Like the topic says, and please don't flame me.

I am a big NSX fan, a fan for years. However, with the great resurrection of the Japanese sports car market, and the *relatively* (again, i say relative) inexpensive Euro sportscar market. How can one justify the purchase of an exotic like the NSX. Especially an used NSX.

Granted, people still buy Ferraris, Lambos, and classic Porsches (the Speedster for example), but those vehicles have somewhat a nostalgic and lengendary attachment to them. The only nostalgia the NSX carries with it is...well, never owning one, I can't say. But please enlighten me, what justified YOUR decision to purchase the NSX when you had so many options to choose from.

Again, please don't flame me. I am not here to start a flame war, just want some honest opinions.

 

Let's see...

1. It handles as well as any car on the market.

2. You can count on one hand the cars that are faster in a straight line.

3. Even after ten years, it's still gorgeous and attracts a lot of attention from passersby.

4. It's the only supercar with Honda reliability.

5. The sound of the engine revving towards 8000 rpm right behind your head stirs the soul.

Isn't that enough?

 

hmmm...not so sure about #1 & #2...plenty'o'cars these days will smoke at the track or dragstrip....'member, the design is ~10 years old. i basically agree with #3 although pop-up lights kinda ruin it for me. #4 - check. #5 - no comment.

not bashing...i drive an s2k but love nsx's...i wish they'd hurry up and come out with the new one.

 

I agree speedy, I might not have an s2000 forever if the new nsx is as good as promised. HURRY HONDA!

 

Modified cars, maybe. Stock vs stock, though, the only ones that will beat an NSX right now are the 911 Turbo, the Viper, the 360 Modena, and the Z06 Corvette. There are one or two more that are about as fast (M3), but that's about it (leaving aside some non-production cars and super low volume exotics).

Pretty damn good for a ten year old car, huh?



[Modified by nsxtcjr, 7:34 PM 10/26/2001]

 

Depends on whether you're talking about a 91 or a 97+ NSX. There's a fair number of cars that'll beat a 91 in a straight line.

There's also a fair number of cars that'll pull more lateral G's off the showroom floor.

Frankly, I think it's a lot easier to justify the purchase of a used, early-model NSX than it is to justify the purchase of a new one. There's pretty much nothing on the market for $30-35k that'll approach an NSX in all categories (handling, straight-line, exoticness, etc). But in the $85k range, there's a lot of things that'd be more worth the money, IMO, even if they didn't fill the same role. For example, I think you get a lot more for your money with an M5. For $50k, it'd be a tough call between a Z06 and a 97 NSX (if you could find one for $50k). The Z06 is faster straight-line and pulls more cornering Gs, but it's common and front-engine.

-Mike

 

Are you sure? Since the '91 will do 0-60 in the 5.2 to 5.3 range, you're saying you can name "a fair number" (to me that means around 10, but I'll settle for half a dozen) volume production cars that are for sale today, that are not listed above (or variations of cars listed above), that will do 0-60 in under five seconds. By all means, please do so.



[Modified by nsxtcjr, 10:57 PM 10/26/2001]

 

When I initially posted the question, I didn't intend this to become an acceleration debate. After all, we all know it's not always about how fast a car accelerates to 0-60. I just wanted some opinions on why someone might forego a possible purchase of say a brand new S2K in favor of a 10 yr old NSX. Are the justifications only in terms of performance, isn't there any for the NSX like there is for the AE86 or the Z?

But for the sake of the question here are a half dozen new cars that should be in the sub 5.5 range +/- .2 sec is reasonable I think (plus that pesky MKIV Supra TT), again, I am guessing so please don't jump all over me if I am wrong in alphabetical order:

BMW M3
BMW M Coupe
BMW Z3M
Mercedes E55 (approximately in the same price range as the new NSX)
Mercedes CL600 (probably costs more than a new NSX)
Mustang SVT
MKIV Supra TTs

 

nothing to flame you about! youve got good taste in cars...

just say "I'm impotent and I need something to keep the women" j/k

if you have an NSX, you dont have to justify anything...its a bad *** car !!!

