This is what doesn't make sense at all...

I'm part of everybody and unless you're talking Z06 I'd rather be driving home in the NSX.

 

Steve was talking about the C4 vette, you are talking about the 996 (as you stated) but I'm not sure the C4 is necessarly the designation we're farmaliar with. I do know the C4S is the awd 996.

 

^^^ That makes sense - I wondered what Steve was talking about as I know he knows that AWD P cars were avail at that time...

The C4 is the AWD model below the C4S. I think the diff is mainly body related, but Steve will know forsure...996s were avail in AWD C4 and AWD C4S models as well as the RWD Carerra's

 

Let's talk about current cars (if we can). Let's leave out Vipers and Vettes just b/c cars like 360M, 997 S, NSXs, and Boxsters are not on that level. To some we'll say the small engine cars more sophisticated, the 6-7L Merican cars are fine, but they are more of a different crowd. At least to me.

Not always true, but you'll see more poor (or relatively poor) people driving a Vette than a 911 (JUST IMO BUT THATS WHAT I THINK).

OK let's see is the NSX any better than the Boxster S or Boxster Coupe? I mean maybe we don't have a head-to-head comparo. probably won't b/c NSX has fallen off the charts as far as car magazines go.

280hp 30xx lb Boxster S vs 290hp 31xx lb NSX. Both mid-engine. I can't call the NSX ahead in any areas. Interior, exterior, engine, style, performance. They're either subjective or too close to call.

NSX vs. 997? That ship has sailed. The 997 S has 355hp and 295 TQ. I like NSX, but for same money or near same money, I'd get the 997 S all day long.

 

Because I think that 15 yr old design and quality are still far better than any others in the last 15 years including the newest ones. Don't let that new vs old cloud your decision for a moment. Sit in each one and let me know which interior has better overall design, material quality, and fitment than the NSX. Sadly, the market trend has been that of skimming on interior quality in favor of HP claim.

 

I think comparing msrp is only a superficial way of measuring a car's ownership cost. A more accurate measure would be: purchase price - (years x depreciation). Take that into consideration, the NSX is around 5% more expensive than an E46 M3. I know I would take the NSX over an M3. If you don't believe me. try a BMW dealer and ask them what is their lease rate for an M3 $0 down 36 months. I bet it would be marginally less than the $800/mo (same lease term) for a brand new NSX.

Brand new NSX can be had for $80k all day long (check NSXprime). 5-yr old used ones go for $50K. Depreciation over 5 years = 30k. C5 Z06 went for $55k brand new. A 5-yr old model will retain less than 50% of its purchase price.

The ownership cost for NSX is not nearly as much as its msrp suggest.

 

I would also take the nsx. It looks better..... I can fix the performance part.

 

My bad.

? I don't follow your logic here, ten years or ten thousand, fact is the NSX is heavy despite use of the more expensive Al.

No, but I can't find any with the NSX either. It was what it was, a great car 15 years ago. Time moves on, and with the exception of Honda, every other car maker out there seems to understand this.

Show me the stock NSX that has dipped into the 11's on just better rubber. More than a couple Z06's have done this.

Actually, you could get a 911 C4 4 generations ago -- and the 996 C4 which I assume you are referring to does in fact outperform the NSX in most if not all measures of performance. The more fair comparison would be to take the 2 wheel drive P-car and throw it against the NSX, wherein again it is the superior car for (sans lots of options) less money.

Porsche does. This statement is funny though. So now it boils down to, "well I realize the NSX is slower than anything we can compare it to, and much more expensive, BUT look at that leather! Why would you buy a better car for less money when you could have that Honda leather!

For example?

That is true. Depreciation is kept artifially high due to the very low number of cars out there -- which has a direct relationship to how overpriced they are for the performance offered. Given this limited market any change for the better from Honda, i.e. a dose of good ol' vitiman HP or a reduction in MSRP would destroy the existing market.

Right now though, it looks like owning a slightly used NSX is a good idea and with low risk. This thread and others like it indicate there is no lack of a seemingly brainwashed audience willing to pay a premium for what is arguably now a substandard product.

 

Wow...someone finally gets it. Used NSX (even older ones with high mileage) are pretty good deals IMO, but anything more than $60K is not. I still disagree with your earlier statement about those who bought a used NSX bought merely for more attention though.

 

[QUOTE=Saint_Spinner,Jan 24 2005, 01:24 PM] Ok, I am one of those guys that went from a new S2000 to a really old ('91) NSX with high miles, and its one of the better decisions I've made.