Acura RSX (All years/types)

tommyp13 · July 2001

I feel for you CA guys. It seems as though you always get screwed with markups. Guess that's the cost of all of that year-round great weather.

Start calling/emailing local dealers to see what they're doing. I'm sure clubrsx will have other dealers that are charging msrp.

Don't give up and pay over msrp. No car's worth that.

n8236 · July 2001

I know leather and insurance has no relation at all, but just tryin' to hit these two questions off my head.
I was able to find a dealer ( Serramonte, CA ) which was selling the car just a tick below MSRP. I was given a price of $2.23k for an base RSX, with auto and leather. Since California's weather is decent year round, I was wondering if the leather was completely necessary. I really like to have it since it is an " Acura " car, but yet...is it worth it for the car. I dun want to look like a Civic with leather, it's just sad to make your car look cheaper than the seats. lol

n8236 · July 2001

Sorry 'bout the insurance and leather relation. Hehe...belongs elsewhere.

himiler · July 2001

C&D does multiple braking runs, and then takes the average of those runs.

Given their collective experience, I'm confident that C&D's editors are adept at techniques required to obtain maximum performance fron the vehicles they test.

ligart · July 2001

Why do bad weather and leather go together? :-\

Whatever the reason, I think the RSX looks great with leather seats--it's not at all a case of "leather on a Civic". The quality of the interior trim is very high and classy and can only be complemented by leather.

If you really like it, go for it!

ligart · July 2001

Strange no one has mentioned this yet...it appears one has no choice of interior color for a given exterior color. For example, Firepepper Red Pearl comes only with a gray (oops, Platinum) interior. Yuk!

I might expect this from Honda, but Acura?

I remember 10 or so years ago interiors came in an array of colors. Then they came in just tan/gray/black, but at least the entire interior was that color. Then they came with the dash and center console always black. Now it looks like they come with no choice at all.

Pretty soon we'll be able to get any exterior color we want, as long as it's black.

:-(

diploid · July 2001

One of the Type-R's interior is blue (I think it only comes with the blue colored Type-R). But you can only get that if you live in Japan.

vinceburlapp · July 2001

A friend from Japan sent me this picture . It seems Honda has built a few prototypes of 4 door Intergras, that might well end up as 4 door RSX in the U.S.

http://www.thehollywoodextra.com

Scroll down to my (red) link, to the "car page".

diploid · July 2001

Thanx for the pics, Vince.

What the...? The 2003 Accord looks exactly like the redesigned Altima!

vinceburlapp · July 2001

I know... I think Honda is working on more than one design. These might just be studies...I am supposed to get a pic of the Wagon soon.

diploid · July 2001

Honda is too slow. By the time the Accord wagon comes out, people will probably not want one. Nowadays, all the rage are wagons and hatchbacks. 3 years from now they may despise wagons and hatchbacks, just as everyone else did a few years ago.

I just noticed that the Lexus RX300 picture looks a lot like the current model...I think someone used a photo imaging program.

dave5678 · July 2001

Has anybody come across 0-60 times for the 5 speed automatic RSX?

m_les · July 2001

after several long test drives, i think the rsx is a flawed beauty. it looks great, has a sweet engine and handles magnificently. HOWEVER -- as others have pointed out -- the braking is dreadful. honda should be able to stop a small coupe in far, far less than 180 feet. next, the high-powered bose stereo is very weak sounding and will need an amplifier added. and why is the hazard light button in the middle of the stereo controls? the front-seat passenger has no good place to plant his feet and there is no passenger grab handle. no center armrest. the dead pedal is now just a loosely attached piece of thin plastic instead of a solid tightly bolted block as in the integra. you can wiggle it with your foot in the rsx. the mirror switch has been moved from driver's door handle to dash. most colors of the rsx come with a pale beige interior that screams chick car. that means males are limited to blue, silver and black. speaking of the interior, the textured material that covers the dash over the instrument pod is a dirt magnet. how would you ever clean something like that? you can't wipe it or armor-all it. year after year it will suck in dust, grime and dead bugs. an oily hand print from a service technician on the beige interior will never come out. finally, acura dealers have tarted-up the rsx like pimpmobiles, adding body kits, spoilers and different wheels. now why would somebody pay the dealer $2,000 extra for the less-attractive 7-spoke wheels? and what happens to the stock wheels they remove? since they are included in msrp, don't the stock wheels belong to the car's buyer?
the rsx is an amazing vehicle, but has many flaws that could have easily been foreseen and fixed at almost no cost to honda.

only1harry · July 2001

but to take away the arm rest and the passenger grab handle is a sin! Those are 2 of the few features I like in my GSR. I like being able to put 5-6 CDs inside the armrest enclosure and hold on for my life on that passenger handle above when in my brother's Type-R, or when my passengers want to hold on to something. That handle provides great support for your passenger especially when driving around with a modified suspension and Kumho V700 R compound tires. What were they thinking? I guess they 're trying to save a few bucks here and there and that shouldn't be the case in an Acura. Then I read about the flimsy plastic foot rest.. and the predominantly beige interior. I hate a beige interior! It shows everything. My wife's '98 Galant had a beige interior and we regreted it. You 're all right about the interior choices. I was looking at the new Civics as my daily driver to replace my '97 Civic HB, and you 're lucky if you get 2 interior color choices. Most of the time you don't have a choice! Honda is beginning to disappoint me. I think I may try and find a leftover Integra LS for my daily driver that is now selling for thousands less under invoice.

mitsugst · July 2001

Phew...,
I thought you guys where going to come up something substantial. These aren't flaws, there character. I only wish other cars had as little of this, as this car has. Who wants a car that's perfect but unreasonably priced (BMW for example)...Or a car with everything, plus a good price, that's just falling apart (Pontiac for example).

