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)



  • l943973l943973 Posts: 197
    Just received the 2002 RSX brochure yesterday from Acura and it mentioned that the RSX now uses a timing chain instead of a belt that should last the life of the engine. Thats one less part to replace.

    Some of the things I noticed are the auto up/down power driver side window. Curb height (5.9") for the Type-S, 6" for the Base. Thats pretty high?

    Artic Blue and White Pearl are exclusive to the Type-S. The base has a deep metallic blue that looks very nice and its own white that looks plainer.
  • jimsxnjimsxn Posts: 108
    Please post your impressions/thoughts...thanks.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Yeah, unfortunately. Too bad the Prelude looked so bland. It was a 20K baby NSX that many people could've afforded. Let's hope that Honda learns from its mistake and make a better replacement for the Prelude.

    On a totally different note, let's hope the next generation NSX will really turn heads. They *did* take 10 years to redesign it.
  • fxashunfxashun Posts: 747
    The new NSX will debut the Honda V8. If they can get 260 hp out if a 3.2L 6 I'll bet a V-tec 8 will be awesome.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    I heard that the new NSX will have an i-VTEC 6 cylinder engine. It should make at least 350hp and return 0-60mph times of sub-5 seconds. It's also rumored to be more expensive to elevate it to the levels of Ferrari and Lamborghini (though I doubt that Acura could succeed).

    Sorry host, I know this is the RSX forum and not the NSX forum, but no one posts in the NSX forum...*whine*
  • godskindgodskind Posts: 4
    Test drove the Type S this weekend. Very impressive. Used to own a 96 GSR and the new Type S felt much better. GSR had absolutely NO BRAKES. Have drive the M3 and Saab Aero (230HP 4 cyl turbo recently). Nothing beats an M3. It's too much car. But the RSX seems like a well balanced daily racer that would allow you to have most of the fun without having to be doing over 100 MPH everywhere. Considering purchasing the Type-S for the sheer joy of flicking through those 6 gears and reving the wonderful little engine. One negative that can be cured with after market -- no exhaust sounds.
  • mitsugstmitsugst Posts: 41
    GSR had no brakes? So you are saying the brakes on the type-S are actually better. Anyone know the braking distance figures of the GSR? I finally read the August Car and Driver, and I was really disappointed in the braking distance measured by them for the type-S. Although, if you look at some of the first few pages of the mag, you'll find a short comment and picture of the type-R. It states that the type-R has four-piston caliper brakes. I am assuming that the type-S has one- or two-piston calipers. Hopefully, Acura will come up with a brake upgrade, which merely includes calipers with a higher number of pistons. This should definitely fix our problem, and shouldn't cost too much (maybe $300-$400).

    If Acura offered this, the car would fit my tastes, perfectly.
  • zizizizi Posts: 7
    does any body have an idea about prices for canadian rsx?
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Go to and search for "2002 Acura RSX" and the first few sites that show up should be Canadian reviews and specs. for the RSX.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    You said that your old GSR had absolutely no brakes, but the new RSX doesn't have superb braking numbers, either. Wonder if the Type-R fares any better.
  • mb710327mb710327 Posts: 9
    According to CAR and Driver's road test thats in the August issue, the RSX Type S goes 0-60 mph in 6.1 seconds.
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Only if you know how to switch gears fast enough...

    I saw this in the Why Everyone Dislikes GM forum and I just have to share it cause it's soo funny (at least I think so, lol):

  • kcirredkcirred Posts: 10
    RSX (MT) $24,000.00
    RSX (AT) $25,000.00

    RSX Premium (MT) $27,000.00
    RSX Premium (AT) $28,000.00

    RSX Type S (MT) $31,000.00

    Found it on
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Posts: 398
    I’ve had my RSX-S for a week now, and I absolutely love the car. I don’t think I can add much to this forum by simply repeating all the positive reviews that I generally agree with and that most of you have probably read, e.g. great engine, high quality interior materials, great handling, supportive seats, etc., etc., etc.

    OK, I can’t help but add that the stick shift is absolutely the best. Very precise, very quick, very short. By far the best I’ve ever used.

    Also, in terms handling I expected less and was pleasantly surprised. Pushed the car a lot in corners, and as far as I could tell there was no under steer – it was very neutral. I think the body is very sturdy. Definitely feels more uncompromising over bumps compared to my old 1997 BMW M3 (lease ended last year). It may not be just as fast in corners as the M3, but the body stiffness and the quick heavy steering make the RSX-S more precise and tossable and fun than the M3 (the old one at least). Actually, it feels more like a single seater cart than a street car.

    But enough of this – what I wanted to do is point out things to watch out for if you go for a test drive. I wasn’t necessarily disappointed by those things, but it may be worth noting them in order to decide if this car is for you:

    Things To Watch Out For:

    Acceleration: I think I expected more in this department. My automatic transmission 2001 Maxima at full throttle acceleration (it downshifts at about 5,000 RPM) will out accelerate the RSX-S, provided that you don’t exceed 5,000 RPM in the RSX-S. Of course this is not a fair comparison, as you CAN go all the way up to 7,900 RPM with the RSX-S, and I am sure it will be faster, but I am not comfortable, at least for now while I am breaking in the engine, to rev it up too much. It may be me, but at about 5,000 RPM I feel the engine is really strained. My old 1997 M3 back then was rated at 5.7 secs. 0-60 (vs. 6.1 in the RSX-S), but it felt WAY, WAY faster. (Again, I was constantly thrashing the engine, as the car was leased.)

    Stereo: The BOSE stereo on my Maxima is much better the BOSE on the RSX-S. Actually I thought the woofer in the trunk was not working and brought the car back to the dealer. It turned of it was working. The bottom line is - the stereo sound is clear, but fairly weak, and the bass is pitiful compared to my Maxima.

    Front Passenger Leg Room: I may just be too picky here. The leg room, generally, is great. However, you can not rest your feet comfortably on the passenger side, because the space under the dash gets very narrow, so if your heels are on the floor there is no space for your toes to go up. You can, of course, move the seat all the way back and then you have plenty of room, but you have to rest your feet on the flat floor – there is no vertical (or half vertical) foot rest.

    Trunk Isolation: Like the Integra (I used to have a 1990 GS hatchback) there is virtually no sound insulation from the trunk. If you have cargo in the trunk that rattles, it sounds as if it is right next to you in the cabin.

    Seat Adjustment: If you push forward the seats (to access the back seats) then you loose you forward setting as well as the back setting.

    Engine At Low RPM: Feels a little jerky. I remember my M3 was worse, but the dealer kept getting new software for the engine every 3 months or so. And eventually, they made it fairly smooth. I wonder if Acura will go through the trouble of fine tuning their software.

    Road Noise: I think it’s mainly to do with the stock Michelin tires. The Michelins are normally the noisiest tires you can get. But I’ll always take the Michelins over anything else as they generally outperform any other comparable tire, in my opinion. I am fine with the tire noise. If you test drive the car make sure the tire noise is acceptable to you. Note that it is much noisier on concrete, so if you can, test drive the car on concrete as well as asphalt.

    Hope this helps.
  • I've decided to purchase an RSX Type S to replace my recently late, lamented 92 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo. (In case you're wondering, the turbo blew up and parts of it got sucked into the engine.) I went for a test drive last Sat., and I found the Type S surprisingly easy to shift (having driven an automatic for the past 9.5 years). The dealer told me that they're charging MSRP because it's a 2002. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can get a better price? I can't wait until fall -- with the demise of the Laser, I'm a pedestrian!
  • only1harryonly1harry NYPosts: 1,140
    The GSR's braking was usually tested from 60mph to 0 in various mags. It always ranged from 134 to 137ft 60-0. The '97-01 Type-R has much better brakes (bigger rotors, calipers & pads) and 60-0 it stopped in 120-122ft and since I 've driven my brother's Type-R many times I know from 70 and 80mph it stops way better than my '99 GSR. BUT, this is not to say the GSR's brakes suck. When my GSR was fairly new, about the 1st 12mos, the brakes I thought were pretty good from even 100-110mph. After about a year they started deteriorating but primarily because I was auto-x racing the car at the same time. From lower speeds like 70 or 60mph the brakes were really good and it stopped much quicker than my '97 Civic or my wife's '98 Galant (and now my wife's '01 Altima). After about 22mos when I started feeling the brake distances lessening and fading was becoming more noticeable from higher speeds (80+mph), I replaced all 4 rotors with Brembo rotors and aftermarket pads, both stock diameter & size. These were very inexpensive IMO ($30 per rotor & $90 for all 4 pads - shopped around a lot and mail ordered them) and the braking has become very close to that of the Type-R's.
    Now it's possible that they tested the brakes cold on the RSX because frankly I can't see how they can get such great braking distances with those huge rotors. It has 11.8" front rotors which are even bigger than Type-R's. BUT it's the kind of pads that counts mostly, so many good street/race pads like my AXXIS pads, need to be warmed up first before they can really grab. The C&D editors probably have no clue of things like that and tested the brakes cold. After I have 2-3 moderate to heavy stops on my pads, they become much better and the next time I brake, the car feels like it wants to stop so much sooner that puts a smile on my face. Day and night difference from the first 2-3 brake applications. This is what I suspect happened with the RSX, or they let the brakes cool down between each braking test which would 've really hurt the distances. This is not the first time C&D has screwed up with tests. Even when the first tested the Type-R and got 6.8s or 7s 0-60, they came back a few months later and apologized and said they didn't know they had to launch at like 6k RPM to get the best times. They went back and got 6.6 and Motortrend did the same thing (they launched at 6500 or 6800!) and got 6.2s. Anyway, that's what I think happened with the RSX-S braking, unless they have the cheapest pads on the car, which can easily be remedied by getting some decent aftermarket pads, like AEM, Hawk HP, AXXIS Metal Masters or Porterfield R4S. These pads alone will reduce braking distances by about 10ft or more from 70mph with absolutely no fading. I have yet to experience any fading with my Axxis pads. Sorry for the long note but I felt that are things you guys should know about brakes..
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • tommyp13tommyp13 Posts: 146
    I really don't think that you'll be able to beat msrp. From lurking on the discussion boards, people seem to feel lucky to pay msrp, as some dealers are trying to get away with markups.

