This is not one of the best of examples, very dented and scratched bodywork, but very low miles of 22,500. Exterior Grade was D, (very poor), overall Grade 3.5 but only because of the low mileage otherwise this a Grade 2.5/3 car... anyhow it's one of the first i've seen in a while, even from the pic you can tell the bodywork is not that great!! Interior does look good:), the car itself is a 2+2 TT Auto...

 

 

 

 

Lot's of dents and scratches shown on the body diagram!!

 

plus the nsx only keeps it value because there are fewer of them -

 

rarity and scarcity have kept the price high. but why is it scarce? because it didn't sell as well as the zed... and why?

 

Incorrect, they are a mid-engined 2 seat super car. A completely different car to a Z32 which is a front engined GT. They were also twice the price. Bit like saying 911s don't sell as well as MX5s etc.

 

because it cost too much and delivered to little...

 

 

Never heard such a load of old cobblers. No offence mate. A N/A car with such a small capacity engine producing that much power...the handling performance which is still a benchmark today.

 

 

zed people didn't buy it as it was too expensive - porsche people didnt buy it as it wasn't as good as the porker of the day - or so the market says.

 

People don't just choose cars over value. Z people didn't buy it because it never had 4 seats. It's a totally different car. Bit like saying Fiesta people don't buy Cosworths.

 

you can talk superiorty all you want but in my book the zed is the better car for a lot of reasons... and honestly those air cooled 993s were a real blast to drive...

 

 

Your arguments hold no credibility. It's your preference at the end of the day, but I am not only quoting my preference but I am also quoting fact. NSX was said to be one of the top handling road cars of all time. Z32 is good, but the NSX is still one of the best in terms of handling.

 

Also, if you're talking about economy, why did Nissan stop production of them for the Euro market after only 3 years? Why? Because people wouldn't pay the prices for them. So the argument swings both ways. The NSX remained in production and sold in the UK long after the last Z32s left Nissan dealerships.

Very good point, was it in 03 or 04 or both they only sold 2 world wide. To expencise for what they are

 

As for soarers i didnt realise they were that cheap. It it worth importing them lee?? same price range as the zx

Not really now, the Soarer I have is being sold with not a great deal of margin. If I wanted to retail the car properly it is a £4495 car easy, but I am moving stock on at the moment so not too worried about a few hundred here and there;)

Not really now, the Soarer I have is being sold with not a great deal of margin. If I wanted to retail the car properly it is a £4495 car easy, but I am moving stock on at the moment so not too worried about a few hundred here and there;)

 

 

Still not alot of money tho for such a big car.

 

at si how dare you compare the zx to a fiesta :slap:

 

I thought the zx was built upto 1996 in the uk??

I am not sure on dates for final production for the Euro Market. I think it was either 3 or 4 years? 91 to 95?

Latest UK Zed's were 1994 AFAIK...

94 was the last year for the Z32 in the UK

So 3 years then? Or was 1990 the first year of sales.

Came out in 89 i think

89 was US and Japan wasn't it? N/A was launched first?

First of all. I like your 300zx. If we are going to get systematically serious let's go for it, dude! Secondly, don't get pissed off at me please - i am just giving my opinion and backing it up just as you have done, and i'm grateful for the time and energy you spent doing so to put your point across... :)

 

Incorrect, they are a mid-engined 2 seat super car. A completely different car to a Z32 which is a front engined GT. They were also twice the price. Bit like saying 911s don't sell as well as MX5s etc.

