NSX vs Supra TT

We'll I'm in a stroke of good luck I just got some money back from an investment yesterday and my pot has been raised to 24-25k. THANK YOU GOD :) !!!! Call me obssesed, but I want to blow it on a car :iceslolan . Anyways now that I have more money I am in the price range for a Supra TT SPEED or a NSX. As you know, handling on a circuit track, freeway runs, reliablity, ease of matinence and gas mileage are also of the top concern. Quarter mile times and 0-60 times aren't too important to me just as in the other comparison. This isn't going to be a car that I am drag racing or anything, I would probably just bring it to an autocross track or something around those lines, like a trip up to laguna seca or something. I would like to know about handling with aftermarket modifications as well if it is at all possible. Sorry to bug you guys again but I need the help. Any assistance is thoroughly appreciated.

95 Supra Twin Turbo
6 SPEED :evillol:
320hp @ 5600rpm
315lb/tq @ 4000rpm
3450lbs
RWD

..............vs.................

1991 NSX
5 SPEED
270hp @ 7100rpm
210lb/tq @ 5300rpm
3020lbs
RWD

Nsx looks hot as hell, but IMO it just doesn't have the numbers to back it up. There is a guy a few blocks away that has one, 17k on it, wont race it or anything. It's a car to be admired, but the engine doesn't impress me.

We'll I'm in a stroke of good luck I just got some money back from an investment yesterday and my pot has been raised to 24-25k. THANK YOU GOD :) !!!! Call me obssesed, but I want to blow it on a car :iceslolan . Anyways now that I have more money I am in the price range for a Supra TT SPEED or a NSX. As you know, handling on a circuit track, freeway runs, reliablity, ease of matinence and gas mileage are also of the top concern. Quarter mile times and 0-60 times aren't too important to me just as in the other comparison. This isn't going to be a car that I am drag racing or anything, I would probably just bring it to an autocross track or something around those lines, like a trip up to laguna seca or something. I would like to know about handling with aftermarket modifications as well if it is at all possible. Sorry to bug you guys again but I need the help. Any assistance is thoroughly appreciated.

95 Supra Twin Turbo
6 SPEED :evillol:
320hp @ 5600rpm
315lb/tq @ 4000rpm
3450lbs
RWD

..............vs.................

1991 NSX
5 SPEED
170hp @ 7100rpm
210lb/tq @ 5300rpm
3020lbs
RWD

Where in the world are you getting those numbers for the NSX!?!? I thought a '91 NSX had more like 275 HP and 230 TQ there thereabouts.....? As far as what to get. Either would be a great choice. I'm sure it would be harder to find a nice 25k NSX than it would be to find a nice 25k TT Supra. But, I think the Honda is significantly more exotic looking, and has the edge in the reliability department.

I guarantee you that an NSX that old is gonna have far more problems than a Supra TT. And I guarantee you that the NSX is gonna be significantly more expensive to repair. Gas mileage goes to the NSX, insurance probably goes to the Supra TT (they'll both be really high), and handling goes to the NSX. I'd personally buy the Supra TT, because it's faster all-around and it will have less problems, but if the joy of owning a mid-engine supercar is worth the hassles to you, then the NSX is just about the best one that you can get for 25K.

Sorry I posted the wrong number I meant to say 270hp, I was sorta in a hurry my bad its fixed now though

By the way this is where I got the numbers:

http://www.scuderiaciriani.com/rx7/magazine_articles/Motor_Trend_article01.html

I'd say the Supra TT still...I know the NSX is more rare and looks hotter and is a better handling car...but that's pretty much where it ends...if you want power, acceleration, and top end...the Supra TT is the way to go...bigger aftermarket

actually, the only expensive things to fix on the nsx are general body work (the pitfalls of aluminium body) and the clutch (and flywheel) and of course the rear tyres but that's a given (around 15,000 miles apparently).
unless the car has been raced then i very much doubt anything is going to that faulty although you migth want to give the electrics an overhaul cos i've heard some people have trouble with lights and the air-con but this is a one off and it's not expensive.
the engine really is bulletproof and you will probably die before it does....

everything else when it comes to annual services is pretty much the same as your typical japanese family saloon.

drunken monkey: You're right, the NSX doesn't have a whole lot of flaws and most of them aren't significant, but some of them are, and they're ridiculously expensive to fix. Not that the Supra is cheap to maintain either, but it's not an aluminum-bodied exotic.

if I was going to get a semi-exotic sports car, I'd like it to have more torque than a Grand Am

NSX, it just seems more exotic, although, if anyone knows, which of the two has a nicer interior?

The nsx would look better and handle better. For sure but here are some things to think bout it if u want to modify it mid-engined cars are typically hard to work on. Also if u want to go with a turbo and big power u're most likley going to have to put a "snorkel" on the top. Where as the supra you wouldn't. But all and all i give the nod to the NSX.

well... like i said, general body work is going to cost you but then again, if you're the kind of person who regularly needs to get bodywork fixed then i'd say don't get either of these cars.

i haven't been inside a supra so i can't really compare but the nsx has a very tidy, if slightly boring and 'grey' interior.
things are just where you'd expect them to be and nothing really shouts out at you but it is very well made.

the nsx might seem the more expensive car but don't forget that it was originally hand built.

oh yeah, the car is very toe angle and tyre pressure sensitive.
reports of people only getting 4000 odd miles on their rear tyres (at £190 a corner)

NSX all the way!
It has something a sports car should have: Retractable Headlights.

NSX all the way!
It has something a sports car should have: Retractable Headlights.

Based on looks alone the NSX definitely would turn more heads. Or at least mine. Based on looks alone the NSX, I guess it just depends on what you really want.

I would go with the Supra TT just because you will be able to get a slightly newer one, and it will be way easier to find a supra then an NSX. NSX imo look way hotter, but a Supra is probably going to be way funner, and way easier to mod.

i'd get a supra. nsx's are overrated.

It seems like all the clean stock supras are expensive as hell while the moded ones are cheap because they are boosted to hell and don't pass smog anymore

Supra. I have ridden in a nsx, they are not that fast. They do look great. TT supras are pretty fast. No turbo lag, twin turbos keep the lowend tourque there...Well there is lag for the 2nd (And allmighty) turbo. For looks, I actuly think a supra would make more young people look, and a nsx would attract more...Mature people. The interior of a nsx reminded me of my friends 92 integra. The supra interior is pretty nice. The seats are comfortable...The nsx does handle better. I would overall take the supra however.

Based on looks alone the NSX definitely would turn more heads. Or at least mine. Based on looks alone the NSX, I guess it just depends on what you really want.
I would love the Supra too, but not the 3rd Gen...
Also, I voted for NSX not only because of the outlook, but it's also because of its MR layout... :uhoh:

not to mention that tracking and autocross are more about cornering and handling then speed. although speed is considered i beleive with the right amount of massaging you could get that v6 to put up some big horsepower numbers.
^
that all means i vote for the nsx

Just messing around, but what do you think would happen if they went against at RX7 at autocross? The idea of getting one popped into my mind but I don't know too much about em I heard the reliability is bad..like real bad

the FD RX7 in in Super Stock the fastest stock autocross class and is probably the 3rd best car to have (behind C6 and C5 Corvette) the NSX is in A-Stock, the second fastest stock class and isn't a terribly competetive car (current competetive A-Stock cars are the Evo, STI, C4 Vette, and '04+ S2000)

Ever since I saw a minimum wage Walmart employee driving a supra I don't even look twice at them.

NSX still catches my attention and has a much better exhaust note than the supra.

It probably was an N/A auto you can get those for a reasonable price, for a Supra for 11k or so. :rofl:

Also if you ever want to get a Supra, if any thought what so ever of it are performance minded, get one with a turbo, it doesn't matter how many. Since these days anything from an Altima, Galant to V6 Camry can go toe to toe or even beat it, at least 0-60 or to at most 80, probably not in handling though. Or if you in the process for shopping for a new engine or turbocharger, intercooling and cams. Don't get me wrong a Supra's interior is a beut, so is the NSX. Just be sure when buying a Supra if you want performance go for the Turbo, but if you like the whole prestige/mystique of it, then by all means you can get the N/A and remember that Supra are (even though not as much as the NSX at times) highly priced as well. If you want a decent priced Japanese super "sports car" or at least one that uses the same, engine, chassis, tranny and interior get the Dodge Stealth R/T. It is not only cheaper than the VR4 but also several hundred pounds lighter and more aerodynamic. Or perhaps you can settle for my partially hand built ride, in stock form it can beat a manual N/A Supra 60+mph and perhaps come close to beating an automatic single turbo. Also my car has plenty of untapped potential that is because hardly any tuners are tapping into it. :crying: I hope that changes soon though since we already have a stable way in which to turn it into a manual, there is a ecu and soon to be supercharger kit coming out.

As for the NSX is it a very nice not to mention even at times awe inspiring car since (seeing a red one at a stop light and accelerating off, I also saw a clean black Supra once getting off of an exit ramp which looked awsome as well) car even though people claim it is underpowered the fact is it is not. It is a exotic with an not only an all or at least virtually all aluminum engine but also aluminum body making it weigh 2800lbs with most luxuries attached. Couple that with the fact that is it producing 290hp with a 3.0, later 3.2l, N/A. It doesn't have much torque but since it doesn't weigh that much, variable valve timing and an engine position mid-way behind for great balance, it makes a great exotic that can tangle plus beat the likes of the 911, Supra and even Skyline when it comes to cornering in ideal handling conditions and when it comes to accelerating out of them as well.

It pretty much comes down to whether you want a high quality hand built sweeping exotic with a nice composed interior or a power sliding (which can change with the right tuning) almost like the closest thing you can get to a Japanese muscle car with some external but mostly internal grace that is also a dyno queen since the Supra is from what I heard a whole lot easier to toon than a NSX and gains more attributes then it loses compared to the NSX because of it.

The 300ZX also seems to be of moderatly priced for good value seeing that 3rd gen RX-7s are starting to get expensive.

The Supra TT is a great car, but as great as it is, there is no doubt that is currently, erm, overhyped. The 300ZX TT is a much better buy. It's got a better balance between power and handling, and it's much, much cheaper. The maintenance is a bit more tedious and the aftermarket isn't as large, but with all the money you'll save on the actual purchase, it's a moot point. The VR-4 is also a good buy, but the reliability is questionable compared to the other two, and I reckon it'd be the slowest around a track (especially as you modify the cars further). The RX-7 TT is an absolute blast to drive, and would be my pick if I were to get them all for free, but they are notoriously hard to find in good shape here in the U.S., and the maintenance on them is just ridiculous, especially if it wasn't taken care of just right. I'd stay away from it.

Stepping away from the Japanese cars for a moment, have you considered a C5 Corvette? As was mentioned, the C5 and C6 Corvettes are the fastest cars to autocross with. You can find a pretty nice C5 for 25 grand. The reliability is top notch, and the aftermarket is quite large and mainly centered around autocrossing/road racing. Don't expect it to be quite as refined as a Supra TT or 300ZX TT, but you get a significant performance advantage for not much more money. On a side note, the gas mileage is also the best of the bunch.

Unless your name is Brian and your regular weekend activities include rescuing your friend Dom from botched hijakings, stay away from the Supras, a certain stupid movie has driven up the prices and completely over-hyped what is a pretty ordinary GT.

The NSX is a Supercar through and through, it has Aluminium construction, it has a mid-mounted engine and double wishbone suspension, it is aerodynamically superior to the Supra, so I think it's fairly obvious what's the better base to start from.

The Supra was designed as a GT, hence the 4 seats, the idiotic (For a supercar at least) FR layout, the steel/plastic construction. It was a car built down to a price, a car that will never hold a candle to the legend that was/is the NSX, other than the fact it's cheaper to tweak. Big wank I say, I'd rather do it once and do it right.

It probably was an N/A auto you can get those for a reasonable price, for a Supra for 11k or so. :rofl:



It was a TT. It exterior wasn't in great condition, but it kinda takes away from the exclusiveness of the car.

Jimster, I totally agree with what you said. How can compare a turbo car to an NA anyway? Of course the turbo is faster, but I don't see too many people bragging about their NA supras. I would be curious to know why the Japanese even brought the NSX to this country. I think it is a great car, but it just doesn't do things the good old american way-horsepower.

everyone that's ragging on the NSX has failed to realize one very big thing. a 15 year old car with extremely minimal changes ever since its introduction, is STILL a competent performer amongst newer and much more powerful cars. i think that's quite an accomplishment and an example of how well engineered and thought-out the NSX really is. every other car maker seems to just pack in more and more power in each of their cars whereas honda stays off that bandwagon, sticks to their guns with the nsx (but eventually they'll have to do something, either kill the nsx or get on that bandwagon). nonetheless, no one seems to appreciate the fact that the nsx has outlasted just about any other exotic - what i mean is in design and powertrain, etc. how many other sports cars has survived as the nsx has with no redesign or major revamping?? just as an example, could a 1991 chevy corvette have lasted this long and remain competent without redesigning it? hell no. that's not a knock on the corvette (i'm a big corvette fan), it's just to illustrate my point.
:2cents:

not to mention that it was honda's FIRST attempt at such a car.

They did kill of the NSX didn't they i thought in a year or so it was going to be replaced.

no the nsx is still for sale in the states and in japan. of course the nsx's from japan are alot better. but still they're are around. and still a great car.

The only NSXs in Japan that are significantly better than stateside is the NSX Type R and now Type S. But they also are significantly more expensive.

Also ragging on the Supra as a raggish uncivilized GT is just like ragging on the NSX for being an underpowered exotic, both are false. The Supra might not be all aluminum but the Toyota engineers did indeed use a whole slew of things to lighten the car, which include rug that is made out of lightweight tubed polymers not to mention more rugged but lightweight polymers for the console not to mention a rather good sound system. Also, even if you get an automatic not only does it have a "power" mode but also a button activated full manumatic shifting one as well. Not to a good diff that makes sure every bit of hp hits the wheels, sooner or later at least, hence it being called a dyno queen. Also even though the Supra's engine is technologically more basic then the NSX it is still quite powerful and with its lack of ecu help doesn't take as much to mod and obviously much cheaper without nearly as much complications. I mean yes for the price point the NSX is all around (except for the 1/4 mile) a better performing automobile, it better be. But it doesn't take many suspension and engine modding to turn the Supra into a balanced sports car, not to mention the 300ZX which handles (at least in a traditional aspect) better than the Supra and its engine, the VQ30 can actually rival it in modding capabilities even though the engine bay is cramp from what I have heard. And don't forget the 3000GT/ Stealth which does not handle as well but more balanced, nor has as much of a top end as the other two but can sure accelerate better and has an actually brutishly powerful V6.

Supra!!!

I don't know anymore, I am sort of intrigued by the LS1 conversion of the RX7. 320hp reliably and with better gas milage. Plus it is a V8 and can pass smog in california. all that power hooked to a 6 speed in a car that wieghs 2900lbs after the conversion...not bad at all huh? I still don't know though cause the conversion it's self is like 12k.....if only money grew on trees huh? anyways thanks for all the good input and comments.

It doesn't sound like it looks though.

Doesn't it really hurt the handling of the very light Rx-7?

No, it doesn't. The LS1 weighs maybe forty pounds more than the 13B-REW. The car is still very close to 50/50 and still well under 3000 pounds. Contrary to what many import owners think, the LS1 isn't a big, heavy, gas-guzzling V8. It weighs about the same as most modern turbo-fours, it puts out more power, and gets better gas mileage (particularly on the highway). It's a perfect match for the RX-7.

That's good. Has anybody figured out how to make the car sound right? I have seen vids, and the car sounds more like a TVR than a Mazda.(do like the sound of a V8)

NOOOO Rx7 was made for a rotary leave a rotary in it. Normally i don't have ne issues with engine swaps *hell 9/10 i encourage is to see ppls creativeness* but the rx7 just seems so wrong with nething but a rotary. And the 3kgt,Stealth doesn't have alot of top end? what does the Supra,Nsx top out at? i've herd of 3kgt hitting 160-180 on a regular basis and even though they are a heavy car they do have a good salom and skid pad rating. But if u want to go into engine swaps and mazada's check out the 5.0 maitas,rotary miatas, Sr20det miatas. God knows what else has been stuffed into those things.

Sorry About bringing up this sorta old thread, but I didn't wanna be an @$$ and make a new one just to ask a fwe more questions on the same subject.

Assuming you bought either the 6 speed TT Supra for the Same price as a NSX, which would you rather have? Assuming they are the same year and all that. If you had to use the car as a daily drive which one would you pick? What are the draw backs to driving each one if you properly heat it up and maintain it? I heard the supra engines were bullet proof, but I also heard the NSX's is no wimp either under stress due to the typical honda reliability. I know the NSX would be more to fix little dings, but, it's not like those would happen to often. The Supra has around 15-20 mpg only sometimes, while the NSX is like 22-24. Honestly though, in your guy's opinion, which would you have as a daily driver if you had to? Thank you for all your time and comments.

I would go with the NSX. Lighter, which is always good for cornering, plus a NA car would be better for daily driveablility, no boost lag in traffic. NSX is more exclusive. Supras are going to be abused more in general.

Sorry About bringing up this sorta old thread, but I didn't wanna be an @$$ and make a new one just to ask a fwe more questions on the same subject.

Assuming you bought either the 6 speed TT Supra for the Same price as a NSX, which would you rather have? Assuming they are the same year and all that. If you had to use the car as a daily drive which one would you pick? What are the draw backs to driving each one if you properly heat it up and maintain it? I heard the supra engines were bullet proof, but I also heard the NSX's is no wimp either under stress due to the typical honda reliability. I know the NSX would be more to fix little dings, but, it's not like those would happen to often. The Supra has around 15-20 mpg only sometimes, while the NSX is like 22-24. Honestly though, in your guy's opinion, which would you have as a daily driver if you had to? Thank you for all your time and comments.

i guess, if you had to daily drive either of them, i would pick the NSX. better gas mileage and it is a looker. the supra gets alot of looks but 85% of them are from kids who have watched to much Fast and the Furious.

but on the otehr hand of the argument, the supra is a little more popular so parts wouldnt be half as hard t get a hold of. it is a little more basic of an engine and car so it can be trusted with an above average mechanic instead of the dealership and dealership only.

And the 3kgt,Stealth doesn't have alot of top end? what does the Supra,Nsx top out at? i've herd of 3kgt hitting 160-180 on a regular basis and even though they are a heavy car they do have a good salom and skid pad rating.

180mph stock??? i doubt it...the problem is AWD tends to kill top end. so anything to do with topend a RWD car is usually gonna take the cake sooner or later.

im not saying the 3000GT can go 160-180 but im betting a VR4 that does a 180 is fully built and has moved his redline up atleast a 1000RPMs. unlike the supra and 300zxTT who can do 170-180 with just removing the limiters which is a basic ECU upgrade. i have been told that a TTZ is capable of doing 200+ with RPMs at 7500, which is only 200 RPMs more than where a basic ECU upgrade puts it at. plus there are alot of other things that make the 300zx and supra better for top end, like drag coefficients, weight, height, gearing...etc. and the supra has the Arc of St. Louis attached to its trunk so that has to serve some purpose of downforce. :lol:

NSX. Just looks a lot better than the Supra in my opinion and it is more exotic.

nope stock top speed is 180mph with teh governer. without they can hit 212 b4 the tranny will hit its end. While awd cars do have a bad habbit for top end that is why the went witha getreg tranny. Which u know is used in almost all porsches espically the awd GTs.

180mph? with only 320hp? thats alittle odd esp with a car that weights 3800 lbs and has AWD.

