Dick Ruddell

Sorry, but in my mind, Detroit started the "RICE" revolution in the late 1960's with Mustangs with
louvered rear windows, Cameros with spoilers, Barracudas with stripes running in every direction,
Firebirds with more scoops than horse power, etc, etc.

Manning

The irony of that statement is that, except for the high price, that is the kind of statements many here on Rennlist use to defend the performance of our cars.

Also, the NSX tends to hold its value better than a Vette or Firebird. And just imagine if an NSX had more than 3.2 liters under the hood. It already make more power per liter than the American muscle.

Joe Anstett

There's a difference that you're missing; that performance pretty much sums up my 951. However, in its day, that kind of performance from the 944 was mind boggling.

That cannot be said about the NSX, then or now. It did not stand above its peers or even "inferior" cars.

Today's fast cars run in the 12s. The NSX just doesn't have the guns to compete in this war. But I'll say again, it's a great handler.

Uh oh, hp/liter, now that is a rice argument . Who cares how you make the ponies? As we all know, what's important is how much horsepower you have relative to how much weight you have to slog around. NSX = 250 hp / 3200 lbs. = .078 hp/lb. Z06 = 405 hp / 3250 = .125 hp/lb. 911 turbo = 415 hp / 3500 lbs =.118 hp/lb. 911 GT3 = 380 hp / 3200 lbs = .118 hp/lb. Even my porky TA vert is 380 / 3750 = .101 hp/lb. As you can see, the NSX is quite anemic in this measure.

Imagine if... You'll have to imagine, because Honda is allergic to displacement and RWD (the big problem with the current TL).

As for holding value, perhaps, but I don't buy cars as an investment. I don't think any of us 924/944/968 owners can say that, can we? Otherwise we'd be driving Camrys and Volvos.

Joe Anstett

You can go back further than that... Fins in the 50's. Fuzzy dice. 55-57 Chevy Bel Air modding. Chopped '50 mercs. Open-wheeled hot rods.

But I will agree that the first ludicrous spoiler I can recall would be the 1970 Superbird/Daytona (they made it that tall to clear the trunk lid).

Manning

Unfortunately there are actually people on this board who think the 924/44/68 series is eminently going to burst onto the scene as collectable. Time will tell, but it won't happen any time soon.

Manning

Oh, and I guess I should have said imagine if the NSX had more than 3.2 Liters under its engine cover. Or in its **** end. In its boot maybe?

Edit And you went about 50lbs heavy on the NSX weight and a couple tenths slow on the 0-60, but I see your point.

Tom R.

Jeff Sabatini wrote up the new six coupe in the sunday times a few weeks ago.

the last paragraph said something like BMWs used to be driven by people that knew what they were looking for. then came the three series and they were also bought by people that wanted to be seen in them. it seems like the new six caters too much to that second group now.

In many ways the same can be said about any new car. I think Tifo wrote a post a while back about how the 944s were originally bought by people that wanted to be seen in a porsche (if i claimed that was an original statement I would be porsche bashing) hence the lack of care when they were new. so i guess things have not changed much in the last twenty years.

Tony K

Yeah, 944 was the yuppie car for those that didn't want a 318i or 325i. Like the Boxster today . . . .

Tony K

In the early 90s, you couldn't *give* a 914 away. It was snubbed by the usual Porsche snobs as not a real Porsche, etc. Nice cars were common, and in my neck of the woods were going for $1500-2500. And of course everybody knew they were slow. (Sound familiar?...) 914s in similar condition today are $4000-5000 (and they are now part of the air-cooled Porsche gentry) .... . . . so I would expect quality 944s to follow suit, roughly doubling in price in the next ten years or so, especially as more and more get scrapped. In fifteen years, people will be swapping stories about someone they knew who picked up a nice 951 back in the day "for only $7000!!!"

For comparison, ask yourself, what's so darn special about a 356? First major Porsche model. Big deal. A bunch of VW parts, <100hp, etc. Why do they command so much? If 356s can bring in $20-80k and 912s and 914s can bring decent prices, then 944s will probably get back up to where good NAs are $7-8k+ and Turbos are $16-20k.

oh well . .. .my .02

Dmitry S.

I was always curious on how people could own such a cool car and neglect it. All of my cars are babied, waxed, and garaged. I couldn't contemplate just leaving the car alone as it rotted away in front of my eyes. I guess this gives explanation on why so many crappy/abused 944s are on the market.

Micah

I don't think it's so much of a lack of care when new as it is an inability of secondary owners to afford the labor costs to the keep the cars running correctly. They are labor-intensive vehicles and this often leads to people (who can't afford the car in the first place) either neglecting the repairs entirely or attempting to do the work themselves and botching the job.

The initial owner isn't the problem... the problem is the successively less wealthy owners who wind up with the vehicle at exactly the time when the age-dependent mait. issues come calling around 100k.

Micah

Joe Anstett

Exactly, Micah. My car was in relatively good shape but had been neglected, things had been let go. When I did a carfax on it before buying, I saw the original owner had it from 1986 to 1992 and put maybe 50k miles on. The next owner had it from 92 to 97 and put maybe another 30k miles on. Then it went through 3 owners, each one holding on about 18 months.

They probably thought it would be cool to own (or be seen in) a Porsche, but got sick of the high maintenance costs.

I haven't gotten to that point and I plan on holding on to this car as long as possible. I've fixed all the neglected things and brought her back to life. Just about the only sore spots she has are broken AC evaporator, minor cracks in the dash, disintegrating steering wheel leather, and a tear in the seat. The latter two I will definitely fix.

Then again, I'm only 12 months into it, and maybe I should wait until I hit the 18 month mark

However, I do think a number of these cars were victims of spoiled brats who were given them and run into the ground with no care.

UDPride

Actually from 100 to 150 MPH, the NSX is one of the fastest cars ever built for quasi mass consumption.

What the NSX lacks in HP it makes up for in aerodynamics. Above speeds of 100MPH, the effort required to increase 10MPH is almost exponential due to friction. The NSX slices through the wind at those speeds because of the slippery body.

Scott at Team Harco

OK. You guys are getting way off topic with this. Care, neglect, previous owners? What is this about?

Someone commented about the Plymouth Superbird and its tall tail wing. Just to clarify - this was done to win races on the NASCAR circuit. The aerodynamics of these vehicles (and its brother the Daytona Charger) permitted them cut through the air in a manner that had never been achieved by "stock" cars to that point. It was a huge step up in performance. For the first time, cars were exceeding 200 mph. The tall tail was a part of the package. In order to meet the rules, the manufacturer had to make available so many examples (200, if I recall) to the general car buying public. As a compromise to the public, the wing was raised enough to allow trunk access.

To lump this particular car, and its ilk, in with the rice activities of today is just plain wrong. Making functional changes to gain performance advantages at the track is far different than the whole rice scene.

Now having said that - let's get this topic headed back in its proper direction ----> Hijack!!!

If you want to talk about gaudy aero devices....
Here's a little treat for the British blokes taking part here.

Danno

"Ah so you are not saying he created the term just that it was about that time the term change when his site did.."

Where does the country-of-origin come into this "rice" terminology? Doesn't it also refer to Japanese cars and the early ricers who were pretty much all Asian? I had a Rice car back in the '80s before they were called "rice". But I definitely remember the term "rice burner" as referring only to the fast Japanese motorcycles who dominated the performanced motorcycle market (starting with the CB750).

As for the NSX being slow, you guys haven't been in one. With stock performance being identical to an '86-88 non-S Turbo, these things can move. Just doesn't kick you in the back with a sudden on-rush of boost like in the Turbo, they accelerate with constant Gs from 3000-8000rpm, with a VTEC scream from 6000rpm onwards. Check out Doug's NSX-Files website and his overall victory at the 2004 Open Track Challenge where he beat up on ALL Vipers, Porsches, Corvettes, etc. The NSX isn't a slow car...