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



  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    Honda will really bring the European civic type R here next year as it has hinted, and if so, if it will "steal" sales of RSX...two very different hatch designs visually.

    Whether it does or not, Honda has raised the bar with the RSX, and the next gen celica, if they do continue it (I hope so), will have to have a lot more power and a wider powerband than the current car in order to keep up with the competition.

    Isn't it amazing how many WRXs they have sold? I am glad, I always root for Subaru - they have a unique product line. I just keep noticing that I see WRXs everywhere.

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

  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    A while ago, I said I'd provide my own scorecard on how I rate coupes in this class. Well, here it is (fairly self-explanatory). I hope the formatting comes out OK.

    2002 2003 2002 2003 2002
    Acura Hyundai M-B Mitsu Toyota
    RSX Tiburon C230 Eclipse Celica
    Subjective Criteria Type-S GT V6 Coupe GTS GT-S
    Ergonomics/Driver Comfort 10% 8 6 7 8 8
    Engine Performance 20% 8 7 6 7 6
    Handling/Braking/Steering 15% 8 5 8 5 8
    Exterior Styling 15% 5 10 6 8 8
    "TMV" Price 15% 8 10 4 6 7
    Reliability/Reputation/Resale 15% 8 4 8 6 6
    Utility/Features 5% 6 7 6 9 9
    Warranty Coverage 5% 8 10 7 7 6

    Total 100% 7.45 7.2 6.45 6.75 7.1
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Somehow, the formatting got a little messed up. I basically weighted each of the 8 criteria and then ranked them from a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is low and 10 is high). The RSX came in first place with a score of 7.45. The C-Coupe came in last place with 6.45 points. As you see, all of these cars are ranked very close to each other, and almost each one is the best in one area and worst in another. Looks like I'll go with the RSX-S! :)
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    Celica gets less rated for warranty coverage than the RSX, even tho it has the longer powertrain warranty?

    But mainly, it gets the same reliability/resale rating as the Chrysler "oops, there's another recall" "good thing I saved money for repairs" Eclipse??????? No fair!!

    OK, flamers, begin...

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

  • wendi66wendi66 Posts: 2
    PLEASE help - need to write a check by 31 May!!!! RESALE: No data avail on RSX...can I ASSUME it will hold as well as '02 Celica in 5 yrs?
    DESIGN: RSX is new,Celica is 3 5 yrs won't there be more young males interested in used Celica vs. yuppies/college kids wanting usedAcura?
    REPAIRS: are Acura parts/service >$$ than Toyota?
    True Cost to Own-I think Acura's >$$ than Toyota?
    PURCHASE PRICE: w/delivery, RSX man w/o leather pkg. is $1517 > than Celica GT w/ALL options except leather/GT-S engine/sunroof.
    CONCLUSION: What do you advise? I'm practical, but slightly vain. I'm an idiot about anything mechanical. I need an extremely reliable car,low operating costs, and great resale. Thx 4 your help:)......
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    resale: the RSX will definitely hold better resale as a percentage of its new purchase price than the celica will, especially after three years

    design: the celica will be redesigned by 5 yrs from now, and RSX will most likely still have the same design, but I don't know what exactly that will mean for the used market. Integras were around for eight years in their last generation, but they were still hot sellers used. No way to know what the next celica will look like yet - dramatic change or merely evolution?

    repairs: true cost to own is higher for RSX than for celica, but not by much. In five years you will most likely not have to do more than regular maintenance on either car, which will cost more on the Acura if you go to the dealer, but then there is always that Acura "Total Luxury Care" that you get for the additional money. If I am not mistaken both RSX and celica GT use 87 pump gas, while both celica GTS and RSX-S use 91.

    purchase price: if you are considering the lower models of both, the cheaper car is definitely the celica with comparable options, altho the base RSX has one or two things the celica GT does not have, like rear disc brakes and bigger rims/tires. (standard moonroof too, right?). If you are considering RSX-S vs GTS, I think the RSX-S is cheaper, again comparably equipped.

    Conclusion: well, I shopped the RSX extensively, and then bought the celica GT, but that is just me. Both cars have the three attributes you listed: extremely reliable, low operating costs, and great resale - you can't go too far wrong. I did not want the luxury nameplate, I like the Toyota dealer I have been frequenting for years, and I much prefer the looks of the celica to those of the RSX. Like, I say, you can't go wrong picking either of these cars.

