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


12 March 2001
What would you be driving in place of your NSX if the NSX had never been produced? What would fill the same void?
With no NSX I would need two cars! A Ferrari 1988 328 for the looks, and a regular car for when the Ferrari was being fixed, or to keep the miles down on the Ferrari to keep away from those high priced 15,000 and 30,000 mile services.
How much are the 15K and 30K services in the Ferrari, do the 360's have the same maint. cost? Just wondering so when I actually get one I can be prepared! The answer to the original question is... M5
Originally posted by Runutzzzzz:
How much are the 15K and 30K services in the Ferrari, do the 360's have the same maint. cost

30K services are about $1,500 to $2,000 for the 328. The 348 and 355 are more, about $3,500, they take the motor/trans out of the car. I don't know but I would place bets that the 360 is also at least that much.
1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 (Red of course)
plus a VW eurovan. I'd still have a few
buck left over too.

(actually I used to own a 93 RX-7, they are quite fast just not as well built as my NSX)

I was going to buy an 93-94 rx7 to track, so I don't have to beat my nsx up so much, but a Japanese Mechanic told me they were mechanically problematic. Is this true?
My criteria for a sports car were high degrees of performance, ergonomics, reliability, and aesthetics (not necessarily in that order). Given this set of criteria, I think the NSX is the only choice.

But if the NSX weren't available, then I'd opt for the P car. (The F car miserably fails the reliability requirement!)


95 M3 SC
#7 on the P-Car GT2 wait list...
Hey DVKIM - I know that many will disagree with my recommendation, but stay as far away as possible from the third-generation RX7 as possible. I owned a 1993 Touring and the problems I had with the engine and Mazda North America will keep me from buying a Mazda forever (and I have owned and loved other Mazdas before). The rotary engines in the 1993 (possible they were improved upon in later years, but I have seen nothing to back this up) are utter crap. The car is a lemon and should have been recalled by Mazda.
Check out this site for a look at the problems the car has: http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/lemon_site/default.htm

I had to replace the engine and both turbos on my car before it even hit 45,000 miles, and my wife and I had purchased it from an a woman in her fifties with 34,000 miles on it. It was my wife's main driver and most of the miles we put on it were rural highway. It was not moded, was an automatic, and never driven hard. The compression got so bad that even hitting the brakes coming to a stoplight made it die. I gave up running the AC in traffic within two months of purchasing it. The first dealer ran a compression test and pronounced it fine. [If you live in Houston, never do business with Jay Marks Mazda - they are scum (I am not alone in my experiences).] The second dealer, Jeff Haas Mazda, was utterly shocked that we were able to drive it once they looked at it.

To make a long story short - both turbos, and the entire engine were replaced under warranty (Mazda did it's best not to cover it) and I immediately sold the car. If my story and the story on the Mazda RX7 lemon site don't convince you, just check out any classifieds and look at the RX7's for sale - I promise you 50% of those listed will be low or middle mileage cars with brand new engines. This is not normal and definitely not acceptable for a Japanese manufacturer.
Porsche 911 or Supra TT.

I have a friend who goes to open track /school a lot with his 94 RX7. And I have to yet see him finish the day without any car trouble.

While me, I don't even open my engine compartment to cool the engine down between session. The NSX run too cool, so I need to keep the engine warm for the next session.
I would probably be in a Lotus Esprit and be miserable for lack of places to do service maintenance. Or even possibly in a Corvette... Now that's pretty scary.
Well it was 10 years ago when I bought my NSX, so I'd have to say maybe a Corvette ZR-1 or a Ferrari 348. But I would have sold both probably because they would have been plagued with problems. So then I would have got a 97 Porsche TT or a Supra TT or maybe even a Ferrari 360. But thanks to the excellent build quality and reliability of my NSX instead of buying 3 or 4 cars over the past 10 YEARS I've only had to buy one.
2002 Corvette Z06 -- Great performance for the money, over 400 horsepower, and the best looking of the C5s. I would just have to pray that the one I bought held together and didn't burn oil like a freighter -- some of the current ZO6s are reputed to burn a quart every thousand miles.
Well it was 10 years ago when I bought my NSX

Yes, me too, so I'm not sure whether this should be restricted to what was available ten years ago or what's on the market today. Nevertheless...

