Ferrari Modena, Porsche 996 Turbo or Honda NSX ?

At a price of about US$120 000, would you prefer an Honda NSX, a Ferrari Modena or Porsche 911 Turbo ?
Personnaly, I can't see the advantages of the Honda compared to the Italian and German competitors.

360 Modena.:)

Good choice ;)

996 turbo for me. in my opinion it looks better, its also faster, and it should be easier to drive. plus if it snows, you won't get stuck on a hill!! try doin that with a MR ferrari.

You cant buy a 360 for 120k...they start at 136k

360 Modena :flash:
I think he meant all the models were around $120k...? $136k isn't that much more.

The NSX is the first one gone- looks good but the performance lacks against the Turbo and 360.

The 360 is nice and if it were a track car I was after I would take it- however if I were to drive it daily- the Porsche is far more civilised- and it has better traction in the wet- it is also luxurious and refined- and the ABS system is the worlds most advanced- if you slide into the gravel while the other side is still on the road- it will brake like it would had it been on the road- definitley a plus:D

Even I pick the Porsche. :o

I mean arround US$120 000, I don't know the prices in the USA, here in France a Modena cost 130 000 €, that's much more than the NSX which costs 120 000 € or the Porsche at 131 000 €.
The NSX is old (it is 15 year old) and not as powerfull as the others.

And the image of Honda is nothing compared to Ferrari or Porsche ! Honda makes good cars but that's all.

911 all the way baby

The 996 is very nice !

but the Ferrari too ;)

The 996 (Porsche) for me. Although they are both flawed. They both handle very well but two small criticisms:

1) the 996 Turbo is too easy to drive
2) the 360 Modena is fidgety at the limit

wish i could say i make these comments from personal experience but its from reviews & tv :p

I'll still take the 911 though :D

The NSX can't even begin to be on the playing field with the Porsche or Ferrari here...I'd go for the Porsche personally though.

Ferrari or Porsche, accept no substitutes.

hold up, i realized the price tag. since when was a 996 turbo only 120K area? aren't those atleat 200K thats the last tiem i checked. and if its just a standard porshe, a NSX type S zero will blow those out of the water. i'm dead ass. and i would pick the NSX if it was to be those low end cars. i thought you guys were talkin about the real deal porshe oops.

i'm pretty sure the turbo is in the 111k range... i'll find it...

Porsche 911 Turbo : 129 750 €.

so yoru tellin me that a twin turbo 420hp boxer engine with AWD and a auto adjusting wing is only 120K area? then why would the ferrar cost more if its less advanced?

what's the name on the car? oh that's right...

i'm having a hell of a time finding the orig price, b/c no sites are helping...
i did find a small excerpt from a listing for a used 2002 turbo...
"Original Window was over $129K plus the paid lux tax!!!"

so, it's not hella pricey.

whoa i just went to the official site, and it is only 116K not bad~

116 thousand dollars for a Porsche 911 Turbo? That's fantastic value. And yes, it is technically more advanced than the Modena

I don't think I could give up the chance to have the Modena. But like everyone said, the 996 is a LOT more practical. In my mind though, Ferrari rules all.:D

I'd take the Porsche. It seems much more practical than a Ferrari.

Does an NSX-R count? If it does, i'll take the NSX-R. The 2002 NSX-R runs 12.8 stock with only 290 HP and some 224 TQ. Not bad for the HP/TQ and for only about 80,000-90,000.

The ferrari costs 100+ G's and it's not even fast for it's price...probably slower than the NSX-R. Saw a yellow ferrari modena got whooped by a Supra TT with only basic stuff.

I dunno about the porshe..but too costly..and probably performs only a bit better than the NSX-R

Originally posted by Miltown_Racer


The ferrari costs 100+ G's and it's not even fast for it's price...probably slower than the NSX-R. Saw a yellow ferrari modena got whooped by a Supra TT with only basic stuff.



Ok stop watching fast and the furious we saw it too. And yes the 360 modena is pretty weak for a drag race but take it on a track and will spank almost anything. Also lets not forget that the modena is most likelly the best aerodynamically corect car in the world.

if we want to get into it...

that ferrari was not a 360 in the movie (i'm pretty sure it wasn't)

and... lieberman's supra has about 600+hp... i would hope it would be a stock ferrari in a race...

and a supra with the bpu will have at least the same power as a ferrari... sooo. it would make sense in a straight line.

however... take a corner. who's gonna win? not the supra most likely.

i'm an nsx fan for the exoticism that surrounds it... you see em less than ferraris. but i'd take the porsche...

It was an F355 in the F&F and i for one was rooting for it to win.... of course i knew it wouldnt, all the spotty ricers eating their popcorn would have been disappointed and added another 4 turbos to their car to ensure it doesnt happen to their comedy-Civic.. so the jap-car wins.. but the Ferrari looked infinitely better, sounded better and... hold on, what am i doing? am i really responding to this? a ferrari vs a t*y*ta? those two words shouldnt be said in the same sentence. and the guy saying a 360 isnt fast for the money... boy are you an idiot! and that the Porsche performs slightly better than the NSX-R? what are you saying its not worth the money? Youre buying a piece of history right there with the 996 TT. you dont like it? drive a civic!

Originally posted by Miltown_Racer
Does an NSX-R count? If it does, i'll take the NSX-R. The 2002 NSX-R runs 12.8 stock with only 290 HP and some 224 TQ. Not bad for the HP/TQ and for only about 80,000-90,000.

Are you sure about that?
Even in Japan, after the exchange rates, I think it's around 200k Canadian.

But I still take the NSX. Why? Practicality, fun, VTEC, agility, REDlining at 8,000 rpm+ and a whole lot of other stuff.

The Porsche & the Ferrari probably have that too, but to me, Hondas are more fun:)

actually, they do have all that...
both cars have variable timing on the cams, just like vtec, and they have more complicated systems...

the ferrari has as higher or higher redline, and the turbo is up there, 7k or so i think...

they're both agile, fun, and at least the porsche is practical. the nsx isn't really any more practical than the ferrari though...

funny you should say that.... NSX, as supercars go is very practical. ok theres not much luggage space but it will start every time and is a doddle to drive in heavy traffic. and when the road opens up... :devil:

but for that matter... so are the porsche and ferrari...

look at where i live... i wanna drive my car year round...

if it rains, and it does that alot here, i want the porsche. if it snows, i would drive the porsche.

the other 2 are garage babies to a point...

and we all know that none of them would be stock, except the porsche maybe...

i wouldn't really mod it much... (right, that's a lie)

but out of the 3 i would consider it most "practical" for a daily driver car...

Absolutely, the 911 is the most practical, im just saying the NSX is also practical, more so than the 360, a big improvement in practicality over the F355... but still not as practical as the Porsche or NSX

and btw, i wouldnt think of touching the 911, and definitely not the Modena. That's sacrilege!

The NSX i would fettle with to my heart's content :p

there's not much to do to a ferrari really... rims and then upgrading to 360 challenge car pieces... hehe

i've seen turbo 911's that have 800hp, so i know that i can go that route...

big rims, bigger brakes, louder exh, bigger turbos...

sky is the limit... RUF style... or Gemballa... hmm...

and the nsx is a nice little starting point for a Wangan mobile...

to me, the 996 = king of understeer

but i would still take it over the nsx or the modena, just personal preference i guess

not really a big fan of any of these cars . . . never really thought about spending that much money on a car . . . if i was going to spend such money, i would definitely have a few cars . . . not just ONE

where's your info on the understeer come from in the car in question? the 996 turbo (which is awd)...

understeer? i've never read that. i'll admit i've never driven one. i can't imagine it having much understeer, being rear engined and mainly rwd.