 

When I drove the car, I knew it was the car for me. No justification needed after that. It's a special feeling, really.

 

Of course. And the NSX exceeds in many other dimensions besides raw acceleration; it has never been THE fastest car on the road, but many consider it overall superior overall to cars that are faster. Still, 0-60 is the most widely used statistic for acceleration, and is usually included in manufacturers’ data and independent road tests. The statement was made, "There's a fair number of cars that'll beat a 91 in a straight line." The fact is that most such claims turn out to be false upon further examination. For example:

Doesn’t count - it was already named above.

Doesn’t count - it’s just a variation on the M3 (almost identical drivetrain, different body style)

I assume you’re referring to the M roadster. Doesn’t count - it’s just another variation on the M3.

Won’t beat the ’91 NSX (0-60 time is 5.1 seconds per March 2000 Road & Track, roughly the same as the NSX. Remember, it was said there are a fair number of cars that would beat the NSX.)

WAY slower than a ’91 NSX (because it weighs 4300 pounds). BTW, price falls under the category of "if you have to ask" (but if you have to ask, it’s $119,545)

Also WAY slower than a ’91 NSX, and no longer in production. Perhaps you’re thinking of the Mustang SVT Cobra R, which was a limited-run vehicle that is also no longer in production.

No longer in production.

So while the claim was made for "a fair number of cars", it's not so easy to name a single one. (Heck, I was even ready to give for the BMW M5, but you didn’t even bring it up. )

Many people think that there are faster cars than the NSX because there ARE a fair number of cars with more horsepower than the NSX. But most of them weigh considerably more than the NSX and cannot beat the NSX in a straight line. As we can see from looking at some of them more closely.

Again - not bad for a ten-year-old car, huh?

[edit - corrected to reflect that the response was not from the person who made the original claim]



[Modified by nsxtcjr, 12:18 PM 10/27/2001]

 

It wasn't me who made that statement, it was someone else..I was merely backing him up. BTW, the M Coupe and the M3, very different cars, so I consider them different cars; however, I do agree w/ you Z3 roadroaster and the M coupe share more in common than the M3...

 

Thanks, Hank - I didn't notice that the response wasn't from Mike. I've corrected my previous post to reflect this.

 

2 years ago I was looking at a 91 NSX, 97 Vette, and a 00 ITR.

The main thing going for the NSX is its the only supercar that will last 200,000+ miles.

 

OT question: but do most NSX ownersy use it as a daily driver?

 

Not OT.

Some owners use the NSX as a daily driver. (There are some posts about it on NSXprime.) Most don't.

I must admit I'm just guessing, but I suspect well over 90 percent of NSX owners don't use it as a daily driver or, at a minimum, have another car that they use in bad weather.



[Modified by nsxtcjr, 11:28 PM 10/27/2001]

 

Thanks for providing proof of my statement, "The fact is that most such claims turn out to be false upon further examination." As we are about to see...

Same motor, similar transmission = almost identical drivetrain.

Oh, come on! That claim - at least regarding 1/4 mile times - is utterly ridiculous. Either (a) you're saying that a car that weighs 3131 pounds and has 240 hp can out-accelerate a car that weighs 3000 pounds and has 270 hp - pretty hard to believe - or else (b) your car is not stock, and you're comparing a modified car to a stock car - hardly a fair comparison, dontcha think?

Magazine tests show that a stock 240 hp M Coupe does NOT accelerate as quick as a stock 270 hp NSX. Proof: Car and Driver tested the '91 NSX in September '90 and got 5.2 seconds 0-60 and 13.8 seconds in the 1/4 mile. Road & Track tested the 240 hp M Coupe in October '98 and got 5.5 seconds 0-60 and 14.3 seconds in the 1/4 mile. Which is about what you would expect, given the two cars' power-to-weight ratio.

