probert

I have been searching and found these two cars are comparible in pricing, but I don't know which to go for. The 91 NSX has 60000miles and the S2000 have only 10000miles. New versus a ten year old supercar.
Need advice.

lMlElNaCe-GsR

if you plan to get the NSX have some money to back you up in maintenace

importadrenelin

I had the same choice 2 weeks ago and bought the S2000.
#1 Reason was because of the WARRANTY and not worring about paying huge maintence fees on the NSX

shamoo

I encountered the same problem as you very recently. If you follow my posts, you'll see that I finally decided on an S2000.

They are both excellent cars, but in the end...the NSX is still a 10+ year old car. No matter how hot it looks (and boy does it look hot), the interior AND performance will have hints of it's age.

I sat in a 1993 NSX at the dealer when pricing out cars, the interior left much to be desired. If you sit in a newer S2000 or even any new car, there are so many modern amenities that you won't find in a 12 year old NSX.

I'd go with the S2K....and I did. It's newer, there won't be any problems, and as he said, you won't have to pay an arm and a leg for maintenance work.

On the other hand....if you can afford a 97+ NSX....then go for that

M-Type

its just depends on how good the condition of the nsx. If you like to modify stuff, got with the NSX cause modifying a brand/fairly new car is a waste of money. Of course i wouldnt go racing with that 10yr old car, but the NSX will still run and take you from point A to B with no prob.

lMlElNaCe-GsR

my friend has a 91 NSX with only around 60K miles on it but he says he spends on average of 200-400 dollars a month on maintenace alone.

probert

Thanks for the advice guys. That is how I feel too but I needed some reassurance.

DamonBoost

I had a 92 NSX. I was scared to drive it hard because I didnt want ANYTHING to break.. ended up keeping it only 5 months due to that. No fun if you dont have the money. Its one thing to afford that car, another thing to afford having that car.. Follow me?

obey_giant

s2000

Razor

s2k, they are easier to work on and plus its a brand new car.

Dc5-Power

Some guy converted his 1991 NSX front-end to the 2003 NSX version and it looked ******* sick. It was lowered with wheels and it looked just like the 2003 model. New paint and everything. He also had a picture of it next to a spa yellow S2k and it put the S2k to shame. Both cars can't even compare on looks. The NSX blows the S2k out of the water. I'm trying to look for the pic but I forgot where it was. I think it was on http://www.S2ki.com or some NSX site.

Razor

you're comparing a modded nsx to a stock s2k? thats pretty fair.

Dc5-Power

Geez... Don't cry about it. Both cars had the same modifications. They were both yellow, lowered and had aftermarket wheels. Even the owner of the S2k admitted that the NSX made his car look weak. If I find the picture, I'll be sure to post it up.

CW-ITR-329

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kimchee_power &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm trying to look for the pic but I forgot where it was. I think it was on http://www.S2ki.com or some NSX site.</TD></TR></TABLE>

This?: http://www.passlimitusa.com/projectnsx.html

Ryan

**Maybe not....

TurboMiata

out of curiousity..what makes the NSX so unreliable? I always thought a 3.0 putting out around 300 hp (ok 290..) would be reliable. Its not like its an overtaxed 3.0 putting out 550hp...

JUN JDM

i love S2000....but i would go NSX..juss cuz its a realli exotic car...and not too many ppl can afford to fix it up....but if u can't back it up...w/ all the matnience probs u might have...get tha S2K!

Razor

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by kimchee_power &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Geez... Don't cry about it. Both cars had the same modifications. They were both yellow, lowered and had aftermarket wheels. Even the owner of the S2k admitted that the NSX made his car look weak. If I find the picture, I'll be sure to post it up. </TD></TR></TABLE>

you didn't mention if the s2k was modified in your first post. no one is crying here.

FrostyDC4

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TurboMiata &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">out of curiousity..what makes the NSX so unreliable? I always thought a 3.0 putting out around 300 hp (ok 290..) would be reliable. Its not like its an overtaxed 3.0 putting out 550hp... </TD></TR></TABLE>
I want to know this also!

uNF$@#!

nsx isnt unreliable.

the fact that it has 10 years on it scare the infidels who know just about nothing away.

albeit a nsx may have 60k miles, probably half may be hard miles, its a reliable car so long as the motor holds compression, and no oil leaks.

most NSX's purchased were not used for "Track purposes" as the yuppies who could afford them then did not want to track it.

what would steer some people away would be the high OEM costs of replacing wear parts....like a clutch for 2000.

bus stop

I will go with the NSX if the engine, tranny and the body are all in good shape.
I know it's 10 years old but it's still a supercar by its own class.
I can see a s2000 everyday but not a NSX.

sk8phaze

I would go with a NSX, very very hard to choose seeing how s2k's are my seconds favorite, then subaru impreza. But a NSX is a rare super car,a honda, and a chick magnet!