With little to complain about, what's left. I guess we'll just have to go buy one for ourselves so we can take a closer look and nit pick about everything we find.

diploid · July 2001

you're right, every car has its flaws. it can be in terms of handling, acceleration, mpg ratings, whatever. But for Acura, to have a flaw in the braking department is very disappointing. I can forgive cheap interior materials or low mpg ratings, but braking...that's more of a safety issue than just a car's flaw.

konafocus · July 2001

At first I thought it looked too much like a Celica, but looking at it now it has its own thing going on!! While I know no car is purfect, each car has its advantages over others. I will be trading in my Focus pretty soon, I am looking at the RSX and SVT version of the Focus, hands down the bang for the buck is the SVT, bu the RSX has so much character and potential it is hard to pass up? Nice job by Honda, the brakes can be changed for better aftermarket rotors and pads!

himiler · July 2001

How can small (but very useful) details intentionally overlooked by the manufacturer be considered as adding to a car's character? Sounds more like penny-pinching to me. I guess Acura is hoping you'll overlook a few warts to get at that lame Bose set-up and the slippery leather seats.

If you're looking for a car with character, buy a WRX wagon: I'm ordering mine this Friday to replace my GS-R. Adios, Acura. It was fun while it lasted.

drew37 · July 2001

Okay, let me get this straight because I don't want to make a serious mistake. Is it just a pale beige interior that screams chick car, or is this also true for other shades of beige? Are there any other colors, options or accessories that a man should avoid? If I get a really cool tattoo of a battleship on my arm and let my arm hang out the window will this cancel out the pale beige interior effect?

m_les · July 2001

actually, the interior color that acura describes as "titanium" is like a beige mixed with pink. if that color floats your battleship, then go for it. but i think acura had women in mind when they selected it.
another thing, remember the thick shifter knob in the gsr? now it is a delicate little piece of thin plastic.

ligart · July 2001

Looked like light gray to me ;-)

woohah · July 2001

I see that the torque levels are very similar, but the horsepower is different 160/200. What will this extra horsepower give me. I always thought torque gives me acceleration so does the horsepower give me a higher top speed or something else.

than

fxashun · July 2001

what about the WRX's flaw. That car is ugly and has no sunroof. But I guess the 4 wheel drive makes up for that. I'm waiting for the CL type S with the 6 speed.

ranald · July 2001

The max torque is very similar between the RSX and the Type-S, but the Type-S has extra horsepower because it keeps producing that torque to a higher rpm level than the base. (remember, hp=torque*rpm/5252)

So the cars will behave similarly at low-med rpm levels (looking at the torque curves, the base should even have a slight edge here) but as you accelerate and the rpm's mount, the Type-S will be able to keep accelerating in gear long after the base needs to shift.

Common terminology for that is that the Type-S has a "better top end", or that the base "runs out of breath".

ranald · July 2001

I guess you could say each car has "flaws", but I think of it more as each car having to make certain compromises to keep the price down. It's just not reasonable to expect a 20-25K car to be perfect at everything- even a 50K car has trouble doing that.

I believe them to both be outstanding cars each in their own way. The characteristics I'm looking for in my next car make me lean toward the RSX, but that's just me.

What annoys me about the whole RSX vs. WRX debate is when champions of a particular car start misrepresenting facts to support their argument.

One obvious example is people who say the handling of the RSX must be inferior to the WRX or Celica or whatever because it used MacPherson struts in front. Such people must be very proud to be able to maintain such high standards of ignorance. The Celica uses MacPherson struts in front too, and IIRC the WRX uses them at all 4 corners.

woohah · July 2001

So I will have a better top end and will likely shift more or less with the 6 speed. The only difference is the engine and the bose stereo so I am trying to figure out if it is worth the extra money or not.

thanx

diploid · July 2001

If you're on a budget, get the base. if you can afford the type-S...why not?
You can't go wrong with either model. And if you want to play "chicken" with Honda, you can wait and see if they'll bring over the type-R.

Question for everyone: Acura has the types S and R. Jaguar also has S types. Is this some sort of luxury auto lingo?

fxashun · July 2001

Acura I believe is trying to go upmarket. Wait for the new V8 RL and we'll see how serious they are about it.

opm2 · July 2001

All you need to know about torque vs. horsepower:

http://www.zhome.com/ZCMnL/tech/torqueHP.htm

I like the RSX but am waiting to test the 2002 Altima - 240 hp V6 - available in manual - 2 adults can fit in the back. And have you guys seen the pictures?! It looks like an Audi TT in sedan form. Check out www.nissandriven.com

diploid · July 2001

himiler · July 2001

I looked at it this way: If I'm gonna have to settle for struts, I might as well get AWD and a rear LSD. Functional performance, that's what ultimately sold me on the WRX wagon. Of course, I'd still prefer front double wishbones, and probably would've stayed with Acura if the RSX had 'em.

