Used NSX or a New S2000

 

new s2000.
dont' like buying sports cars that are used. dont' know the history.

 

for the same money i'd have to say NSX. i love the s2000, but the NSX is an exotic sports car. it's in another league, even used.

 

Jeez, how many times is this question gonna get asked???

Get the car you want.

 

S2000 without a doubt

 

I'd definitely get a Supra.

 

The NSX and S2000 are different cars. I'm not much for convertibles and not to thrilled with keeping the engine above 6000rpm and aggressively rowing through the gears to get some power out of it. For my driving style, the NSX is most ideal. Finding a well maintained NSX is the key. I bought a '91 back in '97 with 10K miles. It was in tip top condition and well maintained. In the five years that I've owned it (44K miles now), I've only had to replace the trunk support struts and a leaky shock. I've tracked the car at Laguna Seca about a dozen times. This car has been the most reliable exotic I've owned. Maintenance isn't that much more than that of an Legend (RL) but I do most of the service myself. It runs great. It's a Honda!! I doubt I'll ever sell it.

Vytas

 

tha st00k.

 

what other "exotics" have you owned if you don't mind me asking? and how much did you get your NSX for?

 

..do you find your avatar's?

Also, not to incite further arguments, but the Ferrari 308, 328, 400i, 412i, Lambo Countach, and a host of other casually known exotics, under your definition would fail the test, as the performance offered is sub-par to modern standard; maybe your definition is too broad?

 

True. However, comparing the 'old' NSX to its closest rival, of equal vintage, the 348. It's performance is not so understated.


However, both of those cars out power the NSX by a significant margin the 348 produces 300 hp, and the 355 375 hp, and both have larger displacement motors; the 348 is 3.4 liters and the 355 has 3.5 liter, and both were V8's.


Now, considering that a used 355 is still hovering in the $90k range, that's for a '95/'96 355B w/ moderate milage and possibly the 30k service completed. And, an early 348 will go for close to $50k; a '91-'94 NSX in the mid $30's, or a '97 NSX for say $55k, seems a bargain, won't you agree?

So, what's to be taken from this? Well, either ther 348 and 355 are not exotics, as compartivly they're both, by vintage, are outperformed by the NSX . Or, the NSX is, in fact, an exotic; using only your definitions, it is neither overpriced, nor understated in perfomance.




[Modified by bb6h22a, 2:56 PM 11/15/2002]

 

Actually, yes. I have driven a '92 NSX and a '97, and have been in a '99 and '02. To me, the NSX didn't feel slow, nor lazy. And, I've tasted a variety of cars: '99 360, '99 355 6 speed, 348 spyder, 996TT, '00 ITR, 911 SC, etc.

IMO, the NSX does not feel slow, and the numbers I cited for 'early' NSX performance are published by 'credible' sources; however, NO, I personally have never done a 0-60 test in an early NSX.

The logic I used came from you're definition of what an exotic 'should' be' e.g. cost v. performance, etc. And, you are correct the 355 debuted in late '94; however, conisdering the following, it's hard to berate the NSX: the 348/355 is a V8, has more power, more displacement, and higher compression, and higher manitanance costs, now, all w/ all these considerations in place, it's hard to dismiss the exotic nature of the NSX, as it pertains to: low production volume, 'exotic' materials used- a la Ti con rods, Al body panels, sus. pieces, etc.- and the design history inherant to the car. Annecdotaly, the NSX gear box, body shape, and driver feel were inspiration to the Gordon Murray in designing the F1 (reference: Driving Ambition); the NSX has a tremendous amount of character and avant garde, however much veiled in Japanese demure.




[Modified by bb6h22a, 3:08 PM 11/15/2002]

 

...you've made an error:

Honda has been racing since '59 where it competed in the isle of man TT, and in F1 since '63, clinching victory in '65 where it won the Mexican GP. Honda took a hiatus from F1 from '68 to '84, but was already involved in F2 from '80.

Ferrari raced in the '40 MM, but both maruqes have been racing since corporate inception, what has happened since, is well history. Also, if you'd like to read about Ferrari's racing history as it pertains to it's roadcar development, your welcome to read my article, here. By no means comprehensive, just intorductory info there.





[Modified by bb6h22a, 3:27 PM 11/15/2002]

 

Considering there is only a 4 year span before Honda crossed into 4 wheel racing, I'd concede that their name has been equally established in both venues of racing. Also, while true that Honda's racing pedigree is not that of Ferrari's, it could be argued that Honda, in the past, has been more succesful in it's racing ventures; although, things have changed recently. And, as much as brass is to Honda's racing and platinum to Ferrari's, there still isn't the utter LACK of racing history; a point you attempted to perpetuate.




[Modified by bb6h22a, 4:29 PM 11/15/2002]

 

nice debate you guys got going here, I'm getting a lot out of it.
how would a car's potential fit into the mix ie, how responsive would mods be to an nsx as compared to other "exotics"?

 

Well, it is a mixed bag. Most modern ferrari's live their lives faily stock; most owners equip the car w/ a tubi, some go further and add either the gruppe m airbox, or tubi filters, tubi cat by pass pipes, ECU, etc. However, there is a lack of documentation as it pertains to the gain in power seen after a given mod; so, your guess, or the manufactures claim, is as good as mine.

Regarding the NSX, however, peruse the following pdf file, should give you an excellent idea as to how the NSX reponds:

NSX Dyno Day.

