Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Acura RSX (All years/types)

1252628303183

Comments

  • rjm12rjm12 Posts: 2
    Hi Mystery33 and sevaryn17! My check engine light still comes on and off so I am waiting on a call from the HQ. Will keep you informed. I will also check the vin.

    All the best.
  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    Acura web site says 91 octane is recommended. It goes on to say that lower octane can be used with decreased performance.
  • jnt1jnt1 Posts: 4
    Well, after looking at the new A4, 3-series, WRX, C-coupe, Celica, Prelude, Jetta and TT I decided to purchase the type S. For the money, nothing can really touch this vehicle. The engineering is just brilliant. The engine is a jewel, the shifter is sublime and the ride/handling is superb. All other things really take a back seat in this vehicle, although the overall styling suits me just fine - it's refined and subtle. I've put on a little over 1100 miles without any problems to report. If anyone has any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask as I spent an enormous amount of time researching all the other vehicles before purchasing the type S. If you are in the market for a fun, somewhat luxurious and affordable daily rocket, this is the ticket.
  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    Just curious - what did you think of the wrx? Why did you choose the rsx over it? I've driven both and am still trying to decide between the two. WRX fans - this isn't meant to start a flame war, so lets not go there, OK? To each his or her own.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    I put down a deposit and ordered a WRX wagon after driving the RSX-S and decided that the Acura was pretty much a minor improvement over the '98 GS-R I was driving at the time.

    The WRX offers more power, room, roadholding, rear lsd, lower insurance rates, and a higher seating position, to name a few things I liked. The Acura has a smooth (but boring) engine, killer 6spd box, slightly better build/material quality, and good fuel economy.

    I did not consider the Acura's standard leather, climate control, or Bose to be added value because I didn't like the idea of not being able to get the Type-S without them. Why pay for what you don't want, right? (Obviously, most folks would disagree with me here.)

    On the downside, both cars are fugly as hell, have big blind spots to the rear, transmit lots of road noise into the cabin, sit on McStruts, and can now be seen everywhere on a road near you.

    My WRX was 3 weeks out when, on a whim, I test drove a Prelude. Game over.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    First of all, congrats to jnt1 on his RSX-S. I'd also be interested on hearing your analysis of all those other cars you test drove and researched.

    To all RSX-S drivers, are you using the premium (91 octane) fuel as recommended by Acura or something better or worse? What are the results? I remember a magazine concluding that in general, using a better grade fuel than what is recommended will affect neither performance nor mileage. However, by being a cheapskate (using lower grade fuel than what the manual suggests), your car's mileage and performance suffer by a nontrivial factor (I think it was ~10%). Can any RSX-S drivers attest to this, or do you all use 91 octane fuel?

    While I have the RSX-S drivers' attention, has anyone else been told by the Acura dealership that the car requires a very finicky engine break in?
  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    Interesting - so you chose the Prelude. I too drove the Prelude and enjoyed the drive very much.

    I hadn't thought about insurance premiums, but had assumed the WRX would be about the same as RSX, if not more. I guess I shouldn't assume. Many WRX owners would say the power advantage of the WRX and AWD is what mattered more than any ergonomic, drivability (eg the shifter on the WRX is not as nice as either of these two Honda products), comfort, quality of materials, etc., issues when compared to the RSX. Obviously opinions differ. I drive about 25,000 miles per year, so drivability and interior comfort/details matter to me almost as much as performance - hence the indecision. I had forgotten about the Prelude drive I took and will probably check one out again before deciding.
  • mtbaezmtbaez Posts: 2
    I found at Japan´s Honda site that Integra Type R (Acura RSX Type R) is being sold now. The number for the car are:


    2.0 litre i-VTEC

    in-line 4 cyclinder

    16 valve dohc

    220 bhp

    0-60mph 6.0 seconds

    145mph top speed


    Honda is offering the car with the stylish body kit available for the RSX type S and HID headlight as an option.


    You can see pictures and specs of the car in


    http://www.warrender.co.uk/homepage.htm

    and

    http://www.honda.co.jp/INTEGRATYPE-R/

     

    Does anyone knows if this car will be sold in US?

  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    I've only heard speculation from various car magazines, but the speculation is that yes, the type r RSX will be sold in the US at some point in the not so distant future. The guess is that Acura will introduce the type r around 3 years or so into US RSX production, rather than having brought it over right away, in order to keep the public interested in the vehicle.
  • mtbaezmtbaez Posts: 2
    Does anyone knows where is the RSX produced?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I believe it is Sayama, Japan (same facility that produced Integra and CRV).
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    I hear you. My job requires me to drive 6K miles a month, and I found the Prelude to have the best balance of comfort, noise suppression, ride control, and performance. Sure, either of the other cars will hit 60MPH faster, but I don't buy cars to cook their engines doing stoplight drags.

    Honestly, the interior materials in the RSX didn't appear to be that much nicer than those in the WRX (pay particular attention to all the hard dash/door plastic and the funky headliner in the RSX -- this was all "soft touch" material in the Integra). Although boring, the interior of the Prelude is of better quality than both.

    The seats in the WRX were much more supportive (for me, anyway) than those in the RSX-S. No slippery leather, either!

    The WRX would have been much cheaper (~$850/yr!) for me to insure than the RSX-S -- credit the number of doors and low theft rates for Subes in general. However, after looking at the numerous cracked-up WRX's on iclub.com, I've got to think that rates might have gone up since I got my quote back in August.
  • stragerstrager Posts: 308
    Can RSX owners comment on the road noise, as well as engine and wind noise?

    Consumer Reports says that it found the noise to be "considerable".
  • habitat1habitat1 Posts: 4,282
    Wow, that's a lot of driving. I have a friend who drives about 60k per year for business and has a 1998 Mercedes E300 Turbodiesel. He's about to hit 250k miles and the car looks and runs like new. He also contends that it is the cheapest car to own under extreme high milage conditions (has averaged 33 mpg+ on diesel). He actually expects to come out ahead by taking the milage rate deduction 34 cents +/- than if he took actual expenses and depreciated the car. Expects to have it at least 3 more years, so at 400k miles, he will have taken about $130k in tax deductions. And then it goes to his teenage daughter.
  • With respect to the gas, this is what I've found:
    I use Sunoco Supreme 92 (whatever it's called in the US or other countries, I don't know) mainly. Whenever I use Shell 91 or Esso 91, my mileage dips about 2mpg. Not much. When I use Sunoco 94, I get the same dip. I think it's because I drive the car a tad harder with the 94. I'm not sure though.

    When it comes to road, wind and engine noise. It is a bit louder than any other car I've ever driven (A boatload of rentals, and the old '88 Accord). I got used to the noise and don't pay much attention to it anymore. I definately noticed it when I first got the car. Wind noise I don't pick up though. On the highway, with a full load of people who are sleeping, the engine noise did start to come thru. Usually I have the stereo on so I don't notice.

    Hope that helps.

    Oh, and I've never used anything lower than 91.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    I considered a used E-Diesel, but couldn't find any of the previous-generation cars (boxy look) with fewer than 400K on 'em already.

    I'm not a fan of the styling on the current model, and they don't feel as solid at highway speeds as the older ones did.

    Supremely comfortable, though, it's just a damn shame they're so expensive to maintain. I mean, come on! $800 for a brake job? That would eat up my mileage allowance in a hurry.

    Pardon the off-topic post, all.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Edmunds ostensibly likes the base version of the RSX. Things they didn't like about it can be cured with the Type S (except for the unexciting and bland styling). They drove the slower and heavier auto instead of the manual. RSX-S, w/ its extra 40 HP and 6-speed manual, should shave at least 1 sec off the 0-60 time vs. RSX base w/ auto. I'm not sure what they meant by "buzzy engine at high RPMs". Of course it will be loud at 6,000 RPM - like any other vehicle when revved so high.

    Now, I'd be interested in Edmunds doing a long-term road test of the RSX-S. That is where the excitement lies. If the RSX "[has] an overall feeling of refinement, and exemplary steering ... RSX is a car you can drive to work every day and still cut loose in it over the weekend", imagine how well the RSX-S would rate! The RSX-S would be even more luxurious w/ its leather and 6-disc CD changer. Now only if Acura would address that styling for the 2003 model ... and drop the price to be more competitive with the Tiburon GT ($20 k) :)
  • thelthel Posts: 767
    would Acura care about competing with the Tiburon, or any other Hyundai???
  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    At first glance, it seems strange that the two would be cross-shopped. Nevertheless, with the RSX and the redesigned Tiburon, I can concieve of some competition. Whether or not Acura cares about that, I don't know.
  • "would Acura care about competing with the Tiburon, or any other Hyundai??? "