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

  • uthinxuthinx Posts: 21
    Plugging in my zip code at Edmunds and having the true cost to own numbers computed gave different results for me. The Celica was listed as having a slightly higher operating cost and retain a slightly higher resale percentage for the first three to four years. However, I dispute this as right now Celica sales are down which I think would affect resale value plus the reduce the price you might have to pay for one new.
    The Eclipse and Camaro are a joke in value retention and the Volkwagen GTI runs at third.
  • Eclipse:nice stlye,too heavy and handling is questionable under hard driving engine works hard but due to weight is slow
    Rsx:better quality,conservative pretty good handling and excellent for a driver who is older but wants a car that can accel and handle when needed but not as tight as celica
    Celica:accel excell,ride excell,handles awesome,great gas mileage,ferrari front,Lows:use of scratchable plastics, weak paint but where it counts it has it.push this car hard and never feel like the car is at its limit just keep an eye behind you!
  • "excellent for a driver who is older". I don't understand this part. It seems like you are saying something about people who would choose the RSX, but you don't mention specifically what that is, or what characteristics of the RSX would make them feel that way.
  • voochvooch Posts: 92
    "but wants a car that can accel and handle when needed but not as tight as celica"

    I think thats what he means by someone older. Someone that wants a better ride, a less jarring experience because you can feel everything in a Celica. I think he's also saying that the RSX is more refined as well. The Celica is anything but refined.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    While I would agree w/ you that the stock Celica GTS out-handles a stock RSX-S (mostly due to the former's lower weight), it's no doubt that the Acura out-accelerates, at least straight-line-wise, the Toyota.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    out-accelerate the celica on the straight! Celica's real magic lies in its awesome handling and stopping. In a race through a canyon, celica would win every time - you don't even need to slow down for corners in this car.

    The Acura has really good handling too, just not as good as celica, but better damped over bad pavement. My big surprise in the RSX was at how noisy the engine was inside the cockpit.

    The celica is the go-kart of sport coupes, with the rough ride to match, but it is fun to toss around. I wonder how its handling compares to the car currently being called a go-kart: the Mini. The Mini is also a bit of a porker, coming in at roughly what the RSX weighs, even more for the S.

    Maybe by now the Mini dealers have gotten off their snooty horses, and it is possible to test drive one without putting down a cash deposit...I'll have to check it out.

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

  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Would you agree that straight line performance is more important, for practical driving, than handling under hard turns? I merge on highways everyday and need to gun it to get a clean merge w/o making the guy behind me slow down. But I rarely take on/off ramps at a high speed just to get that lateral acceleration feel.

    BTW, if you put real tires on the RSX (not the crappy 16" Michelins Acura gives us), then the RSX would be very close in tire grip as the Celica. And lowering it by 1-1.5" would definitely make it out-handle the Celica.

    But you would have a valid point in saying that if $2k in mods were spent on the Celica, then it would beat a stock Celica, and probably a $2k modded RSX (in terms of handling).

    Either car will suit most coupe drivers fine.
  • Both cars have more than enough power for safe freeway merging, don't you think?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    in 90 degree freeway ramps is in taking the corner at 65 mph!

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

  • ...of our cars. When I was test-driving, the Celica GTS was actually my first choice, and first drive. It was an absolute blast. Cornered like a beast, had plenty of get up and go, looked sharp and fit me comfortably -- for the most part.

    After driving the RSX-S (and several other cars) I basically came down to a three-way choice between the Celica, the RSX and the Sentra Spec V (which stayed in the running so long on the basis of its excellent price).

    The RSX had a far superior interior and amenity package. The Celica looked better from the outside. The RSX-S had more power that was easier to tap into. The Celica stuck like glue in the twisties.

    For me it ultimately came down to price. Similarly outfitted, the Celica would have run me $2,000 more than the RSX-S, and I just couldn't see paying more for a car, that I thought was actually more downscale. Had the prices been dead even I don't know what I would have done.

    Bottom line is they're both sweet rides for the price.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Yes, both cars (assuming you get their respective highest trims) have more than enough power to merge safely on highways. But it's more fun punching the i-VTEC @ 8,100 RPM :). I think the 2001 Celicas would be more fun than the 2002 model I test drove since the latter had a lower red line.

    silverrsxs1, again you're right on. I also thought of the Celica as a better looking car. But unfortunately, I was only able test drive the base model (GT) in MT or the GTS in AT. None of the local dealers had a 6-speed GTS. :(
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    why do they even make an auto GTS?

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

  • Agreed, I was almost seduced by that 8000+ redline...
  • kevin111kevin111 Posts: 991
    Because the Celica had a higher price than the RSX-S, and the RSX-S was quicker, with more useable RPM range, I did not even look at the Celica. The base RSX almost competes with the Celica for 0-60. 7.6 vs 7.3. If the Celica was a couple grand cheaper (actually around $20K), would have considered it.
This discussion has been closed.