Mark this thread as Sold
Dealer Inventory 1997 Acura NSX MT
08-25-2016, 09:48 AM
#31
Platinum Dealership
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Rennlist
Site Sponsor
Year: 1997
Make: Acura
Model: NSX
Mileage (numbers only please): 19307
Color: Black
Price (no $ sign please): $71500
Private or Dealer Listing: Dealer Listing
Location (Region): Texas
Body Style: Coupe
Transmission Type: Manual - 6 speed
2 or 4 Wheel Drive?: 2 Wheel Drive
Engine Type: Fuel Injection
Stereo System: AM-FM Stereo
08-25-2016, 09:57 AM
#32
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, CJ, in a perfect world, we would've been offered the 1997-2001 3.2L 6-speed cars, with all their upgrades, as coupes, versus targas, here in the US. As you know, all but almost literally a handful of cars, post-1995, were targas. A 3.2L coupe would be a rare find, for sure. Idk, mine is a ('98) targa, but as I almost never remove the top, I just pretend it's a coupe when I'm in it. 
At least they gave us the bigger motor, to try and balance things out.
Anyway, your coupe is built out, and badass, and likely a hell of a good time on track, but for most of us just cruising the streets in our twenty year old NSXes, the 3.2L stock cars are still pretty damn great.
To the OP, that's a really low price, for the current market, if it's a clean, all original car. Just FYI, there have been reports, on Prime, of at least half a dozen cars recently changing hands for six figures, with more mileage (all 3.2L cars, I believe). (E.g., http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showth...NA21625S000223 ; http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showth...=1#post1898532)
To many, the '97-'01 cars will be/already are the most desirable NSXes, as they combine the aforementioned bigger 3.2L motor, with the 6-speeder, and myriad other improvements, with the old-school pop-up headlights, and original overall aesthetic. Basically they're the same car, mechanically, as the 2002-2005 run-out cars, but they look much better (IMO). Others will insist the newest frog-eyed cars are the best, while yet others won't buy anything but the early cars. I happen to love them all.
Best of luck with sale. Nice looking car.
At least they gave us the bigger motor, to try and balance things out.Anyway, your coupe is built out, and badass, and likely a hell of a good time on track, but for most of us just cruising the streets in our twenty year old NSXes, the 3.2L stock cars are still pretty damn great.
To the OP, that's a really low price, for the current market, if it's a clean, all original car. Just FYI, there have been reports, on Prime, of at least half a dozen cars recently changing hands for six figures, with more mileage (all 3.2L cars, I believe). (E.g., http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showth...NA21625S000223 ; http://www.nsxprime.com/forum/showth...=1#post1898532)
To many, the '97-'01 cars will be/already are the most desirable NSXes, as they combine the aforementioned bigger 3.2L motor, with the 6-speeder, and myriad other improvements, with the old-school pop-up headlights, and original overall aesthetic. Basically they're the same car, mechanically, as the 2002-2005 run-out cars, but they look much better (IMO). Others will insist the newest frog-eyed cars are the best, while yet others won't buy anything but the early cars. I happen to love them all.
Best of luck with sale. Nice looking car.
08-25-2016, 06:12 PM
#33
Last edited by Ten Years; 08-25-2016 at 09:25 PM.
08-25-2016, 06:20 PM
#34
Rennlist Member
I sold my 95 formula red T for $34k in 2004 to buy my first 911. Not a good move value wise for sure.
The last few years Acura ran leasing specials of $799 a month for 3 years on NSXs because they weren't selling as mentioned above. The price went up to almost $100k to buy and almost nothing changed but the headlights. Still incredible cars and were very much the game changer for all other supercars to get their s*** together.
The last few years Acura ran leasing specials of $799 a month for 3 years on NSXs because they weren't selling as mentioned above. The price went up to almost $100k to buy and almost nothing changed but the headlights. Still incredible cars and were very much the game changer for all other supercars to get their s*** together.
08-25-2016, 06:31 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
Question as someone who knows little about the NSX but has always loved them- What would you do? better, step up to the last year of this version with sub 8K miles and somewhat rare color and pay 110 plus or "settle" for something like this one for 70K . I would likely put no more than 1000 miles per year and the 40k delta is not a deal breaker.
08-25-2016, 06:44 PM
#36
Instructor
I sold my 40 AE and bought a 95 NSX-T earlier this year. Based on the current market, that car should go quickly. It's priced attractively enough that I'm thinking about how much I could get for my 95 and my 2015 STI.
BTW, I passed on a 1997 red/tan NSX with 6K miles four years ago for 44K. My wife & I were pushing hard to pay off the house and she would have served me with divorce papers if I brought home a ~45K toy that I didn't need before we hit our goal. A collector friend of mine bought it & stashed it in his garage. Oh, well...maybe next time.
BTW, I passed on a 1997 red/tan NSX with 6K miles four years ago for 44K. My wife & I were pushing hard to pay off the house and she would have served me with divorce papers if I brought home a ~45K toy that I didn't need before we hit our goal. A collector friend of mine bought it & stashed it in his garage. Oh, well...maybe next time.
08-25-2016, 08:55 PM
#37
Racer
Zanardi #24 is sitting in my garage, till death do we part. Just hit 29k miles. It's my second NSX, even owning two at the same time for about 4 years. My other one was a Comptech Supercharged car, fun but hardly worth the cost of the upgrades. Sadly Turbo's weren't out there back in the mid 2000's.
From 2002-2005 there was a $7500 incentive, MSRP was $90K. You could have bought one for $73.5k. The real deal was the lease, $799 per month, $4k down, 7500 miles a year.
Most amazing car I've ever owned. The driving dynamics, seating position, flogability-if thats even a word, just simply pure motoring bliss.
08-25-2016, 09:12 PM
#38
Question as someone who knows little about the NSX but has always loved them- What would you do? better, step up to the last year of this version with sub 8K miles and somewhat rare color and pay 110 plus or "settle" for something like this one for 70K . I would likely put no more than 1000 miles per year and the 40k delta is not a deal breaker.
When I was looking, I could've gone for the 2002-2005 models, with the non-pop-up, "frog eyes," updated tail lights, deeper side skirts and rear valance. To me, however, and for many who prefer the later cars, the "best" NA2s are the 1997-2001 cars, like the one being sold here, because they have the same mechanicals as the 2002-2005 cars, but they retain the pared down, pure, clean, purposeful Japanese industrial design/styling of the earlier car. The pop-up lights, and the squared off nose were enough to sway me to these cars.
Of course, there are those who like the newer style lights, etc., of the 2002-2005. It's really just a matter of preference, between these two sub-sets.
There are also many who would only consider the early cars, meaning the original NA1 coupes, which were almost unchanged from 1991-1994. 3.0L, 5-speed, no power steering, etc., make these the "purist's" car. They also have the original black roofs, versus the body colored roofs of the later cars.
The least sought after have traditionally been the 1995-1996 NA1 cars. These cars were about a hundred pounds heavier than the original coupes, being Targas, without the benefit of the larger 3.2L motor and 6-speed, which both debuted in 1997.
Really, though, with only 6,xxx remaining on the road in the US, from all years (1991-2005), they're all pretty rare these days. As you can imagine, many have been modded to hell, crashed, neglected, etc., etc. Finding a clean, uncrashed, well maintained and good looking car is getting harder and harder now.
I'd go for a pop-up 3.2L NA2 (1997-2001), over a frog eyed 3.2L NA2 (2002-2005). But as I mentioned before, I'm a fan of all of them. Hope this helps.
Last edited by Ten Years; 08-25-2016 at 11:52 PM.
08-25-2016, 09:14 PM
#39
I sold my 40 AE and bought a 95 NSX-T earlier this year. Based on the current market, that car should go quickly. It's priced attractively enough that I'm thinking about how much I could get for my 95 and my 2015 STI.
BTW, I passed on a 1997 red/tan NSX with 6K miles four years ago for 44K. My wife & I were pushing hard to pay off the house and she would have served me with divorce papers if I brought home a ~45K toy that I didn't need before we hit our goal. A collector friend of mine bought it & stashed it in his garage. Oh, well...maybe next time.
BTW, I passed on a 1997 red/tan NSX with 6K miles four years ago for 44K. My wife & I were pushing hard to pay off the house and she would have served me with divorce papers if I brought home a ~45K toy that I didn't need before we hit our goal. A collector friend of mine bought it & stashed it in his garage. Oh, well...maybe next time.
Wow. It's always painful to pass on what you know is a good buy. Good for your friend.
Zanardi #24 is sitting in my garage, till death do we part. Just hit 29k miles. It's my second NSX, even owning two at the same time for about 4 years. My other one was a Comptech Supercharged car, fun but hardly worth the cost of the upgrades. Sadly Turbo's weren't out there back in the mid 2000's.
From 2002-2005 there was a $7500 incentive, MSRP was $90K. You could have bought one for $73.5k. The real deal was the lease, $799 per month, $4k down, 7500 miles a year.
Most amazing car I've ever owned. The driving dynamics, seating position, flogability-if thats even a word, just simply pure motoring bliss.
From 2002-2005 there was a $7500 incentive, MSRP was $90K. You could have bought one for $73.5k. The real deal was the lease, $799 per month, $4k down, 7500 miles a year.
Most amazing car I've ever owned. The driving dynamics, seating position, flogability-if thats even a word, just simply pure motoring bliss.