Besides, at the 2% over invoice that I'm paying for the WRX, I can live with the wacky styling. Not that the WRX looks all that much worse than the RSX, particularly when you're being hit for full MSRP on the RSX.

majorthomecho · July 2001

As I was leaving a parking garage, I saw a Acura RSX for the first time. So interested was I that I reparked my car and went over to give the RSX the once over.

Can someone tell me if all the RSXs have bigger tires in front as opposed to the back or is this some modification the owner made to his car?

Either way, big front tires/smaller rear tires looked very funny. Overall, I liked the looks of the car, but there are a few styling points that looked a little out of place. But hey, I drive an Echo so what do I know about styling. ; ) Definitely a larger car than I thought it would be.

Getting a look at it makes me wonder what rental car company might have one to use for the weekend.

fxashun · July 2001

It drives like a lot more car than it looks like it is.

blueguydotcom · July 2001

Honda must be run by a committee hell-bent on making it the most banal company on earth. Or all vehicle design and development follows the requests issued by black socks and sandals wearing focus group participants from the Midwest. Either way, Honda's latest offering is the much anticipated Acura Integra replacement, the Acura RSX.

For some odd reason the marketing wizards at Acura deemed it wise to sever the last attachment Acura maintains with its short 15-year history. Losing the Integra name, Honda pushes the entire Acura line toward the absolutely asinine nonsensical letter combinations some MBA must believe Americans associate with luxury and quality. Guess, what Mr. Skippy Hoogledorf, Dartmouth MBA? People did associate the Integra name with quality, reliability and value. Contrary to whatever your focus group told you, useless letter combinations carry no more panache than a name with well over a decade of built-in goodwill. Unlike the model designations of competitors like Mercedes, BMW and to a much lesser extent Lexus, Acura's names mean nothing. RSX? Well that stands for...RSX. Just like TL is well a TL. Compare that to BMW's 325, where the 3 is the model series, and the 25 stands for the 2.5 liter inline six (gorgeous engine, by the way).

Enough complaining about the Integra's...oops, RSX's new name. What about the car? Well as the whole world knows, the RSX and its former brother the long in the tooth Integra are both based on a Civic platform. With the old Integra one never really saw the Civic platform peeking through. The same cannot be said of the all-new 2002 RSX. The moment one lays eyes on this over-priced claptrap there exists no doubt it's a Civic coupe with slightly sporty styling. The frontend's lights may not be a match for the Civic's but the family resemblance from the edge of the lights to the end of the front fenders is more obvious than Angelina Jolie's Frankensteinian cosmetic surgery results. The rear fenders on are also just as slab-sided as the Civic coupe's. All told, the car's essentially a spiffier version of a Civic on the outside.

The interior? I wish I could leave it at cheap, but that'd be doing a disservice to the likes of Kia and Hyundai.

To read the whole review, visit my site: http://www.blue-guy.com/roadtests/2002acurarsx.html

fxashun · July 2001

That guy just wants someone to visit his site.

ranald · July 2001

Wow, what a huge lot of bad assumptions and worse attitude. You'd think he'd never seen an Integra before (it's a great car, but put a 3rd gen teg next to a 5th gen Civic coupe and they're twins), and he's somehow been led to expect the RSX to be an M3 or something.

ranald · July 2001

I actually checked out the full review. It's pretty sad. Seems the reviewer (only employee?) is one of those folks who tries to show how knowledgable he is by putting down everything.

He even goes so far asto claim that the trunk is small. 18 cu ft is small? That's just one of the more obvious absurdities in the review.

Blueguy.com: Not recommended, 2 thumbs down.

mitsugst · July 2001

bluguydotcom,

All I have to say is that your review is pathetic, and the site reflects it. Also, be careful with copyrights.

When your views on things are in line with some kind of audience then maybe your site will get off the ground.

For a better nonprofit start-up review site, visit:

http://home.netvigator.com/~europa/Main_Menu.htm

I found it web-surfing once upon a time. It reviews cars on a worldly prospective.

blueguydotcom · July 2001

Sorry if you guys didn't appreciate it. Drove the car, hated it. Actually, I'm not interested in getting a wide spread audience. If I were, then I'd write the wishy-washy reviews you find in Motor Trend or Edmunds. There are some people who appreciate honest opinions.

diploid · July 2001

phaedrys · July 2001

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.

blueguydotcom · July 2001

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.

satchmo07 · July 2001

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.

himiler · July 2001

Honda builds yet another car for the masses, further eroding its hard-won performance image...

ranald · July 2001

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?

carlovee · July 2001

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.

diploid · July 2001

Well what should Honda do? build cars for the few?

yhippa · July 2001

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.

fxashun · July 2001

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.

himiler · July 2001

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.

Acura RSX (All years/types)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles