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

1995-1996 vs 1997-1999 NSX

Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
13 February 2005
Messages
30
Location
Maryland
I would like to preface this post by stating this sight and those members who share their knowledge and experience are one of the primary motivating factors in my future NSX purchase. In browsing this sight the information I have gleaned has been invaluable. Thank you. With that said, I would like anyone’s input in a comparison of a 1995-1996 NSX to a 1997-1999 NSX. Initially, my tendency is toward the 1997-1999 due to improved performance modifications including power and braking. However, I question how much the performance related improvements really affect handling. Finally, if possible I will more than likely be requesting members’ input as I search for my NSX. I have the funds together, seriously looking in the $35,000-$45,000 range.

Thank you,
Scott
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
23 October 2000
Messages
13,885
Location
Saint Augustine, FL
No question go with the 1997. The 6-speed and 3.2 are worth it alone.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
24 May 2002
Messages
2,451
Location
Dana Point, CA USA
NetViper said:
No question go with the 1997. The 6-speed and 3.2 are worth it alone.

No offense to anyone else here but I completely agree.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
13 October 2002
Messages
130
I have a 95, but I would take a 97 in a heart beat, why wouldn't I want improved performance? I for one am not offended by anyone's opinion!
:smile:
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
2 March 2003
Messages
4,344
Location
San Francisco
I've owned both and the '97+ is much more of a car in my opinion.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
4 February 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
I don't think there's really any doubt; the '97-99 is significantly better. However, you will have to pay $6-10K more than for an otherwise equal '95-96. Whether the performance increase is worth the extra money is a personal decision and depends on how much you care about the performance and how tight your finances are.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
2 March 2003
Messages
4,344
Location
San Francisco
With that $6-10K, you can SC the '95-'96 and have '97+ killer all day long!
__________________

With that $6-10K, you can SC the '95-'96 and have '97+ killer all day long!
__________________

What can I say. Dumb!!










wh
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
23 October 2000
Messages
13,885
Location
Saint Augustine, FL
There is no question that a 95 NSX with a CTSC will outperform a stock 97 NSX. If you want to avoid going FI though, you will not touch the 97. The 6-speed and 3.2 offer a lot more power.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
27 November 2003
Messages
517
Location
Northridge, CA
Dtrigg said:
With that $6-10K, you can SC the '95-'96 and have '97+ killer all day long!
__________________

With that $6-10K, you can SC the '95-'96 and have '97+ killer all day long!
__________________

What can I say. Dumb!!

You forgot to quote the :biggrin: in the end.

You forgot to quote the :biggrin: in the end.


Perry :biggrin: :biggrin:
 

rjp

Experienced Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
15 April 2004
Messages
518
Location
Bear, Delaware
I own a pristine '95 and love it. On the rare occasions that the car gets driven, it's not driven hard so the extra power isn't a big deal. I'm not sure why the public gets excited about 6spds. If they made a 7spd trans, would it be better?...or just different? If the extra power is a big deal and it's worth thousands of dollars for 20hp that I'm guessing you won't feel, then go for the '97+. If you're like me, then find a clean '95-'96 and save the cash for some accessories.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
29 January 2005
Messages
117
Location
Planet BOOOST
Why settle for less? Just pay the extra and go for the 3.2L straight up rather than lusting for the upgrade from 3.0 to 3.2 later.... You won't regret it. Do it while you have the easy choice right now.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
23 October 2000
Messages
13,885
Location
Saint Augustine, FL
rjp said:
I own a pristine '95 and love it. On the rare occasions that the car gets driven, it's not driven hard so the extra power isn't a big deal. I'm not sure why the public gets excited about 6spds. If they made a 7spd trans, would it be better?...or just different? If the extra power is a big deal and it's worth thousands of dollars for 20hp that I'm guessing you won't feel, then go for the '97+. If you're like me, then find a clean '95-'96 and save the cash for some accessories.

You obviously have not driven a 97+. There is a noticeable bump in midrange power. The 6-speed really makes the car go and FEEL quicker. There is certainly nothing wrong with getting a 95, but if you have the money and don't plan on dong a lot of mods, the 97 is the way to go.
 

rjp

Experienced Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
15 April 2004
Messages
518
Location
Bear, Delaware
NetViper said:
You obviously have not driven a 97+. There is a noticeable bump in midrange power. The 6-speed really makes the car go and FEEL quicker. There is certainly nothing wrong with getting a 95, but if you have the money and don't plan on dong a lot of mods, the 97 is the way to go.

While you are correct that I've not driven a 97+, I have enough experience through ownership of fast cars, slightly modded fast cars and nitrous'd slightly modded fast cars to offer a slightly more educated than average opinion on this matter. Like many others I suspect, I had the extra $5K or so to spend on a newer vehicle. 'A little more speed' isn't worth an extra $5k to some people. My days of driving hard have passed. In fact, in took almost 12mos of ownership for me to tach the car past 6000rpm when, a few nights ago, I gave in and played around with an EVO or WRX (something like that) for a couple of gears.

Just prior to my NSX purchase, I drove a 94 or 95 Viper (stock 400hp) and was in awe of the power to say the least. In fact, every time I try to describe it to someone, I have to use profanity to describe the feeling. If you've driven a Viper, you probably know what I'm talking about. Anyway, a year or two later they went to 450hp. Now, I've not driven the 450hp version of that car either, but no one can tell me that the 400hp version wouldn't be enough for me...and that I should spend an extra several thousand $$ to get the extra power.

In summary, if the potential NSXer is like me, then the 270hp version will be fine.

p.s. Viper repair costs and build quality in general nixed the thought of me owning one
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
31 January 2002
Messages
334
I've never driven a pre-97 before, but I think once you get used to any automobile, you will always feel like it needs more power. The simple answer is to test drive both.

Scott, where are you in MD?
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
31 July 2002
Messages
514
Location
Harrisburg PA, USA
Counterpoint

NetViper said:
There is no question that a 95 NSX with a CTSC will outperform a stock 97 NSX. If you want to avoid going FI though, you will not touch the 97. The 6-speed and 3.2 offer a lot more power.

NetViper,
From reading many of your 6000+ posts I know you are a horsepower junkie and are entitled to that opinion. You make that clear in almost each post. I'm perplexed why you still like the NSX since horsepower is such a priority with you. I'm not busting your chops but, as the owner of a 95 (for sale actually), I think you give the uninitiated a warped perception of the differences in power between the 3.0 & 3.2 (20hp is not "a lot more power"). I read your post detailing your perception of the first drive you took in a '97 3.2 NSX and I believe most people disagreed with your perception that the 3.2L was so much faster than the 3.0L. IIRC some explained that what you were feeling was lower gearing in the first 3 gears because it has an extra gear.

In defense of the lowly '95/'96 NSX...
'95's and '96's get dogged waaaayy too much. To me, these model years were my first choice because they were the least expensive models that featured a removable top. My 5th gear is geared high enough that I frequently cruise the highway at 75mph, not realizing I'm still in 4th. A quick slide into 5th and my RPM's drop so low I can barely hear the engine. For 5th gear to be really working you need to be above 120mph :). '95/'96 cars also get thrown into underdog status when compared to older NSX's. Now I have never driven a '91-'94 coupe, but I know the added weight the NSX-T carries is about 200lbs. Anyone who can really truly discern that weight difference by driving the car (on the street no less) should have a competition license and be racing at least at the ALMS/Grand-Am level.

All NSX's are quick. My '95 is still faster than 95% of cars on the road today and still PLENTY capable of wowing passengers with its speed and scaring them with its road adhesion.

As always, JMO...newbies should get out there, drive a few, and make up their own minds.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
23 October 2000
Messages
13,885
Location
Saint Augustine, FL
Re: Counterpoint

kgb_agent said:
NetViper,
From reading many of your 6000+ posts I know you are a horsepower junkie and are entitled to that opinion. You make that clear in almost each post. I'm perplexed why you still like the NSX since horsepower is such a priority with you. I'm not busting your chops but, as the owner of a 95 (for sale actually), I think you give the uninitiated a warped perception of the differences in power between the 3.0 & 3.2 (20hp is not "a lot more power"). I read your post detailing your perception of the first drive you took in a '97 3.2 NSX and I believe most people disagreed with your perception that the 3.2L was so much faster than the 3.0L. IIRC some explained that what you were feeling was lower gearing in the first 3 gears because it has an extra gear.

The 97 car is faster than a 95 by a pretty good margin up to 150MPH. It is obviously a combination of the gearing and the extra Hp and TQ. But you are right, 20HP is not a lot more power. I am not a HP junkie, but the stock 3.0 NSX IMO does not have enough. Maybe if I owned a 97 I would keep it stock. We'll see.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
4 February 2000
Messages
27,000
Location
Chicago IL
NetViper said:
The 97 car is faster than a 95 by a pretty good margin
Bob Butler has calculated the 1/4 mile times of the various models, bone stock, as follows (and his figures correlate well with actual magazine tests):

'91 5-speed NSX Coupe - 13.67 seconds
'95-96 5-speed NSX-T - 13.81 seconds
'97+ 6-speed NSX-T - 13.39 seconds
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
29 January 2005
Messages
117
Location
Planet BOOOST
nsxtasy said:
Bob Butler has calculated the 1/4 mile times of the various models, bone stock, as follows (and his figures correlate well with actual magazine tests):

'91 5-speed NSX Coupe - 13.67 seconds
'95-96 5-speed NSX-T - 13.81 seconds
'97+ 6-speed NSX-T - 13.39 seconds

:eek: I didn't think it'll be that much difference! Thats pretty damn much quicker - almost 1/2 second quicker between the Ts! Might not sound like a lot but on the 1/4m stretch its quite a margin.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
1 October 2004
Messages
92
Location
Town of Delafield, WI
I've got to agree with KGB_AGENT. I have a high-miles '96 I picked up for low $30s, spent another $5K to get everything up to par (clutch, slave/master cyl, tie rods, fluids, tune, etc) and have more car than I will ever use on the street. I will never run a 1/4 mile, will never street race, and maybe, maybe will sometime do a track DE event. However, some spirited driving on country roads is my thing, and any NSX more than fills that need. I enjoy my '73 911-T Targa almost as much, and that has 147 hp!

Given my use, it would be a wasted $6-$10K for me to have a '97+, although all things being equal ($$$) sure I would get one. Plus I love the yellow but went with my second favorite, black. $6-$10 can do a lot of other nice things. Depends on your priorities and budget.

Drive both, match to your use patterns, and enjoy the NSX that meets your needs like the rest of us.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
13 February 2005
Messages
30
Location
Maryland
Again, this site and its members are great. Thank you all very much for you insight. Based on the input I have received it is apparent that the 1997 improvements are significant. Although I would consider a nice pre 1997, my search will primarily focus on 1997-1999.

To wctsao, I live and work in Hagerstown, Maryland.

Thanks again!
Scott
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
9 December 2002
Messages
2,252
Location
Buehlertal, Germany
Good thread - seems I found another one with the rare magnum grey pearl '98 models here (S2NSX)! The difference is of course that his one is a T and mine is a cp. which wasn't available in U.S. AFAIK.

kamikazi: If you can get a +'97 cp. it would even have better performance numbers than NSXtasy posted for the T. And of course the suspension is stiffer than the T.
 

gtr

Experienced Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
19 March 2005
Messages
396
Location
SE Michigan
I just bought a 96 NSXT. The car is not near at the level of performance compared to my Evolution MR in stock forum. Steering too slow, brakes are weak especally on a midship, and shocks are way too soft.

I feel u should get a 95-96 if you want to cruise with the top down and look just as great. If you want performance you might as well go with a Zarnardi or NSX-R.

Ask yourself if you really want to spend 8K more for a six gear and 20hp for a car that neither is, compeditive to race under simalar driver experience to the cars today. What i'm saying is that it depends on the car's condition and price. I made my decision based on my purpose and the condition being excellent and great value for it's price. I feel you should do the same. Look for a 97+ that is good maintanced and shape but don't ignore the 95-96 models you find a clean one.

Good luck.
 
Top