Amazing. There is a Zanardi that goes into my local shop (Ramon's). I just stand there and drool when I see it.
Last edited by Ten Years; 08-26-2016 at 02:07 AM.
08-25-2016, 09:29 PM
#40
Rennlist Member
As mentioned above, if you're talking the later cars with the larger 3.2L engine and 6-speed transmissions, the so called "NA2" cars, then there are two camps. From 1997-2005, the cars are mechanically identical; 1997 is the first year of the larger motors. Most, meaning nearly all, US cars during this period, are Targas. The much coveted, and very limited production Zanardi coupes from 1999, are pretty much the Grail cars of the NA2s. When I was looking, I could've gone for the 2002-2005 models, with the non-pop-up, "frog eyes," updated tail lights, deeper side skirts and rear valance. To me, however, and for many who prefer the later cars, the "best" NA2s are the 1997-2001 cars, like the one being sold here, because they have the same mechanicals as the 2002-2005 cars, but they retain the awesome, pure, clean, purposeful Japanese industrial design/styling of the earlier car. The pop-up lights, and the squared off nose were enough to sway me to these cars. Of course, there are those who like the newer style lights, etc., of the 2002-2005. It's really just a matter of preference, between these two sub-sets. There are also many who would only consider the early cars, meaning the original NA1 coupes, which were almost unchanged from 1991-1994. 3.0L, 5-speed, no power steering, etc., make these the "purist's" car. They also have the original black roofs, versus the body colored roofs of the later cars. The least sought after have traditionally been the 1995-1996 NA1 cars. These cars were about a hundred pounds heavier than the original coupes, being Targas, without the benefit of the larger 3.2L motor and 6-speed, which both debuted in 1997. Really, though, with only 6,xxx remaking on the road in the US, they're all pretty rare these days. As you can imagine, many have been modded to hell, crashed, neglected, etc., etc. Finding a clean, uncrashed, well maintained and good looking car is getting harder and harder now. I'd go for a pop-up 3.2L NA2 (1997-2001), over a frog eyed 3.2L NA2 (2002-2005). But as I mentioned before, I'm a fan of all of them. Hope this helps.
Really helpful and thank you !
08-26-2016, 12:01 AM
#41
Rennlist Member
I own one so it's not like I am talking out of turn. He was implying there was some kind of scarcity to the car in the last few model years and the reality was nobody felt like paying 92k for it since it had not been updated.
They are VERY engaging and special cars to drive. I love mine. But the Zanardi cars are the only real "rare" or hard to get (outside of the Type R from Japan).
the last 4 years the factory could not get anyone to buy them and that's why they only sold 1000 or so in the last few years.
They are VERY engaging and special cars to drive. I love mine. But the Zanardi cars are the only real "rare" or hard to get (outside of the Type R from Japan).
the last 4 years the factory could not get anyone to buy them and that's why they only sold 1000 or so in the last few years.
I appreciate your perspective and I appreciate the history.
When did you buy yours?
I guess "rare" is a relative term, but based on my experience of looking for a nice example over the past ~3 years, examples like this are NOT easy to find anymore.
I think many owners simply don't want to part with theirs. Even if the production numbers don't make them "rare", finding an example like this on the market for less than 5 figures these days is, IMHO. But I'll digress on the semantic argument of rare.
08-26-2016, 01:56 AM
#42
Sorry for coming off a bit rude.
I appreciate your perspective and I appreciate the history.
When did you buy yours?
I guess "rare" is a relative term, but based on my experience of looking for a nice example over the past ~3 years, examples like this are NOT easy to find anymore.
I think many owners simply don't want to part with theirs. Even if the production numbers don't make them "rare", finding an example like this on the market for less than 5 figures these days is, IMHO. But I'll digress on the semantic argument of rare.
I appreciate your perspective and I appreciate the history.
When did you buy yours?
I guess "rare" is a relative term, but based on my experience of looking for a nice example over the past ~3 years, examples like this are NOT easy to find anymore.
I think many owners simply don't want to part with theirs. Even if the production numbers don't make them "rare", finding an example like this on the market for less than 5 figures these days is, IMHO. But I'll digress on the semantic argument of rare.
Best of luck if you're looking. Someone should ****** this one up.
Last edited by Ten Years; 08-26-2016 at 02:11 AM.
08-26-2016, 11:18 AM
#43
Instructor
Originally Posted by Ten Years
Do it! '97 is a keeper. ;-)
It was a close thing, though.
08-26-2016, 11:42 AM
#44
Instructor
I was this close on a completely stock '97 w/ 35k miles for $48.5k at the beginning of THIS year. Pretty sure the seller was basing his price on KBB. Keep kicking myself for snoozing (it was NYE if that's an excuse).
08-26-2016, 01:15 PM
#45