Also, from what I've heard a la Shawn Church, the s2000 really gains from an AEM CAI, low temp thermostat, and possiblt the '02 ECU as the '02 s2000's are putting down ~ 5-8 more rwhp v. an '01; also, the s2000 motor is really sensetive to heat, so ANYTHING you can do to get it run cooler seems to give it an advantage.

 

Are you sure about those numbers? Can you provide a specific issue date? Because they're significantly worse than most magazine tests (which actually proves your point even better). For example, here are more typical results:

348tb: 0-60 6.0 (Source: Road & Track, Sept 1990)
348 spider: 0-60 5.6 (Source: Road & Track, June 1993)
F355 Berlinetta: 0-60 4.9 (Source: Road & Track, October 1994)
F355 Spider: 0-60 5.3 (Source: Road & Track, January 1997)

As you can see, the 348 is much slower than the NSX of the same era, which, along with poor build quality, is why most Ferraristi regard the 348 as the worst Ferrari ever produced. The F355 is much closer in performance to the NSX, lying somewhere in between the '91-94 five-speed NSX and the '97-02 six-speed NSX in performance.

Much of the reason why many Ferraris are not that fast despite an alleged horsepower advantage is that they are notorious for claiming higher horsepower than the cars actually produce.

 

nsxtasy,

Please reference this link as it where I got my info. Although, I must admit that I just did a quick search to find the numbers, my closet full of car mags is at home, and I'm at work. Anyway, yes your correct the 348 w/ regard to build quality was the worst, as Montezomolo ( I can never get this guy's name right) president of Ferrari SpA publicly slighted the 348 as 'the worst Ferrari ever' and he bought one w/ his own moeny. The NSX actually inspired the build quality seen on the later 348's and then the 355's; although not perfect, much better. To digress, a little, every F car will have 'issues', I could cite half a dozen issues each of the newest models have had since their respective debuts, then again thats what happens w/ hand built machinery.

Anyway, my point, terribly long winded at this point, is: the NSX is regarded by the automotive community as an exotic, and as I've shown, is by comparison head & shoulders abouve it's competition, of the same era. Therefore, any talk of 'exotics' must include the NSX, as by the 'colloqial' definition of price v. performance, as compared to two ACCEPTED exotics, it is both more affordable (read: initial purchase and maintenance) and it offers, by way of one dimensional performance comparison, a better (read: quicker car). The discussion as it pertains to Honda's racing pedigree, or alleged lack therof, I think I've managed to disassmble.

BTW- NSXTASY, your right, the italians have a charming way of 'rounding off'.





[Modified by bb6h22a, 5:29 PM 11/15/2002]

 

Steve,


What I have proven is that the NSX is indeed an exotic, for as you said:


So, I have given TWO examples of accepeted exotics, the 348 and 355, both of which the NSX outperformed and still does, cost less -lo and behold- (new or used), and is easier and cheaper to maintain, oh, and, it was born out of a company with a racing pedigree; any futher debate, on your part, with regard to this issue is semantics.

I do not need to sell Honda's motorcycle racing history as it's automotive race history, b/c the automotive race history speaks for it self. Please reference this site as you can scroll through the 39 YEARS worth of Honda AUTOMOBILE racing, as in 4 wheel and not motorcyle, to speak for itself.

If you persist that I'm offering a misleading image of Honda's racing pedigree, your are either 1. purposefully being antagonistic out of spite for being proven wrong, or 2. your sincerely do not know your racing history.





[Modified by bb6h22a, 5:43 PM 11/15/2002]

 

Id take a used 5th gen. Prelude with $15k for carefully considered mods for performance which will match or exceed any s2000 or older gen. NSX personally myself.


[Modified by Ritteri, 3:52 AM 11/16/2002]

 

Well, that's no news to those who have been here for a while; we know from past experience that Liar Steve has the morals of a weasel. Like when he was selling his S2000 without disclosing its accident history. More about his weasel nature in a moment.

On the other hand, depreciation of the NSX (with twelve-year-old cars selling for half the price they were when new) is similar to the Porsche and far superior to the Lotus. And should we talk about depreciation compared against the Plastic Fantastic from Bowling Green, Liar Steve? The ZR-1 Corvette was about the same price as the NSX in 1991, in the sixties. Wanna compare prices now, Liar Steve? ~$30-32K for the NSX, and $20-22K for the ZR-1.

Here's yet another ridiculously false point from Liar Steve:

Nobody in their right mind, considering that you can buy a brand new 2002 NSX-T for $75K.

Of course, we all know how much Liar Steve hates Hondas and hates NSXs. He doesn't own one, though; he just hangs around these boards because he's an insecure little wimp who doesn't know anything about the NSX (often misquotes test numbers and prices, as you can see here) and takes pleasure out of telling lies and taunting owners of cars that are better than his American piece of crap.

Lest we forget what Steve is all about...





[Modified by nsxtasy, 11:48 PM 11/15/2002]

 

I see from the link that the figures for the F355 are claims from the factory in Maranello, not actual test results. And the Italians are about as accurate in their claims as Mr. L.S. here (but at least they are charming about it).

 

just curious steve but based on your criteria, what other cars do you consider to be exotics other than ferraris?

 

C Steve: I knew you were a serious loser.

 

oh, and I've read enough of steves c's posts to know that what nsxtasy says is completely true. you are a loser and all you do is search for arguements here. i can't believe you've gone 200 posts this time without being banned.