13th Dec 2010, 16:19
20:52: Lets see a Calloway Corvette or a early 70's Gremlin X 304 V8... I think I'll take both. And a low production new Viper too.
14th Dec 2010, 12:16
See, that is why it is called an opinion. The Vette is anything but ugly. The NSX on the other hand is only attractive because there are so few of them around. They looked cool in 1989 but today they are pretty mundane to look at compared to say... a new Vette. Ironically, the real reason there were so few of them was the performance to dollar ratio. The NSX was well known to be a very expensive car that provided mediocre performance.
You could buy a Mustang back then for 1/4 the cost and build it to easily wipe the streets with an NSX power and handling wise and still have over $30K to spend on a nice winter truck. Even a Vette was a bargain compared to these cars. They were built in a time when Honda was the God of car makers so they figured they could charge whatever they wanted for their "supercar" and people would eat it up. The new Lexus supercar reminds me of this car. Exclusivity comes at a price... even when the performance can be matched or exceeded elsewhere for much cheaper.
15th Dec 2010, 11:28
I drove one new in 91, not mine, but it handled very well. For under 30k used it would be a cool addition to your garage.
The aluminum body is not cheap to repair and the HP is low. But I still like them. Low production cars are another cool plus. Vipers under 5000 made a year with 500 HP are a great buy used as well.
If you want a great everyday driver however, the 98 up Corvettes are the easiest to own and live with.
15th Dec 2010, 19:59
"Low production cars are another cool plus."
Why? You have super high maintenance costs, and if it is damaged, super high repair costs. There's nothing "cool" about that as far as I'm concerned, unless it is a standout performer, which the NSX isn't. You can get much better performance for much less money.
16th Dec 2010, 18:32
The 1991 Corvette actually was 20 HP less at 250, but the torque, which is more important to your off the line acceleration number, was 140 lb/ft higher at 350 lb/ft vs a tame 210 lb/ft for the Acura. 0-60 was around 5.6 for the Vette and it was 5.8 for the Acura in '91. The Acura had the weight advantage, which is the only reason it even got close from 0-60. It was no Vette beater by any means though.
You really gotta check your specs before posting.
16th Dec 2010, 18:51
The NSX is geared tall in first because of the lack of torque. Honda engines always lack torque, and torque is what gets you off the line. The Vette is a better all around car with tons of power and torque, and it still handles with the best of them breaking the 1g barrier.
The biggest problem I would have with the NSX is the super high maintenance and repair costs if anything happens. Low production cars from decades ago are really not a great option to me, as they can get really expensive really quick.
17th Dec 2010, 17:15
I have been at car shows even before this model was ever introduced, and I have seen zero of them. I have seen Ferraris and the British car clubs, but they seldom even win a trophy. The kit cars fare even worse at a car show. If you are only comparing a 91 Vette to a 91 Acura, you are missing a lot of technological advances. The new Vettes are as quick as the Vipers now. High top ends and 0 to 60 under 4 seconds.
18th Dec 2010, 21:14
"I have been at car shows even before this model was ever introduced, and I have seen zero of them."
Well how many did you expect to see at shows before they were produced??
2nd Jul 2011, 10:24
The automatics had power steering, manuals did not. The autos had 252hp, manuals had 270, then 290 starting in 96 I think. The 252 lb ft of torque had nothing to do with the engine being in the back; torque is torque.
3rd Jul 2011, 09:11
I have been to well over a thousand car shows (meaning I as a participant for years), actually starting well before this model was ever introduced... and when it was actually introduced, I never saw one at a single show, up to a show I was in yesterday July 2 2011. Hope that's clear what I meant.
I live in a heavily populated Northeast region. Even so, I can't see how you can be hurt buying one. I saw one with 90,000 miles for 15k, and others for low 20k advertised. So you can own one for the price of a new Civic. It's like having an exotic powered by a Honda motor.
The big variable is repairs. People buy older cars, and then get the shock value of true ownership. But then it's still insured if you get hit. And mechanical issues can be resolved if your wallet can absorb it.
My Acura went through trans (not an NSX, just a new TL). New TLs have the same HP, although not the mid engine of course. Anyone buying one like mine will be facing out of warranty trans issues at 4k a pop, so is a once 34k new Acura a good buy at 7-9k now like mine? So what that you can buy a once 80k Acura today used for 20k. The consideration is can you really afford to maintain a 20 year old mid engine aluminum bodied Honda in 2011? What else falls in the same price range mid 20's... First Gen 500 HP Viper, Corvette C5's 365 HP. I keep hearing C4 Vettes, but actually you can buy a' 98 up Vette for that price. The 98 was a total redesign. Great drivability, very fast and ease of entry.
I also drove my son's Viper. It's just an incredible car, extremely fast, great handling and braking.
I drove a new NSX; nice balance, corners well and it's a pretty car. I would still pick a '98 up C5 as my first choice, dollar per dollar. The drivetrains are really bulletproof, very reliable, fix anywhere, and drive it across country anytime. Those that can afford just about any sports car, it's not uncommon they own even 4 or 5 new Vettes C5 up. The others in their garages can have their valves adjusted every 4000 miles, or be in the shop having the motor dropped to do a tune up. I have been in home garages with several cars all together. And there's a nice newer Vette, or a Viper or 2. I saw one NSX in a drive by at a townhouse community. And that's all I see without going online.
25th Jan 2012, 14:15
It's not a daily driver. It's a top of the line sporting flagship from a premier F1 involved company. And it weighs 3200 lbs and makes 250 HP. Yeah, that's plenty for a grocery-getter. A top dollar exotic sport car should have excess power - enough to scare you on occasion.
They should have put a V8 in there or at least a 300HP+ mill. I know what I'm talking about here. I have a 1980 Ferrari 308 and a 1974 Pantera. The Ferrari is pretty and fun and magical on a Sunday morning... The big cat is brutal, and never ceases to amaze me and the passengers. The Pantera is much closer to an exotic sport than the 308. Given that Acura had been watching cars like the 308 and Pantera for years, it's amazing they put such a weak engine in there.
21st Jun 2017, 22:04
Considering that Honda didn't have a production-car V8, it's not surprising that they used a modified version of their V6 at the time. Their goal was to keep weight down on the car, and a high-revving six worked better toward that end, anyway.
22nd Jun 2017, 10:53
My boss had one back then and it was a daily driver when he bought it new. He then went to Porsche. Everybody seems to miss the mid engine design in these cars. And handling due to this. And they are being made again. He drove his on long trips as well. Few made low production cars are desirable. Same as a Viper with under 5000 a year made. If you fret over any costs, then one of these cars is not for you. Including new Corvettes. Or Ferraris etc; more super cars than a Mustang on a track. There's no comparison to a Mustang. Would you rather spend 60k on a new Mustang? Plenty of power for the 1/4 mile. On high top ends and on a race track I will leave you. Today my favorite is the Porsche 911. They are amazing in every area.
24th Jun 2017, 15:33
To clarify that comment, your presence would be only visible in my rear view mirrors. Leaving you... far behind in your Fox Body Mustang.