Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Acura RSX (All years/types)
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Anyway, all that NHTSA requires is documented in http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/can0010.html
Basically, if the car passes EPA standards as specified by a letter from the manufacturer, the car can be imported. I think US Customs collect a duty (which I did not pay since my stay was on a temporary basis, at the time the vehicle was being imported).
As far as manufacturers are concerned, I think Acura discourages buying in Canada and importing it to the US. I'm not sure how they enforce it, but you may have to show proof of Canadian residency to be able to buy. I think Nissan is a lot more lenient with this (hey, it helps the revival plan).
As far as warranty goes, official Honda statement is that they will not honor the Canadian warranty but I have yet to be denied warranty claims by the 2 Acura dealerships in my area. Of course, repeat business may have something to do with it. Nissan warranty is transferrable, just call Nissan customer service and give VIN# of vehicle.
And finally, because of the currency exchange, cars sold in the U.S. at invoice price tend to be higher in price than that of cars sold in Canada at MSRP. Thus, a little bit of negotiating results in prices way below US invoice. Everyone gets charged 15% sales tax (8% provincial and 7% goods & services tax), the 7% GST is refundable, per http://www.ccra-adrc.gc.ca/tax/nonresidents/visitors/vrpqa-e.html#P205_8111
I don't notice the wind that much, but I do notice the engine and tires. It's quiet, but it is there (not sure if that clears it up).
Haven't driven the car on a really windy day yet, but like I said, I don't notice the wind noise at all.
The engine is loud if you rev it up, below 4000 and it's relatively subdued. I didn't find it any noisier than any other car I've driven. OK, I lied, it is a lot louder than a Town Car.
But when you get an RSX, you're not really lookin' for a Town Car in a Coupe are you?
Great car, got no complaints so far.
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
Now, somewhere recently (once again, I can't remember), somebody said to check your oil when the engine's cold (i.e. hasn't been run in the past few hours). So, which way is it? With a hot engine or a cold one?
Thanks.
Derek
I'm also thinking of making a trip to get an MDX, so I'd be very interested how you make out. Good Luck.
To Kane12 & others- Feel free to copy/paste any of your previous messages there. It will be easier for others to follow/track rsx problems in this new discussion. Thanks for your participation.
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
I know you're a technician and all with quite a bit of knowledge and experience, but do you go onto clubrsx.com often. There are many RSX owners there, including myself, that post immense information about the RSX. I personally own an RSX-S, look me up on that board, I have the same member name (MitsuGST). There is an interesting thread about changing the oil, etc. Check it out: http://forums.clubrsx.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8397
There has been some interesting discussions over oil. You should read it. The one thing I want to point out is that people have found that if you change the oil to early (before 5000 miles) the engine starts to burn oil. Many think it's the piston rings that don't set properly in the engine that causes this.
Anyway, good luck with your new engine, and I'd love to hear about your experiences over on that board, your information could prove very valauble.
later,
Daniel (an Engineer by profession)
I have no doubt in my mind that there 's something going on with these new motors. Like MitsuGST said there are others with excessive oil consumption. I doubt an oil change before 5k mi. would do that but then again, my Honda service mgr. could not emphasize enough how I should NOT have the first oil change before 3750mi. because of this supposedly "magic" oil/lubricant they put in at the factory..
My '99 Integra had its first oil change at 750mi. and then again at 1600-2kmi. Same with my old '97 Civic. Nowadays you don't know what to do or who to believe.
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
My advice - enjoy your cars, and drive them hard!
By the way I changed the oil of my RSX-S for the first time at 10K miles - as per the recommendation in the manual - USA, normal driving conditions.
