Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura RSX (All years/types)

1151618202183

Comments

  • mdrivermdriver Posts: 385
    Whether 17" tires are better than 16" is debateable. But one should expect an upscale brand like Acura to at least match a downscale car like the Sentra (Spec V) with similar wheel equipment.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    You got it in reverse. As far as wheel size is concerned, decisions are made based on what works well for a car. If engineers at Honda think that it made sense for P215/45/R17 tires on 2002 Integra Type-R, they would (in fact, they do). The problem... extremely narrow profile compromises a lot for the daily driver. It makes sense on a track car like the ITR is, not on cars that people would drive on a regular basis. For similar reasons, I don't think people would be thrilled to replace hi-performance rubber every 8-10K miles. Most people would want their tires to go 40K miles between replacement. And so on. It is all about practicality and what works. If RSX Type-S can get 0.86 on skidpad on all season tires, why equip it with high maintenance (replacement) and expensive performance rubber? After all, people who would take it to the track will do some modifications, and the first would be to replace tires.

    Practicality, and value orientation has been Honda's greatest strengths in the past. Sure, larger wheel would look good, but then, why compromise on your strengths? Just something to think.
  • Sorry guys, guess I'm one of those that just likes to see his post up on boards. :)

    Anyways ... went out for a test drive today (my car is getting quite long in the tooth and it's leaking all over the place). So, my new potential cars were going to be the:
    RSX-S
    Jetta
    GTI
    Altima

    Well, took the Altima out first, nothing special. Steering was really bland, and suspension was moderate. Dont' see what everybody's complaint about it is, but this is the wrong board.

    Next up was the RSX. Wasn't too big on the exterior, didn't evoke anything out of me. Inside, once again, nothing special, things were kinda "cosy" I guess you could say. But on the road, that was where this thing really grew on me. The steering was perfect, not too soft, not too difficult to turn. On turns, the thing was amazing. The clutch, the stick ... all wonderful. This car went from getting a ho-hum response from yours truly to the top of the list after the drive.

    Next up was VW. Well, just sat in it, and the clutch and stick didn't feel good to me at all. Just didn't want to drive the thing.

    Methinks me shoulda saved the RSX for last.

    Well, sorry to disturb the topic about DRL's/Importing and all that ... just wanted to add my 0.005 (CDN converted to USD)
    :)

    Derek
  • carguy62carguy62 Posts: 545
    Can some of you owners give me some info on insurance costs for the RSX. Is it considered a sports car or any other class that has higher premiums? I know there is an insurance forum but I figured I'd start with those that own. Thanks.
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    here's a Detroit news article about the RSX that you might find interesting: Price, sportiness anchor RSX. Happy motoring!

    Hi carguy62- To respond to your post. Aside from the vehicle type, insurance is going to vary drastically from owner to owner depending on a number of factors including: driving record, age, sex, state requirements, amount of coverages, and etc., etc.. I know it's tedious filling out forms, but that's really the only way to get an accurate quote. While you're waiting here for other responses, you should also check out Edmunds' Insurance Center. And while you're there, you may want to take the time to get a quick quote from some of their insurance sponsors. Good luck.

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • Those WRX fanatics make me sick. I read the article out of "Sport Compact Car" magazine. Those WRX nuts are talking smack about the RSX not being able to do this and that. But read the article about these two cars, and you will really love to hate those WRX people. Who would test a wagon against a sport coupe anyway, why not a Celica or Eclipse or something like that. Who wants a wagon without leather, bland interior, no BOSE for $25,000 when you can have everything in your realistic dreams for $23,650. I love to get those people going over there. Some of you on here know what I'm capable of. Mr. Shiftright the host even revoked my greatest post yet. Too bad I had some good stuff to say, but I'm not going to revise or rewrite it. RSX-S all the way!
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    I'm sure you have some good stuff to say, and feel free to participate in our discussions within the guidelines of our membership agreement. We look forward to hearing about your RSX experience. Thanks. ;-)

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    kam66,

    If you go to the Maxima form, you can get more info from lofquist regarding Canadian importation.
  • from beowulf7:
    "Hi,

    I've found your posts on Edmunds very useful. A while ago on the 2002
    RSX board, you gave detailed instructions on putting the rear and
    underbody spoilers on your new RSX-S. Did you get a chance to post the
    pictures of it yet? Also a quick question I had for you on the RSX-S
    ... how does it drive on the highway at say, 75-80 MPH? Quiet or need
    to blast the radio? And how's the power at the low RPMs, say between
    2000 and 3000. Thanks!"