On a road course, differences in driver skill far outweigh differences in car capabilities, so yes it is possible for a slower car like the 240 hp M Coupe to do better than a faster car like the 270 hp NSX, depending on the driver. In the instructor run group at BMW CCA track events, I consistently pass ("eat", to borrow your incendiary terminology) 240 hp M Coupes on the road course in my '91 NSX (but that doesn't prove anything either, for the same reason).

Yeah, right. Can you provide a reference to a major magazine that has those figures? I doubt it. Road & Track tested the E46 M3 at 13.3 in the quarter, and BMW says that the 333 hp E46 M3 accelerates faster than the 315 hp M Coupe.

The current 3.2-liter NSX was tested at 12.9 seconds in the quarter in Car and Driver, July '98. What M3 or M Coupe turns those times? Let me answer for you -- none.

Hmm... I sense the bullsh*t building and building... Gotta get that flag ready...

Wrong and wrong. The '91 NSX tested at 13.7 seconds (Motor Trend, December '90) to 13.8 seconds (Car and Driver, September '90). The ITR typically tests at mid to high 14's, the S2000 at low 14's.



I realize you're a BMW fan, and BMW makes some fine cars. As noted above, the E46 M3 is about as fast as the 3.2-liter NSX, which makes it pretty darn fast. But don't give us smoke and mirrors, ridiculous statements without any credible references to back them up. You can make up all the claims you want, but the magazine tests prove that they're nothing but hot air.

[Modified by nsxtcjr, 6:45 PM 10/28/2001]


[Modified by nsxtcjr, 6:46 PM 10/28/2001]

 

Hold on there partner, Camaros, Cobra Mustangs, and M5's will not beat the 3.2 L NSX on a road course with similarly skilled drivers. The Camaro and Mustang do not have the suspension to win that race, and the M5 is way too heavy to beat the NSX under braking not to mention the more mass you have the more difficulty you will have with transitional handling. Add the MR layout of the NSX and you will see that those cars do not "own" the NSX. The 911T, Corvette, Viper(?), and the Ferraris will all beat the NSX. The M3 would be a close race though.

Your point about the value/performance ratio is true. For $85,000 there are now several cars that can beat the NSX. But as used supercars go you can't do much better than a 91-95 NSX on value, performance, and reliability.

If you need a badge (such as a blue and white Roundel) to make you feel super, maybe you have an inferiority complex.

 

hehe...I guess I am the type who appreciates info from knowledgable strangers

Seriously though, I think you're missing the point here. The term "justification" as it was used in the originial context, is not meant as a defense for purchase the car itself, but rather a reason for purchasing a new/used NSX for its price tag, age, exclusivity, etc etc, relative to today's automobile market. NSXs are great cars, but I wanted to know what was so appealing about it that people continue to pay 30K+ for the 10 year old supercar. I got a good responses, and I appreciate them, so please don't let this turn into a flame war.

BTW, to back up the real steve c I have also seen Camaros and Mustangs at the track, under the right conditions and with the right drivers, they are darn fast. As fast as the NSX? Well, never had the pleasure of witnessing such a battle. 2K1 M coupes are also awesome cars, don't know too much about its predecessor though.


[Modified by fangtl, 5:37 PM 10/28/2001]

 

Oh, yes - thank you for bringing the discussion down to your level.

I know exactly which car we're talking about - your '99 M Coupe. The one with ONLY 240 hp. The one that's REALLY REALLY SLOW compared to the '91 NSX. The one that Road & Track tested in October 1998 and found that it does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds, and the quarter mile in 14.3 seconds.

Nice try - to make me think that I don't know one BMW from another (like those 8 BMW CCA events I instruct at each year don't mean anything, yeah right). I realize you're trying to distract people from looking at whether what you've said is true. Too bad the facts get in the way.

