Acura RSX (All years/types)

silver_bullet · July 2001

I looked at RSXs yesterday, just to see if the car looked any better in person (the photos haven't impressed me). Nope. IMO it is a short, overly tall, dumpy looking little car. Front and rear fascias look very contrived, with the now-cliche scalloped lamp treatment. It isn't ugly, just not very interesting. Didn't get a chance to sit in one, as this particular dealer didn't seem interested in coming out to answer questions - I guess they scan you from the showroom, to see if you are carrying enough money to buy today

diploid · July 2001

So I guess the S2000 was meant for the masses...that's why Honda brought it to North America.

As for the European Honda type-R & type-V...it's an Acura TL in NA. The European Honda Civic type-R? Well, they imported the same engine and placed it into the body of an Acura RSX.

I think you're confusing the intent of Acura's future with Acura's past. Acura, since it's a luxury division, has no choice but to add leather and all the other luxury toys into the new RSX. It no longer wants to be compared to Toyota and Nissan. It wants to run with Lexus, Infiniti, BMW, Audi & Mercedes. And around here, a lot of people have no idea that Acura belongs to Honda.

Furthermore, the Toyota's Altezza is known as the Lexus IS300 in North Ameria. How come people don't complain that Toyota should keep the car as a Toyota so it would be cheaper for people to buy?

only1harry · July 2001

Well, I 'm not sure what it is about the RSX, but everyone I know that owns a g3 GSR (including myself), does not like the new RSX. It's many different things. I have not driven the car but have only seen it a couple of times and 1 with a spoiler which actually looked better than without one. I got many different answers from my friends who are GSR owners and have driven an RSX. One said he didn't really feel the VTEC kick like he does with his GSR. The other said it was way too quiet. Another said visibility wasn't that great. Another one said he didn't think he could ever get used to the metalic/titanium trimmings on the dash, or the road feel wasn't as raw or communicative as in their GSRs, or his GSR handles better, etc. And most of them didn't like the looks of the car and prefered their GSRs. Other friends of mine are now buying or just bought GSRs at much discounted prices.. I was surprised to hear all this.
Now keep in mind that most of these people (including me) have modified suspensions and our GSR's handle pretty much like ITRs (I have my brother's Type-R to compare to since I 've driven it and raced it 40-50 times).
Now this is the conclusion(s) I have come to as to why the majority of current GSR owners have not run out and trade in for an RSX-S or why they "dislike" the RSX:
Now there 's no doubt that the RSX-S is faster and handles a little better than the previous gen. GSR. I believe it is because at least half or more of the GSR owners do not drive stock GSRs. Aftermarket parts are in abundance and they 're cheap! For under $1,000 you can install sports springs (or coilover springs) with decent adjustable shocks plus a larger rear sway bar (ITR size) to transform your GSR into a really nice handling machine. Add a $180 cold air intake and you got an extra 12-14hp at the wheels (14-17bhp). Of course you don't have the LSD the Type-R has (which can be added for $800), but handling can become as the ITR's if not better in most cases because of the better springs and superior adjustable shocks. That's just in the handling dept. A cold air intake alone drops the 1/4 mi. times to around 15-15.2sec (with header & exhaust GSRs run high 14's. GSR is still 100+lbs lighter than RSX-S). So what I 'm trying to say is that you have a much better car than stock for a misely grand give or take a couple of hundred which is why the Integra is so popular and so loved by their loyal owners. It is really a much more exctiting car to drive than it was STOCK, and that is the magic word. Most GSR owners don't drive STOCK GSRs. They compare their modified or slightly modified GSRs to a stock RSX-S.
Even in a stock GSR, you can throw out its factory Michelin tires, equip it with some slightly larger inexpensive 205-50-15 ZR rated summer tires and you have just increased your g's up to .85-.86g. Sports Compact Car magazine did this in an old comparison test in '96 I believe it was. All they did was swap out the GSR's tires and left the rest of the car stock in one of their comparison tests.. It went from like .82 to .86g!
Anyway, you see my point. How can I go out and buy an RSX when I now beat Type-R's in autocross racing? This would mean for me to spend $24K + tax, throw more money in it to bring it up to what my GSR's handling is/was, to enjoy that same thrill and adrenaline on my country back roads..(and in my case to beat Type-Rs in my local auto-x club races) well, no thanks. It just doesn't make sense.. That's how I see it and the only way I can make sense of it right now, why so many GSR owners are against getting an RSX-S.
Maybe this is what himiler was trying to say? :-)

diploid · July 2001

But it's really futile to complain about the new RSX at this point. It's already being mass produced. Engineers won't be going back to the drawing board for a few more years.

I myself didn't like the look of the RSX when I saw it. But you just have to realize where Acura is trying to go. People shouldn't judge Acuras as Hondas. I know, they're the same mechanically, but Honda wouldn't have created Acura for no apparent reason. It wanted to join in with the luxury marques...how can it possibly do that if it doesn't offer what the other guys are offering (i.e. leather seats, automatic everything, etc.)?

All this badge engineering may come at the expense of the customers who would really prefer an 18G Integra instead of a 23G RSX, but don't forget that the last generation Integra was 8 years old. A lot has changed in that period of time, especially the price of a car.

fxashun · July 2001

Integras and while I don't find myself getting all excited about the new RSX I did find it a nice car. I think it's well worth the price for what it is.

ranald · July 2001

Interesting, thanks.

It seems to me it all boils down to the fact that the Integra didn't really fit in as an Acura.

carguy62 · July 2001

Motorweek is scheduled to review the RSX. In my area the show airs this week, it may have already aired in some markets.

for ranald: If you thought the 3G "teg" looked just like the 5G Civic coupe don't you think the RSX looks like the current Civic coupe? Myself and many others do. It's just a fact that Hondas have a family resemblance. My '89 Accord HB looks just like the Integras of that age and frankly it looks very similar to Honda products of today (more than a decade later). I bought my Accord because it had a bigger engine, more interior room and was generally more luxurious (rather than sporty) when compared to the Integra. I really don't have that option today.

mitsugst · July 2001

only1harry and others,
How many people do you know buy a car right from the dealer brand new, and add a couple thousand for performance modifications (voiding some or most of the warranty)? If you know some of these people, great, send them to the Acura dealer, not today, but in a year when plenty of performance parts are out. I know some of these people, most are rich kids, and a few are really smart and wealthy college grads with nothing better to do with the new found wealth (like me). What you are comparing is people who bought their GSR's used (or at least waited till the warranty was out, or performance parts were out), and then modded their GSR's. Acura is not trying to sell you a new design without a warranty, used, with high miles (30k or more), and with performance parts companys to support, there's no such thing. Acura wants those people who bought their GSR's new to buy the RSX-S new. Wake up, there is no fantasy here.
In my view Acura took a great car that was 8 years old, redesigned it, made some things better, and made some things different (better or worse is for those who buy new designs to judge).
Here's an example for you. I bought a '95 Eclipse Turbo (GST) brand new. I am not into modifications, I'm not into voiding the warranty (if it's possible or not), but I'm into a great car out of the box, new designs from the factory. I waited Five Full years for the new Eclipse. The new one is no where near similar to the old, they improved on ride and smothness, and changed everything else. What's left is an overweight, underbalanced, underperforming, slow, flashy, chick mobile. I was ssssooooooooooooo disappointed. We should rejoice that Acura didn't do the same thing. I know Acura isn't as STUPID as Mitsubishi, but change is inevitable. Lastly, everyone in the world wants my Eclipse now, since it's an untouched-unmodded well cared for car with tons of potential. That's fine, I'll sell it, and lose very little money. Every under-25 year old I know can't wait till I give the word that it's up for sale... it's used, it's well taken care of, it could be powerful, it has no warranty to ruin, 0-60 in 6.4 today, it's cheap, "I saw it on the Fast and the Furious", it looks good and chicks dig it, it'll blow the doors off any other new or old FWD (by adding a few mods), etc..... I don't care what it can do (as long as someone pays me for it), I want something new that'll do the same, will be better stock, will have as much potential (I like the resale), and be updated with the latest greatest design ideas (i-vtec, efficiency, balance, whatever)

I like the RSX-S, and what it has to offer, and mine comes in next week.

fxashun · July 2001

ranald · July 2001

Sure, I think there's alot of family resemblance between different Honda/Acura cars. I think the RSX has quite a bit in common with the Civic coupe and to a lesser extent the Prelude, though IMO the RSX looks *much* better than the most recent Civic coupe. The main problem with the Civic is that it has such an enormously long [non-permissible content removed] (the rear overhang on that car looks like a schoolbus).

I was taking issue with a self-styled "car reviewer" who chose to criticize the RSX as being inferior to the Integra because the RSX resembled a Civic while the Integra did not. That's silly.

ligart · July 2001

How much do wealthy college grads earn nowadays? ;-)

diploid · July 2001

Anyway, college grads have more sense than to mod a car after buying it from the lot.

