As well as the extra gear. The reason I ask is that the price jumps pretty high from the 96 NSX to the 97 model. I also heard that the 97'- model uses a stronger, lighter harder to dent body. Can someone who has had both give their .02 especially about the lighter harder to dent body.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
Do you really feel those extra 20 horses between the 96'&97" model?
- Thread starter Marvin Lee
- Start date
uummm.... hadnt heard that one before. that may be kinda like the younger lady saying the older lady dents more easy cause she's older, when we both know they are all gonna dent if we bump em hard enough.
there were some structural differences when the targa first came out in 95 versus (i think it was 97). made some changes to increase rigidity. check that topic out.
if you want a coupe you might as well look at 91-95 cause there is little difference. id just go for the best deal/lowest mileage in the year range.
this car is not a dragster no matter what you do to it (short of a major overhaul and megabucks), so the 20hp is not a huge difference, though many think the gearing in the sixspeed cars makes em faster. most of the 'oh wow' quickness IMO comes in the 3rd to fifth gear range(approx 65mph and up to 140)--talking about 5speed version here----so you dont miss the 20hp as much as you might think considering where both the five and six speeds perform best.
anyway, good luck with your decision--you can drive the nsx when you come to Kansas city. by the way, have you ever met Jon stewart? nice enough guy--surprisingly short. i mean wizard of oz short. when he sat down at the bar on a barstool, i pulled up a dinner chair. it almost made for a normal conversation. except for those little dangly legs....thank god he didnt fall once he'd climbed all the way up there.
there were some structural differences when the targa first came out in 95 versus (i think it was 97). made some changes to increase rigidity. check that topic out.
if you want a coupe you might as well look at 91-95 cause there is little difference. id just go for the best deal/lowest mileage in the year range.
this car is not a dragster no matter what you do to it (short of a major overhaul and megabucks), so the 20hp is not a huge difference, though many think the gearing in the sixspeed cars makes em faster. most of the 'oh wow' quickness IMO comes in the 3rd to fifth gear range(approx 65mph and up to 140)--talking about 5speed version here----so you dont miss the 20hp as much as you might think considering where both the five and six speeds perform best.
anyway, good luck with your decision--you can drive the nsx when you come to Kansas city. by the way, have you ever met Jon stewart? nice enough guy--surprisingly short. i mean wizard of oz short. when he sat down at the bar on a barstool, i pulled up a dinner chair. it almost made for a normal conversation. except for those little dangly legs....thank god he didnt fall once he'd climbed all the way up there.
The newer cars have a different painting process from the original cars in which the paint is baked at a high temperature that strengthens the, newer-lighter-thinner, aluminum alloy. This process was used in the original cars also, but it was improved upon later in the production (I'm not exactly sure which year) to make the body panels slightly lighter and more resilient to denting.
As for the horsepower and gearing, I drive a '91 with exhaust and gearbox mods. The 6-speed cars' gearbox is a vast improvement over that of the 5-speed. There is a gap in the 5-speed between 1st and 2nd gears that drops the RPM down out of the VTEC range when shifting at redline. That is solved with a Short Gear set. Most people install a ring and pinion at this time, as I did, also.
As I mentioned, I solved my horsepower needs (for now anyway. MORE is always better!) by doing headers and exhaust. My car dynos at 271 rwhp and it keeps up just fine with the 3.2L 290 hp newer cars.
Those mods cost roughly $6K including labor. So, get a '97 for $45K or mod an early model coupe and keep a few $ in your pocket for gas!
As for the horsepower and gearing, I drive a '91 with exhaust and gearbox mods. The 6-speed cars' gearbox is a vast improvement over that of the 5-speed. There is a gap in the 5-speed between 1st and 2nd gears that drops the RPM down out of the VTEC range when shifting at redline. That is solved with a Short Gear set. Most people install a ring and pinion at this time, as I did, also.
As I mentioned, I solved my horsepower needs (for now anyway. MORE is always better!) by doing headers and exhaust. My car dynos at 271 rwhp and it keeps up just fine with the 3.2L 290 hp newer cars.
Those mods cost roughly $6K including labor. So, get a '97 for $45K or mod an early model coupe and keep a few $ in your pocket for gas!
- Joined
- 3 February 2000
- Messages
- 3,942
The '97+ cars do use a different alloy formula for the body panels. It allows them to be thinner and lighter without compromising strength. This helps offset the weight of the -T reinforcements by some marginal amount.
To say they are "more dent resistant" is probably a stretch, or such a small difference it can only be measured in a lab... probably more Marketing spin than anything else.
You may be able to feel +20HP at the top of the curve, but it's nothing dramatic. The biggest difference in feeling is from the 6-speed transmission versus the 5-speed.
Specifically between a '95/'96 and '97+ there is also a stiffer chassis and less weight in the '97.
[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 08 September 2002).]
To say they are "more dent resistant" is probably a stretch, or such a small difference it can only be measured in a lab... probably more Marketing spin than anything else.
You may be able to feel +20HP at the top of the curve, but it's nothing dramatic. The biggest difference in feeling is from the 6-speed transmission versus the 5-speed.
Specifically between a '95/'96 and '97+ there is also a stiffer chassis and less weight in the '97.
[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 08 September 2002).]
That's a misconception.
The reason that acceleration drops as much as it does during the 1 --> 2 upshift with the stock five-speed is because the gears are so widely spaced apart, not because of the VTEC crossover point. Because the gears are so widely spaced apart, acceleration suffers because of the gearing's affect on torque at the wheels, which is torque at the crank times gearing. As you can see from the torque curve diagram, torque at the crank is relatively constant throughout the NSX revband from 3000 RPM to over 7000 RPM. There is no increase in torque at the 5800 RPM VTEC crossover point; VTEC accomplishes its mission by keeping torque from dropping off, not by increasing torque.
The short gears improve acceleration following the 1 --> 2 upshift simply because the second gear is a shorter gear, not because the engine is producing more torque at the rev point after the upshift.
Incidentally, even though it doesn't have any effect on acceleration, the revs after the 1 --> 2 upshift with the short gears are at 5085 RPM, which is still 715 RPM short of the 5800 RPM VTEC crossover point.
a 3.2L has about 265-270 rwhp... factor in the weight savings of a coupe (vs NSX-T), and a stage-1 3.0 (i/h/e) + short gear/R&P should more than keep up
According to Bob Butler, that's right. Interestingly enough, his numbers show that quarter-mile times are a dead heat with either the I/H/E or the short gears/R&P:
'91 coupe, stock: 13.67
'97 NSX-T, stock: 13.39
'91 coupe + 15 hp: 13.35
'91 coupe + short gears + 4.55 R&P: 13.38
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 08 September 2002).]
[/b][/QUOTE]
a 3.2L has about 265-270 rwhp... factor in the weight savings of a coupe (vs NSX-T), and a stage-1 3.0 (i/h/e) + short gear/R&P should more than keep up
[/B][/QUOTE]
That's kind of where I was going without sounding too too, if you get my drift. But yeah, she "keeps up" real good.
a 3.2L has about 265-270 rwhp... factor in the weight savings of a coupe (vs NSX-T), and a stage-1 3.0 (i/h/e) + short gear/R&P should more than keep up
[/B][/QUOTE]
That's kind of where I was going without sounding too too, if you get my drift. But yeah, she "keeps up" real good.
I've owned both a 95 and a 97 NSX and between the gearing and the 20 extra HP, I definitely noticed a difference between the two cars. The 1997 may not on paper be much faster, but it most definitely felt faster. Another bonus is the much nicer clutch in the '97 and newer cars. Good luck!
[This message has been edited by Rococo (edited 09 September 2002).]
[This message has been edited by Rococo (edited 09 September 2002).]
I don't know that I would call it "nicer". The big difference in feel is that the earlier clutch had a tendency to shudder unless you blipped the throttle and let the clutch out when the revs were falling. Other than that quirk, the clutch in the early years feels quite nice, thank you. The primary reason they made the changes was to handle the added power, as you can see from the description in the marketing materials when the new clutch was introduced in '97:
"To handle the high torque and power output of the new 3.2-liter V-6, a new dual-mass flywheel clutch system was developed. The design involves a split flywheel which incorporates a grease-lubricated wide-angle torsion mechanism. Gear rattle is effectively minimized because the system is specially tuned to the NSX drive system. Clutch performance is maximized by a high-performance friction material on the low-inertia mass clutch disc while the relocation of the torsion mechanism to the flywheel side helps retain a light clutch feel."
One other difference is that the '97+ clutch costs a whole lot more than the '91-96 clutch.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 09 September 2002).]
If Rocco considers the later clutch "nicer", NSXTASY, what do you care? I certainly understand your historical behavior to correct factual inconsistancies (in fact there is even evidence in this very thread
), but to correct opinions as well . . .
