20-21k for 200 hp, some sweet recaro's and suspension setup? What would be a better deal than that? The neon SRT? I am skeptical. I don't know why people get so hung up on small differences in hp. 5-10 hp or .3 seconds diff in 0-60 is not enough of a difference to rule out one model over another. If that was the case we all would have bought a Camaro. Is it just the desire to have a car that you can say is "better" than someone else's?
Well, Automobile is claiming 5.4 0-60 for the SRT. If that number is true, that's a little more than a ".3 second diff in 0-60," which I agree people shouldn't get too worked up on. That number is in Mustang GT, 350Z, S2000, WRX territory, more than slightly ahead of a lot of its sport compact competition.
About the horsepower stuff, generally if there's enough there to get a car to 60 in 8.X seconds, it's more than enough for worry-free merging, passing power, etc. I'm pretty sure a 160hp Accord, even an Echo, will satisfy that. That's all someone "needs." Past that, it's "want," no?
Has anyone checked out temple of vtec lately? They have a nice concept SI as well as photos of the Honda FP package available for the SI, Accord. One of them has a GReddy turbo which puts the SI at 220HP. Sweet.
But I do agree that the auto world is becoming all about HP and who can have more of it. I used to want to have the fastest car but now at 23 I have matured. Now I only want to be faster than most.
I agree. I too desire more power. But it doesn't always make for a sportier car. For example the new Accord has 240 hp but I bet you would have much more fun driving aggressively in a 160 hp Civic Si.
Acceleration can be fun, but it is only so rewarding. A balanced chassis, good steering feedback and great brakes are just as, if not more, important to spirited driving. Also some cars go 0-100 in 7 seconds, but where am I going to use that without going to the track. I am all about what is the most fun while driving (reletively) responsibly. Someday, when I can buy a track car, I will worry about track performance.
The SEMA SIs sure looked good. I got to admit the red looks stunning though I'm not a fan of red or black.
But from the side view, it sure looks like a Foci! Even Temple of Vtec posters agree. But who cares if it looks like a Foci? The Hyundai XG looks like a certain Jag. Mazda Protege and a Hyundai (don't remember which model) looks like B5 Audi A4.
to some of you to please stick to the subject of this discussion.
Also, don't mean to spoil the fun, but let's please write in a manner that's easily understandable for all the participants here. Please note: any further messages that are disruptive to the flow of this discussion will be subject to deletion.
And now back to the subject of the Acura RSX vs Honda Civic Si. Thanks for your participation!
I drove both cars and the most glaring thing in my mind was the noise. I drove the SiR (badged this way in Canada) first and found everything to be very comfortable, from the driving position, to the clutch and shift action, to the visibility and the ride.
The following week I headed over to the Acura dealer and strapped myself into the RSX base. The first thing I noticed was how much lower you FELT like you were in the car. The floor seemed so much closer to the seats than in the SiR. The next thing I noticed was it was just that...a feeling of sitting low. I found myself looking out over the dash and hood and felt like I was in the Vibe. Once on the road though, I noticed how LOUD the engine seemed. I knew both the SiR and the RSX have identical engines but why was the RSX so much noisier? It wasn't an exhaust tuning thing, it was the engine or the soundproofing material (or lack thereof) in the car.
What's the deal? The SiR revved much more smoothly and quietly than the RSX...any ideas why that might be the case?
I also found the clutch and shifter in the SiR much smoother and easier to use than the RSX which felt a little notchy and the clutch pedal a little firm. This might be due to the sporting intentions of the RSX, but the SiR is sport oriented too, isn't it? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
golfboy: I felt the same way when I drove the RSX. I'm not a big fan of feeling like I am in a bucket and that's how I felt in the RSX. I liked the interior design, just not the driving position.
One thing that probably contributes to the SI's smoother-feeling engine is that is has balance shafts and the RSX does not. And if I am not mistaken the SI has some modifications to the gearbox to make it smoother as well.