Yeah, I'm gonna call BS on that. The Ferrari 360 CS has a tough time doing 200 mph, and it's almost a thousand pounds lighter than the VR-4, more powerful, rear-wheel-drive, and a lot more aerodynamic.

http://www.cjbyron.com/3000GT.htm

as for aero the VR4 if fairley good aerodynamic pl
us the fact that is has the active spoiler and front air damn. As for ferrari it all depends on the total package the 360 CS was made in 2000? Yet the ferrari F40 made in the 80s can do it as well. For top speed it all boils down to what the manfacturer really wants and how they put it all together.

Dreamspawn: You still haven't explained how the VR-4 can do 180 mph with the limiter removed. The Ferrari 360 CS is FAR better suited to doing speeds that high, and it can barely do 200. For a more realistic example, the C5 Corvette can only do about 165, and it's got 50 more horsepower, 600 fewer pounds, taller gearing, and rear-wheel-drive. The numbers just don't add up for the VR-4.

i also found it weird becasue the supra TT has the same hp, weights less and is more sleek can only go like 165mph as well.

yeah, most street cars...even 200k+ exotics have a hard time getting over 200mph. and yes you are correct, top speed stops at what the manufacturer wants it too. and im telling you mitsubishi did not build the VR4 to do 200mph+.

also, i dont see anyway that a VR4 can do 180mph stock. the gearing isnt right, the redline isnt right, weight isnt right, HP isnt right. 180mph is a feat...and i would be surprised if a highly modified VR4 can hit 180mph with ease without going down a major slope and 50mph wind behind it. its just not what it was built for.

if you prove that a completely stock VR4 can do 180mph i will eat every word i just said...

I think what he meant was that aerodynamically and concerning stock gearing, the 3000GT is capable of 200+ speeds. The only thing I heard, is that the car needs well over 600+ hp to get the 3800lbs beast up to that speed with all the drive train loss. This is all second hand info, so don't quote me. I had an SL and 150 was easy.

Anyways back to the topic, so you guys would reccomend the NSX if the car needed to be driven daily. I wonder if the matinence and gerneral repair prices are outrageous. I heard since it is acura/honda based it is actually fairly cheap, only body repairs are and arm and a leg. I don't really plan on abusing it though. I'm not much of a gung-ho racer, just a car enthusiast. Ocassionally accept a match at a light, or a run on the freeway, nothing crazy. I prefer the legal stuff, no draggin though normally. Mostly autocross and track oriented stuff. So you believe the NSX would suit my needs better. I have enough money for the car and stuff, cause they are selling around here in excellent conditions for sub 30k for the earlier models. I have the money for the car and basic matineince but not for like a ferrari or anything too exotic and european. I just don't want a car that I cannot rely on when I need to, I'm not going to be driving it to work everyday of course, but I might take it out everyday after dinner or work for a little stress relief session on the backroads;) I hope it works out. Anyways thankyou for all the comments and infor you guys left.

i have no idea how much general running/maintanence of a suprs is but the NSX won't cost you much more than an accord in terms of annual service (£150-200), maintanence and parts.
the exceptions to this are
i) body work - obvious reasons of the panels and structures being aluminium which is a bitch to fix.
ii) tyres don't last too long (typically 10,000 to 15,000 @ £150 for front £190 for rears)
iii) clutches are expensive being a twin plate and they recommend you change the flywheel as well when it's time to change the clutch which brings the cost of replacement to about £2000.

in general, the car will last you forever and is probably the only mid-engined car of its type that you will see with 150,000+ miles on the counter that requires little to no work on it.

plus points of the nsx is definitely (in my opinion) the noise it makes. there's something very pure about the way the revs just build and build and that low resonance just gets louder without being 'farty'.
the car itself is build like a brick and is actually quite heavy for what it is which is why the 280ish bhp always feels like it's not enough (it is enough, if the car were say 100kg lighter...).
however, it's not very passenger friendly (being two seater and all).
honestly, it's not even very driver friendly it is more cramped than you'd think cos of the angles of the glasswork (both for your head and for your arms/elbows)

i get the impression that the supra is more 'practical' but the nsx is as easy as they come for actual use and costs.
personally, i also prefer the 'jet-fighter' look of the nsx especially the nose.
too bad they got rid of this on the up-date.....

