Need 02+ owner help with 02+ NSX changes by model year update

[NSX-GUY]

I must have the updated high end stereo because mine plays country music all the time.

Is that legal ???

 

[Ski_Banker]

These are just changes that we see. There are many changes made unannounced and unseen. I know both Toyota and Honda do this. When you start taking the car apart, all of a sudden the cars are not so much "the same" from year to year. For example, I have seen something as small as this:

Under the dash the same electrical harness that is in my 05 is wrapped in foam... a 98 NSX's I saw wasn't. I am assuming it was to avoid a rattle. How does a small change like this happen? its certainly not announced in a brochure.

I agree in that I think there is too much advice of "get the older car, its the same" on this forum.

Yup. I can't directly compare NAI and NAII since it's been years since I drove NAI, but from what I've read from long-time owners that have owned multiple versions (Queue: LT owners for actual commentary -- Now! :wink: ), there's quite a big difference as a daily driver (track probably doesn't matter so much).

 

[NSXGMS]

1. Why don't people ever compare a later model ( i.e 02+ ) NSX to newer sportscars that they purchased. Then list the differences ,because that's a bit more interesting than comparing a truly 15 year old car to a new one. I mean honestly if you think so much of the car why not buy a new/newer one. Do people who a 91 civic buy a new 3 series and then talk about the differences between the two??????

I think it's a testament to the greatness of the original NSX that people still compare a Gallardo or F430 to an essentially 15 year old design. Aside from the 1997 upgrades no major component of the NSX has changed since 1990. I can't knock that and I say let people talk away. A 1991 NSX is still more reliable than a 2006 Ferrari or Lambo. Today. So I say compare away. I think it's more using the NSX as a yardstick which makes me proud to own one.

2. Prime members who tell people inquiring about the NSX to buy a 91-93 ( or at the most a 97 ) as there's no difference??? WTF??? No wonder the car had poor sales most followers wouldn't pay for a new one! It's no wonder 91-93 prices don't drop. Most people are told that new ones aren't worth the money ,but old NSX's are because "it's the same car". Talk about market fixing I studied the changes by model year before purchasing mine as I could see Honda was constantly making either small or large improvements.

The NSX has, in reality, changed very little in 15 years. You'd be hard pressed to find a car that has changed less over the same period of time, particularly a "performance" car. Even the 911 changed constantly. Maybe not the body style but virtually everything else, including the motor, changed quite frequently.

And you can't blame anyone but Honda. The 1997 changes should have taken place in 1994-1995 in preparation for the F355. The 2002 changes in 1997 in preparation for the F360. The car should have been fully re-designed in 2001-2002 or the HSC should have been introduced and should have had 400hp or close to it. 10 years and 290hp is enough for god's sake.

Honda continued to make improvements but these were trickle-down improvements stemming from their other cars and technology that didn't cost them much to implement and were all behind-the-scenes stuff that doesn't sell cars well. So while a 2005 is the best NSX ever made it's really not that much better than a 1991.

I think the main reason why Prime members suggest that 2005s are worse values is because it's a Honda. Mileage and age tend not to affect Hondas as much but tend to reduce it's cash value. Logically the age/mileage affects price more than it does the actual car. That creates an imbalance that leads to better "values" as the car ages.

1991-1994 cars are certainly the best "values" because the price is low and the reliablilty not much different than a 2005. The changes from 1991 and 2005 are so subtle it's the buyers discretion if they feel they need to spend the extra money for those changes.

3. If the 02+ nose is soooooooo ugly why then is a kit sold to "upgrade" the older models to the new nose. Do they make a kit to change the new nose to the old one?? If someone knows someone who did let me know as I want to see a picture of that:wink:

I think the 02+ front end is killer and much much more modern looking than the gauche pop-up headlights. So much so that I did convert mine to the 02+ style. Couldn't be happier. I feel like drive a 2005. Honestly. To me paying 80K is insane after knowing I spent 25K + 10K to get where I am.

4. New NSX replacement discussions are usually most vehemently discussed by people who didn't buy the last one new,but want Honda to make this super sportscar that they say "they'll buy" , but are really just ( forgive the lack of a better term ) "frontin". They know dogone well they'll talk about how great it is and then buy a used one( which doesn't help sales at all ).If I ran Honda I wouldn't pay those people any attention as they truly didn't support the last one.

Honda's failure to market the car and implement necessary changes to remain competitive in their class and price range cause people to not buy new. I can tell you that a few years ago if the HSC had debuted with performance on par w/ the F430 and ZO6 and cost under 125K it would have sold like hotcakes. Don't forget the economy took a dump in the early 90's--right at the time the NSX came around. Bad market timing & luck plays a big part in early NSX sales.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I think the main reason why Prime members suggest that 2005s are worse values is because it's a Honda. Mileage and age tend not to affect Hondas as much but tend to reduce it's cash value. Logically the age/mileage affects price more than it does the actual car. That creates an imbalance that leads to better "values" as the car ages.

Whenever someone aske me about a used accord, or civic, you know what I say? Buy new. I was at the dealer the other day they had a used honda civic with 28K miles and not much in options selling for basically $2000 less than a brand new body style 2 year newer car with NO milage.

I would never buy a used civic or accord, precisely because I think the line of thinking stated above has thrown the scale way the other way...

I find the price differential between NSX's miniscule when compared to any other car.

I would have to say that I see it as the exact opposite:

When it comes to the NSX, year/milage affects the price LESS than it does the actual car.

I know this is opinion, but if you compare the NSX to other cars of this range, this is clearly the case.

 

[WingZ]

I think it's a testament to the greatness of the original NSX that people still compare a Gallardo or F430 to an essentially 15 year old design. Aside from the 1997 upgrades no major component of the NSX has changed since 1990. I can't knock that and I say let people talk away. A 1991 NSX is still more reliable than a 2006 Ferrari or Lambo. Today. So I say compare away. I think it's more using the NSX as a yardstick which makes me proud to own one

Sorry chief not buying that. I actually started a thread asking people who bought older model NSX and bought a newer one. People who have actually owned an older and a newer NSX notice quite a few differences and say that the newer cars actually feel more expensive than the older NSXs.

The NSX has, in reality, changed very little in 15 years. You'd be hard pressed to find a car that has changed less over the same period of time, particularly a "performance" car. Even the 911 changed constantly. Maybe not the body style but virtually everything else, including the motor, changed quite frequently.

And you can't blame anyone but Honda. The 1997 changes should have taken place in 1994-1995 in preparation for the F355. The 2002 changes in 1997 in preparation for the F360. The car should have been fully re-designed in 2001-2002 or the HSC should have been introduced and should have had 400hp or close to it. 10 years and 290hp is enough for god's sake.

Honda continued to make improvements but these were trickle-down improvements stemming from their other cars and technology that didn't cost them much to implement and were all behind-the-scenes stuff that doesn't sell cars well. So while a 2005 is the best NSX ever made it's really not that much better than a 1991.

I think the main reason why Prime members suggest that 2005s are worse values is because it's a Honda. Mileage and age tend not to affect Hondas as much but tend to reduce it's cash value. Logically the age/mileage affects price more than it does the actual car. That creates an imbalance that leads to better "values" as the car ages.

1991-1994 cars are certainly the best "values" because the price is low and the reliablilty not much different than a 2005. The changes from 1991 and 2005 are so subtle it's the buyers discretion if they feel they need to spend the extra money for those changes.

Since your naming names lets start with Porsche. 911 was playing catch up to the NSX for years just like Ferrari. You guy's constantly talk about the NSX not being upgraded aren't looking at the FAQ. If you need me to post the changes by model year let me know

I think the 02+ front end is killer and much much more modern looking than the gauche pop-up headlights. So much so that I did convert mine to the 02+ style. Couldn't be happier. I feel like drive a 2005. Honestly. To me paying 80K is insane after knowing I spent 25K + 10K to get where I am.

This is subjective. How do you know a new NSX wouldn't have made you any happier? If you had $80k to spend as an auto enthusiast you'd know that in this price range it's great price for what you get in an NSX. Only other exotic selling in that price range was/is the Viper. People like to compare mag numbers to say what the NSX is worth and that is complete and utter BS. Those same mags always say the car is greater than it's numbers. Looks wise the 02+ can't be touched in it's price range. Porsches look great ,but are a dime a dozen just about anywhere you go. same to be said about Corvettes. Remember the C5 Z06 is what was selling during the 04/05 NSX years yet another dime a dozen car ( maybe more as GM was giving those things away at the time ).

