I didn't say that Porsches were more reliable than Honda products. I'm just saying that Porsches are still very reliable, and it's kind of like saying that (just for example) a car with 400 hp is better than a car with 395 hp. Of course it is, but it is only marginally better. Use a different argument, one that's more convincing. Again, I have to emphasize that I like the NSX waaay more than any Porsche, cost of the car aside.

 

***EDIT***

Original version: "Sorry, but that's simply not true. Porsche has never finished in the top 3 in reliability in any survey."

See correction below. Porsche did indeed finish in the top two - but only once, and in a more recent survey, finished below Acura and Honda.

 

Not worth the money to someone who can't afford it, that's for sure. If you can't afford an NSX, I guess you're stuck driving a '97 Accord and all you can do is hang out on NSX boards flaming the owners there. Must be a sad life.

I know plenty of people who enjoy what they drive, regardless of its cost, and spend most of their time on the boards with others who drive the same cars. You should try it some time.

 

Sorry, but you're wrong. In a 2001 issue of Reader's Digest, i distinctively remember seeing the Porsche in the top three. The reason why I remember it so well is because I was astonished that the top three didn't have Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. I was surprised to see that there was non-Japanese make in the top 3 in terms of reliability. Doesn't really matter, you didn't see the article but I did. Despite the fact, the NSX still rules anyway.

 

It turns out you're right, but that's old information, and more recent information does not make the same conclusion.

The most frequently cited authority on vehicle dependability is J. D. Power and Associates, and they are the resource that was quoted by Reader's Digest. They rank all the car makes, and publicize the rankings of those above the industry average. In their 2000 survey, which you can see here, Porsche indeed finished second. However, in 2001, which you can see here, the top five makes were Lexus, Infiniti, Jaguar (surprisingly IMO), Lincoln, and Acura, and Porsche finished ninth - still not bad, but no longer in the top three, and not as good as Acura or Honda. Porsche was not listed in the 1999 survey.

 

BLA BLA BLA BLA...... none are beter just different, but everybody is entitled to their opinion.. so just let it go..
:bigok:

 

I guess what this really comes down to is that the car you want is in your dreams and the car I want is in my driveway.

 

Ouch.

Anyway, I would definetly buy a used NSX. I love the prices and you KNOW they're still reliable. My neighbor never drives his '94 (?) out and when he does I drool all the time even though it doesn't have as much styling as my other neighbor's '01 911 Carrera on the 3pc 19's. If I were to purchase it new, I'd get a 911. Don't ask why. Personal preference. I think the NSX is underpowered, but better engineered.

I've driven the 911. Love having the top down. Can't say anything because I haven't tried an NSX yet. I hear it's one of the most ergonomically designed cars eh?

 

How is it underpowered? Its faster than the 911. Or, are you saying that the 911 is really, really underpowered?

 

I just believe that 290-hp doesn't seem like very much. I know it's fast and everything due to the weight and engineering, but when the new CL-S/TL-S are putting out 260, it makes the nsx look terrible, even if its getting 91 hp/liter. Especially when you can get upwards of 400 easily from a 1.3 liter engine these days.