Yeah I heard about those back tires being a pain because they don't last too long. I was wondering if basic matinence would be done by someone who has some experience with automotive repairs, for example, would it be hard to change the oil or filters and struts or anything like that without dealer assistance. With the help of an owners manual or something of course. Does anyone else know of any other gripes with the early NSX's other then the tires and expensive body repair? And the expensive clutch and flywheel replacement.

also, i dont see anyway that a VR4 can do 180mph stock. the gearing isnt right, the redline isnt right, weight isnt right, HP isnt right. 180mph is a feat...and i would be surprised if a highly modified VR4 can hit 180mph with ease without going down a major slope and 50mph wind behind it. its just not what it was built for

the gearing is right, if it had the power and was able, its gearing is geared for 225mph
1st gens are geared for 205mph. my 3rd gear ends at 125mph

i've never heard of a vr4 doing 180 stock. c5 vettes actually go 172mph but are stoped by a rev limiter i beleive. i have heard of 170mph, 172mph to be exact, i've never witnessed this but i've heard.
. there are people that will tell you the've got up to 165mph, and 170mph, but i've personally never heard of 180mph i dont think it has the power to do 180mph stock, maybe with some bpu's it might

also, i outran a nsx on the highway got up to about 135mph-140mph
his bumper was on my tailpipes, and i was pulling. this was without using the boost controller. my close freind cory use to have a stealth and a vr4, and then sold both for a nsx, he even says the vr4 had better top end power and felt like a faster highway runner.

i just went to the site. the guy who made the site doesnt know much about cars or our car much at all

this is what he put for our specs
0-30 mph............................... 1.9 seconds

minimum stopping distance 122' @ 60 mph
minimum stopping distance 218' @ 80 mph

0 - 60 mph : 5.4 seconds
0 - 100 mph : 13.6 seconds
(stock times)

Lateral acceleration on 200' skidpad = .90g

1/4 mile - 13.7 響 mph
(stock times)

5th gear򝱌 rpm - 155 mph
6th gear򝝾 rpm - 160 mph

Engine redline - 7,000 rpm

Speedometer runout @ 180 mph

he thinks because the top speed says 180 on the dash that it must go 180mph

tyres on ANY nsx are VERY pressure sensitive and toe-in angle sensitive.
if the car feels a bit stodgy for any reason, check the tyre pressure immediately.
if they're off from the recommended levels, the they can die even quicker.
same goes for the toe-in angle.
some owners change the rear toe in for more stability:
the general set-up of the car is very pin point accurate and it can be a bit intense for some, hence some people wanting it to feel more stable.
however, this also tends to make the tyes die more quickly (again).
of course you could also go the other way and liven up the rear and give the tyres maybe 5000 more miles onstead of 5000 less.
rear brake disks are also quite pricey but pads are cheap.

general tip, make sure that the wheels are set-up as standard (go to a honda garage...)

the engine isn't very friendly to those who don't know what they're doing with it and spark plugs cost a bomb as well.
early cars have been known to suffer from minor electrical problems so you should check all switches and electrics.
also, the car requires regular oil changes
the usual checking coolant and brake fluid levels is a must with this car as you'd want to buy a good one and if the levels are low, then it could mean some neglect.
while this won't matter as much if you're buying a car for the shopping run but this is harldy a grcery car....

because of all this, it is probably best to stick to proper honda garages for service and maintainance (costs i give were given to me by a honda dealer in london).
it also doesn't make sense to buy an nsx that doesn't have a full collection of honda service stamps in its book.

only thing is, for the price of a good nsx, you're also looking at a better condition 964 911 and scarily enough, clutch, brake pads and disks and in fact, nearly all regular consumables are cheaper than nsx's.
however, unlike the nsx, it has more problems that can make the bills go through the roof.
for a little more you can probably get an early 993 where most of these problems have been remedied but at a higher starting price.