    You can try, but expect to get a cold reception.
  • n8236n8236 Posts: 7
    I am located in San Francisco, California. I visited my nearest Acura dealer in Serramonte, the salesman welcomed me telling me if u were looking for the rsx, there is a $2k-4k mark up in most if not all dealers. After reading all the posts here and over at Clubrsx, i knew he was trying to pull a fast one on me. =)
    I was wondering if it was legal for the Acura dealers to change above MSRP as I've read some posts saying Acura would not allow such mark ups. Any extra info would be great.
  • ligartligart Posts: 109
    I was at the Acura dealer in Santa Rosa and they proudly told me they had no markup on the RSX.

    P.S. If you do make the trip up there, drive right by the dealer in Corte Madera, 'cause they have a $2k markup...
  • tommyp13tommyp13 Posts: 146
    I feel for you CA guys. It seems as though you always get screwed with markups. Guess that's the cost of all of that year-round great weather.

    Start calling/emailing local dealers to see what they're doing. I'm sure clubrsx will have other dealers that are charging msrp.

    Don't give up and pay over msrp. No car's worth that.
  • n8236n8236 Posts: 7
    I know leather and insurance has no relation at all, but just tryin' to hit these two questions off my head.
    I was able to find a dealer ( Serramonte, CA ) which was selling the car just a tick below MSRP. I was given a price of $2.23k for an base RSX, with auto and leather. Since California's weather is decent year round, I was wondering if the leather was completely necessary. I really like to have it since it is an " Acura " car, but it worth it for the car. I dun want to look like a Civic with leather, it's just sad to make your car look cheaper than the seats. lol
  • n8236n8236 Posts: 7
    Sorry 'bout the insurance and leather relation. Hehe...belongs elsewhere.
  • himilerhimiler Posts: 1,209
    C&D does multiple braking runs, and then takes the average of those runs.

    Given their collective experience, I'm confident that C&D's editors are adept at techniques required to obtain maximum performance fron the vehicles they test.
  • ligartligart Posts: 109
    Why do bad weather and leather go together? :-\

    Whatever the reason, I think the RSX looks great with leather seats--it's not at all a case of "leather on a Civic". The quality of the interior trim is very high and classy and can only be complemented by leather.

    If you really like it, go for it!
  • ligartligart Posts: 109
    Strange no one has mentioned this appears one has no choice of interior color for a given exterior color. For example, Firepepper Red Pearl comes only with a gray (oops, Platinum) interior. Yuk!

    I might expect this from Honda, but Acura?

    I remember 10 or so years ago interiors came in an array of colors. Then they came in just tan/gray/black, but at least the entire interior was that color. Then they came with the dash and center console always black. Now it looks like they come with no choice at all.

    Pretty soon we'll be able to get any exterior color we want, as long as it's black.

  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    One of the Type-R's interior is blue (I think it only comes with the blue colored Type-R). But you can only get that if you live in Japan.
  • A friend from Japan sent me this picture . It seems Honda has built a few prototypes of 4 door Intergras, that might well end up as 4 door RSX in the U.S.

    Scroll down to my (red) link, to the "car page".
  • diploiddiploid Posts: 2,286
    Thanx for the pics, Vince.

    What the...? The 2003 Accord looks exactly like the redesigned Altima!
  • I know... I think Honda is working on more than one design. These might just be studies...I am supposed to get a pic of the Wagon soon.
This discussion has been closed.