Pre-purchase inspection?

[havoc]

Havoc,

Not a downer at all. You seem to be getting rarity and performance mixed up in your comparison. Also there is a lot of difference between NA1 and NA2 other than 20 bhp and the bits you mentioned.

Agree with the rest of your quote but can't agree with this.

Rarity is part of what drives values in the classic/near-classic market (racing pedigree and looks being the other two main drivers, as far as I can see), but (broad-definition) performance is what people look at when buying a non-classic car. The NSX is currently straddling the two markets, and (in the UK, anyway) is rarer than most of it's when-new competition.

Which is why it's slightly confusing that, when the NA1 is firmly entering classic status, it's the NA2 whose values are noticeably increasing. It's got to be the rarity factor piggy-backing off the recognition by the classic market.


(You want an example of silly prices for what you're getting, look at stuff like Healey's, let alone big-name stuff like E-Types, Astons and F-cars. These are firmly now in 'investment' territory, and sadly out of the reach of 99% of the population even if they did want one. I hope the NSX never goes that way, as of all the 'classic' cars it's one of the ones that's crying out to be used, simply because it's so good at what it does.)

PS - what are the key differences in NA2 then - the ones that you'd notice when driving it, as opposed to when working on it?

[AR]

The PAS, Brakes, torque curve, power delivery dbw, heavier due to reinforcements (95+ ) just in general they feel different as in faster.

[Papalazarou]

We all know that there is little difference between 3.0's and 3.2's in the power band. It's in the mid range the 3.2 has the advantage. But we also know that by adding headers, system and air filter, these cars perform similarly.
Certainly the changes made to the 02+ coupes; stiffer front suspension, made these cars feel different.
Tyres and wheels obviously change the way a car feels quite significantly, but obviously all these can be changed.
TBO, every NSX I have driven (about 15) have performed differently on the road; subtleties in the way they handle, power curve, gearbox etc. largely dependent on the way they've been driven I guess. Add to this the way our perception differs day to day; sometimes my car feels super tight and responsive, other times it feels a bit sluggish, and things become even more ambiguous.
I'm not trying to talk myself out of a late 3.2 car; I like the bug lights, facelift wheels, the perforated leather and the healthier mid range. I am fully aware that for most people these differences are purely aesthetic. But in answer to Martins question, these aesthetics For many people are where the heart of the preference lie.
Many potential owners are 'perhaps' drawn to the classic status with an update modern look. Same car, but newer and newer looking. One might argue that Hondas refusal to meaningfully update the car has created two different markets. One for those who prefer the classic styling and appreciate the relative affordability of the older cars and another for those wanting an updated look on the classic platform and who are willing or able to pay for it.

Cheers,

James.

[havoc]

One might argue that Hondas refusal to meaningfully update the car has created two different markets. One for those who prefer the classic styling and appreciate the relative affordability of the older cars and another for those wanting an updated look on the classic platform and who are willing or able to pay for it.

Cheers,

James.

I won't argue with that.

For me, the 'sweet spot' is probably the one I haven't driven - NA2 w/pop-ups - classic looks with the enhancements. But they were just out of my budget when I was looking (I did briefly consider P27, but I'm not a fan of NIOP), and they most certainly are now. Ah well...there's always the lottery win!