Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Are you in the market for a new car and having a hard time finding affordable options? A reporter would like to speak with you; please reach out to [email protected] by 2/26 for more details.

Acura RSX (All years/types)

pocahontaspocahontas Posts: 802
edited August 2014 in Acura
Here's a direct link to Edmunds.com's (2001 New York Auto Show coverage) article of the 2002 Acura RSX. Please return here to post your comments. Thanks! ;-)


image


Pocahontas
Host
Hatchbacks/Station Wagons Message Boards

«13456750

Comments

  • revdrluvrevdrluv Posts: 417
    I actually like the look of the rsx but I really like the look of the civic type r that is going to be released in europe. That must be their equivalent of our rsx type s. It has more flair and more praticality with a full hatch and all. I would like to see honda continue to push the type r branding like elsewhere in the world. A type r civic, and accord would be nice. I know that the civic would compete to heavily with the rsx though which is why it won't happen. The integra has so many fans that they just couldn't kill it.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    So where's the body-side molding on the car? I'm meeting so tired of Honda (and others) cheaping out and leaving their cars even more vulnerable to parking lot damage. Am I the only one who would gladly pay another $200 on the sticker to have this? Does Honda actually think that their buyers LIKE door dings? There must be more to owning a car than trying to make a statement about fashion. Don't ownership costs count for anything nowadays?

    The upswept beltline at the C-pillar on the RSX makes for a pretty big blind spot, wouldn't you say? Also, the dash is much higher across the base of the windshield than in the current car. Looks kind of like a DSM coupe. And the wheels? YAWN! And please, don't even get me started on the McStruts in the front.

    Other than these gripes, I generally like the car and will probably replace my '98 GS-R with a Type-S, unless a WRX wagon should happen to fall from the sky into my garage. I briefly considered the '02 Civic Si until I saw that it's made in Swindon, England. Anybody remember Sterling? No thanks!
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    There is no comparison between the Sterling and the English built Civic Si. The Sterling was a Rover designed and built car powered by Honda's engine and transmission. All the electronics and body trim that were so troublesome were due to Rover's shoddy build quality. The Civic Si, on the other hand, is a Honda design and is built in a Honda factory. There should be no difference in quality between a US built Civic and an English built one. I say give the Civic Si a shot if you really like it. At least test drive it before labeling it junk just because it was built in England.
  • jk111jk111 Posts: 125
    that is actually the one I saw at the new york auto show. In person, the car looks too much like the current gen Civic. I wasn't too impressed with the styling, it seems like they tried to merge the civic with a hint of celica. I hope the performance will make up for it.
  • snaphooksnaphook Posts: 130
    About the body side molding. I asked the same question when I first saw the Toyota Celica. The answer I got, may or may not be true, is that the doors were not metal but rather some sort of ding resistant material. If this is true maybe that's also the case with the rsx.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    I just noticed, the new RSX does not have a front center armrest available. This will make it very tiring to drive on long trips.
    This is going to cross the car off many lists unless people fail to notice during their 5 minute test drives.
  • ineto6ineto6 Posts: 161
    won't help when you park next to a taller vehicle. Anyway, side moldings take away some aesthetic of a car.

    The older Integras did not have center consoles either. Not a problem if you keep your hands on the wheels. On the other hand, I hardly ever use arm rests even for 4+ hours of driving.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    And I suppose that door dings DO add to the aesthetic appeal of a design? Sorry, I guess I put too much emphasis on a design that is both aesthetically appealing AND practical. Take a peek at the new M3 if you need an example.

    Re:Civic Si--
    Perhaps my comparisons to Sterling were unfounded, but I know from experience that the '91 Civic hatch I owned sure was screwed together better than my '98 Civic hatch. Japan vs. Canada production. Give me choice between a Honda/Acura made in Japan or anywhere else, and I'll always go with the one made in Japan.

    And no center armrest either? If there's no dealer-installed accessory, you can count me out, too! Hello, Subaru store?
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    If you really don't want door dings, you need to park far away from other vehicles. The door protective strips do not always line up propery with the other car and you get dings anyway.
    They give you a false sense of security.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    My 00 Accent has wide side mouldings that didnt keep a shopping cart from leaving a lovely crease. I prefer to have mouldings on a car, but honestly, newer cars have them mounted so low that they are useless. My VW Rabbit's mouldings are mounted about 8" higher up and would have kept the cart from denting my car. In fact, for a 17 year old car, it is amazingly free of dings. Too bad other cars don't follow its useful design, but on today's cars, it would look quite out of place. A very good example of design over function.
  • fokus5fokus5 Posts: 38
    easily-dinged-up-doors assure manufacturers that people won't keep their cars for 17 years.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!

    I think that what the whole molding issue boils down to is a continuing trend of "de-contenting" vehicles. My '87 Prelude had interior lights that slowly dimmed to off when you shut the door, and I had a '89 'Lude that had a lighted ring around the driver's-side keyhole, so that it was easier to find in the dark. Hell, even the little pull-down change bin was lit.

    Now you can only find these small touches on the luxury ($$) makes.

    Granted, these things have nothing to do with a car's road-going performance, but they sure do make the ownership experience more satisfying.

    Then again, why should I care? I have to buy a new car every 30 months! The hardest part is figuring out which one to buy.
  • tgo63tgo63 Posts: 16
    I'm curious how many passengers back seat of rsx can hold. I seriously consider rsx as a replacement for my present car but since I have three children, eldest is nine, this is an important issue for me. Our other car is 2000 accord lx 5 speed.
    Tom
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    It is not intended to be a family car. It is not a practical car for someone with 3 kids.
  • tgo63tgo63 Posts: 16
    My kids are 9, 7 and 4. They have all the space they need in the accord. before we used to have a Ford Aerostar and I find the back seat of Accord more comfortable for the kids then middle bench in Ford. I know rsx is not intended to be family car, but I drive to work 25 miles one way alone and I don't think I need truckish SUV or big minivan to get me there. Plus my kids get a kick out of a little g-force. It would be nice though to have three seat belts in the back seat of rsx.
  • davem2001davem2001 Posts: 564
    It's designed to be a sports-car, especially the 200Hp Type S.
    I think nit-picking it about lack of body side mouldings or whether it holds 3 people in the back seat are a little off base.
    If that's your main concern, look at an Accord or Camry.
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    Anybody heard a price range on this yet?
  • davem2001davem2001 Posts: 564
    estimates of around $19,500 for a 'base' model to around $24,500 for the Type S. Probably very similar to the existing Integra line in price.
  • seminole_kevseminole_kev Posts: 1,722
    When I analyze the photo I can see the obvious differences in design, but when just seeing it over all from any front to front/side angle, I just keep seeing the previous body style civic coupe. Not flaming the car or anything. Does any one else think the same thing?
  • revdrluvrevdrluv Posts: 417
    I don't dislike the new rsx it just seems a little sterile. Much like the previous civic si coupe, almost exciting.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    It's a "sports coupe," a class of auto which places less of an emphasis on maximum performance, and has more of a practical nature. I wouldn't consider a Camry or Accord if you paid me to. And for $25K, I think it's fair to nit-pick, considering that the designers had 4 extra years to develop the car.

    The styling is tepid, but that might make it "age" better than the Cougar, Eclipse or Celica. It's certainly not a "flavor-of-the-month" design. Definately could use another character line, though. Maybe something to give the wheel arches some unity. The car looks like it's up on tip-toe.

    The previous-generation Civic coupe styling was a nearly-obvious copy of the previous BMW 3-Series coupe, particularly when viewed from the rear-3/4 angle. No wonder it looks better than the new Civic coupe.
  • davem2001davem2001 Posts: 564
    An Accord or Camry would have a really roomy back seat, and probably has great body side moldings too.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    If Honda prices the RSX at $24K or higher, the sales will suffer greatly. The WRX although a sedan and ugly, offers way more. I 'm not a Subaru fan and never have been, but I can't help admiring the performance (5.8-6.0sec 0-60) and the AWD that car offers. Of course I 'd probably never buy it, unless I was in the market for a sedan or a wagon with lots of room, but I 'll be in the market for a sports coupe in year or 2. If the RSX is priced at $20-22K, then it will make my car shopping list. Right now I feel the current gen. Integra looks better than the RSX and my other option is getting a used Type-R next year if I can stop modding my GSR for a few months (it gets addicting). Unless the new RSX has better handling and acceleration than the current ITR, I can't see Acura charging $24K for it or as much as an ITR. So my guess is, the RSX Type-S will be around $22.5K or have the same sticker as today's GSR. With so many other sports coupes coming out this year for under $20K, I think it would be a big mistake for Acura to price the RSX in the WRX range, when everyone knows it can't compete with it.
    Lets see how badly they 'll screw this one up..
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    WRX is limited production and it is ugly. Looks matter. There will not be enough WRXs available to be sold for it to affect RSX sales in any way.
    The WRX is a moot non-issue, that can be easily dismissed as any threat.
  • sunilbsunilb Posts: 407
    I believe that Acura is trying to move the RSX up on the luxury side of things. While the performance might be slightly improved, I think they are going to try and justify a higher price because of it will be higher grade materials used inside compared to the previous generation.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Sure the WRX is ugly, but it's a REAL sports car that goes like stink on any road, in any weather condition, unlike the RSX which doesn't even have a LSD.

    Understand that any buyer (myself included) that shops the RSX for performance will be cross-shopping the WRX. For buyers more interested in styling, such as those in the secretary pool, the WRX won't even show up on the radar.

    And yes, Acura is obviously trying to move the car upmarket (climate control, standard leather on Type-S, richer interior). But I'm not interested in paying extra for features I don't want or need. If the performance doesn't justify the cost, I'm not interested. only1harry makes an excellent argument on this point.

    davem2001: What hurts more--sticking your thumb in, or pulling it out?
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    I heard that the WRX is $26K fully loaded with the $1000 automatic transmission option and they will be produced in miniscule numbers, so they are not really an option compared to a $23K RSX.
    One of the biggest turn offs for the WRX is the extremely crude and bone-jarring highway ride.
    The noise and violent ride will make it extremely tiresome as a daily driver.
    I suppose if it is only going to be used as a weekend toy to go screaming down winding mountain roads for fun, it would be an ok car for that purpose, but not for daily driving.
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    No, if you're shopping an RSX strictly for
    performance you *have* to cross shop the WRX
    (among others) but don't put the WRX above the
    RSX just because it's "roomier". I've been in
    a WRX and it has less room, front and back, than
    my Civic coupe. I've described the car in other
    settings as a "2 seater sedan".

    If factors other than sheer performance (if
    that's all you care about shouldn't be shopping
    a sport coupe) enter your buying equation, like
    quality (build and materials), comfort, features,
    reliability or resale value than the RSX *kills*
    the WRX.
  • wordman93wordman93 Posts: 36
    a WRX is no worse than the highway ride in a current gen Integra. In fact the WRX (IMO) handled bumps in the road far better than the Integra. For obvious reasons I can't comment on the ride quality of the up coming RSX but I hope it's alot better than that of the Integra. The guys at Sport Compact seem to like it.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    First off, I don't buy autoboxes. Secondly, I've read dozens of articles on the WRX and not a single one has mentioned a "bone-jarring" ride. As for interior noise, at 70mph the WRX has a cruising noise level of 74dB. Compare that number to the same measurment in the new MB C-Class sedan (75dB @70mph), and your claim would appear to be unfounded.

    Subaru will produce 10,000 WRX's this year--hardly a "miniscule" number. And if you're talking about a "daily driver", come live here in Syracuse with our 170 inches of snow every winter, and then see which car will get you around easier.

    Your conclusion that the WRX is "not really an option" when compared to the RSX may be what you'd like to believe, but I'm doubtful that it is correct.

    Wordman93: I am sure the highway manners of the RSX will out-class those of the current Integra by a far sight. Pretty much anything would be an improvement, really. AutoWeek mentioned that the Type S is so quiet at full throttle that it's "nearly unnerving, more so than the noise of the Integra." That would be nice.

    ranald: If I were only shopping for performance, I'd drive a (GOD FORBID) Z28. The interior appointments in the WRX are a major step-up from what's in the current Integra. And, as you might not be aware, Subarus are renowned for their reliability, longevity, and build quality.

    I don't think that the RSX will "*kill*" anything other than some of the expectations that have been created around it.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    Did Autoweek or SCC do any real tests on the RSX? did they post any performance #s?
    I don't know if I 'd want a 4cyl. 200hp car to be quiet. I like the noise my GSR makes and I like it even better after I put a Cold Air Intake in it. Makes VTEC much more noticeable and sounds like a Type-R at 6K RPM and up. Quiet to me translates into boring. If it were a V6 or flat 6, or V8, yes by all means it should be a lot more quiet. I guess Honda should be congratulated by making a high output naturally aspirated 200hp 4cyl. motor stay quiet under hard acceleration but I don't know if I 'd like that. This on the other hand most likely means that the Intake and exhaust are restrictive and with some aftermarket parts you can make the car scream and get some decent power gains. I'm sure it has lower compression too although I don't know any of the specs, which means it should be a good candidate for a blower. Current GSR can only take a small turbo or small boost without doing anything to the motor (with a worked motor the GSR motor is capable of up to 600+whp with 30lbs of boost). Most GSR owners with a decent turbo and boost (12-24lbs) usually have done major head work and even replaced the pistons on top of ignition, fuel pump, VAFC, etc. It would be nice to throw a decent size turbo on the RSX without having to spend an extra $4-5K on the motor. We 'll see. This is one nice thing the RSX has going for it. A good base HP and I bet is a good candidate to be blown for those who drag race or do track events. Take the Turbo out of the WRX and what do you have left? A 3,000lb car with 160-170hp maybe? Add a turbo to a current stock GSR with only 5-6lbs of boost and you 'll get about 220whp (about 260bhp). Bye bye WRX. So make no mistake about it. If you compare the 2 cars on equal ground (both turbocharged), even the current GSR will take a WRX with a small cheap turbo and you 'll still have money left over.
    It is by no means a great feat for Honda to produce a quiet n/a 200hp 2.0L motor as is the 195hp 1.8L ITR (but not so quiet). So if you examine both RSX & WRX carefully, you 'll see that they 're quiet different. One has good power by means of turbo with AWD but is of modest quality to keep price down, and the other is of higher technological achievement but with a little less power and more luxury and quality materials. Maybe that's the way we should look at them. I could be wrong but how else do you explain the price of the WRX (kind of low) and that of the RSX (if it's high)? Shouldn't the phrase "you get what you pay for" apply here?
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Amen, Brother! Acura has lowered the redline on the Type S (7900rpm vs 8000rpm on the GS-R). I was hoping that the Type S would rev to at least 8400rpm (like the Type R). The fact that you have to keep the pot boiling in the GS-R to get power is one of the things I really love about the car.

    As for aftermarket turbos, throw a $3000 turbo on a WRX, and you're talking about ~350bhp. The big problem with forced induction on a front-driver like an Integra/RSX is getting the power to the ground.

    I need to make a correction to the numbers I posted regarding interior noise levels of the WRX and MB C-Class at 70mph. Those numbers were the measurements taken durring full-throttle acceleration. The 70mph cruising number for the WRX is actually 73dB. Sorry for the error.
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    About the Z28, my point exactly.

    The Integra interior is very dated, but IMO the
    WRX is not much of an improvement. I didn't care
    for it when I was in the car, to me it looks
    really cheap. Again, IMO the RSX interior is
    attractively understated, almost elegant.

    And no, I am not aware of Subaru being renowned
    for reliability, longetivity or build quality.
    In fact, from everything I've read and heard, and
    from the one Subaru in the family, compared to
    Honda or Toyota they are downright cheap and
    shoddy and require fairly frequent and extremely
    expensive repairs.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    Yeah, I read that too about the Subaru reliability, built quality and all that so I went to JD Powers & Associates to see how they rate the Subarus reliability and you 're pretty much right on the money. They don't come close to the Hondas, Acuras or Toyotas. Acura (TL/RL) is way up there with the Big boys, Lexus, Infinity, etc. The Integra is not too far behind. I think it was 20 or 30something out of 180 models. Subarus were in the middle or below! To my surprise VWs were way down there, almost last with the Chevys and the like!
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Ok, so we've got different ptiorities when evaluating cars. Cool by me. The fact that I put less of an emphasis on interior/exterior styling and am more concerned with performance and function-over-form probably stems from the fact that I only keep my daily drivers for less than 3 years/250,000 miles. Even though I'm in the car 8-10 hours a day (certainly long enough to appreciate a more thoughtful interior design), for me it ultimately comes down to the driving experience. And a really comfortable seat.

    I suppose that I should have qualified who in particular find Subarus rewarding to own: their owners. It's a case of one liking what one likes (enough to buy it.) No suprise there. I must impart, however, that my 2.5RS is proving to be more reliable than the '98 Civic DX hatch that it replaced. In less than one year, the Civic suffered a split along one of the seams of its plastic(!) radiator (causing a total coolant loss), a failed Honda CD player, many interior rattles & buzzes, and 3 interior trim pieces that broke in normal use. In 10 months of owning the Subaru, I have experienced ZERO problems.

    Proof enough for me.
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    only1harry: I never did check JD Power, but I read
    magazines, hang out on car sites, and listen to
    brother-in-law the Subaru driver. Subaru may not
    be on a par with Honda or Toyota, but they're no
    Chrysler. And I hear they're better than
    Mitsubishi. :)

    himiler: You're right, of course it's all subjective. I guess it's too hard to resist the
    urge to butt in with "if you're sensible (i.e.
    you value the same things I do, heh) you should
    buy ". :)
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    I 'm surprised to hear that about your '98 Civic DX. My '97 DX has now 131k mi. and I haven't had a single problem. Have only replaced front brake pads and done 1 minor tune-up (my self) at 80k mi. That consisted of plugs, wires, distr. cap & rotor, air filter. Oh and of course the timing belt at 91k mi. & fresh cooland at the same time. The rear pads are still the factory ones as is everything else on the car! Plan to replace some more fluids like brake and Manual tranny fluid and will probaly replace the rotors very soon. This stuff is all maintenance and very minor in my opinion considering I drive the car hard, it's been through a lot of bad weather, and was in a major accident at 40k mi. where I drove (an 11 other ones) over a truck's axle in the middle of the highway and the car went airborne with air bags in my face and all. $5k worth of damage, comprised of mostly suspension, airbags, windshield, etc.
    The motor doesn't burn a drop of oil and sometimes I go 4,000mi. before changing it again. The factory battery is still in it.
    My GSR is not quiet up there but with 25k mi. on the odo and racing it religiously for 7 mos out of the year (real racing, not street racing) it hasn't presented any problems. It is a dedicated weekend race car now and just this weekend I destroyed a WRX which by the way was my 2nd one so far this season out of 2 that I 've encountered auto-x racing with me. Everyone at both racing events was also saying that there was way too much hype about this car and noone was impressed with it like when the Type-R came out or other cars.. It just didn't look good out there on the course. The WRX had way too much body roll, its tires were squealing like crazy and it just couldn't tackle the course with speed and agility and lost traction too easily. And don't believe the commercials you see on TV where they show the WRX going like 100mph through some country roads. That car is probably the Japanese version and most likely has race tires on and upgraded suspension. Come out to the local races and see your great WRX get humiliated by cars that cost less. Don't get me wrong. No doubt it's a fine car but it's not what people have pumped it up to be which is like a super car. It's not.
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Impressive driving on your part, I'm sure, but I'm not interested in racing a WRX--I'll be busy making money with mine (if I even buy one). Besides, at 3200lbs. the WRX needs to go on a major diet before it'll be competitive with hard-nosed club racers.

    You might want to keep a watch out for the STi version, though, when it arrives in 2002.

    Since this is the RSX forum, I thought somebody might be interested to learn that my local dealer says that they are "frustrated" by the lack of marketing support from Acura. He said that there has been significant interest in the car (due to auto mags), but he's only able to take phone numbers from potential buyers. Word-of-mouth on the car is positve, but people are surprised that there is no factory literature available yet, and none is expected until mid-June. In the meantime, he said that he's "concerned" about losing sales.

    Bummer for Acura.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    There is no center console armrest on the new RSX. I wonder if it will be available as a dealer-installed option?
    The lack of center armrest is going to turn off many buyers.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    I also quized dealer re: armrest. He said he had no idea what accessories will be avail., because he has heard NOTHING from the factory.

    Doesn't that just give you a warm feeling all over?
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    Thanks for the link, I heard this on the radio today. I'm not sure, however, that these higher rates will immediately carry over from the Integra. There aren't going to be many powertrain items from the RSX that will "drop in" on the previous generation Civic(s), now that the engine spins in the opposite direction. Also, the RSX wheels are 5-lug, which will make them somewhat less desirable to the rippers.

    Of course, it'll only be a matter of time before the new Civic is the tuner's platform of choice, and then the RSX will be a greater target yet again.

    TT my dealer again today. Acura is bringing all their sales/service people to a big RSX introduction in early June. I think he said it was going to be held in Texas. He just rec'd the announcement this AM. There are now some 1-page pamphlets at the dealers, but there's still far more info available on the Web.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    Well I read that one of Acura's goals were to reduce theft of the RSX since it is really bad with the Integra (#1 stolen car in the country). The word is that the RSX motor will not fit in current g7 Civics. The motor mounts are not located in the same place. I assume '02 Civic Si (160hp) motor may have similar motor mount settings as all other g7 Civics, don't know, but they 're supposed to be different than g6 & g5 Civics. Then again '99-00 Si's didn't have nearly the theft problem g3 Integras have, although you can drop in a '99-00 Si motor in any Civic from '92+ with no problem. The theft rate on Integras was 2.2% in '00 and I 've read that the Type-R has contributed a lot to that # in the last 2-3 yrs with almost 1 out 10 Type-Rs being stolen or broken into. GSR is similarly high. If it weren't for the LS & GS thefts, and they only sold GSRs & Type-Rs, I think that perecentage would be over 5% because GSRs make up only 1/7th of all Integras.
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • pocahontaspocahontas Posts: 802
    "A New Name for an Old Flame"


    image

    Heres Edmunds.coms First Look of the Acura RSX, by Erin Mahoney. What do you think?


    Thanks for your comments. ;-)


    Pocahontas
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons Message Boards

  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    This is old news.. This information came out 3 mos ago. I guess Edmunds just took a "first look" at the RSX at the auto show in NYC just like every one there..
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    Indeed this is all old, generic information.
    The comments are generally favorable, though, except for the (IMO unjustified) digs at the styling. So the RSX is not tacky, trendy or flashy, get over it. (The looks of the current gen Celica will not age any more gracefully than the previous gen's 'porpoise' look.)

    The only comments on the front suspension are that it saves space (true, and nice to point out), that it's not as easy to modify as the old double wishbones (true, it couldn't be *easier*), and that it might not appeal as much to the 'youth market' (true cause it's a little harder to slam the car). All fair.

    Overall while this is nothing new it's good to see the publicity. I think more people read Edmund's than the specialist Honda-Acura sites.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    but if you visit the "specilized" Honda/Acura forums on the web you 'll see thousands of posts a day on each one (and there are dozens of them) by hundreds of people. Although I can't answer if more Honda/Acura owners read Edmunds than those other forums, Edmunds sure doesn't get anywhere near the amount of posts on the Honda/Acura topics. I mean if you get 3-4 posts a day on the Civic or Integra (both hatchbacks and sports coupes forums) forums, it's a lot. On the other forums you get hundreds of posts on just one model. Times that by about 10 Honda & Acura models and you get some very heavy traffic. So it's either that Honda & Acura owners/prospects don't postk/participate on Edmunds and just read, or Edmunds does not have the # of people or Honda/Acura enthousiasts reading their forum that the "others" have.
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • occupant1occupant1 Posts: 412
    This new car will lose a lot of sales immediately because there is no longer a sedan. A TL sedan starts at $29K. The Integra sedan could be had for as little as $20K. Acura should have thought about that. If they're smart, they'll bring over the 1.7EL sedan which is a premium Civic sedan, which is all the original 1986 Integra was, an athletic 1.8 liter Civic. If my wife ever wrecks her blue automatic '98 LS hatchback, she'll be replacing it with a blue 5-speed '98-'00 GS sedan. Especially since we can't afford to go with a TL unless it's older.
  • ejonavinejonavin Posts: 36
    So what IS Acura's plan for the sedan? They won't have a compact sedan model in the U.S. once the Integra is gone.
  • boomn29boomn29 Posts: 189
    Maybe Acura doesn't care about that market anymore...
    Since they are owned by Honda, maybe Honda decided they did not the competition and they the Accord and Civic and doing well enough???

    Just an idea.
This discussion has been closed.