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)

13233353738124

Comments

  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    In addition to the feedback here, you may also want to check out Edmunds' New Vehicle PowerShopper. Good luck. ;-)

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    A dealer you can trust? I 've never heard of such a thing :)
  • I have mixed feelings on the car. Like most Integra enthusiasts, I was anxiously awaiting the new design. When I heard it was 200 hp, I was excited because even the old GSR at 175hp needed a little more punch. With eight years before a new design change, I thought the designers would come up with something a little more sportier than the current GSR. The new Type S is even more conservative and plain than the old GSR (which I drove for 5 years). I hate the upside down triangle grill in the front. It looks like a cavalier-cheap. They want the car to look like the other acura's with grills. That's stupid. That is like chevy saying we want to make the Corvette look like the other chevy products. The side of the car has no curves or creases. They need to put some vents on the side like the Ford mustang, Chevy Corvette, and Toyota MR2. With no molding or creases, I see door dings all over these cars in a couple of years. Even though the rear is kinda plain, I like it, but a spolier doesn't come stock? Even pictures with spoilers look unusual since the car is so conservative. It looks like someone putting an aftermarket spoiler on a plain civic. Speaking of civics, this car looks more like a cross between a civic and cavailer than a big improvement on the old GSR. Now that I'm in my 30's, I get the feeling that Acura was trying to appeal to an older buyer who grew up with the old integra. As an older driver, I still don't like the styling. I'm sure the younger (pre-integra) generation is even more disappointed. Nevertheless, I recently test drove the car because my beloved Integra was stolen and stripped for parts.
    The interior of the car was nicer than I expected. For a sporty car, The old GSR did not have a sporty interior feel. The new Type S improved on this. The seats are awesome. They curve to wrap you on the sides and the headrests look like a racing car not a driving coupe. Too bad the same people who desinged the inside didn't design the outside. Also, the perforated leather seems to be of a better quality. The radio and midcompartment console slopes a little (not as much as I like-like the Acura CL or 300zx), but still better than the straight drop of the old GSR. Type S makes a big deal about the 7 speaker Boise stereo system. I cranked it when I test drove it and I was disappointed. It wasn't loud at all, and I didn't really notice the hidden subwoofer in the spare tire. Maybe I'm used to the upgrade Rockford fosgate system i put in my GSR. The stereo in my rental car-ford focus sounds louder. It did sound clear though. I guess I can always change the Type S for an aftermarket system also, but I hear the big non standard size makes it difficult. The small steering wheel and white odometer dials, which turn red at night look cool. The car is 2 inches taller, which I don't like. It takes away from the sportiness of it and the moonroof seems farther away. The 16 inch rims are an improvement over the 15 inch GSR. 15 inches is weak for a sporty car. Some feel the Type S should have gone for 17, but I'll settle for 16. The rims look ok.
    I was impressed by the engine. The car did seem quicker than my GSR and the engine had a better purrrr than the ultra high rev of my GSR. The power came more linear than the slow to fast jump VTEC GSR.
    For the price, the car is a pretty good value for a 200hp engine, leather seats, moonroof, etc, but I just feel a few more cosmetic changes and this car could have been awesome.
    If the company wants to make it look more luxurious than sporty-I can buy that, but it doesn't look more luxurious-just more civic'y. An yes, it needs an arm rest. I have been driving a rental for a month now that doesn't have an arm rest and I will never underestimate an arm rest. It is like working on your feet all day vs. sitting. How can they go from an old GSR that has one to a new Type S that doesn't, especially if they are trying to make it more luxurious?
    At this point, I don't know what to buy. The WRX looks like a joke. That car is a Dodge Shadow body with a 227hp enigne in it. The Celica looks like fat and swallen. It wants to look agressive, but looks like those tacky kits they sell so kids can turn camaro's into ferraris. Nissan has nothing until the awesome new Z at $30,000 next year. Honda got rid of the Prelude, which I like, but don't want to buy a 2001 discontinued style. Mazda doesn't have anything either. The S2000 did it all right, but at $30,000-it is out of my league. Why can't they make some of the same cosmetic styling on these cars on the $20,000 models? The Ford Mustang is out of the question with it's boxy looks, that stupid "U" shaped console, and poor reliabilty. I may have to look towards the Jetta. Although it is boxy, they look nice from the outside,and the paint jobs are good, but for about the same price, I feel like I'm giving up on a performance car. Is there anything worthwhile out there. When you throw down $23,000 and bust your butt to make car payments, you want to be excited about a new car, not disappointed. I might buy a used car until something good comes along.
  • mensymensy Posts: 3
    I can understand most of the points you made in your last post, but I definitely do NOT agree with your Jetta info. I've owned a 2000 Jetta for about a year before trading it in. It was the worst car I ever owned. Their paint jobs are HORRIBLE. The factory in Mexico (where most of the Jetta's are built except the vr6 models) was having major paint problems due to high altitude. Also the clearcoat on my friend's 2000 Jetta is already peeling off!!! Not to mention the huge list of problems I've had with my Jetta, the longer lists of problems my other 2 friends with new Jettas have had. Plus, the shifter is the worst...even worse than the S4. It's not a sporty car at all. Take it from someone who has owned one before. I testdrove the RSX type-s. It is 10x the car the Jetta is.
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    I agree with a lot of your points.. How about a new GTI VR6? It has a nice torquy motor for around the same price as RSX. I expected a better looking car too to replace my GSR.

    I 'll stick with my GSR until maybe the new Type-R hits the US shores or mine gets stolen as well.

    I was also thinking of looking at used 4-6yr old M3s next year..

    I'm in my 30s too and it's hard to part with my beloved GSR. It'a a lot of fun auto-xing it on weekends..


    image


    I can't see giving up my sporty GSR for a car that looks like my '01 Civic coupe..

    image

  • brorjacebrorjace Posts: 588
    I have some really mixed feelings about the RSX. I owned a 2nd generation Integra, never really liked the 3rd generation and its beady-little-eye headlights so I was anxious to see the new and improved" RSX which is now replacing the Integra. My current car, a '95 Civic Coupe, is getting to the point where I'll want to replace it in the next year or two and I'm trying to make up my mind ahead of time as to which car I'll choose.

    Well, the RSX's looks are only so-so. This wouldn't be so bad except one of its main competitors, the Toyota Celica, is a much better looking car. If I wasn't a diehard Honda lover, I'd have already bought the Toyota.

    Another thing that irks me about the RSX and the newer Honda Civics in general is the reversion to macpherson struts. These simply don't handle as well, aren't as easily tuned nor last as long as the excellent, conventional A-arm layout Honda has been using for over a decade now. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Honda says the reason was 'packaging' because the struts are more compact. I suspect it was actually a cost-cutting decision because the 'lower hood line' just doesn't seem worth it, especially when you consider the overall increased height of the vehicle.

    I really want my next car to have a 6-spd transmission. I've wanted one on my 4-cylinder cars for over a decade for low-rpm, high-speed cruising on the interstates. Currently, cruising at 75mph+ my last cars were easily doing over 4,000 rpms. After an hour or two, you have to think there must be a better way to get down the road with less noise and fuel consumed. A 6-speed with a long final-drive ratio is the obvious answer. I'm surprised more sports coupes didn't have this feature sooner.

    BUT, in order to get the 6-speed tranny (and higher horsepower VTEC motor) on the RSX you need to get a lot of other 'luxury' garbage I don't care for: power moonroof, leather interior, ABS, anti-theft, side airbags, premium sound & CD player, etc ... I like my cars free of complex, trouble-prone gadgetry that only adds weight.

    It really irks me that I have to spend thousands extra on useless junk in order to get the features I really want ... in a car whose looks don't impress me at all. <:^(

    It's enough to make me spec out an Accord Coupe ... but even that doesn't have a 6-spd and you can't get four-wheel-disc brakes without ABS. <:^(

    --- <b>Bror Jace
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    The ratio for 6th in the Type-S is the same
    as the ratio for 5th in the base model, and I
    believe 5th in the S corresponds to 4th in
    the base as well.

    I've seen the exact ratios listed in a couple
    of different places. The 6 speed doesn't get you
    lower RPM highway cruising.
  • brorjacebrorjace Posts: 588
    Thanks, Ranald.

    How typical.

    We get about one gear for every 10mph ... until you hit 40-45mph and then that same final drive ratio is supposed to be adequate for every speed from there all the way up to 80+mph. :rolleyes:

    --- Bror Jace
  • I don't know who pooped in your Christmas stocking, but boy do you sound bitter. Looks are highly subjective, but I can't imagine thinking a Celica is good-looking. No ABS, but 4-wheel discs? No power moonroof or CD player? You must have the shortest commute known to man. Gosh, you wouldn't even be happy replacing your lil' Civic with a new '02. I think a '74 BMW 2002tii or '70 240Z might have everything you're looking for... Otherwise, you'll have to make some sacrifices- check out the VW GTI and Civic Si hatch too.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    I'll take the RSX's looks over the Celica any day. If you don't like it that's your call.
  • brorjacebrorjace Posts: 588
    eludwig: "I don't know who pooped in your Christmas stocking, but boy do you sound bitter."

    The list of those who have defiled my holiday decorative hosiery is too long too enumerate. And yes, I'm awfully bitter. I really hate it when a company 'evolves' its product right out of its original, popular market niche. This has now happened to the Integra ... just like it happened to the CRX ... and New Coke, for that matter. At least with Coke, they saw the error of their ways and fixed it ... eventually. Maybe if the RSX Type-R comes out with 20 more horsepower and in a somewhat stripped-down version I'll feel better. Until then, do you know where American Honda hangs their stocking? >;^)

    "Looks are highly subjective, but I can't imagine thinking a Celica is good-looking."

    You can't, eh? I see the Celica as a smaller-sized Ferrari and it is VERY popular with most people I've talked to who are into sporty cars. The RSX, on the other hand, looks like a generic, nondescript egg. Nothing more. Take a look at the Road & Track from a couple months ago. They tested 10 coupes in the less-than-$25K range and both cars in question were included. A large number of writers/testers (8? 10?) got to (briefly) express their feelings about each vehicle and the 'conservative' styling of the RSX was a very common complaint ... while few (if any) complained about the Toyota's looks. I'll have to re-read the article for specifics but I remember that two of the reviewers thought the RSX looked too much like a Cavalier. >|^D

    "No ABS, but 4-wheel discs?"

    Correct. I know how to drive ... very well, as a matter of fact, and despite the bad weather in this part of the country (Saratoga, NY) I've never felt the need for ABS. Also, while disc brakes are easy and inexpensive to work on, ABS control modules are horrifically expensive to replace ... close to $1,000. That's the sort of thing I don't want to have on my "To Do" list.

    "No power moonroof or CD player? You must have the shortest commute known to man."

    I listen to Imus and other talk/info-related radio while driving 45 minutes to and from work. On long trips I take my CDs and record them onto tapes ... and if I lose or ruin the tapes during the trip, I don't care. The moonroof merely serves to take up precious headroom for us in the 6'+ height range. Without it, the car wouldn't have to be made awkwardly tall and geeky-looking. Funny, but I remember when these sorts of things were called 'options'. I guess I'm just old fashioned for not wanting a company that doesn't know me to pre-load a car with a bunch of expensive junk 'guessing' that I'll be happy to pay for it all.

    Gosh, you wouldn't even be happy replacing your lil' Civic with a new '02.

    Hey, you're catching on. >;^) The new Civic is cheaper and blander than the model it replaces and I've already stated that I hate the backward move to struts. What's next, reverting to 4-wheel drum brakes? Plus, the Civic sorta looks like a Ford Focus ... with a tall, narrow stance which reminds me of a cat that is 'presenting'.

    "I think a '74 BMW 2002tii or '70 240Z might have everything you're looking for... "

    It's a shame that you had to suggest cars which are that old ... and even a bigger shame that you're pretty close to the mark. But, even if these were made brand new for '02, I wouldn't purchase one for everyday use. I need front-wheel-drive in order to get around here during winter storms. This is the primary reason why I won't consider the MR2 Spyder either ...

    "Otherwise, you'll have to make some sacrifices- check out the VW GTI and Civic Si hatch too."

    Thanks, but I don't do VeeDubbs anymore. Not since a brief, if not entirely dissatisfying affair with an older Rabbit-based Cabriolet. She was like a giggly party girl one might meet in college, have fun with for a while, but never take seriously enough to marry. As for the upcoming Civic Si Hatch, while a tad more desirable than its bland brethren, still has no 6 speed, has the same McCheapson struts and a weird, FIAT-like shifter that comes out of the dashboard at you like a ... like a ... oh, never mind. >X^(

    I guess I'm gonna keep my '95 Civic until someone makes a front-wheel-drive performance coupe that makes me want to spend my money on it ... or until I can find a '99 or '00 Civic Coupe at a decent price. Right now, the auto manufacturers can go pound sand. I'm also not alone in my thinking. Read g8trdave's good post above. He is another former 'Teg driver who wants to like the car but is having a hard time doing so. That is not a good sign.

    --- Bror Jace
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    Being a GSR owner (don't have to be one really) I share your opinion in much of what you said. I don't agree with a couple of things though. There's really not much wrong with strut suspension. All the BMWs have it as well as other sports cars (Z06 included that does 1.0g!). Do they get critisized for that or does that make them undesireable? BMW sales have reached record #s. You CAN make a car with strut suspension a really good handler, and the new Type-R will prove that. It's chassis rigidity and resistance to flexing, as well as weight reduction that make a good handling car. This is one of the reasons the '97+ Type-Rs didn't come with a sunroof. They cause additional body flexing and add weight.
    I read an Australian review and it said the new Type-R handles better than the old one. And that's with the new struts up front.
    I owned a '90 Geo Storm with strut suspension that would run circles around my '01 Civic EX in a handling course (both in stock form). I do agree that struts are a little harder and a little more expensive to upgrade with aftermarket ones. The new Koni adjustables that recently came out for the '01-02 Civic, are inserts in the Front. You have to take out the factory internal strut assembly from the strut housing, drain the fluid, cut 40mm of that factory housing and then insert the new Konis in them!! That really stinks, because with older gens that had shocks, it was a simple bolt-on procedure. Labor has increased by at least 50% for the front now (the rear are the old design shocks that pop right in).
    This again doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice handling. Bigger diameter sway bars, bushings, lower & upper tie bars, chassis cross member bars, stiffer springs/shocks, reinforced A pillars, etc. all contribute to better handlng and that 's what the new Type-R will have better over the RSX, or the RSX has over the Civic, etc.
    The only other thing I disagree on is when you compare the new Civic to the Focus. Now being a Civic owner (I 'm on my 2nd one) I might be biased but I don't think so. I think the Focus is uglier and stands too tall in the rear. The new Civic sedans look a little more like a Focus, but the coupes I think look good and much better than any Focus. I also owned a '97 Civic DX which I sold to get the '01 EX. My EX handles a little better than the '97 DX probably because the DX didn't come with a rear sway (antiroll) bar. The new EX also has quicker steering response on the highway and changes lanes faster and very flat with no body roll. I can get the EX to oversteer a bit where the old DX just understeered all the time. With only a wheel & tire upgrade on my old DX though, it matched and bested my current EX. So I know with a little wider & better tires (I think the GSR 15x6" wheels will do the trick) the new Civic can be a lot more fun to drive. The new Civics also have more torque at lower RPMs than old gen Civics. That torque is kept at near peak #s all the way to red line. My EX pulls strongly to red line and you even come close to red line in 5th where it achieves a top speed of 127mph. My friend's '95 EX couldn't go over 120mph. I did 123mph very easily in mine and I could 've gone faster but had to slow down because of cars up ahead (don't try this boys & girls..)
    In any case, I have now seen several RSXs on the road and I try hard to like them because I want to prepare my self to buy the new Type-R if it ever makes it here, but they just doesn't do much for me. As long as that GSR sits in my driveway and I see it every morning I walk out of the house, I don't know if I can bring my self to buy the new RTR (RSX-Type-R = RTR? like the old ITR?). Probably once I test drive one, I 'll fall in love with the way it feels, but if dealers won't allow (they didn't with ITRs) test drives, I may not ever own one. So I 'm confused. This can't be good, because I know I wanted an Integra with a passion before I bought one. This time I 'm very skeptical, but only because of the new looks, not the internals of the car (nor the strut suspension).

    PS. Sunroofs suck. I 'm 6'2 and hit my head all the time when I hit a bump in both GSR & Civic. They steal at least 1.5" of headroom. It should be an option, especially in sports coupes with 200hp or more, like the RSX Type-S and others..
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    brorjace:
    I don't think RSX was designed to fit your needs. It seems to offer a little too much than what you need. Good luck with your Celica though, a car I considered couple of years ago but drove home a Prelude.
  • sluglineslugline Posts: 391
    I acknowledge the cynical voices that say that the move to struts in the front was a cost-cutting move. However, the company line was that this was actually intended to improve crash safety. So far, this story has held up. The 2001 Civic got five-star ratings from the NHTSA and a "good" rating from the IIHS. The 2000 Civic merited only four stars and an "acceptable" in the same tests. We'll see if the related RSX and CR-V also make similar gains with their new redesigns.
  • makes me thankful that the car was designed for me.
    :)

    I'm 5'9 (give or take an inch or two) and the car fits me to a T. I have yet to hit my head on the roof going over a bump. So, while I feel sorry that it's difficult for you to get a car that you fit into, I'm glad I can.

    I admit the styling is a little bland. But I don't want to be flashy when I'm on the road. If I did, then I'd go paint my car flourescent green/yellow. I'm sure regardless of the styling, your car IS going to get noticed.
    :)

    I've got no complaints about this car. Nothing major. Just the visibility, but that's from personal experience of driving a 4 door sedan. I've had this car for a month now and I'm getting used to the blind spots.
  • bottgersbottgers Posts: 2,028
    Either Acura needs to offer the RSX type S without having to buy all of the unnecessary garb, such as moon roof, leather interior, etc., or Honda needs to offer a similar, less expensive model. I don't understand why auto manufacturers only offer their top of the line cars completely optioned out. I for one, absolutely hate leather interiors. But such is the case of the RSX type S, if I want the most fun version of the RSX, I'm forced to get it with leather. Why couldn't Honda come out with a similar model, with a 200 hp engine, a six speed, and cloth interior, and sell it for 3-5 grand less? There's no reason why they couldn't. The auto manufacturers have taken option choices away from the car buying public.

    This doesn't have anything to do with Hondas or Acuras, but I still remember when a guy had a choice of buying a Mustang GT, or an LX model. If you wanted all of the bells and whistles, you'd buy the GT. If you wanted all of the go fast performance goodies without the bells and whistles, you'd buy the LX, and save yourself quite a chunk of money. Why won't auto manufacturers do this today?
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    I don't think Honda meant for the RSX to be available in "stripper" versions. That's why they changed the name. It's supposed to be a Acura in all intents now. Just as you can't get a "stripper" TL. If you don't like it you can just hump it and move on.
  • sphinx99sphinx99 Posts: 776
    Exactly. It's not a Honda, it's an Acura. Big difference.

    Go to a Lexus dealer and ask for cloth seats :) You'll get the "you won't ever be able to sell it back because people don't buy a Lexus with cloth" speech like I did!

    Take a look at the Honda line (compared to the Acura) and you'll see a lot more room for stripping. I think this is intentional.

    The only "upper end" manufacturer I'm aware of who offers stripping is BMW. And I don't think they do it in order to offer buyers "more options." Them aside, just about everybody starts a car loaded.
  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    I understand folks points about why there aren't any stripped RSX's since it is an Acura and not a Honda. However, the RSX, in base form, comes with cloth - leather is an option. Why not do the same with the Type S, then? True, the Type-S is the top model, but why not treat the performance upgrades as an option amongst other options on the vehicle (such as leather in this case). I believe this is the point of the post above, and I agree.
  • f1julesf1jules Posts: 288
    Is Acura going to release the Type-R RSX to the US next year? I test drove a couple different RSX Type-S' a few months ago and I was quite impressed with the performance of the engine but the handling left a bit to be desired. This was probably due in no small part to the mediocre all-season tires on the car though.

    I liked the styling of the RSX when I first saw it but as I see more of them on the road it is becoming plain looking to me which is a shame because I really enjoyed driving it.
Sign In or Register to comment.