    I'll tell you why: There are hundreds of people on this board alone that have seen the new tib, and seen the price, and seen the features and style that come with that price, and they all say they will consider it, or even worse, actually plan on buying it.
  • thelthel Posts: 767
    An Acura for around $20,000 versus a Hyundai for whatever. No contest for me even if the Acura was $25,000.
  • An acura RSX for 20k and a beautiful Hyundai with similar specs for 3k less. I dont care if you consider it or not, many people are considering it.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Since when do leather seats and an in-dash CD changer equal luxury? When I think luxury, I think about a smooth, quiet ride, and a roomy cabin that doesn't have to advertise high-quality textures and design. Think about an S8 or LS430 and you'll get the general idea.

    The fact that Acura has sprinkled low-cost (no option) luxury bits on the RSX in the effort to move it "upmarket" serve only to dilute the character that the Integra had. By keeping the focus on affordable performance, the RSX-R looks to be another class-leading Honda. In Type-S trim, however, the RSX is neither a serious luxury or sporting machine. With its copius road noise and tight cabin, it qualifies only for the "pretend luxury" class.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    What were you expecting from an entry level car?
  • dsm6dsm6 Posts: 813
    I agree with himiler on the luxury part, but I don't know that I'd say the RSX-S isn't a sporting machine. It may come down to how we define sporting, though.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    Looks cheap to me.
    It's another case of like the Nissan Altima. The outside is gorgeous but the interior leaves a lot to be desired. In addition, like most Korean designed cars the exterior doesn't look proportional or integrated. The front, side, and rear look like they were designed by 3 different companies.
  • thelthel Posts: 767
    I don't really consider the RSX a luxury car (too stiff) or really a high performance car (FWD) but I do see it as durable/reliable (read that NOT Hyundai) and fun sporty coupe. It' no Boxster but it ain't no Civic either.

    As for people buying up Tiburons, I guess that is a good thing to. After all, auto mechanics need jobs to.
  • varmitvarmit Posts: 1,125
    I dunno. Is the Lexus IS300 a luxury car? I've read plenty of complaints about the interior not being up to snuff. But they slap a 30K price tag on it and no one seems to mind. The RSX is a lot like a smaller, less expensive version of that car. IMO, the RSX is a sport coupe for people who have grown out of sport coupes.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    I do have to agree that the Korean cars (for the most part, anyway) look like they copied several other manufacturers (especially the luxury marques) and simply glued all the pieces together.
    Just look at the new Sonata - it's blatant that the front was inspired by Mercedes Benz.

    But I do think the Tiburon strays away from this notion just a bit (yes I think those headlamps look a little VW-ish, too).

    himiler: "pretend luxury" = entry luxury. I think that's why an IS300, even though it crosses the 30+K barrier (the "near luxury" category), is referred to by most automotive magazines as an "entry level" sedan; a clear criticism of its not-so-upscale interior. At least the RSX tries to avoid that same criticism.
  • beowulf7beowulf7 Posts: 290
    Heck, the RSX has been cross-discussed with many other autos lately on Edmunds' Town Hall (WRX, Celica, C230, Eclipse come to mind). Maybe we should create an RSX vs. Tiburon board. In the meantime, I was just stating that the RSX, given that it is *not* as luxurious as the LS430s of the world (simple price check will prove that), should cost less.

    I'm not saying the Tiburon (I was referring to the new 2003 model, not the el cheapo 2001 one) is the ideal sports coupe. It's simply a car that gives a lot for the money. Many of you are discounting the 2003 Tiburon GT simply because it's made by a Korean company. Fine. That's why Hyundai is countering with a 5 yr. bumper-to-bumper warranty (and 10 yr. power train that no one cares about). Acura only gives a 4 yr. b2b warr.

    Once I test drive both cars (2003 Tiburon GT and 2002 RSX-S), I'll have a better idea. I was leaning more towards the RSX-S since it is an Acura and it has 200 HP. But when I saw the Tiburon in person at an auto show and checked out the specs at www.2003tiburon.com, I had second thoughts. Both of these cars, IMHO, now rank ahead of the Celica and Eclipse.

    thel asked, "would Acura care about competing with the Tiburon, or any other Hyundai???" I don't work for a car company nor am I marketing person. That said, I bet that any product that can potentially steal marketshare would be a cause of concern. In other words, if the sports coupe/hatchback buying public is going to by Tiburons at the RSXs' expense, yes, Acura will care.
This discussion has been closed.