For me, the NSX is mostly a track car (but also my "flashy toy"), so my criteria are primarily:

- performance (FUN!)
- reliability
- cost

I'm sitting here trying to think of what is comparable in all of these areas. The F355/360 share that nice, precise handling and cornering, but they're nowhere near comparable in cost (either for the initial purchase or the upkeep). The Lotus is probably the most comparable in price and performance, but reliability is a major problem. BMW's just aren't sports cars IMO. The P-cars don't have the cornering responsiveness (I know, some of you disagree, but the one I drove sure didn't) and reliability is so-so. I'm not into muscle cars (heavy, high-horsepower cars), mostly because of the weight, so that lets out the Vette, the Supra, etc. The S2000 is nimble but many clubs won't let you take a convertible on the track. So that really doesn't leave much... Sorry. (NOT!)
The RX-7 comments remind me of my unhappy years with a second-generation RX-7 Turbo. It was by far the most mechanically unreliable car I've owned to date. Probably the most frustrating thing about the car was my dealer's inability to fix most of the engine-related problems I encountered--I remember many large dealer repair bills, many replacement parts with little improvement in its various mechanical problems. Fairly early on, I decided to sell the thing, but was unable to do so for much longer than I wanted, even at a near-giveaway price.

You wrote...

"...I'm not into muscle cars (heavy, high-horsepower cars), mostly because of the weight, so that lets out the Vette..."

Well the new C5s certainly have high horsepower. The new Z06 has 405. And with a few simple inexpensive mods, 450 HP will be easily obtainable.

However, it's a myth that these cars are heavy. It's just not true.

The Z06 weighs 3115 pounds.

Contrast this to a typical NSX-T which weighs 3208.

The Z06 Vette is nearly 100 pounds lighter than the NSX.

And that's pretty amazing when you consider that's it's a 5.7 V8 with a steel substructure.

I think I would have to seriously consider the C5 Corvette if I couldn't have a NSX.

I bought a used NSX because I believe that these cars are undervalued and are a tremendous value for the money.

My 92 NSX has less than 10K miles and for all intents and purposes it's like a new car.

But if the NSX didn't exist, I'd have to go with the C5 simply for the value. These cars are so much better than the older Corvettes. Sure, they still have issues and the interior needs to be more like the level of the NSX, but considering it's a $45K car, it's darn impressive.

Now having said that, I'm going out for a spin in my NSX!


1992 NSX Red/Blk 5 spd #0330
1991 NSX Blk/Blk Auto #3070 (Sold)
1974 Vette 454 4 spd Wht/Blk
Looking for a 76-79 Honda Accord
Within 3 weeks of buying my 2000 NSX used from a local used car dealer, he had a 2001 ZO6 and I took it for a spin. Nice car, but no comparison to the NSX. The car was brash, rough, sloppy responding, long shifter throwing, sit'n in a bath tub'n and not in the same league. I would keep my 95 M3 or buy a Boxster S.

You're absolutely correct. I was thinking of the Supra and cars like the Camaro/Firebird, which (even with the Vette's 5.7-liter V8) are much heavier than the Corvette. The Corvette is not significantly heavier than the NSX, to be sure.

It's also been true (for many years, in fact) that the Corvette is the performance bargain of the supercar world. Whenever the mags have done top speed tests of all the cars that can go over 150 or so mph, the Vette is always the lowest priced. Or so it seems, at least.

Reliability, OTOH... well, let's say that it's not exactly the Corvette's strong suit. And somehow, I just don't see myself as a Corvette kind of person... although it's probably as unfair to stereotype the Corvette owner as it is the NSX owner.

Would I be in a Corvette if there weren't an NSX? Hmmm... probably not. Too much Honda brand loyalty, maybe. I'd probably be driving an Integra Type R on the track and as my daily driver, I suppose. I'm not saying the ITR is a supercar like the NSX, don't get me wrong. But it IS one of the few moderately-priced cars (perhaps the ONLY one) that seems as though it was designed to be driven on the racetrack the day it left the factory.