 

calling an nsx a supercar is plain wrong even in the late 80s to early 90s. a supercar with what 282 or 286 bhp = HAHA! granted it handled like a supercar, but what sort accelaration was it getting? 6 secs or so? no way near supercar of the time. supercars of the time were doing sub 4.5 and even less than 4.0, 993 turbo, f355, diablo, countach, 959, xj220, griffiths, chims - come on, the nsx was not a supercar even with some of the best handling round... sounds like you own one... also just because it has two seats doesnt make it a super car, neither does it having a mid engine layout, e.g. front engined ferraris! comparing the nsx to any of these cars is like comparing an mx5 to a 911. track times were improved by the handling, but that high reving blender of a civic engine had no torque and no low down pull... still didnt compete with them on the track. ok that's a lie - they competed but they just couldn't BEAT a 993 turbo or f355 or even an rs etc... sorry but that is a fact. Sure honda tried to market it as a mid engined supercar and that marketing may have worked on some... but not on me - because i don't believe in things i feel are wrong and i have driven several of them and most of the other (true) supercars i have mentioned. Again, I like the nsx - it drives good, just not supercar good - simply not fast enough. I think honda's marketing worked on you though... sorry if it upsets you, but that's how i feel... NSXs are mid engined sports cars. they are only supercars in your mind and maybe a comparatively few others'.

 

Never heard such a load of old cobblers. No offence mate. A N/A car with such a small capacity engine producing that much power...the handling performance which is still a benchmark today.

 

never heard sucha load of old cobblers? switch on the news for 5 minutes ;) More to the point who cares if its NA or not? it is too slow and it is too weak to be a supercar. handling is good, but should be for the price, of course does not come close to most of todays sports cars... try a 997 S if you haven't already and tell me it's on par face to face and i'll tell you if you believe it ;) ;) or even a cayman S for that matter...

 

People don't just choose cars over value. Z people didn't buy it because it never had 4 seats. It's a totally different car. Bit like saying Fiesta people don't buy Cosworths.

 

Agreed with the first part. are you saying that zed people didn't buy a car at 50%-80% more than a zed because of the two extra seats? In my opinion you are mistaken - imo price was the main factor. fact was you could get a 911 for slightly more and most people did exactly that. dont forget in those days 400+ bhp was available on a dozen cars or so. paying and extra £20k-£25k in todays money on an nsx over a zed was and still is irrational. and yes there are and always will be people that make irrational decisions. just not too many as the production figures for the nsx clearly show (compared with zed and 911 as all of the consumer base overlaps anyway). As for fiesta's I don't get it - weren't all cosworths four seat cars? or are you saying that a zed - A ZED! is to an nsx what fiesta is to an escort RS COSWORTH!?!?!??! I do not agree... sorry and furthermore i am positive it is not the case... apologies again for having a different point of view...

 

Your arguments hold no credibility. It's your preference at the end of the day, but I am not only quoting my preference but I am also quoting fact. NSX was said to be one of the top handling road cars of all time. Z32 is good, but the NSX is still one of the best in terms of handling.

 

I agree some of the arguments i stated in the first on the nsx vs zed thing hold no credibility IN YOUR MIND. I respect your preference - please respect mine which is zed+£15k > nsx. I think most people will agree with me, but that is only my opinion which i am sure is right until it is proven incorrect. in which case i will admit my mistaken view immediately because i am like that. I admit my mistakes or at least try to as well as i can. nsx was said to have been a good handling car, but by who? a racing driver who doesnt bear the cost? secretly owns a porsche or clarkson (for PRIME MINISTER!!! GOGOGO!) i agree again that it handles better than a stock zed. still doesn't make it a supercar though. if i could only have one car as a present i'd have a zed and i think you would, too... to use everyday and that's not including the huge £15k price difference - tell me if i'm wrong, please...

 

Also, if you're talking about economy, why did Nissan stop production of them for the Euro market after only 3 years? Why? Because people wouldn't pay the prices for them. So the argument swings both ways. The NSX remained in production and sold in the UK long after the last Z32s left Nissan dealerships.

 

simple answer: don't know. i think more zeds were sold mainly due to price not the extra seats and not just in the uk but also all over the world. that car was and is too expensive, but yes it handled very well back in the day and still handles quite well, better than many many of todays cars just not as good as todays real sports cars. don't know what being in production and selling 10 or so cars a year did for honda - they probably had a reason, maybe a bad one, maybe a good one - but we will never know. still i don't see what this proves... sorry dude 300ZX is a class act nsx is class act, but is way too expensive and its styling is nowhere near as nice as the zeds in my opinion and these two factors particularly the price difference are not outweighed by the handling differences. sorry.

 

300ZX has stood the test of time - VIVA ZED!

 

P.S. the very first nsx i saw at the london motorshow and i loved the black top bit in a kind of perspex shiny roof on the red car... didnt like the others, even though the pop up lights were very well replaced... i would consider a targa with 40k on the clock for 7-8k today not a penny more... but that's just me

 

 

calling an nsx a supercar is plain wrong even in the late 80s to early 90s. a supercar with what 282 or 286 bhp = HAHA! granted it handled like a supercar, but what sort accelaration was it getting? 6 secs or so? no way near supercar of the time. supercars of the time were doing sub 4.5 and even less than 4.0, 993 turbo, f355, diablo, countach, 959, xj220, griffiths, chims - come on, the nsx was not a supercar even with some of the best handling round... sounds like you own one... also just because it has two seats doesnt make it a super car, neither does it having a mid engine layout, e.g. front engined ferraris! comparing the nsx to any of these cars is like comparing an mx5 to a 911. track times were improved by the handling, but that high reving blender of a civic engine had no torque and no low down pull... still didnt compete with them on the track. ok that's a lie - they competed but they just couldn't BEAT a 993 turbo or f355 or even an rs etc... sorry but that is a fact. Sure honda tried to market it as a mid engined supercar and that marketing may have worked on some... but not on me - because i don't believe in things i feel are wrong and i have driven several of them and most of the other (true) supercars i have mentioned. Again, I like the nsx - it drives good, just not supercar good - simply not fast enough. I think honda's marketing worked on you though... sorry if it upsets you, but that's how i feel... NSXs are mid engined sports cars. they are only supercars in your mind and maybe a comparatively few others'.

 

 

 

never heard sucha load of old cobblers? switch on the news for 5 minutes ;) More to the point who cares if its NA or not? it is too slow and it is too weak to be a supercar. handling is good, but should be for the price, of course does not come close to most of todays sports cars... try a 997 S if you haven't already and tell me it's on par face to face and i'll tell you if you believe it ;) ;) or even a cayman S for that matter...

 

 

 

Agreed with the first part. are you saying that zed people didn't buy a car at 50%-80% more than a zed because of the two extra seats? In my opinion you are mistaken - imo price was the main factor. fact was you could get a 911 for slightly more and most people did exactly that. dont forget in those days 400+ bhp was available on a dozen cars or so. paying and extra £20k-£25k in todays money on an nsx over a zed was and still is irrational. and yes there are and always will be people that make irrational decisions. just not too many as the production figures for the nsx clearly show (compared with zed and 911 as all of the consumer base overlaps anyway). As for fiesta's I don't get it - weren't all cosworths four seat cars? or are you saying that a zed - A ZED! is to an nsx what fiesta is to an escort RS COSWORTH!?!?!??! I do not agree... sorry and furthermore i am positive it is not the case... apologies again for having a different point of view...

 

 

 

I agree some of the arguments i stated in the first on the nsx vs zed thing hold no credibility IN YOUR MIND. I respect your preference - please respect mine which is zed+£15k > nsx. I think most people will agree with me, but that is only my opinion which i am sure is right until it is proven incorrect. in which case i will admit my mistaken view immediately because i am like that. I admit my mistakes or at least try to as well as i can. nsx was said to have been a good handling car, but by who? a racing driver who doesnt bear the cost? secretly owns a porsche or clarkson (for PRIME MINISTER!!! GOGOGO!) i agree again that it handles better than a stock zed. still doesn't make it a supercar though. if i could only have one car as a present i'd have a zed and i think you would, too... to use everyday and that's not including the huge £15k price difference - tell me if i'm wrong, please...

 

 

 

simple answer: don't know. i think more zeds were sold mainly due to price not the extra seats and not just in the uk but also all over the world. that car was and is too expensive, but yes it handled very well back in the day and still handles quite well, better than many many of todays cars just not as good as todays real sports cars. don't know what being in production and selling 10 or so cars a year did for honda - they probably had a reason, maybe a bad one, maybe a good one - but we will never know. still i don't see what this proves... sorry dude 300ZX is a class act nsx is class act, but is way too expensive and its styling is nowhere near as nice as the zeds in my opinion and these two factors particularly the price difference are not outweighed by the handling differences. sorry.

 

300ZX has stood the test of time - VIVA ZED!

 

P.S. the very first nsx i saw at the london motorshow and i loved the black top bit in a kind of perspex shiny roof on the red car... didnt like the others, even though the pop up lights were very well replaced... i would consider a targa with 40k on the clock for 7-8k today not a penny more... but that's just me

 

 

Front engined Ferraris such as the 456 were actually classed as GTs. ;)

 

The 0 - 60 is the same as the Z32, not 6 seconds. Which is only about 0.4 seconds slower to 60 than a Ferrari 348. Infact some figures claim them to be sub 5-second 60 cars.

 

Countach, Diablo, F40, XJ220 are hyper-cars which are worth 4 times as much.

 

The NSX isn't just more expensive because of layout, it's a more exclusive car. It was produced in smaller numbers and was never intended as much of a mass produced car as the Z32 which was designed to be a mass produced GT. Not to mention its chassis was refined by Ayrton Senna who had huge input into the chassis design.

 

NSX has stood the test of time just as much.

 

Regarding my Fiesta / Cosworth comment, it was purely an example of a different type of car. Which is what the Z32 and NSX are.

Think your on the wrong site to be saying NSX better... :nono:

 

Why spending lots of money on your Z if you want an NSX :confused:

Because I haven't spent the cash on my Z that equates the value of an NSX and I'm waiting for the prices to drop a little bit more first. I still love the Z32 and think it's one of the finest machines to come from Japan. NSX and Z32 have always been my favourite Japanese cars and are the only 2 cars that have come from Japan that I've ever really liked.

 

They are two great cars. One is just slightly better than the other and far more exclusive.

........and what does everyone think about the weather we're having? lol

........and what does everyone think about the weather we're having? lol

 

I think its pants, seen as you asked! :rofl:

It's crap up here. I'm in Worksop at the moment. What a dreary place. Like a ghost town here!

It's crap up here. I'm in Worksop at the moment. What a dreary place. Like a ghost town here!

 

Is the main attraction the public phone box!?!? :rofl:

Never seen anything like the storm we had a couple of hours ago. Suddenly gale force winds with halestone and thunder storm...

It is a lot rarer, didnt the NSX have a major sales flop at some point for some reason i seem to remember?

 

I had a Porsche 928s4 which was £70,000 new, double z price and i hated it, drove like a skip with a V8 thrown in it, totally horrid thing, was one of my dream cars when younger too

Never seen anything like the storm we had a couple of hours ago. Suddenly gale force winds with halestone and thunder storm...

 

Thats cos you Leyland folk don't pay your rates. :rofl:

Is the main attraction the public phone box!?!? :rofl:

 

No, the local 'Tex-Mex' is which is where I've eaten for the past 2 nights on the trott. All the pubs are shut, there's NOTHING happening here. LOL

No, the local 'Tex-Mex' is which is where I've eaten for the past 2 nights on the trott. All the pubs are shut, there's NOTHING happening here. LOL

 

Cheer Up. :D

 

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1997-Honda-NSX-3-0-manual-Yellow-DAMAGED_W0QQitemZ370008058721QQihZ024QQcategoryZ18206QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Mmmmmmm, not bad. Great project car. :)

Mmmmmmm, not bad. Great project car. :)

 

Not a bad price - i think!

 

2 Others on ebay, one 30k and one 40k, but they are super low mileage and one is 1 of 13 (i think) in that particular colour. :)

 

And cheapest on auto trader is 19k! So thats not a bad price. :)

No sorry... the NSX really does not do it for me..