NSX vs 996 Turbo?

[Onetrackmind]

Which would you have and why?

[zebra]

Why don't you tell us what you think first.

[Wilmslowboy]

Having, owned and driven a few NSXs, I would say the performance is more akin to that of a Boxster and not a full fat 911...never mind a turbo.

For high days, tours, the noise, rarity and mid paced blasts ...NSX every time. (This would be my choice)

For the ultra bargain super car ...the 911 Turbo...(also not bad looking in dark colours with a bit of aero kit)


Budget wise, for equivalent age cars the NSX will be 50% more expensive

Edited by Wilmslowboy on Sunday 5th July 07:11

[TheAngryDog]

996 Turbo for me. More common etc, but quicker and probably easier to live with every day.

[Kozy]

As much as I want a 996 Turbo to be my first turbocharged car, it would have to be the NSX out of the two as I am a Honda fanboy...

[Crockefeller]

Had both, NSX every time.

They aren't really in the same price range though unless you're considering an import or auto NSX. A good manual is £50k minimum.

Edited by Crockefeller on Sunday 5th July 07:55

[Johnnytheboy]

For desirability the Honda.

For performance the Porsche.
Tough one - if it was my only car the Porsche, otherwise the Honda.

So, no, I don't know.

[ZX10R NIN]

I'd take the NSX

[Baryonyx]

NSX please. And that is saying something as I love the 996 Turbo.

[TommoAE86]

NSX every time, no hesitation

[s m]

I've driven a 996 Turbo at a track day experience at LMR and really enjoyed it.

Never driven an NSX so no idea if I'd enjoy it more or less

[Rickyy]

Haven't driven any, but I grew up playing Gran Turismo dusk til dawn, so I'd choose the NSX.

[190bhp]

NSX for me

That noise tho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad1XphQUj1Q

[kambites]

NSX for much the same reasons as others have stated, plus the extra one that I simply don't like turbochargers.

[Jasandjules]

Out of those two I would have the Porker. NSX is just too dated looking now for me.

[Derek Chevalier]

Wilmslowboy said:

Having, owned and driven a few NSXs, I would say the performance is more akin to that of a Boxster and not a full fat 911...never mind a turbo.

For high days, tours, the noise, rarity and mid paced blasts ...NSX every time. (This would be my choice)

For the ultra bargain super car ...the 911 Turbo...(also not bad looking in dark colours with a bit of aero kit)


Budget wise, for equivalent age cars the NSX will be 50% more expensive

Edited by Wilmslowboy on Sunday 5th July 07:11

Aren't all three approx. the same performance wise - 0-60 in around 5 secs, 170 top end?

[DanielJames]

If they were the same price I'd have to go NSX, and I'd drive it everywhere in my loafers.

NSXs aren't that fast but what an experience it would be. I think my S2000 or DC2 would keep with one.

[ImpossiblyDaft]

Crockefeller said:

Had both, NSX every time.

They aren't really in the same price range though unless you're considering an import or auto NSX. A good manual is £50k minimum.

Edited by Crockefeller on Sunday 5th July 07:55

This makes me super-sad. I came close to blowing my life savings one when they were £20k but did something else instead, now I'll never afford one.

[TheJimi]

DanielJames said:

If they were the same price I'd have to go NSX, and I'd drive it everywhere in my loafers.

Absolutely no question what-so-evah; NSX

[StottyEvo]

I've always wondered about NSX'. They are power limited due to the Japanese manufacture agreement, with a 3.2l of displacement I imagine the engine is severely strangled by Honda. I'm sure I've seen a tuning package somewhere which gives the car a considerable power increase whilst still being N/A.

Point being, I'd choose the NSX and turn the power up a touch