im not talking about the turbo, i basically said 996

but i remember hearing a while back on af about the handling of the 996, i forgot the driver's name but he was said to have the reputation of never disliking a car, he found the 996 to be leaning towards understeer

i also have never driven a 996, but i think if one was going to buy a porsche, make it a 993 :cool: truly a classic car

besides man, havent u ever played GT3 Aspec? check out the handling on that 996 turbo

Originally posted by crayzayjay
funny you should say that.... NSX, as supercars go is very practical. ok theres not much luggage space but it will start every time and is a doddle to drive in heavy traffic. and when the road opens up... :devil:
Reminds me of the episode of Top Gear where Tiff reviews the NSX. He just seems so bored the whole time, lol.

Originally posted by Neutrino



Ok stop watching fast and the furious we saw it too. And yes the 360 modena is pretty weak for a drag race but take it on a track and will spank almost anything. Also lets not forget that the modena is most likelly the best aerodynamically corect car in the world.

Nope..haven't been watching F&F at all after i saw it once. I actually saw it... Yep, it's pretty weak alright. Let's see..correct me if i'm wrong, but the ferrari is V8, right? Pretty weak for a V8 don't u think so? The NSX-R is only a V6 and it kicks @ss...looks nice and not to mention, it has a very good aerodynamic too.

Don't get me wrong, i love ferrari's too..I can only hate them because i can't afford them.:(

Ok millltown one question how bis is the engine in a NSX-R cuz the one in the modena is only 3.6L that is not a big engine.

Originally posted by Neutrino
Ok millltown one question how bis is the engine in a NSX-R cuz the one in the modena is only 3.6L that is not a big engine.

it's a 3.0 or maybe a 3.2. All i know is that, it isn't bigger than 3.5L.

Iv been reading this with great interest, and as the only person here who has probobly work on all 3 makes of car I feel obliged to give my opinion.

The Porsche and Ferrari are certianly faster and quite a bit more exotic than the NSX, and although to some it makes them more desirable it is for me a down side to owning them.

I much prefer the simply efficancy of the NSX over the either Ferrari or Porsche, it is IMO a much more refined and practice car to own, while still offering super car styling and performance.

I find Porshes to be excessivly over enginered, while Ferraris under thier sleak sexy bodys are often and ugly mess of hand welded steel frame with thought to maintianing and servicing parts with a short life service life.

The NSX will give years of endless pleasure and service, and run on the smell of an oily rag, while the Porsche will cost rediculas amounts of money to get serviced, and at the end of the day is still just a VW beetle with some great enginering enabling to go around corners. (despite the engine being in the wrong place).
The Ferrari will be the worst of the lot, while a lot more reliable than older cars the new ones are still fiddly to work on, and horrendsly expensive to service.


All 3 cars have thier disadvantages as well as advantages, and IMO its impossible to say one is simply better than the other, it all depends on what you happen to be looking for in a car of this class, as all 3 offer a quite differnt ownership experiance.

your OPINION on understeer in the 996 is based on playing a video game and an article... not nearly enough to consider it the king of understeer if you haven't driven one...

the 996 and the turbo are two really different cars...

one has awd. that's a big difference, no? and different tuning and suspension work... so...

if the 996 will understeer, maybe a turbo won't.

and we're talking about a turbo, not a reg. 996.

stay on topic...


i agree with moppie's post... though i've never driven/owned any and never claimed to...

Originally posted by BlOOe46
to me, the 996 = king of understeer


Sorry, that's bull. It just doesnt whip its tail out like 70's and 80's 911's. The 996 is a fantastic handling machine. To drive it like its supposed to be driven you must know how to drive 911's.