Honda's failure to market the car and implement necessary changes to remain competitive in their class and price range cause people to not buy new. I can tell you that a few years ago if the HSC had debuted with performance on par w/ the F430 and ZO6 and cost under 125K it would have sold like hotcakes. Don't forget the economy took a dump in the early 90's--right at the time the NSX came around. Bad market timing & luck plays a big part in early NSX sales.

You do understand that Honda's philosphy is "minimum car maximum driver"? NSX was never meant to be a drag car. Honda never sold cars on HP and I don't think anyone ever bought the NSX ( or any other Honda )for it's HP. It's balance to this day still marvels people when they drive it even with all the other cars that are on the market. Kids ( sorry young adults ) like to compare old used NSX's to 350z's , Evo's, STi's etc ( most of these guy's don't even understand what an exotic is ) all they're doing is comparing price not actual cars as the NSX is still an exotic. They could buy 30k Porsches or Ferraris or Corvettes ,but most 15 year old Porches, Ferraris or Corvettes don't hold their interest like an NSX. Again if you had $80k to spend in 02-05 the NSX would've seemed like a bargain.

If people didn't feel the NSX was worth the money to buy new you wouldn't have had a used NSX to buy in the first place. Newer NSX owners don't post "Old NSX's aren't worth the money as they're old beat up Hondas" Neither do they post "91-whatever should only be worth such and such because it's so old and doesn't look like a new one"

Most newer NSX owners understand that not everyone can afford one of these new ,but constantly saying the NSX isn't worth it's price when new is an insult. Apparently we're all stupid and don't know what else we could've had for the money. I personally think it's crazy to spend $30k on a used car when you can buy a nice new one for that. To each his own.

You can't blame Honda for anything as your basically saying their car is only worth $25-35k ( basically what people pay for a S2000 ).

 

[Ben]

Sorry chief not buying that. I actually started a thread asking people who bought older model NSX and bought a newer one. People who have actually owned an older and a newer NSX notice quite a few differences and say that the newer cars actually feel more expensive than the older NSXs.

I've owned a '92 and now an '05. Both cars have their pros and cons. However, I don't think one "feels" any more expensive than the other.

If people didn't feel the NSX was worth the money to buy new you wouldn't have had a used NSX to buy in the first place. Newer NSX owners don't post "Old NSX's aren't worth the money as they're old beat up Hondas" Neither do they post "91-whatever should only be worth such and such because it's so old and doesn't look like a new one"

Most newer NSX owners understand that not everyone can afford one of these new ,but constantly saying the NSX isn't worth it's price when new is an insult. Apparently we're all stupid and don't know what else we could've had for the money. I personally think it's crazy to spend $30k on a used car when you can buy a nice new one for that. To each his own.

My 2 cents on this is that if you can afford to buy new, it's a lot less hassle and aggravation than hunting for months for the right year, color, options, condition, history, etc. At one point in my life, when I couldn't afford to buy new, I always wondered who would waste the money to do so, when you could spend a little time and effort to find a nice used example. At that time, I told myself, I would probably never buy a new car. That thinking changed when I bought an S2000, I ended up buying new, because used ones were only going for a few thousand less than the new ones could be negotiated down to. It was the easiest car buying experience of my life. Now that I can afford to buy new, the time and energy I saved, and peace of mind that I got a good car was worth every additional penny. At least that's my reason for buying new now, if you can afford it. I've been constantly reminded of this over the past 5 months, as I hit dead end after dead end in my search for a '98 Supra.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I was looking at other cars in the 100K range and I found a new NSX good enough in many aspects to buy it over the others. An 05 NSX, has MANY advantages over other sports cars in this range. I don't think I need to list them.

Really, the guys that have older NSX's have a tremendous bargain on their hands. And no its really not "the same car". Its somewhat close.

What did the car and driver review say in 01? "a bargain almost everybody missed". Honestly... an 05 is not expensive at all. Its cheap when compared to its competition.

