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)

1679111283

Comments

  • phaedrysphaedrys Posts: 37
    did you really drive the car? I had no problem with the seats or the visibility, and the hood and hatch were both not that heavy.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    Yeah. Took it for about half an hour. I prefer the old style's visibility. The new one I sit far too low, and any view is difficult.

    As for the hood and hatch. I feel either the hood should be aluminum, thus light, or it should be strut mounted. For a car in this class, one should get these minor perks. The hatch, to me, felt like a ton of bricks, both up and down.
  • satchmo07satchmo07 Posts: 1
    I'm in the market for a new car and test drove the RSX last night. For what it's worth, here are my thoughts with some comments and rating (scale 1 to 10) . . .
    Exterior: 6 - The exterior redesign is pretty conservative. After 8 years with no changes, I expected a little more flair. A slightly aggressive front end with an indistinguishable back end hatch. It looks a lot like the Civic coupe. Not bad, but not radical. The underbody spoiler makes the car look foolish in my opinion, so does that sunroof visor.
    Interior: 7 - The interior quality is slightly upscale, but it's easy to see where the corners were cut. The steering wheel felt small for some reason. The radio controls are small and the sound quality of the stereo was just OK, nothing special. Head room is at a premium, leg room isn't great. I felt a little claustrophobic in this car and I'm only 5'9 so that's saying something. The seats are comfortable and sporty though - really nice touch. Leather and cloth are both decent quality, but leather in a $20-25K car is a waste in my opinion. Good room in the hatch, no room in the back seat.
    Ride: 6.5 - I took it on a few long stretches of road and was able to open it up a little bit. The overall ride was taught, but left me wanting more. Steering, suspension, and handling was tight and precise for a Japanese car, but you certainly aren't going to mistake it for a Benz, Audi, or BMW. Body roll is more noticeable than I expected for a brand new FWD model. That was disappointing. Acceleration is good, but not great. The i-VTEC gets the car up to sixty pretty quickly and the high revs sound cool, but any way you slice it, a 4 cylinder is a 4 cylinder. It lags in around town driving and torque should be higher. Finally, that manual aspect to the auto trans is a waste. I thought it would be fun, but it doesn't compare at all to a regular manual trans.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Honda builds yet another car for the masses, further eroding its hard-won performance image...
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    That comment seems odd.

    I ask you this in all seriousness (NOT insulting) because you have a great deal more time spent behind the wheel of an Integra than I ever will...

    You drive a GSR. Its replacement, the RSX Type-S, appears to outperform it in every measurable way, and yet you criticize the RSX as being a "car for the masses". How? What's wrong with it? Is it any more or less a car for the masses than the GSR was?
  • carloveecarlovee Posts: 3
    I had a considerably more positive experience then satchmo07. Here's my take...

    Exterior: You call it bland I call it classy. True, its a subtle charm but, on the opposite extreme, the new Celica is an example of a aggressive styled car that, to me, looks like some adolescence's fantasy sketch. I rejected it solely on its looks which is a shame, it might be a nice car, I just couldn't see myself driving it.

    Interior: OK, not great. I'm 6'1" and I fit, but it was close. I get the feeling that all that trendy titanium trim is going to look dated in a few years. Also I'm betting that the texture dash is going to be a pain to clean. But on the positive side all the controls were nicely laid out and in easy reach. I think the addition of an automatic climate control in a car at this price is pretty cool.

    Ride: This is what its all about, and this is what sold me on this car. Tooling around the streets and on the highway was a blast, the rsx felt tight and sporty, surprisingly nimble. True, I could have used more torque but once you get into the high revs the pedal response is very good. It was especially fun to drop it down to 3rd gear on the highway and blast off, you can easily drive up to 80-85mph in 3rd without even threatening the 7900rpm redline (6800 for base models). By the way: I had fun with the automatic sport shift but I'd have to have it awhile longer before I could pass judgment.

    Just my $.02 but this car had everything I wanted and nothing I couldn't live without at what I feel is a very decent price. I called today to order my RSX in Desert Metallic.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Well what should Honda do? build cars for the few?
  • yhippayhippa Posts: 10
    I really didn't know what to say, but I totally agree with post #215 about the RSX. The Acura dealership around here isn't very good, and I got to take it for about a mile round trip. Something I did want to point out is that the seats are about the same level of comfort to me as the WRX. I also think that the blind spot is just as bad as a Celica. I agree with whoever said that you have to guess who's behind you whenever you change lanes, I suppose that means you should invest in a blind-spot mirror. The rear-end lights look like the current Camry's lights for the most part. The SportShift was pretty fun to tool around with. I just can't get over the fact that it looks like last year's pimped out Civic.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    There are going to be similarities. So if the tail lights look like the Camry... They also look like an update of the previous Integra. So the front end looks like a Cavalier?? They also look like an update of the JDM Integra. The Celicas tail light look like an old Oldsmobile product and the front headlights look Peugeotish...With all the models and years of cars something is always going to look like something else. Especially if you look on a worldwide scale. Geez.
    By the way the Integra is supposed to have a family resemblance to the Civic. In most countries there is no Acura nameplate there is only Honda so the "family" resemblance connects the brands just as with most foriegn makes.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    ranald--Let me put it this way: My hopes for the RSX were that it would be an improved Integra. Give me more performance, less noise on the highway, and maintain the Integra's lightning-fast reflexes.

    The RSX is unquestionably quieter and faster than the Integra (although it doesn't seem to stop any better), but the driving experience and feel of the controls do not have the same "right now!" response of my GS-R. The car's reflexes have been dulled, and there is too much "wanna-be" luxury content on the inside that does nothing to enhance the car's driveability. I'm willing to put up with the Integra's skateboard ride because of the benefits it pays to me in the twisties (just make sure the seat is good enough to filter out the small stuff).

    I will continue to adhere to the "Integra Ethic" of functional performance. Give me a car with no pretensions about what it was built for (both the S2000 and WRX come to mind). I don't need leather AND automatic climate control AND a weak-in-the-knees Bose audio system to make my drive time more rewarding. Don't you think that Acura decided to equip the RSX-S like this in an effort to both expand its appeal (beyond buyers like myself) and also to help ward off defections of previous Integra owners to other brands?

    I cannot fault Acura/Honda for wanting to sell more cars. Unfortunately, in the process of making the RSX more appealing to a larger group of potential buyers, it is less sharply-focused than the car it replaces.

    The cars from Acura (NSX excluded, of course) just don't hold any appeal or excitement for me anymore. They no longer drive like they are more than the sum of their parts.

    diploid--Honda already builds "cars for the few" with both the Accord Type-R and Civic Type-R. Honda's refusal to bring these great cars to the US market is the fault of their Acura division.
  • silver_bulletsilver_bullet Posts: 1,339
    I looked at RSXs yesterday, just to see if the car looked any better in person (the photos haven't impressed me). Nope. IMO it is a short, overly tall, dumpy looking little car. Front and rear fascias look very contrived, with the now-cliche scalloped lamp treatment. It isn't ugly, just not very interesting. Didn't get a chance to sit in one, as this particular dealer didn't seem interested in coming out to answer questions - I guess they scan you from the showroom, to see if you are carrying enough money to buy today :)
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    So I guess the S2000 was meant for the masses...that's why Honda brought it to North America.

    As for the European Honda type-R & type-V...it's an Acura TL in NA. The European Honda Civic type-R? Well, they imported the same engine and placed it into the body of an Acura RSX.

    I think you're confusing the intent of Acura's future with Acura's past. Acura, since it's a luxury division, has no choice but to add leather and all the other luxury toys into the new RSX. It no longer wants to be compared to Toyota and Nissan. It wants to run with Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, Audi & Mercedes. And around here, a lot of people have no idea that Acura belongs to Honda.

    Furthermore, the Toyota's Altezza is known as the Lexus IS300 in North Ameria. How come people don't complain that Toyota should keep the car as a Toyota so it would be cheaper for people to buy?
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    Well, I 'm not sure what it is about the RSX, but everyone I know that owns a g3 GSR (including myself), does not like the new RSX. It's many different things. I have not driven the car but have only seen it a couple of times and 1 with a spoiler which actually looked better than without one. I got many different answers from my friends who are GSR owners and have driven an RSX. One said he didn't really feel the VTEC kick like he does with his GSR. The other said it was way too quiet. Another said visibility wasn't that great. Another one said he didn't think he could ever get used to the metalic/titanium trimmings on the dash, or the road feel wasn't as raw or communicative as in their GSRs, or his GSR handles better, etc. And most of them didn't like the looks of the car and prefered their GSRs. Other friends of mine are now buying or just bought GSRs at much discounted prices.. I was surprised to hear all this.
    Now keep in mind that most of these people (including me) have modified suspensions and our GSR's handle pretty much like ITRs (I have my brother's Type-R to compare to since I 've driven it and raced it 40-50 times).
    Now this is the conclusion(s) I have come to as to why the majority of current GSR owners have not run out and trade in for an RSX-S or why they "dislike" the RSX:
    Now there 's no doubt that the RSX-S is faster and handles a little better than the previous gen. GSR. I believe it is because at least half or more of the GSR owners do not drive stock GSRs. Aftermarket parts are in abundance and they 're cheap! For under $1,000 you can install sports springs (or coilover springs) with decent adjustable shocks plus a larger rear sway bar (ITR size) to transform your GSR into a really nice handling machine. Add a $180 cold air intake and you got an extra 12-14hp at the wheels (14-17bhp). Of course you don't have the LSD the Type-R has (which can be added for $800), but handling can become as the ITR's if not better in most cases because of the better springs and superior adjustable shocks. That's just in the handling dept. A cold air intake alone drops the 1/4 mi. times to around 15-15.2sec (with header & exhaust GSRs run high 14's. GSR is still 100+lbs lighter than RSX-S). So what I 'm trying to say is that you have a much better car than stock for a misely grand give or take a couple of hundred which is why the Integra is so popular and so loved by their loyal owners. It is really a much more exctiting car to drive than it was STOCK, and that is the magic word. Most GSR owners don't drive STOCK GSRs. They compare their modified or slightly modified GSRs to a stock RSX-S.
    Even in a stock GSR, you can throw out its factory Michelin tires, equip it with some slightly larger inexpensive 205-50-15 ZR rated summer tires and you have just increased your g's up to .85-.86g. Sports Compact Car magazine did this in an old comparison test in '96 I believe it was. All they did was swap out the GSR's tires and left the rest of the car stock in one of their comparison tests.. It went from like .82 to .86g!
    Anyway, you see my point. How can I go out and buy an RSX when I now beat Type-R's in autocross racing? This would mean for me to spend $24K + tax, throw more money in it to bring it up to what my GSR's handling is/was, to enjoy that same thrill and adrenaline on my country back roads..(and in my case to beat Type-Rs in my local auto-x club races) well, no thanks. It just doesn't make sense.. That's how I see it and the only way I can make sense of it right now, why so many GSR owners are against getting an RSX-S.
    Maybe this is what himiler was trying to say? :-)
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    But it's really futile to complain about the new RSX at this point. It's already being mass produced. Engineers won't be going back to the drawing board for a few more years.

    I myself didn't like the look of the RSX when I saw it. But you just have to realize where Acura is trying to go. People shouldn't judge Acuras as Hondas. I know, they're the same mechanically, but Honda wouldn't have created Acura for no apparent reason. It wanted to join in with the luxury marques...how can it possibly do that if it doesn't offer what the other guys are offering (i.e. leather seats, automatic everything, etc.)?

    All this badge engineering may come at the expense of the customers who would really prefer an 18G Integra instead of a 23G RSX, but don't forget that the last generation Integra was 8 years old. A lot has changed in that period of time, especially the price of a car.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    Integras and while I don't find myself getting all excited about the new RSX I did find it a nice car. I think it's well worth the price for what it is.
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    Interesting, thanks.

    It seems to me it all boils down to the fact that the Integra didn't really fit in as an Acura.
  • carguy62carguy62 Posts: 545
    Motorweek is scheduled to review the RSX. In my area the show airs this week, it may have already aired in some markets.

    for ranald: If you thought the 3G "teg" looked just like the 5G Civic coupe don't you think the RSX looks like the current Civic coupe? Myself and many others do. It's just a fact that Hondas have a family resemblance. My '89 Accord HB looks just like the Integras of that age and frankly it looks very similar to Honda products of today (more than a decade later). I bought my Accord because it had a bigger engine, more interior room and was generally more luxurious (rather than sporty) when compared to the Integra. I really don't have that option today.
  • mitsugstmitsugst Posts: 41
    only1harry and others,
    How many people do you know buy a car right from the dealer brand new, and add a couple thousand for performance modifications (voiding some or most of the warranty)? If you know some of these people, great, send them to the Acura dealer, not today, but in a year when plenty of performance parts are out. I know some of these people, most are rich kids, and a few are really smart and wealthy college grads with nothing better to do with the new found wealth (like me). What you are comparing is people who bought their GSR's used (or at least waited till the warranty was out, or performance parts were out), and then modded their GSR's. Acura is not trying to sell you a new design without a warranty, used, with high miles (30k or more), and with performance parts companys to support, there's no such thing. Acura wants those people who bought their GSR's new to buy the RSX-S new. Wake up, there is no fantasy here.
    In my view Acura took a great car that was 8 years old, redesigned it, made some things better, and made some things different (better or worse is for those who buy new designs to judge).
    Here's an example for you. I bought a '95 Eclipse Turbo (GST) brand new. I am not into modifications, I'm not into voiding the warranty (if it's possible or not), but I'm into a great car out of the box, new designs from the factory. I waited Five Full years for the new Eclipse. The new one is no where near similar to the old, they improved on ride and smothness, and changed everything else. What's left is an overweight, underbalanced, underperforming, slow, flashy, chick mobile. I was ssssooooooooooooo disappointed. We should rejoice that Acura didn't do the same thing. I know Acura isn't as STUPID as Mitsubishi, but change is inevitable. Lastly, everyone in the world wants my Eclipse now, since it's an untouched-unmodded well cared for car with tons of potential. That's fine, I'll sell it, and lose very little money. Every under-25 year old I know can't wait till I give the word that it's up for sale... it's used, it's well taken care of, it could be powerful, it has no warranty to ruin, 0-60 in 6.4 today, it's cheap, "I saw it on the Fast and the Furious", it looks good and chicks dig it, it'll blow the doors off any other new or old FWD (by adding a few mods), etc..... I don't care what it can do (as long as someone pays me for it), I want something new that'll do the same, will be better stock, will have as much potential (I like the resale), and be updated with the latest greatest design ideas (i-vtec, efficiency, balance, whatever)

    I like the RSX-S, and what it has to offer, and mine comes in next week.
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    Sure, I think there's alot of family resemblance between different Honda/Acura cars. I think the RSX has quite a bit in common with the Civic coupe and to a lesser extent the Prelude, though IMO the RSX looks *much* better than the most recent Civic coupe. The main problem with the Civic is that it has such an enormously long [non-permissible content removed] (the rear overhang on that car looks like a schoolbus).

    I was taking issue with a self-styled "car reviewer" who chose to criticize the RSX as being inferior to the Integra because the RSX resembled a Civic while the Integra did not. That's silly.
  • ligartligart Posts: 109
    How much do wealthy college grads earn nowadays? ;-)
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Anyway, college grads have more sense than to mod a car after buying it from the lot.

    I think mitsu was referring to 19 year olds and college undergrads who buy used Civics and Eclipses and modify those cars with the money that their middle-classed parents gave them. If they were really wealthy, they could've afforded a new BMW or Mercedes.
  • ashenashen Posts: 3
    Test drove a RSX Type S.

    Good - It's very fast and I couldn't knock it loose on a corner. This was with the salesman in the back seat yelling for me to redline it ;) The interior was very nice, and I loved the seat. It grips you and holds you in place. Might not be as nice for a larger person though.

    BAD - Not sure if this has been discussed yet or not, but, doesn't the RSX seem exceptionally loud and rough? I'm not talking engine noise, I'm talking road noise. The engine noise is there(acceptable IMO), but it seemed to have a lot of tire noise, and a audible "thunk" when it's hit imperfections on the road. Also, the ride was very rough even compared to my 98 Civic. I wasn't on bad roads, I was on a good stretch of a local interstate. In the brochures, they say that they've spent all this time and energy working on soundproofing and smoothing the ride, but I sure didn't see it. Are other people noticing this on test drives? Was mine a fluke?

    Other than that, the looks are a bit lame. I have to disagree with some of the opinions above, but it does look too much like a Civic. Now, I realize the family resemblance and all that, but the Integra had a distinct look that differentiated it from a Civic. You could take one look at the car, and recognize it. I can see people having to look a couple of times at an RSX to see what it is.
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    I think the sound insulation is good, but the tires are very noisy, particularly on concrete.
  • uthinxuthinx Posts: 21
    I'd like to take a little survey and ask people how long they are waiting for RSX's to be delivered that are not already on invoice to their dealership. I've been told that Aura doesn't really approve of dealers trading cars that have already been delivered. Truth or fiction?
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Posts: 1,331
    I am still wondering if the front tires on a stock RSX are larger than the rear tires or if this was a modification done by the owner of the RSX I saw.

    Thanks for any responses.
  • uthinxuthinx Posts: 21
    The RSX is listed as having P205/55 R16 89V Michelin MXM4 tires all around in both trim lines. The only dealer installed option is 7 spoke wheels rather than the stock 5 spoke. I'd say it was a modification done by the owner and would wonder if this might affect the suspension response and the warranty coverage.
  • yhippayhippa Posts: 10
    What are you guys currently paying for the RSX's? I'm trying to choose between the RSX and a 1% over invoice WRX. This hurts my brain.
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    Tire Size: As posted above all four tires are P205/55 R16.

    Price: I paid MSRP for my RSX-S in Long Island, NY.
  • majorthomechomajorthomecho Posts: 1,331
    Thanks for the response and to those who are thinking about putting bigger tires on front and smaller on back, I have to say that from a looks standpoint, it looks funny. And I should know about funny. I drive an Echo. ; )
Sign In or Register to comment.