Just thought I would throw MY opinion where it might not belong. No offence intended, just an observation . . .
Kevin
Just thought I would throw MY opinion where it might not belong. No offence intended, just an observation . . .
Kevin
Nice insults, guys. Keep those flames coming...
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 09 September 2002).]
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 09 September 2002).]
I don't understand why Kevin and John are getting bent out of shape about my comments about the clutch, or why they feel it's necessary to inject a hostile tone into this discussion. I did not insult or "flame" Rococo for his comment about the clutch being "nicer"; I simply described my own opinion about the '91-96 clutch.
The funny thing about the clutch is, my '91 has never shuddered. Even without the "revs falling" technique. Is this due to differences in the clutch, or differences in driver technique? I don't know. But I've never experienced it. My OEM clutch isn't particularly sensitive to technique and it works great, day after day. Maybe others see a bigger difference than I do, but I don't have any problem with it.
As for the gearing on the '91-96, people who have the short gears have made all kinds of claims about how much faster they are, etc., and, like John, get irked whenever anyone questions that they're not the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't have anything against them; I think that the short gears are, overall, "better" (more desirable) than the stock gears. (And, FWIW, I think the six-speed is even better.) Where we differ is (a) in how big a difference they actually make (fact is, the difference is easily quantified, and they reduce quarter-mile times by exactly 0.11 second), and (b) whether they're worth the money (and, based on actual cost and actual benefit, there are other mods that provide a lot more bang for the buck). If you like them, great! So would I. But there's no need to dredge up the short gears because you're looking for a way to throw insults at me, John. If you want to talk about the short gears, we can do that - but if we're going to talk about them, let's do it with a modicum of respect for the decorum on NSXprime, rather than getting nasty about it as you and Kevin have done.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 09 September 2002).]
The funny thing about the clutch is, my '91 has never shuddered. Even without the "revs falling" technique. Is this due to differences in the clutch, or differences in driver technique? I don't know. But I've never experienced it. My OEM clutch isn't particularly sensitive to technique and it works great, day after day. Maybe others see a bigger difference than I do, but I don't have any problem with it.
As for the gearing on the '91-96, people who have the short gears have made all kinds of claims about how much faster they are, etc., and, like John, get irked whenever anyone questions that they're not the greatest thing since sliced bread. I don't have anything against them; I think that the short gears are, overall, "better" (more desirable) than the stock gears. (And, FWIW, I think the six-speed is even better.) Where we differ is (a) in how big a difference they actually make (fact is, the difference is easily quantified, and they reduce quarter-mile times by exactly 0.11 second), and (b) whether they're worth the money (and, based on actual cost and actual benefit, there are other mods that provide a lot more bang for the buck). If you like them, great! So would I. But there's no need to dredge up the short gears because you're looking for a way to throw insults at me, John. If you want to talk about the short gears, we can do that - but if we're going to talk about them, let's do it with a modicum of respect for the decorum on NSXprime, rather than getting nasty about it as you and Kevin have done.
[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 09 September 2002).]
If I could add something here...
I previously owned a '94 coupe with the 5-speed, and tried just about everything in the book to avoid the dreaded "shudder" (tried the "engage while rev's are falling", too). It was frustrating, but I did eventually get used to it.
However, in my current '97-T, the clutch does feel noticeably smoother on engagement, and I no longer have to remark to my passengers "don't worry, it just does that"....having compared them back-to-back, I much prefer the engagement of the '97 clutch. It engages at various rev levels, without a hint of shudder.
While I'm in here, I would like to thank the group for the recent conversation on matching rev's--in the past, I've worked diligently on matching rev's while downshifting. Now I'm focusing on the up-shift, and it makes a huge difference in smoothness! Perhaps it will make my clutch last longer...
I previously owned a '94 coupe with the 5-speed, and tried just about everything in the book to avoid the dreaded "shudder" (tried the "engage while rev's are falling", too). It was frustrating, but I did eventually get used to it.
However, in my current '97-T, the clutch does feel noticeably smoother on engagement, and I no longer have to remark to my passengers "don't worry, it just does that"....having compared them back-to-back, I much prefer the engagement of the '97 clutch. It engages at various rev levels, without a hint of shudder.
While I'm in here, I would like to thank the group for the recent conversation on matching rev's--in the past, I've worked diligently on matching rev's while downshifting. Now I'm focusing on the up-shift, and it makes a huge difference in smoothness! Perhaps it will make my clutch last longer...
Similar threads
- Sticky