I knew the glaring problems of the NSX going into it. But a CTSC and a Pioneer AVICZ1, one of Hal's new boxes, a few R parts, a nice exhaust and this car is better than anything else I could have bought for $40K more. The best thing is that as an 05 I have one of the cleanest lowest milage NSX's REMAINING in the country.... there are no more made! So that helps its resale value... its reliable and headache free, under warranty, no maintenance issues, fast as hell especially with the CTSC.

A great car, at not a lot of cost, and when the new NSX, GTR, or LF-A come out, my car will be worth something in trade. If I decide to trade...

 

[alum04org]

Jeepers! This thread, seeking changes to later M Y production units, has jumped the tracks.

It has also brought up many thoughts, shared by WingZ, Ben, and TURBO2GO. I cannot think of any glaring problems going into it. I'm still N/A, AND, it is free and clear.

I like the '02 and newers. I like the '02 and newer colors. The HID lamps. :biggrin: The '04 brought subtle changes. The perforated leather seats, the new shift knob in '04 and '05 models. No footwell light in pass side.
Other things mentioned,too.

The smell of the lthr interior seems to never get mentioned. Other hand, the carry-over "stereo cassette w/trunk mounted CD changer " (never operated in my unit, the exhaust is symphony enough) is antiquated.

PLUS: 198 sold USA 2004. 241 sold USA 2005.

"A bargain almost everybody missed?" Yes, I agree.

 

[NSXGMS]

Sorry chief not buying that. I actually started a thread asking people who bought older model NSX and bought a newer one. People who have actually owned an older and a newer NSX notice quite a few differences and say that the newer cars actually feel more expensive than the older NSXs.

I read that entire thread and no one said that it felt "more expensive" nor was that even the topic. Of the people that did respond they noted the Targa top and the increased power, including the T-B-W, most notably. Everything else that was improved was the definition of minor (If you count better ABS and TCS systems as minor--I do)

Since your naming names lets start with Porsche. 911 was playing catch up to the NSX for years just like Ferrari. You guy's constantly talk about the NSX not being upgraded aren't looking at the FAQ. If you need me to post the changes by model year let me know

Minor trickle-down upgrades don't get the job done when it comes to selling cars. Performance upgrades and styling upgrades do. All of Honda's band-aid upgrades to the NSX were a day late and a dollar short--period. The NSX lost it's way as did Honda. The philosophy of the 2005 NSX was quite different from the 1991 philosophy.

BTW, the 911 and the Ferrari were so far ahead of the NSX in technology and performance by 2004 it was sickening. The 2005 NSX was a sad sight--based on Honda's original vision for the car.

This is subjective. How do you know a new NSX wouldn't have made you any happier? If you had $80k to spend as an auto enthusiast you'd know that in this price range it's great price for what you get in an NSX. Only other exotic selling in that price range was/is the Viper. People like to compare mag numbers to say what the NSX is worth and that is complete and utter BS. Those same mags always say the car is greater than it's numbers. Looks wise the 02+ can't be touched in it's price range. Porsches look great ,but are a dime a dozen just about anywhere you go. same to be said about Corvettes. Remember the C5 Z06 is what was selling during the 04/05 NSX years yet another dime a dozen car ( maybe more as GM was giving those things away at the time ).

Don't confuse the 1991 NSX w/ the 2005 NSX. The only reason the 2005 is even a viable option was because of how mind-blowing the 1991 NSX was. Honda deserves no congrats for the 2005 NSX. None.

I'm not knocking anyone who buys a new one. I'm not saying it's a bad choice at all. I'm saying it's a different car in 2005 and you're not buying the same thing at the same price that one could in 1991. It's less car for less money.

You do understand that Honda's philosphy is "minimum car maximum driver"? NSX was never meant to be a drag car. Honda never sold cars on HP and I don't think anyone ever bought the NSX ( or any other Honda )for it's HP. It's balance to this day still marvels people when they drive it even with all the other cars that are on the market. Kids ( sorry young adults ) like to compare old used NSX's to 350z's , Evo's, STi's etc ( most of these guy's don't even understand what an exotic is ) all they're doing is comparing price not actual cars as the NSX is still an exotic. They could buy 30k Porsches or Ferraris or Corvettes ,but most 15 year old Porches, Ferraris or Corvettes don't hold their interest like an NSX. Again if you had $80k to spend in 02-05 the NSX would've seemed like a bargain.

Take a F430 out for a spin and tell me if it's balanced. Underpowered cars do not equal balance. There's many ways to achieve "balance". The last time I checked the NSX was a performance car. Therefore it needs to go around a track faster than it's rival. Well, the 2005 NSX can't go around a track faster than a F430--it's evolved rival. The original NSX would smoke a C4 Vette, even beat a ZR1. Today's ZR1--the ZO6--would absolutely kill an NSX. I don't see how power makes a car into a drag car. Do you suggest that NSX owners w/ Comptech S/Cs drag their cars exclusively?

Most newer NSX owners understand that not everyone can afford one of these new ,but constantly saying the NSX isn't worth it's price when new is an insult. Apparently we're all stupid and don't know what else we could've had for the money. I personally think it's crazy to spend $30k on a used car when you can buy a nice new one for that. To each his own.

Newer cars in general depreciate more and are worse investments ("value", as the case may be.) Buying used is always a better value--always--in the short term (many things considered such as condition and maintenance.) So I think you're picking on a general fact and applying it striclty to NSXs as if people are attacking the NSX. I don't see it that way. What's a better "value"--a cheaper car that has virtually stopped depreciating or a more expensive car that depreciates faster that is only 10% different than the older car? $50K is a lot of differential between purchase prices and when you really look at what the 2005 gives you vs. the 1991, including maintenance costs.

You can't blame Honda for anything as your basically saying their car is only worth $25-35k ( basically what people pay for a S2000 ).

What the NSX represented in 1991 is miles away from what it represents in 2005. To suggest otherwise is biased and partial toward the NSX in view. The NSX's rarity owes a great deal to Honda's inability to market and improve the car to the same degree it's competitors did.

Honda's goals and the NSX philosophy can be quantified. It has drifted far away from those philosophies. It's Honda's loss of direction in philosphy that makes it the saddest.

 

[Ski_Banker]

The 2005 NSX was a sad sight--based on Honda's original vision for the car.


Don't confuse the 1991 NSX w/ the 2005 NSX. The only reason the 2005 is even a viable option was because of how mind-blowing the 1991 NSX was. Honda deserves no congrats for the 2005 NSX. None.

Listen, there's no reason to be a dick just because you could only afford to MAKE your '91 LOOK LIKE our 02+s. The only offense that we 02+ idiots should take is that we are uninformed as to other (in your opinion better) options in the 60-90k range. I'm quite sure that you are 100% correct in your opinion of how YOU would spend that money, just like, especially in hindsight, I'm 100% thrilled that I made the right decision in buying one of the very last of a legendary sportscar.

 

[NSXGMS]

Listen, there's no reason to be a dick just because you could only afford to MAKE your '91 LOOK LIKE our 02+s. The only offense that we 02+ idiots should take is that we are uninformed as to other (in your opinion better) options in the 60-90k range. I'm quite sure that you are 100% correct in your opinion of how YOU would spend that money, just like, especially in hindsight, I'm 100% thrilled that I made the right decision in buying one of the very last of a legendary sportscar.

My 91 looked like yours before I did the conversion--at least to 99.9% of the population who don't stare at one every day like we do. It's the truth. The car is virtually unchanged in 15 years and it's an outrageous claim to think otherwise.

Also: I never suggested a 2005 NSX is a bad value. I suggested that ALL new cars are bad values (based on purchase price) compared to used that are in good condition. A 1991 is a better value than a 2005. The 2005 is a great value, the 1991 a better value. Logical syllogisms.

 

[TURBO2GO]

I suggested that ALL new cars are bad values (based on purchase price) compared to used that are in good condition. A 1991 is a better value than a 2005. The 2005 is a great value, the 1991 a better value. Logical syllogisms.

You are comparing a 2005 NSX to a 1991 NSX, and I am comparing my NSX to a Maserati or a used Ferrari. In that comparison, the NSX has value.

Small changes from an automotive design standpoint, are large changes to a consumer ready to spend 80K.