2yrs later with the '99 GSR: same thing. I challenged the Acura dealer again who instructed me to change the oil early. This time they put the NSX technician on the phone to justify changing the oil early. The owners manual never mentioned anything about a "first oil change". Just said to change it like every 3k under severe driving or 6k under normal. Luckily I had already received an e-mail from American Honda engineer & race car driver Ken Woods advising me to change the oil at 500mi. and then again at 1k and so on and instructions on how to properly break in an Integra and when to begin using synthetic oil, etc. So I tried to do what he said, being that he works for Honda and was very popular back then among the "vtec" fanatics.. Now I must admit I found some of his break-in instructions a bit involved and almost rediculous (retorquing the head at 250mi. which I never did, etc.) but I tried to follow most of them. Now 28k mi. later the car doesn't burn any oil (Mobil 1) and it's used 90% of the time as a race car.
I do believe that whether you do what I did or just go ahead and change the oil several thousand mi. later, or not varying your RPM speeds, etc. as much as someone else, the results will probably be negligent and no problems should appear until you 're into high mileage, BUT it doesn't hurt to try and give it that extra care, because afterall, we did pay a good amount of money for our cars and we want them to run well for a very long time.
Now it's worth mentioning that there are theories why some Integras, Type-Rs included which are supposed to have very small variation in HP & torque being that they 're hand built and with select parts, dyno differently than others. One of those theories is the break-in period. My GSR when it was stock dynoed in at 139.6hp at the wheels with 14k mi. Many others of the same year with similar mileage came in at 134-138. Mine is often refered to as a "strong one". I don't believe it came that way from the factory. I think the extra steps and care I took during the break in period resulted in the added power. That's my take on this whole thing, and 10k mi. for an oil change is incomprehensible to me. Lubricants do break down and need to be replaced often. You have nothing to lose but a few bucks to protect your investement by changing the oil more often. It can't be anything but good for the motor. Changing it every 10k mi. on the other hand can definitely not be as good as 3 or 4k..
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
Also 4 years 50K mile warranty is more than sufficient to sort out ANY bugs there are in the car.
Lets not judfge a product depending on soem individual experience which is sometinmes exaggerated after spending $$ on a supposedly reliable car (too high expectation)
Revka
Host
Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
The interior of the car was nicer than I expected. For a sporty car, The old GSR did not have a sporty interior feel. The new Type S improved on this. The seats are awesome. They curve to wrap you on the sides and the headrests look like a racing car not a driving coupe. Too bad the same people who desinged the inside didn't design the outside. Also, the perforated leather seems to be of a better quality. The radio and midcompartment console slopes a little (not as much as I like-like the Acura CL or 300zx), but still better than the straight drop of the old GSR. Type S makes a big deal about the 7 speaker Boise stereo system. I cranked it when I test drove it and I was disappointed. It wasn't loud at all, and I didn't really notice the hidden subwoofer in the spare tire. Maybe I'm used to the upgrade Rockford fosgate system i put in my GSR. The stereo in my rental car-ford focus sounds louder. It did sound clear though. I guess I can always change the Type S for an aftermarket system also, but I hear the big non standard size makes it difficult. The small steering wheel and white odometer dials, which turn red at night look cool. The car is 2 inches taller, which I don't like. It takes away from the sportiness of it and the moonroof seems farther away. The 16 inch rims are an improvement over the 15 inch GSR. 15 inches is weak for a sporty car. Some feel the Type S should have gone for 17, but I'll settle for 16. The rims look ok.
I was impressed by the engine. The car did seem quicker than my GSR and the engine had a better purrrr than the ultra high rev of my GSR. The power came more linear than the slow to fast jump VTEC GSR.
For the price, the car is a pretty good value for a 200hp engine, leather seats, moonroof, etc, but I just feel a few more cosmetic changes and this car could have been awesome.
If the company wants to make it look more luxurious than sporty-I can buy that, but it doesn't look more luxurious-just more civic'y. An yes, it needs an arm rest. I have been driving a rental for a month now that doesn't have an arm rest and I will never underestimate an arm rest. It is like working on your feet all day vs. sitting. How can they go from an old GSR that has one to a new Type S that doesn't, especially if they are trying to make it more luxurious?
At this point, I don't know what to buy. The WRX looks like a joke. That car is a Dodge Shadow body with a 227hp enigne in it. The Celica looks like fat and swallen. It wants to look agressive, but looks like those tacky kits they sell so kids can turn camaro's into ferraris. Nissan has nothing until the awesome new Z at $30,000 next year. Honda got rid of the Prelude, which I like, but don't want to buy a 2001 discontinued style. Mazda doesn't have anything either. The S2000 did it all right, but at $30,000-it is out of my league. Why can't they make some of the same cosmetic styling on these cars on the $20,000 models? The Ford Mustang is out of the question with it's boxy looks, that stupid "U" shaped console, and poor reliabilty. I may have to look towards the Jetta. Although it is boxy, they look nice from the outside,and the paint jobs are good, but for about the same price, I feel like I'm giving up on a performance car. Is there anything worthwhile out there. When you throw down $23,000 and bust your butt to make car payments, you want to be excited about a new car, not disappointed. I might buy a used car until something good comes along.
I 'll stick with my GSR until maybe the new Type-R hits the US shores or mine gets stolen as well.
I was also thinking of looking at used 4-6yr old M3s next year..
I'm in my 30s too and it's hard to part with my beloved GSR. It'a a lot of fun auto-xing it on weekends..
I can't see giving up my sporty GSR for a car that looks like my '01 Civic coupe..
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
Well, the RSX's looks are only so-so. This wouldn't be so bad except one of its main competitors, the Toyota Celica, is a much better looking car. If I wasn't a diehard Honda lover, I'd have already bought the Toyota.
Another thing that irks me about the RSX and the newer Honda Civics in general is the reversion to macpherson struts. These simply don't handle as well, aren't as easily tuned nor last as long as the excellent, conventional A-arm layout Honda has been using for over a decade now. If it ain't broke, why fix it? Honda says the reason was 'packaging' because the struts are more compact. I suspect it was actually a cost-cutting decision because the 'lower hood line' just doesn't seem worth it, especially when you consider the overall increased height of the vehicle.
I really want my next car to have a 6-spd transmission. I've wanted one on my 4-cylinder cars for over a decade for low-rpm, high-speed cruising on the interstates. Currently, cruising at 75mph+ my last cars were easily doing over 4,000 rpms. After an hour or two, you have to think there must be a better way to get down the road with less noise and fuel consumed. A 6-speed with a long final-drive ratio is the obvious answer. I'm surprised more sports coupes didn't have this feature sooner.
BUT, in order to get the 6-speed tranny (and higher horsepower VTEC motor) on the RSX you need to get a lot of other 'luxury' garbage I don't care for: power moonroof, leather interior, ABS, anti-theft, side airbags, premium sound & CD player, etc ... I like my cars free of complex, trouble-prone gadgetry that only adds weight.
It really irks me that I have to spend thousands extra on useless junk in order to get the features I really want ... in a car whose looks don't impress me at all. <:^(
It's enough to make me spec out an Accord Coupe ... but even that doesn't have a 6-spd and you can't get four-wheel-disc brakes without ABS. <:^(
--- <b>Bror Jace
as the ratio for 5th in the base model, and I
believe 5th in the S corresponds to 4th in
the base as well.
I've seen the exact ratios listed in a couple
of different places. The 6 speed doesn't get you
lower RPM highway cruising.
How typical.
We get about one gear for every 10mph ... until you hit 40-45mph and then that same final drive ratio is supposed to be adequate for every speed from there all the way up to 80+mph. :rolleyes:
--- Bror Jace
The list of those who have defiled my holiday decorative hosiery is too long too enumerate. And yes, I'm awfully bitter. I really hate it when a company 'evolves' its product right out of its original, popular market niche. This has now happened to the Integra ... just like it happened to the CRX ... and New Coke, for that matter. At least with Coke, they saw the error of their ways and fixed it ... eventually. Maybe if the RSX Type-R comes out with 20 more horsepower and in a somewhat stripped-down version I'll feel better. Until then, do you know where American Honda hangs their stocking? >;^)
"Looks are highly subjective, but I can't imagine thinking a Celica is good-looking."
