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!!

 

One of the prettiest cars ever made IMHO.

 

nice looking cars but...

 

give me a TVR any day!

JESUS!! :nono:

I think arguing other peoples opinions is a bit silly isn't it? Thought I was in my lads playground there for a minute, and he's only 10!

 

And, yes Si, Worksop is an hole! Well it has been every time I've driven past on the A57 :D........ Nope, hang-on, I remember now I had to find my way out of the place once, when I had no idea where the **** I was! :D

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

and why is that? because someone put the letters gt behind the 456 number on the badge. let's try and be smart here. they did that because they needed to sell it they had to re-introduce the third line of cars. I have driven a 456 and i will tell you that it matches the handling of the nsx and it's way more powerful... what about the 550? and i assure you in a professionals hands that manual 456GT which has over 430bhp (that's over 160 bhp more than an nsx 270, i'll put it in other terms the nsx needs 60% more power - yes it needs another 1.6 times more power to have the same output!) What about the power to weight ratio i hear you cry! yes cry! what about it? - i'll tell you what about it. the facts are like this:

 

456gt 435bhp about 400 ftlb of torque - nsx 275bhp about 210 ftlb of torque plus all the power on the nsx is so far up the rev range it takes much longer to get there and when you get there it's still slower resulting in

 

bhp/ton 255 vs nsx measely 195

5.1 0-60 vs nsx let's say 5.9 for arguments sake!

0-100mph 11.6 on the 456gt vs nsx

1/4 mile 13.3 - 14sec

top speed 185mph vs 165mph

 

yanks have put twin turbos and twin superchargers on that thing because stock it's just not in the supercar league period (note period as opposed to full stop) it's not even one of the fastest sportscars...

 

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.

only 0.4!!! haha only .4 seconds - can't believe you said that - even though it's actually more - that is a lot and it gets compounded every single lap! or mile! or whatever. being pedantic now - they are both about 6 seconds which is not any acceleration you or i will ever get out of them as we dont want to break them or risk breaking them. "some figures" can claim what they want but no stock nsx will go sub 5... i will believe it when i see it. as for the 348 - it was an absolute piece of crap to drive - often named the rockstars ferrari - not a super car, not even a race car... a hairdressers car - the testarossa was the supercar and you know this to be true... and a testarossa eats an nsx for breakfast before it goes out to work with the other real supercars and was a much older car anyway. thing is - in those days supercars had 400bhp+ ... 300 bhp and less were really just sportscars or racers... like 911's and the slower nsx...

 

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

 

what is a hyper car? where did you hear this or did you come up with it yourself? sounds like something someone invented these days, but in the late 80s and early 90s there was no such thing - just supercars like the countach, diablo they were factory produced for anyone who wanted one - just supercars unlike the nsx which was never a supercar. never mentioned an f40, did mention the 959, but it doesn't matter as i mentioned the 911rs and the turbo which easily wiped the floor with an nsx - and i'm talking the previous generation turbo, too... fact. so 4x the price? and a nissan GTR is half the price of a 997 turbo which it beats at the germans track. the nsx didn't even try that - because there was no chance. lambo were expensive but not 4x as much. xj220 was a one off - interesting that you would remember the xj220, but haven't mentioned a tvr of the time which was so much faster than the nsx, it made it feel like a honda. what about the esprit s4 at 280 bhp or s300 which owned an nsx before the term "total ownage" was born. talking about an f40 in the same sentence as an nsx is just plain sad. like comparing an enzo to an acura soon *not* be unveiled nsx replacement the ascc the "advanced *SPORTS* car concept", which reminds me - hah, yes just found it! "New SPORTSCAR eXperimental" haha - the hint is in the name - that is class!.. sorry... i mean, man... it's not "Nippon SUPERCAR eXcelsior" in your mind, is it?

 

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.

 

Don't agree. Firstly and MR2 has mid engined layout (a 280 bhp turbo will eat an nsx easy by the way) but is not as expensive even though there are few out there. I remember when the nsx just arrived - honda wanted to produce loads of this baby for the US and Europe... but nobody bought it because it was too slow for the money. and they had some serious financial problems in the late 80s that stopped them from funding further production - they were planning to produce many, to compete with porsche (japans most respected car manufacrurer - which should tell you something considering that the japanese make excellent world class cars), but there was no demand as it was too slow and too expensive. as always there was a trade off - it was reliable, but it turned out people who buy sportscars dont mind reliabilty issues as much as the usual honda buyers - old people and those looking for a cheap daily driver. so i think that honda would have loved to produce more nsxs - just nobody wanted them... so the chassis was refined by a great driver - nearly every sportscars chassis was - it doesn't stop the nsx not being a supercar. z32 was the success that the nsx never was and never will be. there was and still is a greater demand for them - it's just that the supply for the honda is (proportionately like) 100x lower while the demand is 10x lower = high price for fanboys...

