Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Acura RSX (All years/types)

1246750

Comments

  • mitsugstmitsugst Member Posts: 41
    Here's one really good question.

    Why did the Acura Division of Honda change the Integra name to RSX, so suddenly and drastically?

    Some background: When Honda decided to get rid of the alphanumeric CVC name for their compact car, they came up with (while practically the same) the real name Civic. Then, as to not lose customers their new Civic's still said CVC (for a generation) and said civic (right next to each other, ie. CVCcivic (like the one my father once owned)).

    So why in the world would Acura change the name Integra from one glorious car with an INCREDIBLE following to some Alphanumeric RSX, which no one had heard of. Acura claims they wanted all they cars to have alphanumeric, and of course RSX sounds like NSX (thus [anything]SX must mean sport). Yeah, SO WHAT! It still makes little sense.

    Why didn't they put IntegraRSX like the old CVCcivic. In fact when I get mine, I'm going to the parts counter, buying myself an Integra badge and slapping it on! If any one takes offense (Acura), too bad!!! Regardless, this new IntegraRSX will overshadow the old, any day (except for the unlowerable front strut suspension).
  • lakers_shaqlakers_shaq Member Posts: 11
    Well, none of the Lexus, Infiniti, BMW and Mercedes owners seem to be complaining.
  • phaedrysphaedrys Member Posts: 37
    riiiiight.....
    can you say
    "Anger Management"?
  • pocahontaspocahontas Member Posts: 802
    A couple posts have been deleted because they're not within the guidelines of our Town Hall agreement.

    Let's please try to get along here. It's fine to disagree on issues... as long as we keep this discussion on a friendly note. In addition, it's okay to bash a car or a magazine article, but it's not okay to bash other participants in these discussions. So let's avoid the name calling.... Okay?

    Bottom line: let's all please try to respect each other's point of view..., regardless of what font we're writing in. ;-) Thanks for your participation.

    Pocahontas
    Host
    Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards
  • boomn29boomn29 Member Posts: 189
    I did a comparison between the 2002 RSX and 2001 GTS. I big thing I noticed was that the RSX has 5 inches LESS rear head room!!!
    I know from owning a GTS - there isn't much room back there. SO, 5 less inches gots to be tight!
  • pere_ubupere_ubu Member Posts: 10
    This from the Edmund's first look at the 2002 Civic Si:

    "Do the new MacPherson struts diminish the car's performance relative to that
    of the previous-generation Si? We don't know for sure, since we haven't driven
    the new Si yet. But we barely noticed the new struts in our road test of the
    2001 Civic, so it seems likely they won't do too much to impact performance
    in the new-generation Si, either."

    So in other words, you get just as good performance with the new MacStruts as you did with the the front double wishbone, plus you get added interior room to boot.

    Not exactly just "two more small cars."

    And Himiler, if you drive for a living, why on earth did you pick a WRX, which gets as good mpg as a 1973 Buick LeBehometh?
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    If you noticed the numbers following the @ for the torque ratings, you would see that the type S achieves that 141 lb/ft at a different rpm than the regular RSX's 140 lb/ft.

    I'm not a pro, but basically torque is "low-end" power whereas horsepower is "high-end" power. That's why you see those pick up trucks with those huge torque numbers. They need those figures to tow trailers or whatever they do with their pick ups. Just imagine driving a pick up truck (mundane, I know) and towing a big ole trailer. You're at the red light, it turns green and you step on the accelerator, you hear the engine pumping that torque number and you go.

    A sports car like the RSX doesn't serve as a towing vehicle, therefore it does not need all that torque. So althought 141 may seem like a small number compared to what other automakers have, it really does the job. The automotive horsepower war is sort of like selling condoms. Everyone knows that condoms can stretch, but there are those manufacturers who label their products as "Extra large" to sell into the insecurities of their potential buyers. Likewise, 141 lb/ft of torque can get the job done, but then there are automakers who simply add more horsepower just so people will think it's "stronger" (which it techinically is, but sometimes too much power for such a small car is unnecessary---it would probably require stronger engine components, waste more gas, and cost much more to repair).
  • mitsugstmitsugst Member Posts: 41
    Torque? HP?

    Just drive the car, read a review, or wait until a good answer arrives. If you like it, good, if not, sorry. I drove it, I like it, 'nuff said.

    (oh yeah, when I decide to move I guess I won't be renting a 5x8 trailer (like I did with my 205 lbft torque '95 Eclipse), oh well I'll just have to rent a small truck).
  • wie_gehtswie_gehts Member Posts: 30
    I just read the August issue of 2001, there was a test drive of the RSX Type-S. Looks nice and I think I like it (wouldn't buy one though for other reasons). What I was wondering though, they showed a stopping distance of 188ft. from 70-0mph. Quite frankly, this is a very bad number. It really stuck to my eye because a few pages later there was a test of a VW EuroVan Weekender Edition that weighs 4600 lb. vs the 2800 of the RSX, it even has a retractable tent on top, and guess what, it stops shorter than the RSX, in 185ft. Even a Ford Escape/Tribute SUV stops in under 170ft. I guess brakes have never been great on Hondas, but quite frankly, these numbers are very disappointing for a $24k car. Wouldn't you agree?
  • rmtraderrmtrader Member Posts: 30
    Would you rather be able to stop once in 160 feet and then experience progressive fade each stop after, or would you prefer to have good stopping distances time & time again (the VW stops remarkably short...most vans of that nature are well over 200 ft from the same speed)? Look at the test results further. The brakes exhibit minimal fade. Also note that braking has a lot to do with the performace of the tires. Although the car exhibited excellent handling, it had more to do with the suspension than the tires, which according to the article are somewhat lacking in overall performance.
  • silver_bulletsilver_bullet Member Posts: 1,339
    I'm sure it has been pointed out before that all contemporary BMWs, including the new M3, have MacPherson strut front suspensions, yet the auto mags gush over BMW handling and road feel. As Porsche has proven with the 911, you can take a less-than-optimal design and turn it into a winner if you work long enough at refining it. My understanding is that Honda went to struts in the new Civic and RSX platform in order to reposition the steering rack and suspension bits for better crashworthiness. And I agree, the braking numbers for the RSX (and the last generation Civic Si coupe, for that matter) are disappointing. Sure, fade resistance is important, but you aren't going to enjoy that fade-free second stop if you can't stop the first time :-)
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Member Posts: 398
    Got my new RSX-S yesterday – the car is great.

    I took if for a long drive - about 100 miles, and quite likeed it. The gear shifting is great, definitely the best I've experienced. The car is also very sturdy and the suspension is excellent. It feels stiffer and less compromising than my old the M3 (1997). It goes through bumps really swiftly, and yet it is not harsh. But, still, cornering is not as good as the M3 - I think it may be because the tires are fairly skinny (115 vs. 225 front, 245 rear on the M3), and the profile is higher (50 vs. 45 front, 40 rear on the M3). Also, it may feel better than the M3 over bumps because the body is stiffer and shudders less, but the actual suspension may give more, and you have more body roll. Even though it is a front wheel drive (60/40 weight distribution) I couldn’t feel any under steer - but then again, I didn't push it.

    At low RPM the car is sluggish. Got it up to 4,500 RPM and you can feel a little more power up there, but I have to wait a little before I start really revving it up (to 8,000 RPM!!!) Manual says – avoid had starts for 600 miles – may give it a thousand. Engine sounds great.

    I have a question about the BOSE stereo – it is fairly good, but not quite as good as on my Maxima. It is 170 watts, vs. 200 on the Maxima. I wonder though, if the woofer is working – I think it may be disconnected. It is a fairly large one (bigger than the one in the Maxima), and it is in the trunk, but when I pumped up the volume and opened the trunk, it doesn’t seem to have any sound to it, and it doesn’t vibrate. Does anyone know how woofers/sub-woofers are supposed to work? On the Maxima, it is next to a speaker and it is tough to figure it out.

    Thanks
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Member Posts: 398
    I am not a physicist, but as far as I understand it the performance of a car is a weird function of both.

    Torque and weight alone define acceleration in vacuum, i.e. if there is no drag. Basically, any two cars with the same weight and the same constant torque output will accelerate at the same rate infinitely if there is no drag. (Actually as you get significantly close to the speed of light, Newtonian laws do not hold any more, and things get screwed up by the theory of relativity.)

    HP and aerodynamics alone define top speed. Basically, HP is a force, as is drag, and as you increase the speed the drag increases (exponentially) and eventually you reach an equilibrium. You may have a pitiful torque and a huge weight – but they don’t matter. At this extreme, HP and drag alone define top speed. (By the way the HP is a function of the torque and the revs, so if you have a very small torque you need a lot of revs to get the same HP.)

    Now, in the real world, at low speeds, the torque and weight will define the acceleration. So the RSX and RSX-S, for instance, will be very similar in performance at very low speeds. The drag is a very significant variable, though. You can see that 0-20 mph times in any car will be considerably less that, say, 50-70 mph times. So as you increase the speed the performance of the 200HP car will get considerably better than the 160HP car. The top speed of the 200HP RSX-S was measured at 133 mph, RSX will have a lower top speed , probably around 120 mph (RSX has 40% less HP, but that does not translate into 40% less top speed since the drag is an exponential function, not a linear one). So on the other extreme, after you’ve reached 120 mph, you will get 0 acceleration with the RSX, but still some positive acceleration in the RSX-S. (Or else how do you reach 133 mph in the RSX-S?)

    So, in other words, at extremely low speeds, torque and weight is everything, at extremely high speeds HP and aerodynamics/drag is everything. Anything in between is a combination of both.

    One more thing – you don’t have a constant torque or HP output. In the RSX-S you get an almost flat torque curve in a wide range, so you can keep the engine revving there consistently, in the RSX, the curve is steeper, and you will have the max torque only for a short period of time as you accelerate. Also, the 6-speed transmission allows you to stay in the best range better that a more widely spaced 5-speed transmission.
  • wie_gehtswie_gehts Member Posts: 30
    From a sports coupe, I expect to have no/little fade AND short stopping distances. I am sure the VW will fade more, but it's a big Van with a tent to go camping!
    Also, there was no single word about the brakes in that article. But compare it to the Celica ..... though I think the RSX looks a lot better. For several reasons, I would choose the RSX over the Celica any day.
  • mitsugstmitsugst Member Posts: 41
    sgrd0q,
    A sub woofer only receives sub (or low) frequencies (near 20HZ). The audible frequencies of sounds that humans can noticeable detect (hear) are 20,000HZ down to 20HZ.
    What this means in real life is that a sub only reproduces (or puts out) sounds like drum beats, deep roars, thumps, etc.
    Why am I getting technical, FORGET IT... First, with the radio on, put some music on, and put the bass all the way up (push the volume button to select bass control). Then, open the trunk, pull up the carpet, put your hand along the furthest (furthest from you and a little to the right) side of the circular sub-woofer and feel for some air coming out in sync with the bass tones. If you feel air, it's working, if not, call the dealer (or find some other music, play with the bass setting, etc).

    For some reason I like to get technical (must be my Engineering Degree coming out). Don't ask me to go off and explain the Torque vs. HP topic.
  • fxashunfxashun Member Posts: 747
    Don't forget about explain how gearing changes things. People are baffled by the S2000's low torque quickness.
  • wie_gehtswie_gehts Member Posts: 30
    HP and aerodynamics alone define top speed. Basically, HP is a force, as is drag, and as you increase the
    speed the drag increases (exponentially) and eventually you reach an equilibrium. You may have a pitiful torque
    and a huge weight – but they don’t matter. At this extreme, HP and drag alone define top speed. (By the way
    the HP is a function of the torque and the revs, so if you have a very small torque you need a lot of revs to get
    the same HP.)

    Sort of right except that Horsepower is not exactly a force, simplified, one could say it's a force at a certain speed. Torque is a torsional force exerted at a certain distance from the center, that's why it's measured in Nm. It does indeed define the force at the driving wheels which is responsible for acceleration. a = F/m. So indeed it is dependend on the force at the wheels (determined by the torque of your engine and of course the gearing!) and the weight of the car. You are also right that horsepower determines drag limited top speed. However, it's not exponential but the force of drag increases quadratically with speed v. So, top speed depends mainly on your horsepower and your coefficient of drag, also on the gearing and the torque because you need driving force at the wheels to accelerate to first reach that top speed.
  • fxashunfxashun Member Posts: 747
  • only1harryonly1harry Member Posts: 1,140
    I have a Nov. or Dec. '99 issue of Car & Driver somewhere around here and it I know they have a '00 Type-R road test where they got 6.6s 0-60 and 14.8s 1/4mi. This is the same issue where they modded a Type-R with Mugen stuff.. Motortrend TV (on Speedvision) tested another yellow '00 Type-R last year and got 6.2sec 0-60 and 14.8 @ 95mph in the 1/4. So yes the RSX's acceleration is commendable and equivelant to the Type-R's. Handling and braking though it seems the Type-R has the upper edge with less weight and race prepped suspension (0.88-.90g on the skidpad with its tiny 195-55-15" tires, and one of the highest slalom speeds of 69.x mph)
    On some of the Honda forums on the net people are already racing their Type-Rs against RSX-S and are winning. A broken in Type-R with several thousand miles on it can do the 1/4 in 14.5-14.7s so that's no surprise there.
    I 'm a serious auto-xer so if I had to choose between RSX-S and Type-R I 'd take the Type-R. If I didn't auto-x race or only did it once in a while and used the car daily, I 'd take the RSX any day. To me, I look at these cars as toys where I can enjoy to their full potential and have fun. Auto-x racing and occasional track events allows me to do that. My daily commute is 160mi. a day so I couldn't put 45-50k mi/yr on a $23k car. I use high gas mileage Civics for my daily commute (I 'm 35 but still a kid I guess..) and looking forward to racing my modified GSR on the weekends. That is my situation.
    The RSX looks like it would give the Type-R a run for its money and it's a very capable car according to the latest C&D road test, especially on the streets with commendable handling & acceleration but for pure unadulterated all out racing in auto-x or road course racing the Type-R would still be my top choice.
    The Type-R has won the National Championships in auto-x at Topeka, KS in G Stock for the last 3-4yrs. If I see an RSX take that title, then I 'll run out and get an RSX. Until that time a Type-R (used probably at this point since they just stopped making them) will be my choice for weekend racing and fun.
    I 'm curious. Did any of you guys see any Type-Rs at the dealer lots? See if you can test drive both RSX-S and ITR back to back but I doubt they 'll let you drive an ITR. They almost never do. Congrats on those who got a new RSX!! Now go show those Celicas who is boss :-)
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • fxashunfxashun Member Posts: 747
    And many other creature comforts that are 1. Not available or 2. Deleted from the Integra to make a Type R. When the Type R RSX (available in Japan) comes out then maybe you can talk about racing "stock" Type R's but until then why even bother?
  • mb710327mb710327 Member Posts: 9
    0-60 mph prelims on the RSX Type S from Sport Compact Car was an AVERAGE of around 7 seconds. Not quite as fast as the Integra Type R which averaged in the mid 6 second 0-60 range. For those of you that want to keep trying to compare the RSX Type S with the Integra Type R, please wait until the RSX Type R comes out to make your comparison, because the Type S wasn't built to be compared with the Type R. By the way, I do like the RSX Type S, but I rather wait for the RSX Type R.
  • mitsugstmitsugst Member Posts: 41
  • ranaldranald Member Posts: 147
    If you'll remember, SCC themselves warned that their prelim times should be taken with a big grain of salt (they have some professional standards) because they didn't have a proper road surface to test- they couldn't even find anyplace flat- and they were having problems with traction.

    I haven't seen the article myself (everywhere I've looked it's been sold out or something) but Car & Driver (in the August issue) seems to have gotten a 0-60 time of 6.1 secs, and a 1/4 mile time of 14.8
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Did it specify in the article whether or not the driver weighed, oh I don't know, 350 pounds? Or if she knew how to really drive a stick shift?
  • mb710327mb710327 Member Posts: 9
    Oh, buy the magazine.
  • robdominicrobdominic Member Posts: 6
    went to the acura dealer on saturday. they had three. i was especially fond of a 5-speed rsx in desert metallic. didn't get to drive it yet but did give it the once-over. liked the look but had two gripes. the funky knobs for the a/c controls and the high lift-over at the rear hatch. planning to drive it (if its still available). right now leaning towards a jetta 1.8turbo unless the rsx can really impress.
  • only1harryonly1harry Member Posts: 1,140
    contribute to 0-60 times. Driver's weight, outside temp, humidity and elevation. I had 3 dyno runs about a year and a half ago on my GSR which was pretty much stock. First run was 152.0hp at the wheels when it was 73deg. out. By the 3d run it was 77deg. and it had dropped to 151. I 've seen others dyno much less in 90deg. weather. The warmer the air the intake sucks in, the less power the car will have and the slower it will be.
    '99 Integra GSR
    '06 Civic LX coupe
    '11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
    '13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)
  • l943973l943973 Member 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 Member Posts: 108
    Please post your impressions/thoughts...thanks.
  • boomn29boomn29 Member Posts: 189
  • diploiddiploid Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 7
    does any body have an idea about prices for canadian rsx?
  • diploiddiploid Member Posts: 2,286
    Go to google.com and search for "2002 Acura RSX" and the first few sites that show up should be Canadian reviews and specs. for the RSX.
  • diploiddiploid Member 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 Member 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 Member 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):

    Hold
    On,
    Not
    Done
    Accelerating
  • kcirredkcirred Member 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 CanadianDriver.com
  • sgrd0qsgrd0q Member 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.
  • beakmobilebeakmobile Member Posts: 1
    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 Member Posts: 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 Member Posts: 146
    I really don't think that you'll be able to beat msrp. From lurking on the www.clubrsx.com 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 Member 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 Member 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...
This discussion has been closed.