also, a bit odd about you outrunning (pulling away from) an nsx in a vr4 at around 140 cos they give very similar performance. might've been an auto nsx though.... they lose around 20 bhp to the manual cars and this comes lower down.
add the effect of a slush box gear change and it all adds up to a much slower car.
but yeah..... the nsx doesn't have much torque under it's belt (it's contemporay japanese 'peers' all have it beat by at least 50 lb/ft.) and this translates to it always feeling underpowered.

the gearing is right, if it had the power and was able, its gearing is geared for 225mph
1st gens are geared for 205mph. my 3rd gear ends at 125mph

i've never heard of a vr4 doing 180 stock. c5 vettes actually go 172mph but are stoped by a rev limiter i beleive. i have heard of 170mph, 172mph to be exact, i've never witnessed this but i've heard.
. there are people that will tell you the've got up to 165mph, and 170mph, but i've personally never heard of 180mph i dont think it has the power to do 180mph stock, maybe with some bpu's it might

also, i outran a nsx on the highway got up to about 135mph-140mph
his bumper was on my tailpipes, and i was pulling. this was without using the boost controller. my close freind cory use to have a stealth and a vr4, and then sold both for a nsx, he even says the vr4 had better top end power and felt like a faster highway runner.

ok so gearing may be set to go over 200mph but if you talk like that then a civics gearing is set to go a very generous amount of speed too. i guess what i meant to say is that everything isnt in the favor of the VR4 doing over 200mph. im sure you can make one go over 200mph just liek you can make a 300zxTT go over 300mph, its gonna take a lot of work, money, and fabrication.

i belive that the VR4 can do 180mph...i just know it doesnt do it stock.

By the way k3smostwanted, how do you like your ZX, my dad had one a long time ago and I vaguely remember it. I guess my family has always been into turbo cars or big blocks. Like my dad says, there is no replacement for displacement.....except on occasion twin turbos ;)...such and old school guy. Personally, I love cars that handle well in the twisties, that's why I am opting for an NSX, but maybe I might settle for something more practical like a GSX I use to have. I heard 240's were nice, but the SR20 kits aren't smog legal hear in cali. I have a 240Z though, and that thing is fun, quick, but not fast. Has some pep. Anyways yo guys have an good ideas for cheap autocross cars that are AWD or RWD excluding the miata...I respect it and all and I know the potential it has, but I'm sorry it it just isn't my cup of tea. I heard Turbo MR2's are nice but they have a problems with overheating..just what I heard though.

By the way k3smostwanted, how do you like your ZX, my dad had one a long time ago and I vaguely remember it. I guess my family has always been into turbo cars or big blocks. Like my dad says, there is no replacement for displacement.....except on occasion twin turbos ;)...such and old school guy. Personally, I love cars that handle well in the twisties, that's why I am opting for an NSX, but maybe I might settle for something more practical like a GSX I use to have. I heard 240's were nice, but the SR20 kits aren't smog legal hear in cali. I have a 240Z though, and that thing is fun, quick, but not fast. Has some pep. Anyways yo guys have an good ideas for cheap autocross cars that are AWD or RWD excluding the miata...I respect it and all and I know the potential it has, but I'm sorry it it just isn't my cup of tea. I heard Turbo MR2's are nice but they have a problems with overheating..just what I heard though.

i love my Z but it isnt enough power so im doing some work to it right now. when i get done it will be a TT with the 2+2 wheel base so it should be a demon on a track.

i actually am keeping my eyes open for a 240Z that i can restore/swap motors in.

why dont you turn your 240Z into a track car...it makes one hell of a track car. especially with the shops around doing the JDM motor swaps.

You car sounds like it is going to be sweet when it is done. What engines do they offer for the 240z that would keep the balance, I heard the V8 kills it. Does anyone know how much any costs? Thanks for the help.

You car sounds like it is going to be sweet when it is done. What engines do they offer for the 240z that would keep the balance, I heard the V8 kills it. Does anyone know how much any costs? Thanks for the help.

a sr20det fits very nicely in there. it also sits much further back in the chassis and is alot shorter in height and weights like 200 lbs less. if you want to keep close to stock balance, you can also swap in a KA24DE and put a turbo on it, or you can go nuts and put any RB in there.