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)



  • bobstbobst Posts: 1,783
    According to the sales brochure, under 5500 RPM the base RSX engine has more horsepower and torque than the RSX-S, so it may have lower 0-60 times.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Um, no. The RSX-S will smoke a 160hp RSX 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, etc. Because of the tight ratios in the 6 speed tranny, I'd have to think the RSX-S is also quicker 0-30 and from a rolling start (5-60).
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    At least you admitted you know little about what you said. ;-) Technically speaking, there is a certain (very small) range of the HP and torque curves where the base RSX, does indeed, have very slightly higher numbers than the RSX-S. But this in no way means that a stock RSX can out-accelerate a stock RSX-S, assuming same driver skills.

    Granted, the base RSX weighs less than the Type-S. But again, nowhere light enough to make up the 40 lb deficit.
  • gsgman,

    Thanks for the info. It is unfortunate that all anyone tests on these auto sites is the Type S... I believe that the Type S only accounts for 20% of their sales. It (the base RSX) is definitely an adequate time... coming from my 94 Accord EX I will take anything at this point.

    I liked the RSX when I sat in it at the Washington Auto Show, I was actually really surprised how nice it was. Not to mention the hatchback is great.

    And I won't just buy a Type S because it's another $3K - which I think is a lot of money. I am keeping myself to $20K on this car.

    In terms of the HP vs. TQ argument, from what I read the base's dyno curves indicate more torque is available lower in the RPM range, which is better for city driving and since I live in a city I think it's preferable. thanks everyone for the replies.
  • njcar1njcar1 Posts: 16
    Does anyone know what the 2003 RSX-S is going for in NJ (or anywhere in the Northeast). Did anyone recently receive invoice on a purchase of a 2003 model. I see that in some dealerships there is a large pile of them, so I was wondering whether anyone had the experience of getting a really good deal in my area.
  • bobstbobst Posts: 1,783
    Beowulf agrees that the Base RSX has both more HP and torque over what he calls a "very small" range. Well, according to the catalog, that range is 0-5500 rpm.

    In addition, the torque curve looks pretty flat to me, so I doubt a 6-speed tranny will help much in going from 0-60 mph. It takes time to shift gears, you know.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    it's extremely important when you have a narrow powerband - need more gears to keep the engine in its "sweet spot".

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • No one has mentioned the fact that the S revs significantly higher than the Base, which is the key. When the Base hits redline and is forced to shift to 2nd gear, the S is still accelerating in 1st. Because of the effect of gearing ratios, 1st gear "pulls" much harder than 2nd, 2nd gear "pulls" much harder than 3rd, etc. Because of its high redline, the S can stay in 1st gear longer than the Base (i.e. it pulls "longer" in each gear).

    Bobst, you would be correct *if* the race was done from 0-5500 in 1st gear only (for example, in a 0-20 I would not be surprised to see the Base win because it is lighter and has slightly more torque from 0-5500), but that is not the case for 0-60, which requires max revs and 2 gears. Because of the S's higher redline, it should smoke the Base in 0-60, like everyone else is saying.

    A quick search on horsepower and torque will reveal a multitude of good info about the subject.
  • For example:
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    Well, put simply, when the Base needs to shift 1 to 2, the type S is still pulling very hard. The Base then goes to fairly low RPM after the shift and does not pull very hard at all. At that point the type S will be well ahead. In addition, when the type S is redlined and shifts - it doesn't go that low in the RPM range (due to close gearing and the fact that the shift was done at a higher point in the RPM range to begin with). So the shift to second puts the car in a fairly high RPM range where the car still pulls hard.

    The bottom line is - the whole curve is important - not just the maximum.

    In fact, theoretically, you can have car A with a very steep curve and a very high maximum, and car B with much lower maximum but flatter and longer curve (higher RPM range), where car B is faster.
  • Are there going to be any new colors for rhe RSX-S next year?

    The RSX-S is on my short list to buy this year, but I'm a little unsure about what color I would get.

    I like the black with black interior, but I've had a black car before and their to hard to keep clean.

    I kinda like the silver with black interior, but it looks a little plain.

    I would consider the desert silver if it came with black interior

    If they would offer the RSX-S in a Silverstone with black interior I would go for it.

    Does anyone know if this color will be available in the future?
  • nippononly and sgrd0q, very good comments about the closer gearing ratios on the type S - I neglected to mention that.
  • bobstbobst Posts: 1,783
    I made you look at the facts instead of basing your opinions on your prejudices. How about that!

    We still love our 1997 Accord, but we will probably buy an RSX sometime in the next year. We don't drive fast and we definitely like cloth seats more than leather, so we will most likely get the base model.

    The only thing that concerns me is engine noise. We drove one on a cold day in January, and it sounded kind of loud when we started it up. However, once it warmed up, it was much better.

    I was at another dealer a few weeks later looking at colors, and I wanted to sit in a car with a beige interior. It was a Type S, and the salesman started it up for some reason. It didn't sound loud at all. Do you think the Type S is quieter, or was it just because the weather was a little warmer that day?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    a lot of the new 4-cylinder engines in the last couple of years, especially the Japanese ones, and including the RSX, are very noisy little suckers! They don't sound as smooth any more - they sound more like sewing machines now with one loose screw. I wonder very much why that is.

    A lady at work has the type S, and it is just as loud as the base RSX, IMO. When it is cold and she starts it up, you can hear it across a parking lot with other cars in between being started up.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Some of that extra noise is from the timing chain.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    I originally posted #1683, which you'll notice is blank). I had a link to it which had a URL for a competing auto forum, so I am reposting my message here with a link that complies with Edmunds' rules and regulations. Revka, could you please put this as Post #1683? Thanks.

    Below is my original message about the HP/torque plots for RSX and RSX-S with the only modification being the URL has been renamed.


    You really did it now! You've made me refer to the 2002 Acura RSX brochure and scan the RSX vs. RSX-S Power and Torque plots as a function of RPM. I am posting a link to a picture for all to see, but basically, here's the summary.

    The base has higher numbers than the Type-S for torque from ~1500-5300 RPM, w/ a maximum advantage of ~10 ft-lbs at around 3700 RPM. For HP, the base is better than the Type-S from ~3000-5000 RPM, with a maximum advantage of ~10 HP.

    So while the power/torque advantages of the base vs. Type-S could be considered nontrivial, it does not affect most races for the reasons nippononly, michiganman, and sgrd0q mentioned. (BTW, kudos to that triumvirate for explaining the advantages of the Type-S' high-revving engine so well.)
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    Also, sorry, but messages cannot be moved around in a given discussion, and we can't change post numbers. We can only move them from one discussion to another.

    I think at this point, people will get the idea: Your message was meant to be post #1683 (now missing), and post #1684 is bobst's response to your message.... Thanks again!

    And let's continue now with the subject of the Acura RSX!

    Host/Hatchbacks & Wagons
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    No problem, thanks for trying though! However, perhaps being able to renumber posts is something that Edmunds should let you moderators do.
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    Also, good suggestion about the numbers; I'll forward the idea on. Also, so we don't take this discussion off topic, let's continue any further thoughts on this subject via email. Okay? ;-)

    Also, if anyone else has any questions/comments about our Town Hall policies and procedures, feel free to send me an email. You can also fill out this feedback form from our About Section. Thanks!

    Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    It would be interesting to see some vehicle updates in here. Haven't seen any in a while. Anyone interested in listing their total miles to date, current mpg (city/highway), new accessories/mods, road trips, maintenance to date, and overall impressions (pro/cons) of your RSX... compared to when you first purchased? Who's game? ;-)

    I'm sure others passing through here would find the information quite helpful. Also, you report back every 3k-5K to update again.

    If you want share your RSX purchase cost, or see what others paid, check out our "Acura RSX - What did you pay?" discussion. Look for a direct link to this discussion, in the Helpful Links, on the left side of this page.

    Thanks for your participation!

    Hatchbacks & Wagons Boards
Sign In or Register to comment.