Overall the RSX is a nice car but the driving position, the seats, and the price make the SI way more attractive to me.
Sports cars are very low to the ground. The RSX is almost a sports car (technically a sports coupe, fastback, whatever you want to call it), so it will also be low to the ground.
For those who want a less bouncy and more floaty ride, test drive an SUV. Or a GM boat.
I don't have a problem with the RSX's ride. I like a firmer ride. I just don't like the low driving position. It makes me feel like I am in a KFC bucket of chicken. If I went off of performance alone though it would've been:
1. RSX-S 2. SI 3. base RSX
For me the SI was the best overall balance, especially for $16,300.
though I didn't drive it. So I can't say if the RSX sitting position is better or worse. But I think it all depends on how tall/short and thin/fat you are. At 5' 9", 160lbs, I can fit in just about any type of cars but sitting in an S2000 and driving it was a bit difficult coz' I was so low that I had a hard time looking outside the car. But S2000 is meant to be a sports car. It is a feature so is the RSX.
But most racer wannabe or racer boy will love low sitting positions. Gives us a feeling of sportiness rather than sitting high like in a minivan or SUV. Also, lower the CG like a poster mentioned. So, anonymous might be the exception here or she's just too short or something else.
I might be short but even my 6'6 boyfriend thinks the RSX sits a little deep. It's not the low height that we mind. It's the higher cowl height of the RSX vs. the SI and even previous gen. Integras. Just a matter of personal preference, has nothing to do with my height.
RSX has a seat in it or is he just sitting on the car frame?? :)I bet his head is sticking out of your SI w/ the moonroof in there coz' the moonroof lessens the head clearance.
He actually has plenty of headroom in the SI. He drives a 00 SI everyday so my car is fairly roomy compared to it. But neither offer the stretch-out room of his Lexus LS.
It has nothing to do really with where the seat is in the RSX ... the dash just seems to high. We prefer the Honda dashes of the late 80's and early 90's, or even as recent as the 98-02 Accords and 96-00 Civics, which have a low cowl height and plenty of glass. Most people won't even notice it or even care. But we are fickle.
stature (5'6" maybe - if you consider that short) complains about the RSX sitting position is low and your bf. who is 6'6" is also complaining it is too low. Assuming you are 5'6", your husband, I mean bf, will be a whole foot taller than you. And for you to say both of you can find a good seating position in the SI but not the RSX makes it unbelievable and show your bias or just plain trying to rationale the SI over the RSX.
But whatever. Maybe both of you like to slide your car all the way back and tilted at 160degrees with your left arm and right arm (passenger) hanging out on the door? :P
At least on the driver's side. I liked the cockpit feel. On the passenger side, though, it did feel like I was sitting a little low, but I was the PASSENGER!
Like I said, it's a matter of personal preference. My boyfriend thinks the cowl height of the RSX is too high compared to the Integra and previous Civics. It's also higher than the SI. We're not the only ones who prefer lower dashes. In one review of the new Accord they mentioned that Honda's cowl height kept going up and up from it's near perfect height with the 86-89 Accord. There's nothing at all wrong with the RSX ... I like the car. It's just not for me.
"(5'6" maybe - if you consider that short) complains about the RSX sitting position is low and your bf. who is 6'6" is also complaining it is too low. Assuming you are 5'6", your husband, I mean bf, will be a whole foot taller than you"
Whether a seat is all the way forward or all the way against the back seat, when it's low, it's low. Two people can have similar upper body sizes but have quite different heights because of the length of their legs. And a high beltline is a high beltline no matter how tall someone's upper body is anyway, which was all she was talking about, right?
I cannot see how someone who is 6'6" complaining that the RSX seats are too low. If that's the case, I must not be able to see out and over the dash then!
But I'm able to. So, I assume I've a long neck. I guess some of us are blessed with perfectly proportion body like anony and bf.