You can't, eh? I see the Celica as a smaller-sized Ferrari and it is VERY popular with most people I've talked to who are into sporty cars. The RSX, on the other hand, looks like a generic, nondescript egg. Nothing more. Take a look at the Road & Track from a couple months ago. They tested 10 coupes in the less-than-$25K range and both cars in question were included. A large number of writers/testers (8? 10?) got to (briefly) express their feelings about each vehicle and the 'conservative' styling of the RSX was a very common complaint ... while few (if any) complained about the Toyota's looks. I'll have to re-read the article for specifics but I remember that two of the reviewers thought the RSX looked too much like a Cavalier. >|^D
"No ABS, but 4-wheel discs?"
Correct. I know how to drive ... very well, as a matter of fact, and despite the bad weather in this part of the country (Saratoga, NY) I've never felt the need for ABS. Also, while disc brakes are easy and inexpensive to work on, ABS control modules are horrifically expensive to replace ... close to $1,000. That's the sort of thing I don't want to have on my "To Do" list.
"No power moonroof or CD player? You must have the shortest commute known to man."
I listen to Imus and other talk/info-related radio while driving 45 minutes to and from work. On long trips I take my CDs and record them onto tapes ... and if I lose or ruin the tapes during the trip, I don't care. The moonroof merely serves to take up precious headroom for us in the 6'+ height range. Without it, the car wouldn't have to be made awkwardly tall and geeky-looking. Funny, but I remember when these sorts of things were called 'options'. I guess I'm just old fashioned for not wanting a company that doesn't know me to pre-load a car with a bunch of expensive junk 'guessing' that I'll be happy to pay for it all.
Gosh, you wouldn't even be happy replacing your lil' Civic with a new '02.
Hey, you're catching on. >;^) The new Civic is cheaper and blander than the model it replaces and I've already stated that I hate the backward move to struts. What's next, reverting to 4-wheel drum brakes? Plus, the Civic sorta looks like a Ford Focus ... with a tall, narrow stance which reminds me of a cat that is 'presenting'.
"I think a '74 BMW 2002tii or '70 240Z might have everything you're looking for... "
It's a shame that you had to suggest cars which are that old ... and even a bigger shame that you're pretty close to the mark. But, even if these were made brand new for '02, I wouldn't purchase one for everyday use. I need front-wheel-drive in order to get around here during winter storms. This is the primary reason why I won't consider the MR2 Spyder either ...
"Otherwise, you'll have to make some sacrifices- check out the VW GTI and Civic Si hatch too."
Thanks, but I don't do VeeDubbs anymore. Not since a brief, if not entirely dissatisfying affair with an older Rabbit-based Cabriolet. She was like a giggly party girl one might meet in college, have fun with for a while, but never take seriously enough to marry. As for the upcoming Civic Si Hatch, while a tad more desirable than its bland brethren, still has no 6 speed, has the same McCheapson struts and a weird, FIAT-like shifter that comes out of the dashboard at you like a ... like a ... oh, never mind. >X^(
I guess I'm gonna keep my '95 Civic until someone makes a front-wheel-drive performance coupe that makes me want to spend my money on it ... or until I can find a '99 or '00 Civic Coupe at a decent price. Right now, the auto manufacturers can go pound sand. I'm also not alone in my thinking. Read g8trdave's good post above. He is another former 'Teg driver who wants to like the car but is having a hard time doing so. That is not a good sign.
--- Bror Jace
I read an Australian review and it said the new Type-R handles better than the old one. And that's with the new struts up front.
I owned a '90 Geo Storm with strut suspension that would run circles around my '01 Civic EX in a handling course (both in stock form). I do agree that struts are a little harder and a little more expensive to upgrade with aftermarket ones. The new Koni adjustables that recently came out for the '01-02 Civic, are inserts in the Front. You have to take out the factory internal strut assembly from the strut housing, drain the fluid, cut 40mm of that factory housing and then insert the new Konis in them!! That really stinks, because with older gens that had shocks, it was a simple bolt-on procedure. Labor has increased by at least 50% for the front now (the rear are the old design shocks that pop right in).
