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)

pocahontaspocahontas Posts: 802
edited August 15 in Acura
Here's a direct link to Edmunds.com's (2001 New York Auto Show coverage) article of the 2002 Acura RSX. Please return here to post your comments. Thanks! ;-)


image


Pocahontas
Host
Hatchbacks/Station Wagons Message Boards

«13456783

Comments

  • revdrluvrevdrluv Posts: 417
    I actually like the look of the rsx but I really like the look of the civic type r that is going to be released in europe. That must be their equivalent of our rsx type s. It has more flair and more praticality with a full hatch and all. I would like to see honda continue to push the type r branding like elsewhere in the world. A type r civic, and accord would be nice. I know that the civic would compete to heavily with the rsx though which is why it won't happen. The integra has so many fans that they just couldn't kill it.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    So where's the body-side molding on the car? I'm meeting so tired of Honda (and others) cheaping out and leaving their cars even more vulnerable to parking lot damage. Am I the only one who would gladly pay another $200 on the sticker to have this? Does Honda actually think that their buyers LIKE door dings? There must be more to owning a car than trying to make a statement about fashion. Don't ownership costs count for anything nowadays?

    The upswept beltline at the C-pillar on the RSX makes for a pretty big blind spot, wouldn't you say? Also, the dash is much higher across the base of the windshield than in the current car. Looks kind of like a DSM coupe. And the wheels? YAWN! And please, don't even get me started on the McStruts in the front.

    Other than these gripes, I generally like the car and will probably replace my '98 GS-R with a Type-S, unless a WRX wagon should happen to fall from the sky into my garage. I briefly considered the '02 Civic Si until I saw that it's made in Swindon, England. Anybody remember Sterling? No thanks!
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    There is no comparison between the Sterling and the English built Civic Si. The Sterling was a Rover designed and built car powered by Honda's engine and transmission. All the electronics and body trim that were so troublesome were due to Rover's shoddy build quality. The Civic Si, on the other hand, is a Honda design and is built in a Honda factory. There should be no difference in quality between a US built Civic and an English built one. I say give the Civic Si a shot if you really like it. At least test drive it before labeling it junk just because it was built in England.
  • jk111jk111 Posts: 125
    that is actually the one I saw at the new york auto show. In person, the car looks too much like the current gen Civic. I wasn't too impressed with the styling, it seems like they tried to merge the civic with a hint of celica. I hope the performance will make up for it.
  • snaphooksnaphook Posts: 130
    About the body side molding. I asked the same question when I first saw the Toyota Celica. The answer I got, may or may not be true, is that the doors were not metal but rather some sort of ding resistant material. If this is true maybe that's also the case with the rsx.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    I just noticed, the new RSX does not have a front center armrest available. This will make it very tiring to drive on long trips.
    This is going to cross the car off many lists unless people fail to notice during their 5 minute test drives.
  • ineto6ineto6 Posts: 161
    won't help when you park next to a taller vehicle. Anyway, side moldings take away some aesthetic of a car.

    The older Integras did not have center consoles either. Not a problem if you keep your hands on the wheels. On the other hand, I hardly ever use arm rests even for 4+ hours of driving.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    And I suppose that door dings DO add to the aesthetic appeal of a design? Sorry, I guess I put too much emphasis on a design that is both aesthetically appealing AND practical. Take a peek at the new M3 if you need an example.

    Re:Civic Si--
    Perhaps my comparisons to Sterling were unfounded, but I know from experience that the '91 Civic hatch I owned sure was screwed together better than my '98 Civic hatch. Japan vs. Canada production. Give me choice between a Honda/Acura made in Japan or anywhere else, and I'll always go with the one made in Japan.

    And no center armrest either? If there's no dealer-installed accessory, you can count me out, too! Hello, Subaru store?
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    If you really don't want door dings, you need to park far away from other vehicles. The door protective strips do not always line up propery with the other car and you get dings anyway.
    They give you a false sense of security.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    My 00 Accent has wide side mouldings that didnt keep a shopping cart from leaving a lovely crease. I prefer to have mouldings on a car, but honestly, newer cars have them mounted so low that they are useless. My VW Rabbit's mouldings are mounted about 8" higher up and would have kept the cart from denting my car. In fact, for a 17 year old car, it is amazingly free of dings. Too bad other cars don't follow its useful design, but on today's cars, it would look quite out of place. A very good example of design over function.
  • fokus5fokus5 Posts: 38
    easily-dinged-up-doors assure manufacturers that people won't keep their cars for 17 years.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

    I think that what the whole molding issue boils down to is a continuing trend of "de-contenting" vehicles. My '87 Prelude had interior lights that slowly dimmed to off when you shut the door, and I had a '89 'Lude that had a lighted ring around the driver's-side keyhole, so that it was easier to find in the dark. Hell, even the little pull-down change bin was lit.

    Now you can only find these small touches on the luxury ($$) makes.

    Granted, these things have nothing to do with a car's road-going performance, but they sure do make the ownership experience more satisfying.

    Then again, why should I care? I have to buy a new car every 30 months! The hardest part is figuring out which one to buy.
  • tgo63tgo63 Posts: 16
    I'm curious how many passengers back seat of rsx can hold. I seriously consider rsx as a replacement for my present car but since I have three children, eldest is nine, this is an important issue for me. Our other car is 2000 accord lx 5 speed.
    Tom
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    It is not intended to be a family car. It is not a practical car for someone with 3 kids.
  • tgo63tgo63 Posts: 16
    My kids are 9, 7 and 4. They have all the space they need in the accord. before we used to have a Ford Aerostar and I find the back seat of Accord more comfortable for the kids then middle bench in Ford. I know rsx is not intended to be family car, but I drive to work 25 miles one way alone and I don't think I need truckish SUV or big minivan to get me there. Plus my kids get a kick out of a little g-force. It would be nice though to have three seat belts in the back seat of rsx.
  • davem2001davem2001 Posts: 564
    It's designed to be a sports-car, especially the 200Hp Type S.
    I think nit-picking it about lack of body side mouldings or whether it holds 3 people in the back seat are a little off base.
    If that's your main concern, look at an Accord or Camry.
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    Anybody heard a price range on this yet?
  • davem2001davem2001 Posts: 564
    estimates of around $19,500 for a 'base' model to around $24,500 for the Type S. Probably very similar to the existing Integra line in price.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    When I analyze the photo I can see the obvious differences in design, but when just seeing it over all from any front to front/side angle, I just keep seeing the previous body style civic coupe. Not flaming the car or anything. Does any one else think the same thing?
  • revdrluvrevdrluv Posts: 417
    I don't dislike the new rsx it just seems a little sterile. Much like the previous civic si coupe, almost exciting.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    It's a "sports coupe," a class of auto which places less of an emphasis on maximum performance, and has more of a practical nature. I wouldn't consider a Camry or Accord if you paid me to. And for $25K, I think it's fair to nit-pick, considering that the designers had 4 extra years to develop the car.

    The styling is tepid, but that might make it "age" better than the Cougar, Eclipse or Celica. It's certainly not a "flavor-of-the-month" design. Definately could use another character line, though. Maybe something to give the wheel arches some unity. The car looks like it's up on tip-toe.

    The previous-generation Civic coupe styling was a nearly-obvious copy of the previous BMW 3-Series coupe, particularly when viewed from the rear-3/4 angle. No wonder it looks better than the new Civic coupe.
  • davem2001davem2001 Posts: 564
    An Accord or Camry would have a really roomy back seat, and probably has great body side moldings too.
  • only1harryonly1harry Posts: 1,136
    If Honda prices the RSX at $24K or higher, the sales will suffer greatly. The WRX although a sedan and ugly, offers way more. I 'm not a Subaru fan and never have been, but I can't help admiring the performance (5.8-6.0sec 0-60) and the AWD that car offers. Of course I 'd probably never buy it, unless I was in the market for a sedan or a wagon with lots of room, but I 'll be in the market for a sports coupe in year or 2. If the RSX is priced at $20-22K, then it will make my car shopping list. Right now I feel the current gen. Integra looks better than the RSX and my other option is getting a used Type-R next year if I can stop modding my GSR for a few months (it gets addicting). Unless the new RSX has better handling and acceleration than the current ITR, I can't see Acura charging $24K for it or as much as an ITR. So my guess is, the RSX Type-S will be around $22.5K or have the same sticker as today's GSR. With so many other sports coupes coming out this year for under $20K, I think it would be a big mistake for Acura to price the RSX in the WRX range, when everyone knows it can't compete with it.
    Lets see how badly they 'll screw this one up..
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    WRX is limited production and it is ugly. Looks matter. There will not be enough WRXs available to be sold for it to affect RSX sales in any way.
    The WRX is a moot non-issue, that can be easily dismissed as any threat.
  • sunilbsunilb Posts: 407
    I believe that Acura is trying to move the RSX up on the luxury side of things. While the performance might be slightly improved, I think they are going to try and justify a higher price because of it will be higher grade materials used inside compared to the previous generation.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Sure the WRX is ugly, but it's a REAL sports car that goes like stink on any road, in any weather condition, unlike the RSX which doesn't even have a LSD.

    Understand that any buyer (myself included) that shops the RSX for performance will be cross-shopping the WRX. For buyers more interested in styling, such as those in the secretary pool, the WRX won't even show up on the radar.

    And yes, Acura is obviously trying to move the car upmarket (climate control, standard leather on Type-S, richer interior). But I'm not interested in paying extra for features I don't want or need. If the performance doesn't justify the cost, I'm not interested. only1harry makes an excellent argument on this point.

    davem2001: What hurts more--sticking your thumb in, or pulling it out?
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    I heard that the WRX is $26K fully loaded with the $1000 automatic transmission option and they will be produced in miniscule numbers, so they are not really an option compared to a $23K RSX.
    One of the biggest turn offs for the WRX is the extremely crude and bone-jarring highway ride.
    The noise and violent ride will make it extremely tiresome as a daily driver.
    I suppose if it is only going to be used as a weekend toy to go screaming down winding mountain roads for fun, it would be an ok car for that purpose, but not for daily driving.
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    No, if you're shopping an RSX strictly for
    performance you *have* to cross shop the WRX
    (among others) but don't put the WRX above the
    RSX just because it's "roomier". I've been in
    a WRX and it has less room, front and back, than
    my Civic coupe. I've described the car in other
    settings as a "2 seater sedan".

    If factors other than sheer performance (if
    that's all you care about shouldn't be shopping
    a sport coupe) enter your buying equation, like
    quality (build and materials), comfort, features,
    reliability or resale value than the RSX *kills*
    the WRX.
  • wordman93wordman93 Posts: 36
    a WRX is no worse than the highway ride in a current gen Integra. In fact the WRX (IMO) handled bumps in the road far better than the Integra. For obvious reasons I can't comment on the ride quality of the up coming RSX but I hope it's alot better than that of the Integra. The guys at Sport Compact seem to like it.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    First off, I don't buy autoboxes. Secondly, I've read dozens of articles on the WRX and not a single one has mentioned a "bone-jarring" ride. As for interior noise, at 70mph the WRX has a cruising noise level of 74dB. Compare that number to the same measurment in the new MB C-Class sedan (75dB @70mph), and your claim would appear to be unfounded.

    Subaru will produce 10,000 WRX's this year--hardly a "miniscule" number. And if you're talking about a "daily driver", come live here in Syracuse with our 170 inches of snow every winter, and then see which car will get you around easier.

    Your conclusion that the WRX is "not really an option" when compared to the RSX may be what you'd like to believe, but I'm doubtful that it is correct.

    Wordman93: I am sure the highway manners of the RSX will out-class those of the current Integra by a far sight. Pretty much anything would be an improvement, really. AutoWeek mentioned that the Type S is so quiet at full throttle that it's "nearly unnerving, more so than the noise of the Integra." That would be nice.

    ranald: If I were only shopping for performance, I'd drive a (GOD FORBID) Z28. The interior appointments in the WRX are a major step-up from what's in the current Integra. And, as you might not be aware, Subarus are renowned for their reliability, longevity, and build quality.

    I don't think that the RSX will "*kill*" anything other than some of the expectations that have been created around it.
«13456783
This discussion has been closed.