Originally posted by YellowMaranello

Reminds me of the episode of Top Gear where Tiff reviews the NSX. He just seems so bored the whole time, lol.
true, but he can be such a girl sometimes... when he drives something that takes his breath away, he'll just go "ooooh" like a big girl's blouse :rolleyes: :hehehe:

good ol Tiff

Originally posted by BlOOe46

i also have never driven a 996, but i think if one was going to buy a porsche, make it a 993 :cool: truly a classic car

besides man, havent u ever played GT3 Aspec? check out the handling on that 996 turbo

Great choice with the 993!!!


but for chrissakes, dont base your views on a computer game!!! :bloated:

Originally posted by Miltown_Racer


Let's see..correct me if i'm wrong, but the ferrari is V8, right? Pretty weak for a V8 don't u think so?

My god, the ignorance!!!!

The Modena has a 3.6L V8 that develops 400bhp. Thats over 100bhp per NORMALLY ASPIRATED litre!!! What is wrong with you? :bloated:

Originally posted by Moppie
Porsche will cost rediculas amounts of money to get serviced, and at the end of the day is still just a VW beetle with some great enginering enabling to go around corners. (despite the engine being in the wrong place).


Moppie :( , disappointed to read something like this from you. Calling the 911 a Beetle with great engineering? :rolleyes: . i expect that from some of the idiotic ricers going around this forum, but certainly not from you! And you're wrong, the Porsche does not cost a fortune to service. I speak from experience, and its a well known fact anyway, a well taken care of 911 is not expensive to maintain, no more expensive than a BMW or Merc, and it will last forever.. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by crayzayjay


Moppie :( , disappointed to read something like this from you. Calling the 911 a Beetle with great engineering? :rolleyes: . i expect that from some of the idiotic ricers going around this forum, but certainly not from you! And you're wrong, the Porsche does not cost a fortune to service. I speak from experience, and its a well known fact anyway, a well taken care of 911 is not expensive to maintain, no more expensive than a BMW or Merc, and it will last forever.. :rolleyes:


Indeed- Porsche are no more expensive than the NSX to service- Even in New Zealand- parts would be easier to source in NZ as well- there are about 20 NSX's in comparision to about 300 911's and approx 35% of them 996's- 15% of those 996's would be Turbo's also if you can afford the purchase price of a Porsche/Ferrari- you can afford the servicing- nuff said- Needless to say that here in Western Europe servicing a Porsche undercuts servicing an NSX by considerable amounts.

The whole VW Beetle stuff is bullshit as well- the 356 was based off the VW Beetle- the 911 has influence from VAG- but it is far different from ANY VW Beetle- Next thing y'know you'll be trying to tell us that a Ferrari 360 Modena is based off a FIAT Punto


The NSX is no more or less practical than the 911- the cars both share the attributes of being easy to point through traffic- Porsche have known for a long time that about 70% of thier customers use (or would like to use) thier cars as day-to-day transport- Also back while the 993 was in the design stages the NSX came out- so Porsche from then on have been making cars that are practical and can be used as day-to-day transport. Also the NSX has very minimal luggage space- in comparision to the 911- so the 911 does have some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to practicality.

The porsche still has the engine sitting in the worst possible place for a balanced chassis design.
To put it simply if the amount of enginering talant that went into making it handle so well had gone into the deisgn of a mid engined car it would be oh so much better.

And the orginal 911 used a rear mounted engine and g/box with a swing axle rear suspension, and torsion bar frount. aka the VW Beetle.
The newer cars have the g/box qiute forward of the rear axle, with the engine sitting almost between the rear wheels, and forunatly no longer use a swing axle, however the design is still based strongly on the orginal.

