Acura RSX v. Toyota Celica v. Mitsubishi Eclipse

kkofton · October 2001

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!!!

boomn29 · November 2001

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...

revka · November 2001

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

alex18t · November 2001

i would go with the RSX, it's better looking and more refined.

vikd · November 2001

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

alex18t · November 2001

O dont be silly

dehgenog · November 2001

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_1 · November 2001

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.

boomn29 · November 2001

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.

bobbyknight · November 2001

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.

robertsmx · November 2001

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).

uthinx · November 2001

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?

himiler · November 2001

The Celica number is down because the styling hasn't changed. Fresh styling is a key element in the sporty car segment.

sunilb · November 2001

how can that be if the Integra went unchanged for 7 years, and was still "up there"...?

diploid · November 2001

The Celica's styling hasn't changed because it's still relatively new.

carguy62 · November 2001

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.

robertsmx · November 2001

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.

alex18t · November 2001

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

aroon · March 2002

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

revka · March 2002

You may also want to copy/paste your question in our ongoing Acura RSX discussion. Good luck. ;-)

Revka
Host
Hatchbacks & Station Wagons Boards

cjmajesty · March 2002

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!

nippononly · April 2002

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.

beowulf7 · April 2002

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.

revka · April 2002

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

beowulf7 · April 2002

Thanks, you're always so responsive!

beowulf7 · April 2002

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.

beowulf7 · May 2002

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

nippononly · May 2002

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?

beowulf7 · May 2002

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.

nippononly · May 2002

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.

sarcasm82 · May 2002

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.

verozahl · May 2002

Hey, that's supposed to be my username. Punk. (^_^)

verozahl · May 2002

I like all of the Integra/RSX styling, and all of the Celica styles except for the latest 2000+ model. The 2003 Tiburon laughs at the current Celica generation. The 2000+ Eclipse is also a disappointing porker with a bad interior.

I agree that the Integra and 300ZX are in different classes, but I like both. The RSX and 350Z, I think, is a little closer, but still, different classes.

The RSX vs. Celica matchup does not include the porky 2000+ Eclipse. It's too big and bulky.

beowulf7 · May 2002

The Integra was boxy? That's news to me!

verozahl · May 2002

The 1990-1993 Integra has a nasty interior compared to my model, the 1994-2001 generation, but the exterior is the epitome of wedge-design, as good as the Probe, Prelude, 240SX, and SVX.

muffin_man · May 2002

90's supra overpriced, but Z not? Oh please... The Supra could outdrive that ridiculous overweight piece of roadkill any day of the week and still be home in time for an early dinner.

The only thing that the Z had in common with the Integra is that it weighed as much as two of them.

cjmajesty says:
"Z had to go back to the lab to come back to get it right..... "

Sounds exactly right to me.

uthinx · May 2002

I have been going to http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolsc.asp

every month to see the trends in sales figures for 'sporty' cars. The table gives actual sales numbers for the month, year; and the same month the previous year plus year to date for the previous year.

RSX, WRX and Eclipse are all up. The Celica has been down consistently for at least six months. Maybe the style attracts too narrow a band of buyers and that niche filled quickly. It will be interesting to watch sales numbers of the new Tiburon for the next six months.

nippononly · May 2002

RSX : two model years newer

WRX and eclipse: one model year newer

Any questions?

uthinx · May 2002

Honda Civic, Pontiac Grand Am and Grand Prix, Olds Alero, Dodge Neon among others :sales up. Are these all new designs? Ford Focus and several others steady; others have declining sales. I see no complete trend among the cars directly related to age of design. It seems to be a more complex relationship involving recent tales of reliability and the willingness of dealers/manufacturers to offer special prices and incentives/rebates coupled with new models coming out and the competition they provide as well as the seasonal sports car boost. However, Celica sales have been down steadily after its first year of introduction by my recollection. Did this happen to the Integra? I think not.

nippononly · May 2002

that the celica is just a crappy little car, but i think it is mainly because it is overpriced. Oh well, maybe this will be the last generation for the celica...but I still prefer the look over RSX and eclipse. Maybe for the majority of people it just looks too weird - I have seen lots of posts with negative views of its looks.

sgrd0q · May 2002

Well, I think the RSX/Celica/WRX sales are generated out of excitement and obviously excitement wears out after the model has been around for a while. This explains why the RSX figures are better right now.

The Neon sales, on the other hand, are generated out of necessity, i.e. you buy it if you can't afford anything better. And necessity does not wear out (as easily at least!) as excitement.

By the way I am not putting the RSX down - we have one in our household and I really like it.

nippononly · May 2002

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.

beowulf7 · May 2002

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

beowulf7 · May 2002

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!

nippononly · May 2002

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...

wendi66 · May 2002

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 yo..in 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:)......

nippononly · May 2002

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.

uthinx · May 2002

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.

03celica03 · January 2003

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!

michiganman · January 2003

"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.

vooch · January 2003

"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.

Acura RSX v. Toyota Celica v. Mitsubishi Eclipse

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles