consider that majority of grievances of NA1 were fixed in the NA2, it not just about 0-60 times.
-
Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.
why is most people perfer 91-94 and 97+ and not 95 and 96?
- Thread starter jeffchai
- Start date
As SWIFTVISION accurately notes, the difference in price for otherwise-similar cars is about $8K, which is around 20 percent of the purchase price - not exactly nonexistent. The prospective buyer will need to decide whether the incremental performance is worth it to him and his budget.
The cost of replacing the five-speed, parts and labor, is typically $2200-2500, whereas that of the six-speed is $3200-4000. The six-speed offers slightly better performance; if you put a six-speed into an otherwise-stock '91 five-speed, it reduces 0-60 times by 0.22 second and 1/4 mile times by 0.11 second.
It's also worth noting that the gearing in the '95-96 five-speed is slightly shorter than the '91-94. (It's about a third of the way from the stock gears of the '91-94 to the "short gears" of those years as used in the Japanese market.)
Here are Bob Butler's numbers for stock cars with manual transmissions, which are consistent with magazine test results:
'91 NSX Coupe 0-60 5.31 1/4 13.67
'95 NSX-T 0-60 5.38 1/4 13.81
'97 NSX-T 0-60 4.93 1/4 13.39
'97 NSX Coupe 0-60 4.79 1/4 13.24
That 5.7-5.8 figure is typical of the '91 NSX Coupe with the automatic transmission. I know there are one or two magazine test results of '95-96 five-speeds with that number, but there are others which are around Bob's calculations.
I don't know squat about the NSX's performance, so I'm enjoying the "education," and I'm clearly not in the majority, but I've always liked the targa-topped NSX. I think I'd prefer to have one just because it's the best of both worlds. It looks great, and it's great for a nice drive on a nice day.
For me it was purely a matter of preferring a coupe over the open top. I'm just not an open top kind of guy. Best of all would've been a 97-01 coupe, but those are very few.
I have heard from various sources that for BIG power, the NA1's are better, once you build them. Something about they flow better.
However, the NA2s is a strong motors as it has engine improvements that will make them more reliable. A strong head gasket... to name one. And as with software, more and more bugs get worked out; sensors, ECU, that sort of things. In N/A applications, maybe the NA2 will hold for 300k, and the NA1 for 250k - it doesn't really matter.
But for FI, PSI for PSI, I believe the NA2's hold better unless you start making internal mods to the NA1.
I like NA2 engine a lot.
However, the NA2s is a strong motors as it has engine improvements that will make them more reliable. A strong head gasket... to name one. And as with software, more and more bugs get worked out; sensors, ECU, that sort of things. In N/A applications, maybe the NA2 will hold for 300k, and the NA1 for 250k - it doesn't really matter.
But for FI, PSI for PSI, I believe the NA2's hold better unless you start making internal mods to the NA1.
I like NA2 engine a lot.
how can an engine with same head design but smaller valves "flow better"? as a matter of fact one of the reasons for more hp on the NA2 is a better flowing head- i think this is purely a fact that NA1 has been around longer hence more of them were built-up.
I had the same questio..n. I was told by a reputable shop, who I won't list for it's rep if they are wrong, that the NA1's have different heads. Since this is not coming from my personal experience, I do have some doubt. I'm not defending this statement and someone that has actually taken apart and tested or determined flow, can say with more authority either way.
NA2 has the same heads as NA1 but with altered porting and larger valves- thats it. whoever claims that stock NA1 heads flow better than stock NA2 ones is not worth listening to.
Google square motor and bore/stroke ratio
There are 3 types of NSX owners. One those who want sporty feel and easier to modify, prefer pop up headlights, manual steering and thus they buy 91-94. Two those who could careless about how fast a car can go at Nurburgring or Tochigi buy 95-96 cars and they get targa. Three those who will not modify an NSX buy 97+. There are "alot" of changes between a 91 and 97 cars. Complete list can be found http://www.nsxprime.com/wiki/Changes_by_Year.
If you type 2 person just buy a 95. If your about sporty yet cost conscience buy a 91-94 and if you want a car with alot of changes buy 97 or 02.
91-94 and 97-01 cars are about the same performance I had an option to buy a 97 but felt it was to soft and not sporty with power steering and targe so I bought an early 91. Had I found a 97 coupe or Targa with no power steering I probably would have bought it.
Preach it Brother!
If you want a R-Top that is economical to buy and maintain - this is the choice. Of course, if you get bit by the NSX bug like I did owning a 95, you might be like me and want a new one! I think the 95 is a great choice due to low depreciation in the next few years. FWIW.
I want a sporty feel and easy modification, plus a targa-top. :biggrin:
Me to ahahah should i chop mine of?:biggrin:
You can buy a clean 97, change the suspension, delet spare tire, exhaust, headers, wheels, you just saved alot weight
Me to ahahah should i chop mine of?:biggrin:
You can buy a clean 97, change the suspension, delet spare tire, exhaust, headers, wheels, you just saved alot weight
Right now, an NSX certainly isn't in the cards. The wife and I are in the middle of trying to sell our home, so money's not at a premium at the moment. :frown:
While I really enjoy mine, especially since it is paid off, IF I ever chose to get another one, I'll get a 97 or 02.
I think anything except a '02-05 is a great choice due to low rates of depreciation.
IMHO... that pricing chart needs to be updated. just taking a look at several of the completed sales on this website would indicate that prices have fallen a fair amount across the board.
No, they haven't. Prices in that chart are still accurate for the '91-94. They are slightly high for the '95-96 but not by much. The biggest discrepancy is in the '97-01 (even more so than the '02-05).
True.
1996 Front - 11.1 x 1.1 in. (282 x 28 mm)
1996 Rear - 11.1 x 0.83 in. (282 x 21 mm)
1997 Front - 11.7 x 1.1 in. (298 x 28 mm)
1997 Rear -11.9 x 0.9 in. (303 x 23 mm)
-Mirror
95-96 also has the advantage of midnight pearl. :biggrin:
Similar threads