 

NSX has stood the test of time just as much.

 

in my opinion the produciton numbers show that this car was not demanded as much as a 300zx and furthermore and again in my opinion any car including a testarossa which has those old dodgy lights looks very very dated indeed. the 928 does, too even though i like the retro chic of the way the headlamps lift up and out and their shape... so i don't think it has stood the test of time as well as a z32...

 

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

 

i get it. but what i'm saying is where do we draw the line? the 300zx and nsx came out at the same time - both made by competing jap producers and at the time the four cars that they pitted against each other and the competition such as the 911, esprit, 348/355, griffith, etc were the supra, 300zx, 3000gt and nsx. in terms of price and performance and engine output they were in one group. if we start getting too precise we can say that it should only be compared to an esprit s4 and not an s4s and the nsx-r can only be compared to esprit s300 and a 911rs (which both thrash it by the way)

One of the prettiest cars ever made IMHO.

and i respect your opinion, but before you tell me what i am saying is incorrect, a load of old cobblers and that my arguments hold no credibilty i suggest you look deep into your mind and find your motivation for liking and wanting the slow nsx and truly believing it's a supercar - which it is not whatever you say or do... fact of the matter is it's a sports car, fact of the matter is - a 6k 96 300zx with 3k of mods, which is still half of what the asking (starting) price of an nsx is, won't even see that lawnmower engined honda in it's rearview mirror a minute past the moment they set off together... and you can bank on that. if you want to own a supercar get a ferrrari 328 or 308 (very pretty and fast cars - some versions faster than an nsx even though many years and a coupla generations older italian engineering) but more expensive to run... also - why do you need a supercar? what's the big deal. if you like the nsx - by all means get one - do not - i repeat do not delude yourself into thinking that if you get one you will be a supercar owner or whatever label it is that you think society puts on these things - which to be quite frank you shouldn't care about in the first place - unless you do things for the respect, admiration, whatever of others. I also have a suspicion that if you get that nsx - you will be longing to drive your zed more and more...

 

and the targa in blue is nice, never seen in it blue, seen a few purple though, also hate the hole in the bonnet - better without the popup headlights though, but again not for more than 8k...

 

i hate having to get so precise about things, i really do, but i had to reply after the way you segmented my initial post, which was just my opinion, and tried to break down my points of view so they fit with your incomprehensible desire to call an nsx a supercar with words like cobblers, incorrect and credibility... others can play spock, too... welcome to the next generation

 

two final points:

1. the honda nsx is not and has never been a supercar - do a poll if you need to

2. ZED's not dead, baby!

 

P.S. clark magpie said it best - "give me TVR any day!" Amen to that, mate... Amen!

One of the prettiest cars ever made IMHO.

 

 

Prettier:

 

Taste is subjective ;)

 

Actually I'm quite partial to the current generation 'vette too - but I'd kill for a '67 Stingray.

Prettier:

 

Taste is subjective ;)

 

Actually I'm quite partial to the current generation 'vette too - but I'd kill for a '67 Stingray.

 

now we're talking dude! I also like the c3 for some strange reason, but really toyed with the idea of a c6 last spring... took it for a test drive and realised i have nowhere to drive such a powerful car :cry: somehow it didnt feel right, but most of all left hand drive, dude, it like, sucks... basically i like all of em except c4+c5 howzzat? plus you can't get one in the uk without thinking about a tvr... more my kinda muscle :smw:

what is a hyper car? where did you hear this or did you come up with it yourself? sounds like something someone invented these days, but in the late 80s and early 90s there was no such thing - just supercars like the countach, diablo they were factory produced for anyone who wanted one - !

 

A hyper car is a a term used in the auto journalism world for a car that is at the very top of the car pyramid in pretty much all classes, eg power,price,number produced.

 

Such examples of these ARE the XJ220, McLaren F1, Lambo Murcielago LP640 and the Bugatti Veyron. Generally they cant match the handling abilitys of a "super car" due to the extra weight and the excessive power that overcomes the chassis. Even tho the latest cars such as the Ferrari Enzo are at near the top of the exclusivity tree, they are so focused in the handling department, they are still classed as a supercar. Its a simple fact that a Hyper car will always be out-handled by a Supercar. The ONLY excemption i can come up with is the Veyron, which a close friend of mine could not loose in the twisties when he was driving a 911 GT3RS (he works for Autocar mag)

 

TBH i do think the NSX is a pretty car, and one with great handling ability, but it was never a "Proper" supercar. Theyre no excess, no flamboyance with a NSX, its all a bit too precise, and just not powerfull enough.

 

At the end of the day, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And the moral of the storey.......

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Arse, i forgot, what were we talking about again??? :mac1:

...Arse, i forgot, what were we talking about again??? :mac1:

Nicely put Nick ;) :rofl:

there was and still is a greater demand for them - it's just that the supply for the honda is (proportionately like) 100x lower while the demand is 10x lower = high price for fanboys...

 

Honda was never geared up and never intended to set up production like Nissan did with the Z32, it was never intended to be mass produced in the same way, it didn't have different engine options or seat configurations.

 

 

won't even see that lawnmower engined honda in it's rearview mirror a minute past the moment they set off together

 

Great stuff, similar technology in the VG with VVTi, except Honda managed to get more power from an N/A engine.

 

Hypercar...nope, not a term I've come up with.

 

welcome to the next generation

 

....hyper car term springs to mind.....

 

At the time, when the cars was launched, they were shy of 300bhp, which was the benchmark figure at the time, back in 1990, other than hypercars such as the F40, McClaren F1 and other such cars, the car wasn't the quickest, but the 348 was producing just over 300bhp. NSX was actually 5.5 seconds to 60.

 

 

and why is that? because someone put the letters gt behind the 456 number on the badge. let's try and be smart here. they did that because they needed to sell it they had to re-introduce the third line of cars

 

Nope, the 456 was a GT like the Z32. 4 seat configuration and front engined rear wheel drive.

 

Ferrari 456 is actually quite a lot newer. Sure, Honda sold the NSX right past the production start date of the 456, but then again, you could go and compare much older cars and state how slow they are in today's terms. 456 has always been in the GT class along with many other high performance cars such as Aston Martins, and not so high performance cars, like the Monaros of this world.

 

This entire argument is getting very anal and I can't be bothered to reply after this. You just don't like the NSX by the looks of things and that's fine. I'll carry on and delude myself in getting a lesser super car classed car. It's not the reason why I like it or try to offer an explanation as to why I like it. I am more attracted to its shape more than anything and also its handling capabilities.

 

As a final note, I'd rather class the thing as a Sports car. But something pushes it beyond that. Many class it as a Sports car and many class it as a supercar. That discussion has been going on since the thing was launched. When the Z32 was launched, the TT model was classed as Japan's first supercar. Which at the time, could have been true. Wrong configuration though, but it was a start.

 

Anyway, yes, Long live the Z. :) :duffer:

Get a room :rofl:

Not even sure about the rear view!

Honda Vtec and Nissan VVT are completely different concepts ;)

 

Honda iVtec is actually Vtec with Nissan VVT system added lol

jeez - just flicked to the last couple of pages of this!! no mention of a 99 spec zed at all :rofl: just wasted 1.5mins of my life :rofl:

The NSX looks like two fat people have sat in it and it's sunk in the middle!

 

In my opinion there never will be a nicer looking car than the z32 - you can't improve on perfection.

 

In my opinion there never will be a nicer looking car than the z32 - you can't improve on perfection.

 

iv got to say, as much as i love the Z32, I would not say its the most perfect looking car to me! if money was no object there are many finer looking cars! Lamborghini Murchelego - drool!! :D

It's the best looking car for the money maybe, but not the best looking car overal. But then again everyone has thier opinion and is fully entitled to it.

Just done a price comparison in Japan...

 

A 2003, Grade 4 350Z, auto, with 20K miles, nice wheels and lower bumper kit sold for 1,540,000 JPY... so almost 200K JPY less than the 99 spec ZX and a much newer car!!

 

shouldn't that be telling us something.. GCZ32 are becoming rarer than ever and good example are not so common to come bye. In a few years they will be difficult to get hold of.

 

I got my early 94 to UK with all expenses close £6K just because its very low milage. Yes you get a newer car in 350Z but in look, performance, it can stand the 300TT.

It's the best looking car for the money maybe, but not the best looking car overal. But then again everyone has thier opinion and is fully entitled to it.

 

agreed it is one of the best cars i could find for the money, but then its not a lot of money to get one in the world of cars!

 

oh, & only people that are right should have an opinon! :p :rofl:

... it didn't have different engine options or seat configurations.

this doesnt prove anything. engine location, seats etc have nothing to with classing a car in the supercar league. supercars are super cars

 

Great stuff, similar technology in the VG with VVTi, except Honda managed to get more power from an N/A engine.

 

big deal, again this does not make it a supercar - all the vvt engine (including bmws) had this. who cares if its na or turbo? nearly half of todays supercars have turbos - so what?

 

Hypercar...nope, not a term I've come up with.

 

I wonder when and where the term hypercar was invented - sounds a clarkson invention of the noughties... journalists must be one the two most awful professions in the world. in my book an enzo is supercar as is a veyron as is a 911 turbo. but i don't believe in labels or labeling things. sure a 911 turbo is the bottom end of the list between these three, but on the list - unlike an nsx...

 

At the time, when the cars was launched, they were shy of 300bhp, which was the benchmark figure at the time, back in 1990, other than hypercars such as the F40, McClaren F1 and other such cars, the car wasn't the quickest, but the 348 was producing just over 300bhp. NSX was actually 5.5 seconds to 60.

 

told you already 348 was fluke - worst ferrari ever i have been told by many. you are using an exception to prove a point. don't think an nsx in the original form could do a 5.5 - really do not - i have driven the car and i do not believe it for a second... maybe on slicks and dropping the throttle at 7k it could do it 5.6 ;) in my opinion at the time the benchmark was more like 360-400bhp - like the testarossa, 911 turbo, late countach early diablo

 

Nope, the 456 was a GT like the Z32. 4 seat configuration and front engined rear wheel drive.

 

labels again - other peoples labels, manufacturers labels, marketing peoples labels, blurgh - 4 seats and front engine do not make a car a gt... 300zx is a sports car and race car and a gt car as is a 456gt

 

Ferrari 456 is actually quite a lot newer. Sure, Honda sold the NSX right past the production start date of the 456, but then again, you could go and compare much older cars and state how slow they are in today's terms. 456 has always been in the GT class along with many other high performance cars such as Aston Martins, and not so high performance cars, like the Monaros of this world.

 

2-3 years newer - I only brought up the 456gt as you brought up front engined layouts. check your posts. i bet you a late 328, generations and years older than an nsx, will be faster on a track. whats a monaro? is that the ozzie version of us "muscle car" - why are you even talking about it? even as a gt it is faster the superdoopercar - the nsx

 

This entire argument is getting very anal and I can't be bothered to reply after this. You just don't like the NSX by the looks of things and that's fine. I'll carry on and delude myself in getting a lesser super car classed car. It's not the reason why I like it or try to offer an explanation as to why I like it. I am more attracted to its shape more than anything and also its handling capabilities.

 

Anal - yes, very very anal, but i just replied to your attack. I put my case in straight and open. *YOU* took it upon yourself to try and shove your own misconceptions down my throat - according to you i was talking cobblers, rubbish, you questioned the credibilty of my words blah blah blah - all i did was try and explain my thinking on the subject. Personally i like the nsx... i think most people would buy one - at the right price. all i am saying is that you have to be obsessed with, which you seem to be, to pay the kind of money they want for it in the uk market, . and good luck to you. it's handling capabilities are good, it's styling nice but not great - it looks aged the in eyes of many. i just feel as though you would think twice about it if you you'd been in a good tvr or lotus or supra for that matter - the list goes on - for that money you can get an faster evo - smooth zed - better handling tiv or lotus or whatever. i think you might just be trying to validate a desire to cheaply run a supercar - and reliability is what honda are famous for. also interior of the nsx was and is very ugly and just plain poor in my opinion.

 

As a final note, I'd rather class the thing as a Sports car. But something pushes it beyond that. Many class it as a Sports car and many class it as a supercar. That discussion has been going on since the thing was launched. When the Z32 was launched, the TT model was classed as Japan's first supercar. Which at the time, could have been true. Wrong configuration though, but it was a start.

 

so it is a sportscar after all then? ok, glad i could be of assitance. noone who has ever driven three supercars would class the nsx as a supercar. there is no discussion among adults. seat configuration a car does not define. went a bit yoda there. what about the previous zeds? they were just as fast in their time?

 

Anyway, yes, Long live the Z. :) :duffer:

 

first thing that you've said that makes any sense on this thread. all that remains is to understand that probably the only reason you want an nsx is because it's more expensive and exclusive than the zed and having had a zed you want a cheaper, more reliable car - enjoy it... and probably the reason you want something more expensive and exclusive is because you want to be "different" and "better" than the jones's. and i have no problem with that. it's just a shame because i think you won't enjoy it as much as a zed and many other cars that are within that price bracket...

 

I think we owe each other a pint! you coming to the may meet?

this doesnt prove anything. engine location, seats etc have nothing to with classing a car in the supercar league. supercars are super cars

 

 

 

big deal, again this does not make it a supercar - all the vvt engine (including bmws) had this. who cares if its na or turbo? nearly half of todays supercars have turbos - so what?

 

 

 

I wonder when and where the term hypercar was invented - sounds a clarkson invention of the noughties... journalists must be one the two most awful professions in the world. in my book an enzo is supercar as is a veyron as is a 911 turbo. but i don't believe in labels or labeling things. sure a 911 turbo is the bottom end of the list between these three, but on the list - unlike an nsx...

 

 

 

told you already 348 was fluke - worst ferrari ever i have been told by many. you are using an exception to prove a point. don't think an nsx in the original form could do a 5.5 - really do not - i have driven the car and i do not believe it for a second... maybe on slicks and dropping the throttle at 7k it could do it 5.6 ;) in my opinion at the time the benchmark was more like 360-400bhp - like the testarossa, 911 turbo, late countach early diablo

 

 

 

labels again - other peoples labels, manufacturers labels, marketing peoples labels, blurgh - 4 seats and front engine do not make a car a gt... 300zx is a sports car and race car and a gt car as is a 456gt

 

 

 

2-3 years newer - I only brought up the 456gt as you brought up front engined layouts. check your posts. i bet you a late 328, generations and years older than an nsx, will be faster on a track. whats a monaro? is that the ozzie version of us "muscle car" - why are you even talking about it? even as a gt it is faster the superdoopercar - the nsx

 

 

 

Anal - yes, very very anal, but i just replied to your attack. I put my case in straight and open. *YOU* took it upon yourself to try and shove your own misconceptions down my throat - according to you i was talking cobblers, rubbish, you questioned the credibilty of my words blah blah blah - all i did was try and explain my thinking on the subject. Personally i like the nsx... i think most people would buy one - at the right price. all i am saying is that you have to be obsessed with, which you seem to be, to pay the kind of money they want for it in the uk market, . and good luck to you. it's handling capabilities are good, it's styling nice but not great - it looks aged the in eyes of many. i just feel as though you would think twice about it if you you'd been in a good tvr or lotus or supra for that matter - the list goes on - for that money you can get an faster evo - smooth zed - better handling tiv or lotus or whatever. i think you might just be trying to validate a desire to cheaply run a supercar - and reliability is what honda are famous for. also interior of the nsx was and is very ugly and just plain poor in my opinion.

 

 

 

so it is a sportscar after all then? ok, glad i could be of assitance. noone who has ever driven three supercars would class the nsx as a supercar. there is no discussion among adults. seat configuration a car does not define. went a bit yoda there. what about the previous zeds? they were just as fast in their time?

 

 

 

first thing that you've said that makes any sense on this thread. all that remains is to understand that probably the only reason you want an nsx is because it's more expensive and exclusive than the zed and having had a zed you want a cheaper, more reliable car - enjoy it... and probably the reason you want something more expensive and exclusive is because you want to be "different" and "better" than the jones's. and i have no problem with that. it's just a shame because i think you won't enjoy it as much as a zed and many other cars that are within that price bracket...

 

I think we owe each other a pint! you coming to the may meet?

 

 

I think we need to dip into the forum "chill pills"!!!

I think we need to dip into the forum "chill pills"!!!

dude, i'm so chilled... anymore i'd be catatonic... :cool:

Get a room :rofl:

you wanna join us when we do? :x: gimp style ;)

p.s. nice exhausts!

so is the zed a supercar, hyper car, sports car, GT or a hatchback?!?!? just wondering what section to list mine under on ebay! LOL!! :rofl:

so is the zed a supercar, hyper car, sports car, GT or a hatchback?!?!? just wondering what section to list mine under on ebay! LOL!! :rofl:

It's a Jap Capri end of :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

It's a Jap Capri end of :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

i would say it's a sports car, race car and grand tourer - or how about a sports tourer! whatever you want to call it - it's a great car. been really enjoying driving one again for the last 3 months - what a beautaye! OUW! the ease, the effortlessness, the sturdiness, the surge, the grace, the class - what a machine... to be quite honest i don't think that even nissan knew how great it would turn out - something about the car just clicks maybe its the wheelbase proportions, maybe the engine power delivery, maybe the handling - the combination is just ovewhelming... every road becomes a pleasure, the road imperfections are dismissed in nonchalance while driver feedback is precise - a sort of removal of all of the noise from the information... and that engine - the power delivery is just sooooo effortlessly clear and solid... i think that nissan somehow stumbled into some perfection point. It's like they engineered it as good as they could and then on top of that accidentally tripped into some sort of synergy area where the combined factor quality overflows above the initial design specifications in every direction. Only felt like this is in hardcore racers, never in such a subdued cruiser... 300zx i love you :bow:

 

p.s. i wish we had a blushing smiley (/blushes)