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)



  • crikeycrikey Posts: 1,041
    passengers constantly freak out when they see that I'm doing 100KM/H (about 60MPH+) thinking that I'm going 100MPH :)
  • I got the 2002 rsx type s blown engine at 5000 mile Not ABUSED EITHER .I got the car back today Dec 7 2001 .i will post a new meessage with in one week . I drive 500 miles a week .I will post if the new engine has oil consuption as well . O and to the guy dkneedsnwcr u should check your oil on level ground like in the morning when the car has not been started for a quit a few hours to get the most acurate reading.This is so the oil will all drain to the oil pan . I drove my car home and listened to it and the pistons are still making some slapping noise in low end of motor . I need not to break this car in cause the dealer drove the car a little over 500 miles after installing the new motor before i picked it up. My exhast is black again already but seems they toped off the oil it is right at the line. I check in the parking lot of the dealer.AS i went over the entire car but will be checking it where i work on the lift .I will let u all know what happens peace..................
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    Hi folks, If you're experiencing a problem with your RSX or have insights for those with problems, please join us in this new discussion: Acura RSX Problems & Solutions. For future reference, look for a direct link in the Additional Resources on the left side of the page.

    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.

    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • Kane12,

    I know you're a technician and all with quite a bit of knowledge and experience, but do you go onto 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:

    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.


    Daniel (an Engineer by profession)

  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    the main reason the dealer drove your RSX-S 500mi with the new motor before giving it to you, was to make sure they broke it in properly. They were probably afraid you might redline it or something.
    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.
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Posts: 5,525
    I follow the rulebook, atleast the first time.
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    I personally go by the manual. I think changing the oil every 3K miles is excessive. Plus if you start worrying about this and every little chip in the paint, and everything else, you'll never enjoy your 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.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    The owner's manual says to change it at 6, 7500 or 10k mi. because they want to show that "ownership costs" are very low for their vehicles. Car mags also strictly follow the manual when doing a "long term" test of any vehicle. This is one of Honda's strong points. Low ownership costs. I sat there and argued with the Honda dealer service manager in '97 a week after I bought my first Civic. They had written in the booklet they give you when you purchase a new car, that the first oil change should be between 800-1,000mi. I told him what it said in the owner's manual. He said do what you want but we strongly recommend you change it way before that. So I did. I changed it around 800mi. and than again around 2k mi. because the service mgr. said this removes all the little metal parts that get deposited in the oil, while the engine parts are breaking in, blah blah. Sold that car last summer with 140k mi. and it never burned a drop of oil! No joke. It's been by far the best car I 've ever owned and I 've owned many new cars, simply because it never saw the dealer and nothing ever went wrong with it. Actually it started burning a little bit around 100k mi., but only if I went more than 4k mi. without an oil change. Even then it was negligible. At 5k mi. it burned less than 1/2 Qt, closer to .25qt. I usually changed it every 3,500 mi. and the level was always at full.
    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..
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • I read in a smokey yunick book that piston rings are never quite a perfect round, and neither are piston walls. This is the reason for a break-in period for a car. The piston rings (in a high performance car, such as the RSX) will eventually wear to fit the piston walls perfectly. Most factory cars use a mild(very mild) abrasive in the factory oil to help aid in this process, because the abrasives work to fit the piston rings faster. So if you do happen to change out the oil early without knowing, no worries. Just baby the engine for another 1000 miles and you shouldnt experience any adverse effects.
  • It apparently gets 190 hp and comparable options add to the base price of 24.5K.
  • f1julesf1jules Posts: 288
    are a marketing gimmick. Nothing more. Car manufacturers don't offer 100k warranties because they build reliable cars, they offer them because they want to sell more cars. Chrysler did this in the late 80s, Volkswagen did it in the early 90s. It's a marketing ploy people! It seems to work also.
  • I had a '95 Civic LX and now drive a '00 Accord EX. I changed oil for the first time at 3k on the Civic and 3,750 on the Accord. Changed oil every 3k for the first few months, and 5 to 7k thereafter. No ill effects whatsoever. Metal shavings in the first drained oil- nonexistent. As a side note, every mechanical engineer in the mid-'90's drove a Civic and changed the oil every 7k. A Civic Si hatch is still on the road, with 200k+ miles. For the people changing oil every 3k- you obviously aren't doing it yourself. You would notice on a Honda that the oil at 3k is in good condition, and at 6k still isn't broken down (I'm judging based on use of Castrol GTX 5W-30). These are cars with motor parts manufactured to the highest tolerances, unlike those out of Detroit or Europe. But nothing is perfect. Not physically possible. Now if we were talking about a Focus or Mustang, well that's a different story- we'd have something to worry about :-) Although I'll admit my '95 Civic was built better than my '00 Accord, the new RSX, or even the TL (based on all the problems I read about). Waiting to see the '02 Civic Si...
  • mechanical engineers abover refers to those at my company, not every one in the US! ;)
  • Is there room for a loaded golf bag in the cargo area of the RSX, without folding down one or both seats? I tend to keep my clubs in the car during the golf season, and I like them to be out of sight. They're a pretty tight fit in my '99 Integra, not sure if the RSX has more/less width in the cargo area.
  • I haven't tried to throw my clubs in there yet (no real point since there's snow on the ground). But it does look like you could hold 2 sets in there.
  • I was seriously contemplating the purchase of a new RSX, is it really worth it, or should I start looking at something else?
  • soberssobers Posts: 496
    It is rediculous that Toyota wants 24,000 something for Celica when Leather trimed RSX-Type comes for mid 23!!

    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)
  • uthinxuthinx Posts: 21
    Edmunds service section is correct. The first oil change should be at 5000 miles. A while back my dealer (Ray Laks Acura) sent me the revised maintenance schedule and it specified this. Today when I asked them they were quite insistant that 5000 was the correct mileage for the first oil change and that at that point the engine would be fully broken in and exhibiting its maximum performance characteristics. The original brochure had stated 3750 miles.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    the 10,000 mile oil change interval on the RSX.
  • Can someone point me to a good Acura dealer in the Seattle area? By that I mean a dealer who won't try to nickle and dime me on accessories, taped on pinstrips, and advertising and documentation fees. Just an honest dealer. I know, I sound a bit jaded but after the unbelievably poor experience I had at Honda of Bellevue, it's important for me to find a dealer I can trust.
  • revkarevka Posts: 1,750
    In addition to the feedback here, you may also want to check out Edmunds' New Vehicle PowerShopper. Good luck. ;-)

    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    A dealer you can trust? I 've never heard of such a thing :)
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • I have mixed feelings on the car. Like most Integra enthusiasts, I was anxiously awaiting the new design. When I heard it was 200 hp, I was excited because even the old GSR at 175hp needed a little more punch. With eight years before a new design change, I thought the designers would come up with something a little more sportier than the current GSR. The new Type S is even more conservative and plain than the old GSR (which I drove for 5 years). I hate the upside down triangle grill in the front. It looks like a cavalier-cheap. They want the car to look like the other acura's with grills. That's stupid. That is like chevy saying we want to make the Corvette look like the other chevy products. The side of the car has no curves or creases. They need to put some vents on the side like the Ford mustang, Chevy Corvette, and Toyota MR2. With no molding or creases, I see door dings all over these cars in a couple of years. Even though the rear is kinda plain, I like it, but a spolier doesn't come stock? Even pictures with spoilers look unusual since the car is so conservative. It looks like someone putting an aftermarket spoiler on a plain civic. Speaking of civics, this car looks more like a cross between a civic and cavailer than a big improvement on the old GSR. Now that I'm in my 30's, I get the feeling that Acura was trying to appeal to an older buyer who grew up with the old integra. As an older driver, I still don't like the styling. I'm sure the younger (pre-integra) generation is even more disappointed. Nevertheless, I recently test drove the car because my beloved Integra was stolen and stripped for parts.
    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.
  • mensymensy Posts: 3
    I can understand most of the points you made in your last post, but I definitely do NOT agree with your Jetta info. I've owned a 2000 Jetta for about a year before trading it in. It was the worst car I ever owned. Their paint jobs are HORRIBLE. The factory in Mexico (where most of the Jetta's are built except the vr6 models) was having major paint problems due to high altitude. Also the clearcoat on my friend's 2000 Jetta is already peeling off!!! Not to mention the huge list of problems I've had with my Jetta, the longer lists of problems my other 2 friends with new Jettas have had. Plus, the shifter is the worst...even worse than the S4. It's not a sporty car at all. Take it from someone who has owned one before. I testdrove the RSX type-s. It is 10x the car the Jetta is.
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    I agree with a lot of your points.. How about a new GTI VR6? It has a nice torquy motor for around the same price as RSX. I expected a better looking car too to replace my GSR.

    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..


    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • brorjacebrorjace Posts: 588
    I have some really mixed feelings about the RSX. I owned a 2nd generation Integra, never really liked the 3rd generation and its beady-little-eye headlights so I was anxious to see the new and improved" RSX which is now replacing the Integra. My current car, a '95 Civic Coupe, is getting to the point where I'll want to replace it in the next year or two and I'm trying to make up my mind ahead of time as to which car I'll choose.

    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
  • ranaldranald Posts: 147
    The ratio for 6th in the Type-S is the same
    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.
  • brorjacebrorjace Posts: 588
    Thanks, Ranald.

    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
  • I don't know who pooped in your Christmas stocking, but boy do you sound bitter. Looks are highly subjective, but I can't imagine thinking a Celica is good-looking. No ABS, but 4-wheel discs? No power moonroof or CD player? You must have the shortest commute known to man. Gosh, you wouldn't even be happy replacing your lil' Civic with a new '02. I think a '74 BMW 2002tii or '70 240Z might have everything you're looking for... Otherwise, you'll have to make some sacrifices- check out the VW GTI and Civic Si hatch too.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    I'll take the RSX's looks over the Celica any day. If you don't like it that's your call.
This discussion has been closed.