Maybe Acura can ask Shaq. to be the spokesperson. The car would be a perfect fit for him since everyone else is complaning the sitting position is too low.
common sense and comprehension do still exist on these boards.
I'll say it one last time ... the dash of the RSX is higher than previous Integras, Civics, and Accords. If you sit in a 90-93 Integra or even a 96-00 Civic you will see what I mean. My SI also has a higher beltline than the old Hondas but the RSX is even higher than the Civic. Just sit in a RSX and SI back-to-back and maybe you will see what I am talking about.
low seating position?? Initially you claimed the seats were too low. Then you changed your story to a high dash. Whatever your reasons are, you cannot convince me or anyone w/ an ounce of common sense that a 6'6" frame complains that the seating position is too low and causes the person not to be able to see over the dash. Come on. Get real!
I never said he couldn't see over the dash. I said that he felt the dash was too high. We both prefer to feel like we are sitting "on top" of the car instead of feeling like we are in a bucket. As I said, if you sit in a 01 Integra/96-00 Civic/90-93 Accord/even a 02 SI and then sit in the RSX you will see the difference. The RSX just has a higher cowl height. And in case you aren't sure what that is it's the height of the dash in relation to the seats and the rest of the car.
sitting low in the car and having snug, grabby seats is a characteristic of a sport coupe, so that you when go slamming around corners at high speeds, you will feel like the car has you in its grip, and you won't slide around. This is very nice for very energetic driving, but if you also have to commute in the car or something, it can be a bit of a drag.
The Civic OTOH is designed to be first and foremost a commute car/urban tripper. Therefore it follows the trend of other recent urban cars - rising beltlines and driving positions, and lower cowls. The Si/SiR is merely a modification of the mainstream civic, using a speedier engine and better suspension. So it has these characteristics.
I remember one of the things I really wound up disliking about my '02 celica was the hugely high beltline, in relation to the low sport coupe seating position. The combo was so extreme that I could not rest my arm on the window ledge AT ALL when I opened the window all the way.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
hey hamproof. What does it matter if anony thinks the seats are too low. Why debate her personal preference??? That's just pointless, or do you have nothing better to do. RSX was my dream car before I got the Si. Definitely glad I made the right decision. Drove for about two hours total all highway last night - first time on highways, and my gf kept making fun of my perpetual smile. Still in love with this car, and will be in love for a long time. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet in this forum is the longevity of having these cars. They're both fairly new, fairly close models. Which one do you guys think will last longer? Thanks.
P.S. hamboy, if the seats are low, doesn't that make the dash high? And vice versa if the seats are too high, doesn't that make the dash too low? Lol talk about common sense and comprehension.
"Initially you claimed the seats were too low. Then you changed your story to a high dash."
Thought you'd want to know, Ham no longer posts here. Dunno whether he got disgusted or banned. Though he was apt to get into arguments with Anony, I liked him.
I test drove the RSX base and I noticed it felt weird when I went to put my elbow on the opened window. The seat was too low, and I'm 6'3. The 2000 Integra I tested had adjustable seat height knob, but they wanted more for that than a new CivicSI. Why would they take away adjustable seats and save a few bucks and lose the sale altogether? Unbelievable.
The RSX's seating height is actually an inch or so higher than the previous Integras.
I find that the view over the dash is actually too low for me. I don't need to see the road immediately in front of the car...although it's a nice feature that I've grown accustomed to.
The thing I had to get used to in the RSX was the height of the doors compared to my previous vehicle. I used to be able to rest my arm on the window sill while driving....I can't do that anymore without my shoulder getting dislocated or my arm falling asleep. :-) I could crank the seat height up more but then my view over the dash would be too exposed for my liking. Either that or I would truly experience the rush of wind through my hair...granted that the sunroof was open. :-)
Someone on a diff. board was asking about RSX being faster than civic according to salesman. The torque for the RSX is 141 ft-lbs and peaks at a fairly low 4000rpm, the Civic Si peak torque is only 132, and peaks at 5000. So that may be why the dealer was saying that. Unless you really meant the Ex, which has only 127 HP, since the Si doesn't come in AT. Haven't driven the Si, but the RSX had plenty of torque for me, and the last 5spd I drove was a V6 with 180 torque.
I've been giving serious consideration to an RSX for my wife..this would replace her 97 Saturn which is a total dog. I have compared the RSX to a Civic coupe and the numbers, torque, horsepower and so on are far and away better for the Acura, tho it carries one less passenger which isn't really an issue. I received a quote of $19.100 for a 2003 5 speed with leather which I think is a great number. I was wondering if anyone has experienced any significant problems with the 2003 RSX. I'm talking about things that would have an effect on reliability or safety over a 5 year period. Any comments positive or negative would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Redwolf
I've had a base 5-speed RSX (red) for over a year and a half (21K miles) now and have had no significant problems to speak of. Some have complained about 2nd gear being notchy, which I noticed when I first got the car, though replacing the stock shifter with a short shifter seems to have solved the problem (and created a smaller one: a clinking noise shifting into even gears...presumably the angle of the cables on the shorter shifter, nothing you can do about it). I had the (overhead) map light replaced because the driver's side light was sticking. Still does it, though only in cold weather. The trunk cover creaks from time to time, again temperature related. The paint job could be better: I've touched up a multitude of chips, and the poor windshield suffers from all the gravel, stones, etc. No cracks yet, but all the minor pitting looks horrible when the sun is in your face. The standard Michelin tires are pretty awful, but I figure I should get 20-30K out of them before finding some quieter (loud over concrete) and with more grip. The ride can be a bit harsh over railroad tracks and the like, esp. the back, with the mini-wishbones, but the ride is more than acceptable, esp. with the wonderful Recaro-type seats. At first I thought rear visibility was poor, but then I test drove a Celica, which is far worse, esp. as you can't buy the thing sans spoiler. I passed on the spoiler, since I don't think it adds much and, after all, you can buy and install it later if you change your mind. I paid 19.5K in August 2001, which was a good price at the time. 19.1K with leather sounds good, though I really don't like the leather at all. I went with cloth, which I still think looks and feels top notch, while the leather strikes me as below par(I had a chance to drive an automatic with leather as a loaner: in my opinion the titanium leather looks and feels cheap. Maybe the black is better, though I doubt it.). Oh, and the stock speakers are dreadful. I replaced them with Polks and the head unit (also not the best) sounds a lot cleaner, though it still has no power and bass (i.e. you have to crank it up to "5" or "6" to get anything...and I'm not a bass freak). I've done a fair amount of highway driving with the RSX and it's certainly not the quietest at 80 mph, though I can live with that (you can always add sound insulation sheeting to the doors, etc.). All in all, I still love the car, which I keep adding bits and pieces to (CAI coming soon, followed by an ECU reprogram, though the 160HP engine is certainly smooth and powerful enough for everyday driving. As far as reliability and safety go, I doubt you can do better in its class for the price. The only time a "check engine" light came on it turned out to be a computer glitch (no small feat being on the road from Atlanta back to NJ; stopped at the Acura dealer in Greenville, SC, and was out of there in half an hour, problem solved.) I've been pretty lucky so far, esp. considering I bought the car a little over a month after it came out. Hope this helps.
You could probably get an Si for $16-17k if you look carefully (and less for a leftover 2002). And it shares the same engine as the RSX, has better seats and shifter (in my opinion), and the rear seating and cargo space is better.
I have been looking to purchase a RSx for about 3 months now(financial issues) and on the way to the Acura dealership i decided to stop by the Honda dealership. I test drove the SI and loved it! it is quieter than the RSX (i drove the Type-S) and the shifter is like butter (MHO). I decided the second i was on the freeway doing almost 100 (really cool sales person told me to take it to the max! gnarly) i was going to get this car. I got quoted for a brand new (comes in a week) black 03 SI with some protection package, wheel locks, mud flaps, fog lights, 16 in' rims and some other stuff for 17,500. I cant wait, if anyone lives in San Diego i recommend Pacific Honda. They are great at lowering the price and adding extras. Very happy, and i will agree with everyone else, i love the seats!
They lowered the price because they're trying to get rid of the '03 Si Civics...they're freshening the styling for '04 and it won't be so "guppy-ugly"...so unless you're really in love with the looks of the current model or it's about price, go for it. But if you want a HOT lookin' Si for a couple thou more in a few months, wait.
Congratulations on your new Si. I like the shifter placement and action better in the Si also. It's an outstanding car.
I haven't heard anything about an 04 freshening. Although no matter how the car looked, I don't think it's worth MSRP ($19,500) without some more power.
Of course it will be more...the new styling is going to be way hotter than the current version (they'll redo the headlamps and front faschia...as well as maybe rear).
I honestly like the looks of the Si as it is right now...the thing that I do NOT like is the hard plastic dash...it is the same look as the Civic Coupe's but it has hard plastic instead of soft-touch (which i VERY much prefer). It also has a weird lower tray area just above the knees. I'm 6'4 and that bothered me when test drove the '02 Si. Anyways, they probably won't be as generous with the price for the '04...but like I said, if it isn't about $$$ then go for the '04 instead.
Go to Google and type in "College Hills Honda" and it should pull up their website. On that site is an update page. They've been reliable so far and that's where I'm getting this info.
I know this is a random place to put thisbut has anyone seen those cars that are ads? i found out they pay you to do it and they need odd cars that arent to common so i decided to use my SI, anyone know anyonw who has done this or themselves done it? if so i need to know if its worth it. thanks in advance
every SI hatch since they began has had the tray in the passenger seat - great for storing stuff, but does often interfere with foot/knee space for the passenger!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
About the horsepower stuff, generally if there's enough there to get a car to 60 in 8.X seconds, it's more than enough for worry-free merging, passing power, etc. I'm pretty sure a 160hp Accord, even an Echo, will satisfy that. That's all someone "needs." Past that, it's "want," no?
Mike
But I do agree that the auto world is becoming all about HP and who can have more of it. I used to want to have the fastest car but now at 23 I have matured. Now I only want to be faster than most.
Acceleration can be fun, but it is only so rewarding. A balanced chassis, good steering feedback and great brakes are just as, if not more, important to spirited driving. Also some cars go 0-100 in 7 seconds, but where am I going to use that without going to the track. I am all about what is the most fun while driving (reletively) responsibly. Someday, when I can buy a track car, I will worry about track performance.
But from the side view, it sure looks like a Foci! Even Temple of Vtec posters agree. But who cares if it looks like a Foci? The Hyundai XG looks like a certain Jag. Mazda Protege and a Hyundai (don't remember which model) looks like B5 Audi A4.
Also, don't mean to spoil the fun, but let's please write in a manner that's easily understandable for all the participants here. Please note: any further messages that are disruptive to the flow of this discussion will be subject to deletion.
And now back to the subject of the Acura RSX vs Honda Civic Si. Thanks for your participation!
Revka
Hatchbacks & Wagons Host
The following week I headed over to the Acura dealer and strapped myself into the RSX base. The first thing I noticed was how much lower you FELT like you were in the car. The floor seemed so much closer to the seats than in the SiR. The next thing I noticed was it was just that...a feeling of sitting low. I found myself looking out over the dash and hood and felt like I was in the Vibe. Once on the road though, I noticed how LOUD the engine seemed. I knew both the SiR and the RSX have identical engines but why was the RSX so much noisier? It wasn't an exhaust tuning thing, it was the engine or the soundproofing material (or lack thereof) in the car.
What's the deal? The SiR revved much more smoothly and quietly than the RSX...any ideas why that might be the case?
I also found the clutch and shifter in the SiR much smoother and easier to use than the RSX which felt a little notchy and the clutch pedal a little firm. This might be due to the sporting intentions of the RSX, but the SiR is sport oriented too, isn't it? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
One thing that probably contributes to the SI's smoother-feeling engine is that is has balance shafts and the RSX does not. And if I am not mistaken the SI has some modifications to the gearbox to make it smoother as well.
Overall the RSX is a nice car but the driving position, the seats, and the price make the SI way more attractive to me.
For those who want a less bouncy and more floaty ride, test drive an SUV. Or a GM boat.
1. RSX-S
2. SI
3. base RSX
For me the SI was the best overall balance, especially for $16,300.
But most racer wannabe or racer boy will love low sitting positions. Gives us a feeling of sportiness rather than sitting high like in a minivan or SUV. Also, lower the CG like a poster mentioned. So, anonymous might be the exception here or she's just too short or something else.
It has nothing to do really with where the seat is in the RSX ... the dash just seems to high. We prefer the Honda dashes of the late 80's and early 90's, or even as recent as the 98-02 Accords and 96-00 Civics, which have a low cowl height and plenty of glass. Most people won't even notice it or even care. But we are fickle.
But whatever. Maybe both of you like to slide your car all the way back and tilted at 160degrees with your left arm and right arm (passenger) hanging out on the door? :P
Like I said, it's a matter of personal preference. My boyfriend thinks the cowl height of the RSX is too high compared to the Integra and previous Civics. It's also higher than the SI. We're not the only ones who prefer lower dashes. In one review of the new Accord they mentioned that Honda's cowl height kept going up and up from it's near perfect height with the 86-89 Accord. There's nothing at all wrong with the RSX ... I like the car. It's just not for me.
Whether a seat is all the way forward or all the way against the back seat, when it's low, it's low. Two people can have similar upper body sizes but have quite different heights because of the length of their legs. And a high beltline is a high beltline no matter how tall someone's upper body is anyway, which was all she was talking about, right?
Mike
But I'm able to. So, I assume I've a long neck. I guess some of us are blessed with perfectly proportion body like anony and bf.
Maybe Acura can ask Shaq. to be the spokesperson. The car would be a perfect fit for him since everyone else is complaning the sitting position is too low.
I'll say it one last time ... the dash of the RSX is higher than previous Integras, Civics, and Accords. If you sit in a 90-93 Integra or even a 96-00 Civic you will see what I mean. My SI also has a higher beltline than the old Hondas but the RSX is even higher than the Civic. Just sit in a RSX and SI back-to-back and maybe you will see what I am talking about.
The Civic OTOH is designed to be first and foremost a commute car/urban tripper. Therefore it follows the trend of other recent urban cars - rising beltlines and driving positions, and lower cowls. The Si/SiR is merely a modification of the mainstream civic, using a speedier engine and better suspension. So it has these characteristics.
I remember one of the things I really wound up disliking about my '02 celica was the hugely high beltline, in relation to the low sport coupe seating position. The combo was so extreme that I could not rest my arm on the window ledge AT ALL when I opened the window all the way.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
P.S. hamboy, if the seats are low, doesn't that make the dash high? And vice versa if the seats are too high, doesn't that make the dash too low? Lol talk about common sense and comprehension.
"Initially you claimed the seats were too low. Then you changed your story to a high dash."
I find that the view over the dash is actually too low for me. I don't need to see the road immediately in front of the car...although it's a nice feature that I've grown accustomed to.
The thing I had to get used to in the RSX was the height of the doors compared to my previous vehicle. I used to be able to rest my arm on the window sill while driving....I can't do that anymore without my shoulder getting dislocated or my arm falling asleep.
:-)
I could crank the seat height up more but then my view over the dash would be too exposed for my liking.
