the coupe, due to its lighter weight, and the fact that the horsepower/gearing advantage of the 3.2-liter shows up primarily on straights, not through twisties.
 
Are we talking about on the street here? On the street you will never be using all of the car's potential, so there is no real-world difference. Unless you are a very good driver, there isn't going to be a real-world difference at the track either, and even then it is going to depend on the particular track.
 
This is pretty funny. We had this discussion around early to mid-November about the price of a new '02 NSX.

We (and I) discovered there are tremendous dealer incentives out there to sell the remaining '02's and I went to (of all places) Rallye in Roslyn. (LOL)

I didn't take a test drive, but then I didn't think it was necessary since I owned a '98 for a year. They had the Yellow one on the floor and the Silver one in the garage.

Now, I guess I can go in and negotiate for the Silver one as a used vehicle, right ? (LOL)

BTW, 10K difference between the '96 and the '97 is way too much, IMO. Sure, there were a lot of improvements for the '97 model year but they can't possibly be (or at least shouldn't be) that far apart for equally cared for and equal mileage vehicles.

[This message has been edited by NSX-GUY (edited 26 December 2002).]
 
Back
Top