This again doesn't mean that you have to sacrifice handling. Bigger diameter sway bars, bushings, lower & upper tie bars, chassis cross member bars, stiffer springs/shocks, reinforced A pillars, etc. all contribute to better handlng and that 's what the new Type-R will have better over the RSX, or the RSX has over the Civic, etc.
The only other thing I disagree on is when you compare the new Civic to the Focus. Now being a Civic owner (I 'm on my 2nd one) I might be biased but I don't think so. I think the Focus is uglier and stands too tall in the rear. The new Civic sedans look a little more like a Focus, but the coupes I think look good and much better than any Focus. I also owned a '97 Civic DX which I sold to get the '01 EX. My EX handles a little better than the '97 DX probably because the DX didn't come with a rear sway (antiroll) bar. The new EX also has quicker steering response on the highway and changes lanes faster and very flat with no body roll. I can get the EX to oversteer a bit where the old DX just understeered all the time. With only a wheel & tire upgrade on my old DX though, it matched and bested my current EX. So I know with a little wider & better tires (I think the GSR 15x6" wheels will do the trick) the new Civic can be a lot more fun to drive. The new Civics also have more torque at lower RPMs than old gen Civics. That torque is kept at near peak #s all the way to red line. My EX pulls strongly to red line and you even come close to red line in 5th where it achieves a top speed of 127mph. My friend's '95 EX couldn't go over 120mph. I did 123mph very easily in mine and I could 've gone faster but had to slow down because of cars up ahead (don't try this boys & girls..)
In any case, I have now seen several RSXs on the road and I try hard to like them because I want to prepare my self to buy the new Type-R if it ever makes it here, but they just doesn't do much for me. As long as that GSR sits in my driveway and I see it every morning I walk out of the house, I don't know if I can bring my self to buy the new RTR (RSX-Type-R = RTR? like the old ITR?). Probably once I test drive one, I 'll fall in love with the way it feels, but if dealers won't allow (they didn't with ITRs) test drives, I may not ever own one. So I 'm confused. This can't be good, because I know I wanted an Integra with a passion before I bought one. This time I 'm very skeptical, but only because of the new looks, not the internals of the car (nor the strut suspension).
PS. Sunroofs suck. I 'm 6'2 and hit my head all the time when I hit a bump in both GSR & Civic. They steal at least 1.5" of headroom. It should be an option, especially in sports coupes with 200hp or more, like the RSX Type-S and others..
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
I don't think RSX was designed to fit your needs. It seems to offer a little too much than what you need. Good luck with your Celica though, a car I considered couple of years ago but drove home a Prelude.
I'm 5'9 (give or take an inch or two) and the car fits me to a T. I have yet to hit my head on the roof going over a bump. So, while I feel sorry that it's difficult for you to get a car that you fit into, I'm glad I can.
I admit the styling is a little bland. But I don't want to be flashy when I'm on the road. If I did, then I'd go paint my car flourescent green/yellow. I'm sure regardless of the styling, your car IS going to get noticed.
I've got no complaints about this car. Nothing major. Just the visibility, but that's from personal experience of driving a 4 door sedan. I've had this car for a month now and I'm getting used to the blind spots.
This doesn't have anything to do with Hondas or Acuras, but I still remember when a guy had a choice of buying a Mustang GT, or an LX model. If you wanted all of the bells and whistles, you'd buy the GT. If you wanted all of the go fast performance goodies without the bells and whistles, you'd buy the LX, and save yourself quite a chunk of money. Why won't auto manufacturers do this today?
Go to a Lexus dealer and ask for cloth seats You'll get the "you won't ever be able to sell it back because people don't buy a Lexus with cloth" speech like I did!
Take a look at the Honda line (compared to the Acura) and you'll see a lot more room for stripping. I think this is intentional.
The only "upper end" manufacturer I'm aware of who offers stripping is BMW. And I don't think they do it in order to offer buyers "more options." Them aside, just about everybody starts a car loaded.
I liked the styling of the RSX when I first saw it but as I see more of them on the road it is becoming plain looking to me which is a shame because I really enjoyed driving it.