Originally posted by crayzayjay

true, but he can be such a girl sometimes... when he drives something that takes his breath away, he'll just go "ooooh" like a big girl's blouse :rolleyes: :hehehe:

good ol Tiff

Tiff DUDE, thats the cats name, the one someone was talking about who commented on the 996's understeer . . .

omg we have some sensitive people about porsches here who actually have never driven one . . . how can one get so defensive about a car one has never been in? im not totally taking the guy's word who said the porsche didnt know how to handle, but chances are the guy knows what hes talking about if he tests supercars for a living and has lots of references to critique a certain cars handling against another

offcourse i shoud take the ferrari:cool:

so b/c mr. needell said that the car would understeer, and he's driving it pretty damn hard...

that makes you think it's ok to call it the king of understeer?

and might i add that i never claimed to drive it.

and i never said "to me, it's (whatever)"

b/c i don't know.

and we're still talking about a turbo. not a reg 996. different cars.

i'm not sensitive, but if you're gonna say something with no backup, be prepared to be told how things really are.

and that's not meant to be a threat, but if you say something that requires some sort of clarification, do it.

ok, well i clarified it, and i stand by my statement

r u pretending to know more than this tiff guy on the feel of the porsche 996's handling?

i never said that. i have tons of top gear vids at home, and i've seen what he drives.

point out where i'm saying that i know more?

i have, and will keep on pointing out that this is about a porsche 996 turbo.

which has different suspension and drivetrain than the reg 996, so you can't stand by what someone said about the regular 996 if it's not the same car.

also, you are going by one statement from one person. that's his opinion.

other testers may not agree. do you see my point here?

Originally posted by Jimster

The NSX is no more or less practical than the 911- the cars both share the attributes of being easy to point through traffic- Porsche have known for a long time that about 70% of thier customers use (or would like to use) thier cars as day-to-day transport- Also back while the 993 was in the design stages the NSX came out- so Porsche from then on have been making cars that are practical and can be used as day-to-day transport. Also the NSX has very minimal luggage space- in comparision to the 911- so the 911 does have some tricks up its sleeve when it comes to practicality.

It didnt start from the 993. My uncle had a 964 and drove it everyday. Practical and reliable as anything. Just not for a family, of course. what more could one want?

Originally posted by Moppie
The porsche still has the engine sitting in the worst possible place for a balanced chassis design.
To put it simply if the amount of enginering talant that went into making it handle so well had gone into the deisgn of a mid engined car it would be oh so much better.

And the orginal 911 used a rear mounted engine and g/box with a swing axle rear suspension, and torsion bar frount. aka the VW Beetle.
The newer cars have the g/box qiute forward of the rear axle, with the engine sitting almost between the rear wheels, and forunatly no longer use a swing axle, however the design is still based strongly on the orginal.

yes, the engine is not in the best place, yet today's Porsches drive arguably better than anything else out there. example, in every evo magazine car of the year there has been at least one porsche and the results have been as follows:

1998 - COTY - Porsche 996
1999 - COTY - Porsche 996 GT3
2000 - COTY - Porsche 996 Turbo
2001 - COTY - Pagani Zonda (Porsche 996 revised 5th)
2002 - COTY - Honda NSX-R , Porsche 996 Carrera 4S 2nd

and this aint no p*ssy CAR magazine, they drive the nuts off those cars.

To tackle your "if theyd put so much effort in a mid-engined design it would be so much better", youre basically saying Ferrari are inept, cos lets face it theyve been making mid-engined cars for a while now, which is the optimum design and their cars arent matching the inferior reae-engined Porsche design. Now that cant be right, why dont you just take your hat off to Porsche and admit to the fantastic job they have been doing?


and dont go back to the 1960's, i mean, really, whats the point?

Originally posted by BlOOe46


Tiff DUDE, thats the cats name, the one someone was talking about who commented on the 996's understeer . . .

omg we have some sensitive people about porsches here who actually have never driven one . . . how can one get so defensive about a car one has never been in? im not totally taking the guy's word who said the porsche didnt know how to handle, but chances are the guy knows what hes talking about if he tests supercars for a living and has lots of references to critique a certain cars handling against another

yeah, i know who Tiff Needell is thanks

about your "sensitive people" comment, are you referring to me? youre the one basing your argument on GT3 for crying out loud!! i like to think i do know a thing or two about Porsches, ive been in several and driven a couple so .... :rolleyes:

didnt bite anyone's head off, did i?