Howdy, Stranger!

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





Acura RSX v. Toyota Celica v. Mitsubishi Eclipse

kkoftonkkofton Posts: 1
edited March 24 in Acura
I am in the market for a new vehicle and I am debating between the Celica and the RSX. Seem's to me like I get more for my money with the RSX and both exterior's impress me, it's the interior of the RSX I am not to thrilled about. Which one should I pick? HELP!!!
«13

Comments

  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    I think there has already been bid discussions on this exact issue. You may get more (if you think) with the RSX, but you pay several thousand more...
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    In addition to the feedback here, you should also try comparing these two vehicles in Edmunds' Side by Side Vehicle Comparison. You'll find a direct link to that tool into the Additional Resources on the left side of the page. Hope this is helpful.

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • alex18talex18t Posts: 117
    i would go with the RSX, it's better looking and more refined.
  • vikdvikd Posts: 187
    The RSX (and this is hard for me to say being a previously satified Acura owner) looks too much like an Insight...just dont want my sports car to look like a Hybrid.

    My .02
  • alex18talex18t Posts: 117
    O dont be silly
  • I'm not too sure why there's even a topic on this. 1. The RSK does NOT look like insight, I really don't see any cues that would make one think that. 2. The RSX is not comparable to Celica on any category.
  • bill_1bill_1 Posts: 97
    I wouldn't say that the RSX looks like an Insight, but there is certainly something of a family resemblence (and for what it is worth, I don't think the Insight is a bad looking car) there. That being said, I think if one is worried about looks, the RSX is a better choice than Celica; I think in 5 years the Celica will be looking a little dated (though it has held up so far) while I think the RSX will still look pretty decent.
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    How can you say that. The RSX copied many things directly from the Celica. Both 6-speeds, the same exact foot peddles, the dash (odometer and speedometer) are EXACTLY alike. Similar speed and performance numbers, giving the edge to the newer Acura probably. The are prices very close with Acura being a few thou higher.
  • I think that the RSX borrowed its six speed from the 911, or the Miata, or possibly the S2000. Saying it copyied directly from the Celica is ridiculous. The Celica is just what a Toyota should be and the RSX is exaclty what an Acura should be, they are very different cars, the RSX is MUCH more conservative and mature.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I think Celica was designed to appeal to the same crowd that Integra was designed for (low 20's). With Integra's evolution into RSX, it seems Acura marketing decided to give it a more subtle look befitting a more expensive car and appeal to a higher age group (25-35).
  • uthinxuthinx Posts: 21
    Here are the sales figures for sporty cars for October 2001. http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolsc.asp


    Celica figures are down from last year. Since there were no significant changes in the design is this because the market for this kind of styling is becoming saturated?

  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    The Celica number is down because the styling hasn't changed. Fresh styling is a key element in the sporty car segment.
  • sunilbsunilb Posts: 407
    how can that be if the Integra went unchanged for 7 years, and was still "up there"...?
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    The Celica's styling hasn't changed because it's still relatively new.
  • carguy62carguy62 Posts: 545
    I look at the RSX and think it greatly resembles my '89 Accord H/B (which was almost identical to the Integra of that era). IMO Honda has kept that familiar look throughout the years. So since my over 12 year old vehicle resembles a brand new model I would say Honda knows how to design something so it won't be out of style.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    Just look at a 1990 Accord, and other cars of its era. May be then, it was just like another three box design.

    Honda usually uses cues from its existing/past models. When they launched the '98 Accord, they either used NSXesque rear on the coupe, or that from late 80's Prelude on sedan. The RSX's rear is similar to older Hondas, and especially closer to the good old Legend.
  • alex18talex18t Posts: 117
    That You cant reason with Honda fans. Forgive my momentary lapse.

    bobbyknight - you live up to the handle ;)

    But I have to ask. what should a toyota be and what should an acura be?

    I think toyota has much more personality than Acura. toyota has a very illustrious racing background and they also make lexus, which has much more attitude than acura. whattaya think bobby? write back :)
  • aroonaroon Posts: 2
    Hello everyone. I am new here. Anyway, I realize this is slightly off topic but does anyone know where reverse is situated in the RSX six speed tranny? To the left of first? Or beside sixth?
    And to any owners, is it possible to screw up the car buy accidentally shifting from second to first (yes, i know that first is directly up from second, but still), if reverse is beside that gear>?

    Or is it possible to shift from fifth to sixth if R is situated there?

    The reason I ask is that although i have driven the base RSX, i did not have shift into reverse, and generally Honda products do not have a "reverse mechanism." For example Fords (Focus and Cougar, to name 2) have a ring to pull up to shift into reverse.

    -Aroon
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    You may also want to copy/paste your question in our ongoing Acura RSX discussion. Good luck. ;-)

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks & Station Wagons Boards
  • OK First off for somebody to say that that the RSX copied any thing off of the celica Is just... je ne sais quoi! (BOOMN29 "Both 6-speeds, the same exact foot peddles, the dash (odometer and speedometer) are EXACTLY alike")That just blew my mind!! First of all the dashes & gauges look nothing alike. Six speed & foot peddles...? c'mon. I guess the fact that it has wheels & an engine is copying off of toyota too!!! The celica was just recently invited to the party with this new body style. Acura ran that integra body style from 94 through 2001. They were waiting for everybody to catch up. Years ago I wrote motor trend to find out why the celica was not included in there bang for the buck comparison they said it was too expensive with not enough performance to compete. This was the celica that copied off of the integras double round headlights. That celica was hidious. Personality is a decade old car in higher demand than the current model. Count how many early 90's Civics & integras you see in comparison to celicas & Corolla's Honda/Acura runs this import scene. Dont you forget it!!! Supra...gone rx-7 gone Z had to go back to the lab to come back to get it right..... NSX still here!!!Take notes ...........Fin!
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,693
    I think it just has to be said here that the RSX was restyled way too conservatively, while the current celica really stands out, and people take note when it drives by. There are a couple of Hyundais, for instance, that the RSX can almost be mistaken for. Celica sales are leveling off now that the car is in its third year, but you have to bear in mind that it is more than halfway to its next redesign. The RSX is still brand new. Also, I do not think that it is that surprising that Acura wanted to bring the RSX "more into the fold" of the other Acura models - more conservative and luxurious. Then they can raise the price some more next time. The boy-racer Integra is gone folks, just face it.

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

  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Moderator (Revka or Shifty), can we include the 2003 Mitsubishi Eclipse GTS to compare with the 2002 Acura RSX Type S and 2002 Toyota Celica GTS? Or maybe also against 2003 Hyundai Tiburon GT V6? I'm curious as to how this refreshed Eclipse does. Thanks.
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    Also, feel free to start up a new discussion, with other vehicle variations..., on this board if you'd like. Happy motoring!

    Revka
    Host
    Hatchbacks & Station Wagons Boards
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Thanks, you're always so responsive! :)
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    I finally test drove it the other day. It was fast! :) What an enjoyable test drive! The shifter seemed a lot smoother than the 2002 Eclipse GT I drove a couple months ago. However, the car did seem a little heavy when cornering, probably b/c of that heavy engine weight in the front. Very soon I'll drive the RSX-S which should be an interesting comparison.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    In the May 2002 issue of Car and Driver, the reviewers ranked these five cars in the following order:

    5.) 2002 VW New Beetle Turbo S

    4.) 2003 Hyundai Tiburon GT V6

    2.) (tie) 2003 Mitsu Eclipse GTS

    2.) (tie) 2002 Toyota Celica GTS

    1.) 2002 Acura RSX Type S


    Good reading. The magazine has tables which C&D left out on their Web site:

    http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/comparisontests/2002/may/200205_comparo_sportcoupes.xml

  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,693
    They basically decided that the RSX edged the celica because of a slightly more useable powerband and a nicer interior. I drove both before buying my celica, and I can say that two of the things that they point out as "lows" for the RSX are very true - that car is very noisy inside, especially if the pavement is bad, and the steering is definitely not as good as the celica's. But the "highs" they list are true too...in my opinion, celica would have come out the winner in this comparo if the price were a couple of thousand $$ lower, and the cam lift changeover point came about 500-1000 rpm below the current 6000 rpm point. This would give it more useable power, and make it a better bargain than the very-conservative RSX. I mean, in the looks department, there is no question which is better. And for regular driving on California's crummy roads, the celica also has a better ride, while still having awesome handling.

    I think it is funny that the celica, an everyman's Toyota, is constantly being compared to the RSX, which is supposed to be a luxury brand. Shouldn't the luxury brand have to compete with other luxury brands?

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

  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    nippononly, I think RSX vs. Celica (vs. Eclipse, Tiburon, etc.) are valid b/c they are all in the same price range and share a similar feature set. I agree that a well-equipped Celica GT-S should be at least $1-2 k lower than RSX-S. I couldn't believe that Celicas still come w/ 15" tires/wheels. And only a single CD player? At least they come w/ fog lights, unlike RSXs.

    Is your Celica MT or AT? I've only been able to drive the AT for Celica GT-S, although I did get to test drive a manny tranny for the base trim (Celica GT). I like the Celica's low weight, which should make it fun to toss around, even for FWD. And yes, its looks are better than the RSX. But the RSX's interior is so much better and few makes hold their resale value better than Acuras.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,693
    I hate to drive ATs - actually I did test drive one of the ATs at a time last year when there was very limited availability of the manual, and I thought the button shifting of the AT was cool, but ultimately that was one slow car.

    The celica's weight is one of the key factors that weighed in my decision to choose it over Acura etc - it is really fun and light to toss around - steering is razor sharp and accurate.

    I think the celica is in some ways Toyota's compromise car - some things are $20K+ things, and some are bargain basement stuff off the corolla.

    I have seen a lot of complaints about the interior, however, and on this one point I disagree. This is merely a priorities question as far as I am concerned, and if Toyota was cost-cutting to keep the price down on this car, then I think the interior was an acceptable compromise. Yes, there are some hard plastics, including one or two places that can really get marked up, but at the same time it is very stylish, plenty comfortable enough, and has lots of great storage.

    I don't know why Toyota does not put in an in-dash changer - other models have them, and as for the 15" wheels, yes, that is also a little puzzling. This is something the new Civic SI is also catching a lot of flack on, and I guess maybe both manufacturers figure people will want to upgrade either way, so why increase cost putting on good rims and tires that are just going to get taken off and replaced? Who knows, this might be the reason. I WILL say that the celica with the 16" rims and the 50 series tires strikes a really good compromise in my book - best stock handling in any car I have ever owned, and still comfortable through the ruts and the potholes.

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

  • sarcasm82sarcasm82 Posts: 1
    I don't think you KNOW your history on the Integra NOR the nissan Z's. First of all, each generation of Z's have ALWAYS been ahead of their time. They have a VERY powerful engine in their car both base and Twin Turbo. Not only are they fast but the cars are also light weight. These cars have been out since 1970. And you were saying that the Integra was waiting for everyone to catch up? Um, the Z has always been ahead, esp the Integra. The Z is like an exotic car. Its not an everyday car like the Integra and the price of it wasn't for young teens looking for the need for speed. I agree that Toyota did over price their Supra. Hell, a 95'supra in the paper costs $25,000 NOW! But that car had personality and style, unlike the Integra. And yeah the new Z is coming out this August and this car is better than ever. Again ahead of its time. The car is topping over 280HP+. The Z is in a different category than the Integra, hands down.
    Of course theres more Honda Civics, they weren't expensive. Don't say its b/c of the style, its b/c of the price they wanted for those cars. And I find the early style celicas to be nice. I own a 92' and its a sharp looking car, not boxy like the Integra.
«13
This discussion has been closed.