I think mitsu was referring to 19 year olds and college undergrads who buy used Civics and Eclipses and modify those cars with the money that their middle-classed parents gave them. If they were really wealthy, they could've afforded a new BMW or Mercedes.

ashen · July 2001

Test drove a RSX Type S.

Good - It's very fast and I couldn't knock it loose on a corner. This was with the salesman in the back seat yelling for me to redline it

The interior was very nice, and I loved the seat. It grips you and holds you in place. Might not be as nice for a larger person though.

BAD - Not sure if this has been discussed yet or not, but, doesn't the RSX seem exceptionally loud and rough? I'm not talking engine noise, I'm talking road noise. The engine noise is there(acceptable IMO), but it seemed to have a lot of tire noise, and a audible "thunk" when it's hit imperfections on the road. Also, the ride was very rough even compared to my 98 Civic. I wasn't on bad roads, I was on a good stretch of a local interstate. In the brochures, they say that they've spent all this time and energy working on soundproofing and smoothing the ride, but I sure didn't see it. Are other people noticing this on test drives? Was mine a fluke?

Other than that, the looks are a bit lame. I have to disagree with some of the opinions above, but it does look too much like a Civic. Now, I realize the family resemblance and all that, but the Integra had a distinct look that differentiated it from a Civic. You could take one look at the car, and recognize it. I can see people having to look a couple of times at an RSX to see what it is.

sgrd0q · July 2001

I think the sound insulation is good, but the tires are very noisy, particularly on concrete.

uthinx · July 2001

I'd like to take a little survey and ask people how long they are waiting for RSX's to be delivered that are not already on invoice to their dealership. I've been told that Aura doesn't really approve of dealers trading cars that have already been delivered. Truth or fiction?

majorthomecho · July 2001

I am still wondering if the front tires on a stock RSX are larger than the rear tires or if this was a modification done by the owner of the RSX I saw.

Thanks for any responses.

uthinx · July 2001

The RSX is listed as having P205/55 R16 89V Michelin MXM4 tires all around in both trim lines. The only dealer installed option is 7 spoke wheels rather than the stock 5 spoke. I'd say it was a modification done by the owner and would wonder if this might affect the suspension response and the warranty coverage.

yhippa · July 2001

What are you guys currently paying for the RSX's? I'm trying to choose between the RSX and a 1% over invoice WRX. This hurts my brain.

sgrd0q · July 2001

Tire Size: As posted above all four tires are P205/55 R16.

Price: I paid MSRP for my RSX-S in Long Island, NY.

majorthomecho · July 2001

Thanks for the response and to those who are thinking about putting bigger tires on front and smaller on back, I have to say that from a looks standpoint, it looks funny. And I should know about funny. I drive an Echo. ; )

mitsugst · July 2001

Order time: I test drove an RSX-S on the first day they where available (7/2). I looked at the dealers inventory list and chose the first red one allotted to him. The inventory list has the list of allotted cars in different colors and types (type-S or non, with or without Auto), along with the delivery dates. The date on mine from the list is next week (7/31).

Price:The salesman and I decided on MSRP. Actually, the salesman told me that that was the only price they were going to sell them for, no less no more (Austin,TX).

Tires: I agree with the above. Also, the reason someone would put larger tires in front than in back, is for drag racing (or 0-60) purposes. On a FWD, the more traction in front and the less drag in back the better.

ranald · July 2001

That's weird, about the tires being bigger in front. Are you sure it wasn't just a bit of an optical illusion?

I ask because from certain angles the front tires look just slightly bigger to me, too. Pretty sure it has something to do with the rising beltline, and the body of the car being bigger and taller in back, so the wheels seem smaller by comparison.

mitsugst · July 2001

carguy62,
Thanks for the info, although it looks like it aired this passed weekend in my area

.
Wait...Here it is...i just found it on their site. Check it out, it's the car of the month:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/carofthemonth.shtml
and the road test,program#2046
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2046.shtml

godskind · July 2001

Many cable companies have added Speedvision to their channel line-up. Re-runs of the weekly Motorweek weekly can be seen several times this week. The next is Thursday at 7:30P EST and again at 11:30P.

himiler · July 2001

I faced the same situation as yours, and owning both a '00 2.5RS and a '98 GS-R made the choice tough. I've done over 410,000 miles in two G3 Integras since 1996, and really love the car for what is has (and for what it doesn't have). I've only owned the 2.5RS for a year, but it's been no trouble and gives up nothing to the GS-R in terms of fun-to-drive, particularly in the rain or snow, where it really comes into its own.

The RSX-S is biased too far over on the luxury side of the equation for me, so I ordered a WRX wagon at 2% over invoice. After putting some test miles on both the WRX and RSX-S, I found that the WRX offers much higher levels of ultimate driver control and is quieter(!) than the RSX. The RSX is more relaxed-feeling on the highway and will deliver 3-4 mpg more, but it would've cost me (age 30, married, no points or claims in 9 years) 35% more to insure than the WRX.

Since neither car is much of a looker, I didn't let exterior styling enter into the decision-making process. (Although, the wagon is a very practical package.)

Factor in the RSX's poor rearward visibility, hard plastic interior, lack of traction control of any sort, and the fact that you cant touch it for less than MSRP, and my decision became pretty simple.

Because of my driving habits, I didn't factor in projected resale values, but would expect that both cars will remain very desirable on the used market.

In terms of ultimate reliability, the Acura will clearly have the edge over the Subaru, simply because there's less to go wrong with a NA/FWD setup than a turbo/AWD. I did factor this in, but decided that there is a large enough difference in the cost of parts&labor between the two (based on my experience, Acuras only break expensive pieces) to still feel smart about going with the WRX.

Good luck with your decision.

m_les · July 2001

just test-drove the wrx. it has the most awful seats -- even worse than in a ford focus. the wrx seats are basically cheap fabric stretched over a thin wire frame. NO LUMBAR SUPPORT at all. long drives in the wrx will be very uncomfortable.

uthinx · July 2001

Everyone should take note that to achieve the high levels of performance quoted on the WRX requires 93 octane gas as specified by Subaru. The minimum octane is 91 which will probably cut performance figures a little bit. What would 93 octane gas do in an RSX of either trim line if anything?

yhippa · July 2001

Thanks so much for your info, that really does help me. I'm just out of college and looking to purcahse a car. I am seriously divided between the two. I can try to wait longer to purchase a car, but driving an '87 Accord just doesn't cut the mustard.

The Acura dealership around here is selling a black GS-R, a carry over from last year's model. How do the GS-R's compare to the RSX's? The only thing I don't like about the Integras is that the console looks like my present Accord. From what I've heard, people really seem to like their GS-R's.

ligart · July 2001

Hey, I'm 12 years out of college and still driving an '86 Nissan Z! (my God, am I really THAT sad?) :-D

yhippa · July 2001

At least the Z is pretty darn cool. Plus, I'm pouring around $1000 into it every year for repairs. This year has been $250 already, so I'm crossing my fingers.

pocahontas · July 2001

Not sad if you don't have car payments or high repair costs. ;-) Speaking of the Z, some of you may be interested in this new discussion: Nissan & Datsun Z's (Old and New). Happy Motoring!

Pocahontas

Host

Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards

fxashun · July 2001

Still beats a $500 a month car payment. Plus full coverage insurance. I drive a paid for 1993 Civic. $400 year insurance and a little upkeep. There's a tradeoff.

himiler · July 2001

The minimun octane requirement as printed in the WRX's owner's manual is 91, but with a turbocharged vehicle, it's always best to use the highest octane available. Spark knock is deadly for engines with forced induction.

Running an octane higher than 91 in an RSX will do nothing to increase performance. The vehicle is tuned and optimized for 91 octane. However, under heavy engine loads at high operating temperatures, 91 octane may be insufficient to prevent fuel detontation. In this case, you can either trust the engine's knock sensor to retard timing (resulting in decreased performance), or go with a higher octane.

In 206,00 miles I have used only 91 octane in my GS-R, and it has never knocked.

yhippa--The GS-R is a terrific car, particularly if you really enjoy driving. However, when compared to the RSX, a GS-R will beat you up pretty badly on the highway. But, then again, for about $2500 you can throw some parts onto it that'll leave a stock RSX-S gasping in the GS-R's wake.

l943973 · July 2001

For those interested in more info about the RSX than the Acura web site, you may want to check out http://www.hondanews.com

It contains more technical information about the rsx. (78 images). I like the soundproofing sketches.

rushingbeat · July 2001

1943973 thx for the link. Those are some nice sketches.

I've read somewhere that the rsx-s get 0-60 time of 6.1-2 sec. Yet I checked the Motorweek review, it states 6.9. Does anyone know which one is right?

himiler · July 2001

...If you dump the clutch at 6,000RPM (in the typical VTEC manner). Otherwise, you're going to be playing catch-up.

pocahontas · July 2001

please join us in this new discussion: Mercedes-Benz C230 Vs Acura RSX (2002). Happy Motoring!

Pocahontas

Host

Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards

only1harry · July 2001

Check this link out!!

http://www.newcelica.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/012181.html

An RSX totally stock ran a 14.34 @ 97mph at the strip!! This is in a Celica forum discussed by people that were there and saw it. That's faster than a stock ITR! The fastest totally stock Type-R I 've seen ran the 1/4 in 14.49 at 96mph!

Go read those posts. They said the guy was spinning the tires a lot on takeoff so he could 've been faster. With Intake, header & exhaust this car could be in the high 13's or a 14-flat car! They also said a new Mustang GT had a best trap speed of 96mph, so the RSX is right up there with the GT's like the GSR used to be with the old 5.0s that were running low 15's 6-10yrs ago.

RSX: the new GT killer? :-) Although I think that GT driver probably sucked a little, with I/H/E the RSX would be a good match for the GT and the WRX. Hek it's very close to the WRX now. This is what I was talking about before. These magazine editors are not the best drivers and if you notice the C&D show on TV (TNN? they had the best 20 cars for '01 on TV a week ago), most of them are old and overweight. Although 14.8s that they got is not bad for the RSX we all know from the GSR & ITR, that they get faster with time and more mileage on the motor. I wouldn't doubt it if this guy that got the 14.34, had at least a couple of thousand miles on his RSX. There's this guy on one of the Acura-Honda forums (not on Edmunds) that got a 15.0 with his ITR when it had 1500mi. on it. He then went back with 4k mi. and got a 14.7. Then back to the strip again with 11k mi. and gets a 14.5x (these are best times out of several runs)!

I think the RSX-S can give the WRX a run for its money. I now see that the RSX is very well priced compared to the WRX. It has similar performance #s with more luxury minus the AWD. And I can see Celica sales declining sharply.. since a moderately to fully loaded GT-S goes for $23-24K and can't hold a candle up to the RSX.

uthinx · July 2001

There is a special site for RSX owners loaded with info: clubrsx.com.

himiler · July 2001

Sure, the RSX will keep up with a WRX on dry roads. But what do think'll happen if it rains?
I'm guessing that the RSX's luxury bits won't help to keep it between the lines. At least with a limited-slip it might have a chance...

dmbst68 · July 2001

Is there, or is there not, a 6 disc IN DASH changer available for the RSX base model? The back of the RSX brochure states that there is one available. The salesman I spoke to was not aware that one was available until I had to point it out to him that, according to the brochure, there is one. (I hate it when I know more about a product than the person selling it to me does, especially cars.) He is looking into this for me, but I haven't gotten an answer from him yet. He's assuming there is since there hasn't been a retraction for a misprint issued from Acura. Does anyone here know? I'd appreciate knowing soon. Thanks!

fxashun · July 2001

uthinx · July 2001

The 6 disc changer is available as a dealer installed option; which means that they'll really try and stick you for it. I suggest you go to acura.com and see what the suggested price is for that option installed, then what it costs for the the unit not installed and try to bargain for it at cost when you deal to buy your RSX.

dmbst68 · July 2001

Uthinx:

So the 6 In-Dash is definitely available in the base RSX? Acura.com doesn't even mention its price, let alone its availability as an option in the base RSX. But, as I previously mentioned, the brochure says it is an option. The 6 disc trunk-mounted changer is mentioned in the brochure & on the website, but I don't want that. I want the in-dash convenience. Yes, I know it'll be a ripoff, but I really want it.

kroliph · July 2001

Be honest now. Yesterday I passed a new RSX on the road and I'm telling you the think looks just like a Chevy Cavalier hatchback. It may have a little more interesting headlights and taillights. But it still looks just like a Chevy Cavalier!! I understand that Honda might be supplying engines to GM soon. Maybe, GM offered to let Honda have access to their design studios. What is next an Accord that looks like a Lumina?!

People say the WRX is ugly. At least it doesn't look like a Cavalier! Let me see, Yeh I think $23,500 for a Cavalier is fair.

uthinx · July 2001

I should've looked more closely; the changer listed is trunk mounted. HOWEVER, check and see if the in-dash changer is the same as is offered in the Honda Accord EX. If it is, go to hparts.com and look for accessories for the Accord DX and there you will see the 6 disc in-dash changer listed for $361.62. (Not for the EX since it is standard equipment.) Then there's just installation. (Club RSX does not list anything but the trunk mount.)
Admittedly the RSX has a similarity to the Cavalier in profile; when you are trying to get a low drag coefficient and a modern look it is no surprise that vehicles of a certain size may share profiles somewhat. The WRX looks like??? Driving a wolf in sheep's clothing can have satisfying aspects. Driving a wolf in ugly duckling's clothing.... just a personal choice.

mitsugst · July 2001

Acura RSX (All years/types)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles