but if you're gonna compare a '91 NSX to a '91 Audi anything, you'd have to compare a very nice, well cared-for example with normal NSX miles. I'm guessing the average NSX probably has well under 100k on the clock. also that it lives in a garage and is maintained fairly religiously. then you could accurately compare the two 1991 cars.
also keep in mind that the NSX is a far more reliable car than any Civic, Accord or other model made by Honda. and again, driven less and cared for in a different manner. I wouldn't really imagine Honda to be heaps more reliable than they were 25 years ago as they were already well at the top of their game.
I don't agree that the NSX is noticeably more reliable than the Civic and Accord from the same era. Any difference you may have heard about and/or noticed is likely due to the fact that most NSX's have far fewer miles on them, just like you noted above. I am familiar with the repair history of about 8 different early 90's Hondas that friends and family still own today. With respect to solely reliability, all these cars regardless of model have aged similarly. For instance a 1990 Accord had more problems than my NSX, but it had over 350,000 miles on it and spent its entire life outside. But a garage kept 1990 Civic that has only 100,000 miles on it has actually had fewer problems than my NSX.
If you look closely at these cars they're all surprisingly similar. Nearly every one of these 20+ year old Hondas has had the main relay fail, including the NSX. If you take the relay module apart you'll see the NSX version is no better than the Civic version. Same goes for the ignition switches that have failed. And the brake master cylinder failed on the both the 1990 Civic and 1991 NSX within a year and 10,000 miles of each other. Both use a similar quality Nissin part.
However the NSX clearly has better body hardware and construction quality than the cheaper Hondas. But that doesn't really tell you much about its long term mechanical and electrical reliability.
all of the other manufacturers have since caught up tremendously.
So if this is indeed the case, then how do you explain that survey I previously posted showing an Audi is over 10 times more likely to experience an engine failure than a Honda? That is a huge difference! Also note the large disparity between all the brands. This is from a company that sells warranties to extend the original manufacturer's warranty, thus most of the cars in the survey are likely less than 8 years old.
I realize that groups like Consumer Reports and JD Power continue to tell us that brands like Audi have improved tremendously. And the short term data mostly shows this to be true. But all long term reports I can find (which are rarely publicized) continue to show big differences amongst brands. If you read r8talk.com you can see many owners are afraid to own their R8 without warranty. There are frequent threads discussing extended warranty costs. I don't recall that ever being a hot topic here on nsxprime.com
the question really is, since Honda is aiming the new NSX squarely at the R8, how will it stack up against the new model when it comes out shortly thereafter?
My guess is that the new NSX will offer performance that's similar to the V10 R8, but at the price level of the V8 R8. Honda's value proposition will be to offer a level of technology that's previously only been available in sports car costing far more. Many competing brands only offer hybrid sports cars as their top of the line models-- e.g. La Ferrari, McLaren P1, Porsche 918. The new NSX will claim to offer similar technology, but at the price level of a less technologically advanced 911 or R8.
x1000