Either that or I would truly experience the rush of wind through my hair...granted that the sunroof was open.
:-)
The RSX has adjustable seats.
Haven't driven the Si, but the RSX had plenty of torque for me, and the last 5spd I drove was a V6 with 180 torque.
Thanks,
Redwolf
Some have complained about 2nd gear being notchy, which I noticed when I first got the car, though replacing the stock shifter with a short shifter seems to have solved the problem (and created a smaller one: a clinking noise shifting into even gears...presumably the angle of the cables on the shorter shifter, nothing you can do about it).
I had the (overhead) map light replaced because the driver's side light was sticking. Still does it, though only in cold weather.
The trunk cover creaks from time to time, again temperature related.
The paint job could be better: I've touched up a multitude of chips, and the poor windshield suffers from all the gravel, stones, etc. No cracks yet, but all the minor pitting looks horrible when the sun is in your face.
The standard Michelin tires are pretty awful, but I figure I should get 20-30K out of them before finding some quieter (loud over concrete) and with more grip.
The ride can be a bit harsh over railroad tracks and the like, esp. the back, with the mini-wishbones, but the ride is more than acceptable, esp. with the wonderful Recaro-type seats.
At first I thought rear visibility was poor, but then I test drove a Celica, which is far worse, esp. as you can't buy the thing sans spoiler.
I passed on the spoiler, since I don't think it adds much and, after all, you can buy and install it later if you change your mind.
I paid 19.5K in August 2001, which was a good price at the time.
19.1K with leather sounds good, though I really don't like the leather at all. I went with cloth, which I still think looks and feels top notch, while the leather strikes me as below par(I had a chance to drive an automatic with leather as a loaner: in my opinion the titanium leather looks and feels cheap. Maybe the black is better, though I doubt it.).
Oh, and the stock speakers are dreadful. I replaced them with Polks and the head unit (also not the best) sounds a lot cleaner, though it still has no power and bass (i.e. you have to crank it up to "5" or "6" to get anything...and I'm not a bass freak).
I've done a fair amount of highway driving with the RSX and it's certainly not the quietest at 80 mph, though I can live with that (you can always add sound insulation sheeting to the doors, etc.).
All in all, I still love the car, which I keep adding bits and pieces to (CAI coming soon, followed by an ECU reprogram, though the 160HP engine is certainly smooth and powerful enough for everyday driving.
As far as reliability and safety go, I doubt you can do better in its class for the price. The only time a "check engine" light came on it turned out to be a computer glitch (no small feat being on the road from Atlanta back to NJ; stopped at the Acura dealer in Greenville, SC, and was out of there in half an hour, problem solved.)
I've been pretty lucky so far, esp. considering I bought the car a little over a month after it came out.
Hope this helps.
They lowered the price because they're trying to get rid of the '03 Si Civics...they're freshening the styling for '04 and it won't be so
"guppy-ugly"...so unless you're really in love with the looks of the current model or it's about price, go for it. But if you want a HOT lookin' Si for a couple thou more in a few months, wait.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I haven't heard anything about an 04 freshening. Although no matter how the car looked, I don't think it's worth MSRP ($19,500) without some more power.
Of course it will be more...the new styling is going to be way hotter than the current version (they'll redo the headlamps and front faschia...as well as maybe rear).
I honestly like the looks of the Si as it is right now...the thing that I do NOT like is the hard plastic dash...it is the same look as the Civic Coupe's but it has hard plastic instead of soft-touch (which i VERY much prefer). It also has a weird lower tray area just above the knees. I'm 6'4 and that bothered me when test drove the '02 Si. Anyways, they probably won't be as generous with the price for the '04...but like I said, if it isn't about $$$ then go for the '04 instead.
Go to Google and type in "College Hills Honda" and it should pull up their website. On that site is an update page. They've been reliable so far and that's where I'm getting this info.
Matt
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)