    "beowulf7"

    beowulf7,
    No, I never got a chance to post any pictures, I might soon, though. I still need to get the roll of film developed, in fact. As for driving it at 75-80 MPH, I think it is really quiet, not lexus quiet, but quiet and no need to blast the radio. As for the power at low RPMs, there is plenty of power, I was really impressed with the amount of power it had down low. It was much better than the turbo mitsu gst (eclipse) I had before, although on the eclipse there was a rush of power after 3000 after the turbo kicked in. The RSX-S has no rush of power until it hits 6000 RPM, really smooth progressive power delivery until then and then there is a rush due to the second set of cam lobes (the vtec part). The RSX-S does feel like it has some sort of turbo lag though, I would expect a little more power down low, but it sure doesn't have the turbo lag like the eclipse had. Compared to a turbo, it starts off with more power giving a turbo a run for it's money, but when I use to expect more power to come in (at 3000) it just doesn't offer that much more, just a continuous smooth increase. If I raced my eclipse, I think that I'd get the best start, the eclipse would pass me after 3000 RPM (say 15mph), and then the RSX-S would once again pass the eclipse after 6000RPM (say 50 mph). Both the RSX-S and Eclipse go 0-60 in two gears (0-40 in first, 40-60 in second), the RSX-S tested 0-60 in 6.1sec best, while the Eclipse GST tested 0-60 in 6.4sec best.
  • kartezkartez Posts: 48
    robertsmx:
    why not make 17'' wheels optional?

    dkneedsnwcr:
    Hondas shifter is much better than VW. My Passat shifts smooth most of the time but that is not VW's strength. It's the engine, interior and comfort. I think it is better than most of its competitors cars in these aspects.
  • Well, finally after several months or picking and nitpicking I decided to get an RSX-S. I'm supposed to get it in a couple of weeks. Can hardly wait to take it out.

    My only gripe is that I wanted blue, but I wouldn've had to wait over a month for it. So, settled for silver (win some, lose some).

    :)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    why not make 17'' wheels optional?
    I think that is the least Honda could have done. But then, most people who would care for 17" and z-rated rubber would like to have 'custom' preferences anyway. e.g., if Honda offered Michelins, some people would want Bridgestones or Dunlop or whatever. Very rarely would people not change stock wheels, like on an Integra (RSX) type-r (now comes with 17" wheels), since they would be among the lightest in the market (or atleast quite a bit more expensive to replace them), and the choice of tires, which almost all set to go.
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    Good article. Feel free to also share that in our Pocket Rockets discussion if you'd like. ;-)

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Err, I mean, revka :)

    That forum is dead.
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,137
    Robertsmx: They still make the Integra Type-R for '02?? I thought the last production year was '01.
    Anyway, I 've been gone for a while and just read through 70 posts.. I had a lot to say but now I only have the last few posts fresh in my head..
    All I gotta say about those WRXs is that they 're not that great in auto-x. They may be fast in a straight line, but my '99 GSR has those WRX's for breakfast on an auto-x track. I didn't see a WRX win the SCCA SoloII championship in G Stock, a Type-R did (as usual). And stock for stock, the ITR has superior handling to WRX's as I'm sure does the RSX-S as well.
    Anyway, I hear SCC is coming out with an article on G forces in the December issue. That should be interesting.
    Did I understand correctly that SCC compared a WRX wagon to an RSX-S? What kind of tests did they conduct? What was the outcome?
  • Typical instrumented tests with the WRX wagon the preferred ride. The RSX-S was noticeably slower that past figures I have seen. I believe the 0-60 times were in the mid sevens and the quarter was in the high fifteens. I almost thought the times were from the 160HP version of the RSX.
  • mdrivermdriver Posts: 385
    The RSX is sold as a Honda Integra in Austrailia.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    only1harry:
    JDM already has the Type-R version available. With the Acura badge, Honda opted to call it RSX, otherwise it is still Integra elsewhere. The specs for Integra Type-R (2002):
    220 HP/152 lb.-ft, 2596 lb. (w/AC), six speed manual transmission (different from that in the Type-S), LSD and the usual stuff. The redline has been upped from 8200 rpm of previous ITR to 8500 rpm.
    Now, Civic Type-R also gets the same displacement as ITR in Japan (earlier it had smaller engine, the 1.6 liter I-4 pumping out 185 HP). Now it gets 215 HP/149 lb.-ft (slightly detuned compared to ITR).

    rmtrader:
    RSX-S performance to 60 mph is believable in low six second range, and QM in about 15 seconds. At mid 7 seconds, one would have to be sleeping between shifts to get those numbers. Base RSX would be a low 7 second car with the manual (5-speed) and 8.0-8.2 seconds with the five speed automatic.
    MT got the quick end of performance from RSX-S (6.1s, 14.8 s), and R&T got the slow end of the spectrum (6.7s). Realistically, the gearing, the power curve and the curb weight make it a 6.4 s car. R&T couldn't got it slower because the driver short shifted (as is obvious from the speed in each gear that they also post with road tests).
  • Help me out here. . .

    I am considering a base RSX and wanted to know from those of you who have purchased recently. . still MSRP??. .any leeway at all?? (Please tell me yes)--

    The car has been out for 4mo. now and I'm hoping somebody has had some luck w/ pricing below MSRP. I have a 00 GTI GLX VR6 and am looking to sell it and get a similar vehicle w/ better warranty, reliability, and lower repair costs. I can't hack the $45-50 oil changes any more and after 30k miles, I've had more accessories/plastics break on my Volks than my wife's 96 Honda w/97k miles on it.

    I am also interested in any dealer experiences any of you Acura owners have had. Volks dealer experiences I've had are, to say the least, HORRIBLE!!

    I want to stay w/ a hatchback if at all possible and believe that the RSX offers a good combination of reliable build quality--even on initial new models, hatchbach versatility, and decent warranty/dealer service. These things are important as you get older. . .trust me. If 30 is old. .

    I sat in the car today and it is a bit snug compared to my GTI. . .but I'm willing to make sacrifices. Styling is decent and posts on acceleration lead me to believe that even the base 160hp iVTEC will allow the RSX to get out of its own way. I put a good chunk of change down on my GTI and will sell it outright to get the best $$.

    Toyota Celica is not an option. . .Test drove that when I was comparo shopping against my GTI and wasn't impressed.

    Thanks for any and all opinions/comments on this car/Acura in general from those of you who own current RSX/current integra. . .
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    We all know that the RSX Type S is 200 HP and the Integra Type R is 195 HP. However, most people compare the RSX-S with the Integra GS-R and yearn for an RSX Type R. Well, is the 200 HP RSX-S that much worse than the195 HP Integra-R? Has anyone driven both and can compare the two coupes head-to-head?

    nautiker:
    Seeing that you have a GTI VR6, you're already accustomed to a certain level of performance. I think you'll be disappointed in passing power with a base RSX compared to what you currently drive. You might as well shell out a few grand more and get 40 extra ponies, unless you don't care about RSX-S' better acceleration.
  • mdrivermdriver Posts: 385
    VW has responded to questionable reliability by now offering a b to b 4yr/50k warranty. But the GTI still has the upper hand over the RSX in build quality (not to be confused with reliabilty). The doors on the RSX for instance, are still Civic-light, but the GTI's doors feel more heavy duty, solid.
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    The RSX-S replaces the GS-R, and that's why people compare them. Similarly, the RSX Type R will soon replace the ITR. In both cases the replacement is faster.

    RSX-S vs. ITR: Motortrend tested the RSX-S and got better 0-60 and 1/4 mile results than any of their previous tests of the ITR. Other publications have tested the ITR faster. In any case they are very close. What's important, though, is that the RSX-S is as fast as the ITR, and yet it is not the stripped down version that the ITR is.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Comparison is not valid. Like already pointed out, Type-S replaces the GS-R trim, while Type-R was designed to be a track car. It may or may not be slower than the Type-S, but it will more than likely kill a Type-S on the track, but perhaps get killed by the 2002 Type-R (220 HP).
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    Then I have a 1974 Cutlass that you ought to love.
  • mdrivermdriver Posts: 385
    I said heavy-duty and solid. Solid is not what you would call doors on a '74 anything. Heavy, yes.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Just lubricate the door hinges. That should help! ;)

    It is interesting that people actually like to feel heaviness (like some other people who think that the heavier the car, the more stable it is). Solidity is all that should matter, right mdriver?
  • scnamescname Posts: 296
    I owned a 76 Cutlass Salon long ago. 350V8 automatic. Its been so long I can not remember what the 0 to 60 time was. Do you know ?

    I was getting 11 mpg around town , 14 on the highway. My first car. The Sport Sedan of the day. Best selling car in America.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    But when i was a kid my mom had a 1974 Cutlass Supreme with the 350 Rocket and 4 spd auto. Whooooo weeeee that car wud go. Speedo had 120 in it and we did it several times. My mom's a nut.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    mitsugst, thanks for your first hand comparison of the Eclipse GST vs. your new RSX-S. I'm not sure exactly how the i-VTec works, but given how many horses Acura is squeezing out of a small, naturally-aspirated engine, I can imagine some turbo-like lag. What surprises me was that you thought the RSX-S had more low RPM power than the turbo Eclipse. It is good to hear that at highway cruising speeds (75-80 MPH), the RSX is quiet; my Integra (140 HP) certainly isn't at those speeds!

    RSX owners/lessees in general, any gripes about this year's Integra replacement now that the car has been out for about 4 months? Is the lack of center console as big a glaring oversight as it seems? And are the Acura dealers still demanding MSRP for it?
This discussion has been closed.