There really is no argument or discussion here, we are all in agreement. Just talking about different things. You are talking about what Honda management should have/could have done, and we are talking about the merits of a new NSX versus a new something else in this price range. You are right, and so are we.

The only issue, is that you are having a hard time justifying the extra cost of a newer NSX, as do many members of this forum. But that is a purely personal thing. To one, a 1991 NSX represents tremendous value. Its "almost" the same as a 2005... to another, a 1991 NSX may have ZERO value... because all those things that "almost" make it like a 2005, are all missing!

Its a personal choice, usually affected by one's finances, upgrade capabilities, patience, etc.

 

[NSXGMS]

The only issue, is that you are having a hard time justifying the extra cost of a newer NSX, as do many members of this forum. But that is a purely personal thing. To one, a 1991 NSX represents tremendous value. Its "almost" the same as a 2005... to another, a 1991 NSX may have ZERO value... because all those things that "almost" make it like a 2005, are all missing!

Its a personal choice, usually affected by one's finances, upgrade capabilities, patience, etc.

I agree. :smile:

 

[WingZ]

I read that entire thread and no one said that it felt "more expensive" nor was that even the topic. Of the people that did respond they noted the Targa top and the increased power, including the T-B-W, most notably. Everything else that was improved was the definition of minor (If you count better ABS and TCS systems as minor--I do)

You got me on the point about more expensive:wink: That was all subjective by me as following a friends advice I looked at older NSX's and maybe it was the fact that they were used ,but they seemed cheaper than the 02 I looked it. As someone who was paying what I considered to be a lot of money for a car I was very pleased with the updates Honda made and don't consider them minor ,because these "small" changes make the car better than it's older counterparts which don't have these things. If had to drive an older NSX now I would notice/miss those things in my car. if you buy a newer NSX you go " Oh my car didn't have this or didn't do that"

Minor trickle-down upgrades don't get the job done when it comes to selling cars. Performance upgrades and styling upgrades do. All of Honda's band-aid upgrades to the NSX were a day late and a dollar short--period. The NSX lost it's way as did Honda. The philosophy of the 2005 NSX was quite different from the 1991 philosophy.

This is a speculative argument as you and most other people wouldn't/won't pay much for a Japanese car. This was the NSx's downfall. Yuppies bought the car at first because it was dare I say "novel" at the time. Even paying up to $100k for the car to be the first to have one. It was less of a bargain in 1991 than it was in 2005. Philosphy didn't change it's still everything it was meant to be. The NSX was never lost , everybody else just caught up and there's no shame in that. Question?.. Did you ever even think to talk to the dealer about prices on one and let him know you were serious or are you just going by posts of what other people said or posted about their buying expierence?

BTW, the 911 and the Ferrari were so far ahead of the NSX in technology and performance by 2004 it was sickening. The 2005 NSX was a sad sight--based on Honda's original vision for the car.

The NSX is a beautiful sight to auto enthusiasts who know a bargain when they see one. Porsche technology way advanced??? your going to have to fill me in on this because w/o a turbo they're still not getting 100bhp per liter. They just keep making the engine bigger and that's not new technology. Have you priced a Ferrari? Look at it's performance per dollar vs the NSX's performance per dollar and then tell me to believe what it is you just said

Don't confuse the 1991 NSX w/ the 2005 NSX. The only reason the 2005 is even a viable option was because of how mind-blowing the 1991 NSX was. Honda deserves no congrats for the 2005 NSX. None.

I wouldn't confuse them as they look to different to me. At $100k your telling me that the NSX was a better buy then than now. Honestly you can look me in the eye and say that more expensive car with less performance was a better buy?

I'm not knocking anyone who buys a new one. I'm not saying it's a bad choice at all. I'm saying it's a different car in 2005 and you're not buying the same thing at the same price that one could in 1991. It's less car for less money.

I don't think you know what your saying to be honest and yes you are knocking people who buy a new one. People who bought a new NSX from 97+ to 05 got more car for less money. I can't believe you don't understand that. We generally paid less than sticker and got about ten years or more of improvements ( however minor you see them )

Take a F430 out for a spin and tell me if it's balanced. Underpowered cars do not equal balance. There's many ways to achieve "balance". The last time I checked the NSX was a performance car. Therefore it needs to go around a track faster than it's rival. Well, the 2005 NSX can't go around a track faster than a F430--it's evolved rival. The original NSX would smoke a C4 Vette, even beat a ZR1. Today's ZR1--the ZO6--would absolutely kill an NSX. I don't see how power makes a car into a drag car. Do you suggest that NSX owners w/ Comptech S/Cs drag their cars exclusively?

First off people wouldn't have the F430/360/355 if it hadn't been for the NSX. When the 355 came out people couldn't believe that the Italians might actually be taking a cue from the Japanese as the 355/360/F430 are all Ferrari trying to prove they could make a car as good.. then match and then surpass the NSX. Did I say surpass? Sure did and look at what you pay for it. The F430 owes it balance to the NSX I don't care what bigots of Asian want to say. The NSX didn't go around the track faster than a ZR1 and it was not faster than the "cheaper" ZR1. The ZR1 was faster in a straight line and pulled higher lateral g's while matching the NSX in braking ,plus it cost less ( Check C&D Sept 1990 ). Gotta know your numbers before you say something like that. If not you end up insulting Corvette owners who actually know what their car did back in the day. Also C4 was never the NSX's competition at less than $40k. I don't know what supercharged NSX owners do with their cars as most people I know that have them are scared to drive them ( of course they're scared to drive the NSX anyway..LoL )

Newer cars in general depreciate more and are worse investments ("value", as the case may be.) Buying used is always a better value--always--in the short term (many things considered such as condition and maintenance.) So I think you're picking on a general fact and applying it striclty to NSXs as if people are attacking the NSX. I don't see it that way. What's a better "value"--a cheaper car that has virtually stopped depreciating or a more expensive car that depreciates faster that is only 10% different than the older car? $50K is a lot of differential between purchase prices and when you really look at what the 2005 gives you vs. the 1991, including maintenance costs.

First off an "investment" is something that should return money to you so almost all cars are a poor investment as few return any type of profit. I'm pretty sure anyone who bought their NSX new didn't think of it as an investment. Also a S2000 new is a better buy than a used NSX as the performance per dollar is almost equal plus you get a warranty and you know the cars history since your the one writing it. 05 gives you better performance ,but the 91 is cheaper becuase it's
1. Old
2. Used
3. You honestly never know WTF someone did to it ( carfax only goes by what's reported and most people will lie to make a sale )

What the NSX represented in 1991 is miles away from what it represents in 2005. To suggest otherwise is biased and partial toward the NSX in view. The NSX's rarity owes a great deal to Honda's inability to market and improve the car to the same degree it's competitors did.

There's no bias to it. The NSX is still more reliable and a better buy for the money than Ferrari and Porsche as you still need to spend $15-150k for marginally better performance ( sorry for the run on sentence ).

Honda's goals and the NSX philosophy can be quantified. It has drifted far away from those philosophies. It's Honda's loss of direction in philosphy that makes it the saddest.

Everything can be quantified for dollars. Unfortunately consumers like you killed the NSX as you felt it was never worth the bargain that Honda sold it for.

No hurry up and write back as I'm really waiting for your response to this:biggrin:

 

[TURBO2GO]

No hurry up and write back as I'm really waiting for your response to this:biggrin:

Oh God... please... spare us... :wink:

WingZ you buy your new car and let nsxgms buy the older one and upgrade the crap out of it and everyone is happy.

Frankly I am grateful for all those attitudes, half-baked opinions, uninformed reviewers and dumb consumers who never saw the merits of the NSX, kept sales low, production limited, resale value high, and created a car that you see once every 6 months.

All you people saying the NSX is overpriced and underpowered... Ya dam right! go buy something else. This car truly blows....

 

[WingZ]

Oh God... please... spare us... :wink:

WingZ you buy your new car and let nsxgms buy the older one and upgrade the crap out of it and everyone is happy.

Frankly I am grateful for all those attitudes, half-baked opinions, uninformed reviewers and dumb consumers who never saw the merits of the NSX, kept sales low, production limited, resale value high, and created a car that you see once every 6 months.

All you people saying the NSX is overpriced and underpowered... Ya dam right! go buy something else. This car truly blows....

Oops I forgot..uuh yeah a new NSX is a underperforming piece of furrin crap that my cousins old nove could beat..yeah

Oh yeah "damn Japanese" ( Lee Iacoca 1991 )

 

[TURBO2GO]

My coin tray is black from the factory. I have noticed in a lot of pics the coin trays are gray. I don't know what year this changed. Maybe another change?

 

[WingZ]

My coin tray is black from the factory. I have noticed in a lot of pics the coin trays are gray. I don't know what year this changed. Maybe another change?

No mine is as well. I think it's coming down to the 02-03 being the same with the 04 model year changes being carried over to 05. Kinda makes me think that maybe the 05 was a last minute cancel.

 

[Ben]

My coin tray is black from the factory. I have noticed in a lot of pics the coin trays are gray. I don't know what year this changed. Maybe another change?

They are all black. It's the angle of the picture, the way the light is hitting it in the picture, or it has faded. My old '92 coin tray was black.

 

[lithiumus]

Here was my post on the instrument cluster changes (with pics and added text)

1991 - 1992

1993 - 2001
- removed the "Premium Unleaded Fuel Only" plaque next to the Voltage, under the fuel gauges
- "Premium Unleaded Fuel Only" now printed on speedo gauge
- the gauge print changed for all 4 of the small gauges, markers are closer to the needles
- TCS light in the Tach gauge is removed (moved?)
- white print of the NSX car (door ajar indicator) less visible and more visible with back lighting, picture slightly different

2002 - 2003

- all the gauge faces are a deep blue color
- the cluster frame has now changed to a matching silver / light gun metal as the 2002+ door handles

2004 - 2005

- the cluster frame changed to a textured black with silver cluster rings

1992 - 1995 Type R

- the cluster frame changed to a printed CF look pattern
- all gauge needles are yellow
- TCS light in the Tach gauge and Cruise light in the Speed gauge removed
- various warning lights are removed (I'll confirm this)
- though OEM for JDM, speedo is 180 kph max
- white print of car (door ajar indicator) less visible, more visible with back lighting

2002 - 2005 Type R

- the cluster frame uses the same silver as the 2002+ but with red rings instead of black
- all gauge needles are yellow
- gauge faces are printed with a CF look similar to the 92-95 CF print but with a dark blue color
- again, both TCS and Cruise lights removed from Tach and Speed guages
- all white printing (numbers, lines) are now orange
- speed gauge now has 300 kph max
- tach cluster adds a green (VTEC?) and red (almost redline?) shift indicators (I'll confirm this)
- white print of car (door ajar indicator) visible without back lighting

 

[tbck2793]

I feel like such a dumb@$%!!! I spent way too much on my 05 NSX according to the above posts.....I could've bought like 4 Accords, or 6 Civics, or 2 1/2 S2000's......:biggrin:

Seriously, this thread has been very entertaining, just wanted to chime in:wink:

 

[WingZ]

Here was my post on the instrument cluster changes (with pics and added text)

You...are...the..man!

Thanks!

 

[WingZ]

I feel like such a dumb@$%!!! I spent way too much on my 05 NSX according to the above posts.....I could've bought like 4 Accords, or 6 Civics, or 2 1/2 S2000's......:biggrin:

Seriously, this thread has been very entertaining, just wanted to chime in:wink:

You should be ashamed! Think of how many used Accords you could've purchased for the price of a new Rl alone

 

[Ski_Banker]

Also: I never suggested a 2005 NSX is a bad value. I suggested that ALL new cars are bad values (based on purchase price) compared to used that are in good condition. A 1991 is a better value than a 2005. The 2005 is a great value, the 1991 a better value. Logical syllogisms.

My bad, I guess I misinterpreted your comments:

The 2005 NSX was a sad sight--based on Honda's original vision for the car.


Don't confuse the 1991 NSX w/ the 2005 NSX. The only reason the 2005 is even a viable option was because of how mind-blowing the 1991 NSX was. Honda deserves no congrats for the 2005 NSX. None.

 

[WingZ]

Was anyone able to find out if their were any suspension changes?