The simple fact is, a 240 hp car that weighs 100 pounds more than a 270 hp car will accelerate slower. That's why the magazine tests prove it. Don't like magazine tests? Well, that's where the bullsh*t ends, because the magazines put the cars through their tests the same way each time. So they're the one place you can go to see which of two cars is faster. And the 270 hp 3.0-liter NSX beats the 240 hp M Coupe every time.

Interesting that you are quoting the best magazine time found -- and not the 14.4 quarter mile time (14.4 @ 93.3 MPH) that motortrend got -- or the road and track 14 flat (Road & Track 8/90 14.0 @ 100.0 MPH).

Sorry, gotta raise that flag again, because again, your statements just don't hold up under scrutiny.



1. I did not quote the best magazine time found, which would have been Sports Car International, which tested the NSX at 13.47 in the quarter, December 1990.

2. That 14.4 second figure from Motor Trend was in August 1991, and they were testing an NSX with an automatic transmission. Again, you're hardly being fair, dontcha think?

I realize you're doing your very best to try to present false and misleading statements and make them sound like they're true. However, it's pretty obvious when anyone looks at them and realizes there's nothing there but a lot of hot air.

There ARE faster cars out there than the NSX. And some of them are very nice cars. But there aren't a lot of them. And many of the cars that people try to claim are faster, just aren't. Thanks again for proving this to be true.

 

ummm...right in front of me, i have a motortrend that reports the following for the s2000:

0-60: 5.2s
1/4: 13.8@100.5mph

i realize those numbers may be difficult to achieve for the average driver but so what? i think you were the one to start this magazine racing crap. why don't you tell us what times you ave gotten at the track with your nsx?

i (in my s2k) have personally lapped the only nsx i've seen at the local track. driver-dependent of course. don't get defensive dude...while the nsx may not be among the fastest cars out there, at least "The sound of the engine revving towards 8000 rpm right behind your head stirs the soul."

 

When you go to the track, you are looking at individual cars, and all kinds of variables can be introduced. As previously mentioned, a faster driver in a slower car can usually beat a slower driver in a faster car. You can also have cars that are modified, and the American muscle cars are notoriously easy to modify inexpensively.

That's why the magazine tests are so important. They test stock vs stock, apples vs apples, using professional drivers whose skills don't vary a whole lot. And when you compare their results to the objective data like power-to-weight ratio, they're usually consistent. Which punctures the balloon of those inflated claims.

 

Uh oh, sounds like more grist for the flag...

Was that the highly-modified Comptech S2000, hmmm? Because Speedy, you know that it's not fair to compare a modified car with a stock car, right? You should know better, anyway.

Motor Trend tested the stock S2000 in November 1999 and found that it did 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and did the 1/4 mile in 14.2 seconds. See for yourself, right here.

Don't worry, I'm not getting defensive; I'm just setting the record straight. And again, we have another case of exaggerated claims that don't hold up under scrutiny. Thanks for proving it with another example, Speedy.



[Modified by nsxtcjr, 5:28 PM 10/28/2001]

 

it was not the comptech s2k, jackknob. you've yet to post your 1/4 mile or track lap times. do you even drive your nxs or do you just masterbate to your car magazines all day?

btw, if i had to pick one, i would bet on the ('99) m-coupe in a race against the nsx, despite your carefully selected magazine times. god, i wish you were local.

 

For all I know, Speedy, you might be able to beat me... because neither you NOR I can get 100 percent out of our cars the way professional drivers can. That's my whole point - saying that X car is faster than Y car doesn't mean anything when you're just talking about one car, on the street or on the track. In the Midwest BMW CCA events, there's an instructor (D.G.) who drivers a Dodge Neon - yeah, 150 hp - who passes most of the 240 hp E36 M3's in the instructor group. Why? Because he's a faster driver. Were we talking about who is the faster driver, or which is the faster car? He'll be the first to admit that he has the slower car. But he drives it faster.