Acura RSX (All years/types)

bottgers · December 2001

So you're alright with the fact that option choices have been taken away from the car buyers? You LIKE paying for options you don't want or need in order to get the model you want? This kind of crap outrages me to the point where I refuse to buy new cars. I'll wait until I can find one from a private owner and buy from them, just so the car manufacturers don't get my money!

brorjace · December 2001

Robertsmx Assuming I don't buy the RSX, and that's a pretty safe assumption given the car in its current form, that doesn't mean I'll be running out and buying the Celica GT-S anytime soon. It has its problems as well. Right now, I'm kind of irritated with the choices available and if I totaled my car tomorrow, I might just get something cheap again ... or maybe a 2 year lease on something better. I don't know. The fact that my goofy little '95 Civic still runs great allows me to take my time choosing between vehicles and I can wait at least another year or so before making a decision.

only1harry, Well, I've known for a while that some European car manufacturers like BMW and even Porsche use MacPherson struts on some or even many of their vehicles. BUT, if you notice that as the size, performance and cost of a given car goes up, you are more and more likely to find a conventional A-arm layout on it instead of the cheaper struts.

Why? Because the A-arm set-up is a superior design in almost every way.

While I'll admit that it is possible to make a small coupe or sedan handle just as well with MacPherson struts as it is with wishbones (real and psuedo), the strut design isn't as inherently strong and won't age as gracefully. Also, as you pointed out, they aren't as easy to tune and modify. Anyone who has watched rally racing ... and even some SCCA club racing has seen cars with MacPherson struts that are completely broken off. They have a disposable quality and I think that one of Honda's best moves in the late eighties was to get away from using them. So, switching back to struts was a tremendous leap backward ... all for a low hood line (according to a couple car magazines) on a vehicle that got taller upon redesign. It simply makes no sense ... unless you believe that it was merely a cost-cutting measure. This is what I believe, but I'm not absolutely sure of it and what slugline says about crash results makes a lot of sense. Struts aren't as sturdy and are more likely to crumple or bend out of the way in a crash.

I suppose I was a little too harsh about the looks of the current Civic, but I think the previous two generations looked much better. It seems that all compacts are beginning to look the same, even more so now than before and the most recent styling changes have made it look more like all the others. Again, I found the 6th generation Civics ('96-'00) to be the most attractive of the line. Can anyone else here imagine what a terrific little CRX the 6th generation Civic would have made?

More in a bit ...

--- Bror Jace

brorjace · December 2001

only1harry said: "I know I wanted an Integra with a passion before I bought one. This time I'm very skeptical."

I felt the same way before I bought my '90 Integra RS, but I'm deeply disappointed in the RSX ... for a number of reasons, not just the looks. Before a company can sell a car in significant numbers they need to generate excitement about it, not reluctance, misgivings and trepidation. Time will only tell how successful the RSX is but the idea of "sports cars" and "luxury cars" are usually two opposite ends of the same spectrum. Often, when attempts are made to appeal to both at the same time, you end up appealing to neither. This makes sense because the options that add 'luxury' to a car make it heavier, more complex and less desirable to car guys who want performance, light weight and the ability to work on the car or modify it themselves.

General Motors thought through much of the last century that drivers would start out with lower priced, smaller Chevys and Pontiacs when they were young, move up to the larger and generally more expensive Oldsmobiles and Buicks as they got older and end up in Cadillacs at the end of their careers and during retirement. This worked for some people but making this generalization for everyone was a mistake on their part and at least a generation of potential buyers was lost. Some people like fun to drive (performance oriented), small, affordable cars and will stay with them all their lives.

If Acura is thinking that Integra drivers of the late 80s and the 90s will be in a demographic group which is right up the RSX's alley, I think they're in for a shock. My friends who drove Integras and the like 10-15 years ago are now into 4-doors sedans, minivans and SUVs. I, on the other hand, am in an odd demographic because although my income has gone up and I'm in my 30s, I'm still single and without any children. Therefore, I have more money to spend on my car. However, I prefer to purchase real performance and not luxury items with that extra disposable income. Out of my entire circle of friends who are in their mid-thirties, I'm the only one in the RSX should appeal to ... and I've stated why I won't be buying one anytime soon.

The more I think about it, the more bits of g8trdave's post keep sticking in my head. I loved the line about how silly it would be to try and make the 'Vette look like other Chevys. I also thought he had a point about the car looking more Civic-ish ... and not at all like something that could be described as a 'luxury' car. I'm not looking for a car that stands out due to wild fins, graphics or because of some other tacky gimmicks but a $23,000 coupe should be a little more attractive and less forgettable. dkneedsnwcr, you really think the car will get noticed? I know I look for them when I drive and I rarely see them. Sure, the car is fairly new but seeing them around here is fairly uncommon ... or they blend in with all the other cars so well, they fail to catch my eye.

Bottgers I too detest leather. It's too darn hot in the summertime and too darn cold in the winter. So, I especially resent having to pay extra for it ... and haul around the extra weight it adds to any true performance car. The problem is, the auto manufacturers make a lot of money on the 'options' and so they pack them in there
at the factory (where it is cheaper to make all the cars the same) and refuse to give the buyer the option of getting a car with less equipment. fxashun might very well be right about Acura trying to stress 'luxury' more with the RSX ... but how many people who set out shopping for a luxury car will consider driving a little egg with loads of expensive features?

--- Bror Jace

eludwig · December 2001

In the interest of shareholders, Honda HAS to meet the needs of the mass market to be successful. That means more luxury items, longer wheelbases, floaty suspensions, ABS, etc. Look at the Camry- the #1 selling car in the US. Boring car, huh? But oh well. If Acura made a 6-speed RSX without any luxury items, they couldn't sell it to anyone but utilitarian auto enthusiasts. That's a pretty small market. As one of the smallest "major" auto manufacturers, Honda needs to stay focused to stay alive. I've always argued that Acura has taken them out of focus. Just IMHO.

As a side note- Seattle is one of Honda's biggest markets in the US, and it's nearly impossible to find a 5-speed Honda or Acura at local dealerships at any given point in time. Americans love their auto-tranny luxocruisers, whether SUV's or sporty looking coupes.

f1jules · December 2001

If you don't like leather you can always put on a set of sheepskin seat covers. I know this is kind of like buying a leather sofa and putting a cover on it but it will a) save wear on the leather which will help when you decide to sell it and b) having leather will help the resale value.

My wife's car has leather seats and we put sheepskin covers on it. They are the perfect material for hot sunny days or cold winter nights as they are cool in the summer and they warm up quickly when it's cold.

I personally liked the way the RSX-S is equipped but then I'm 5'11" so I don't really have a problem with cars with a sunroof.

sunilb · December 2001

Honda "could" offer many of the luxury items in the Type-S as options that a person could add as they desired (many other OEMs do this). However, this would require either: dealer-installed work, or building cars as they are requested to a certain spec. Honda prefers to create pre-determined packages that they can ship and sell as-is. My guess is that this is easier from an operations perspective.
To contrast, Toyota let's you add items such as leather, ABS, sunroof, etc... at your discretion.

So, I think Acura could sell a Type-S stripped, but it would be out of line with their normal processes.

Mags have called the RSX a glorified Civic (from a styling perspective), and I couldn't agree more. I hate this tall-and-narrow design that Honda has for this latest platform.

eludwig · December 2001

You hit it right on the money- a stripped Type-S would be out of Honda's norm. The more you set up and break down a manufacturing line for individually-optioned cars, the more expensive. It would be bad mojo for the business. Toyota definitely offers lots of options, but when my dad bought a Tacoma then a T100 (and when I looked at Corollas in '95) it seemed the lot had maybe 80% of any model optioned out identically. Doesn't seem there's a lot of flexibility with Toyota in reality either. Again, it all makes sense from a profitability and operational perspective. Honda just hides the outrageous prices of options into the starting sticker so you feel all warm and fuzzy about getting a deal, while Toyota lets you know how much they're making on things like moonroofs and A/C

only1harry · December 2001

Having the dealer install optional equipment to the Type-S would only make it more expensive. The dealers will make huge profits on the installation alone plus the markup on the parts. I sat and argued with the Honda salesperson for an 1hr about the price of A/C when I was buying a new '97 Civic DX Hatchback that came stripped. He started at $1350 and when we were finally done we had agreed on $900. I do know others though that paid $1200-1400 for A/C for their stripped CX & DX Civic coupes & HBs. I hate to say it but I do like the fact that Acuras come loaded. When I bought my GSR, the only thing they could offer was a sunroof visor and splash guards to which I said no and that was the end of that, no pressure or further discussion. They even threw in free wheel locks as it is that dealership's policy. I complained to the sales mgr. about waiting for an 1hr to see the business mgr. to sign the papers when we had arranged an appointment.. He took $100 off the price of the car and asked me how I take my coffee. Acura service and customer satisfaction is top notch.
Walk into a Chrysler/Dodge, Ford or Chevy dealership. They have option plans A through Z totallying many thousands of $$. My friend recently bought a Caravan and he went nuts with all the option packages. When he was done he paid $5K extra on options. Plus they treated him like crap.
The fact of the matter is that Honda doesn't expect to sell too many RSXs in North America. They estimate an average of 25,000 a year. They are selling about 2,000 a month so they 're right on target. The g3 Integra was selling 40K+ (g2 was a little more) from '94-96 and then 38k units in '97, 35K in '98, 30k in '99 and 26k units in '00. Even in the Integra's worst year, the # sold is how many RSXs they expect to move. I find that a little odd. They planned and designed the RSX as to not appeal to current Integra owners. Honda has also publicly said they did NOT want RSX to appeal to the race and younger crowd as the Integra did. It's all about changing the image of the Integra. I don't get it. They 're willing to sacrifice 30-40% sales to attract a different kind of buyer? They must be making a hek of a profit on the RSX to intentionally reduce the # of sales. The thing that bothers me is that they basically said: forget the old Integra fans and most Honda/Acura
enthousiasts. I really don't blame all those people going out and buying WRXs. I know a few ex-Honda owners that did just that. If the WRX was a little better looking, it would be on top of my list.

fxashun · December 2001

Maybe it wasn't Honda who wanted the Integra to become the ultimate racer car that it did. They killed the Integra, Prelude, and superior suspensioned Civic in about the same year. Maybe that was the direction the public took them but not necessarily where Honda wanted to go. I'm just as disappointed as you guys. I love my 93 EX though.

dkneedsnwcr · December 2001

When I was talking about flashy styling, the RSX does not fit into it. I will agree whole heartedly with anybody who says that the styling is bland. And I like it that way. I don't want to attract attention to my car while I'm driving it or while it's parked. I purchased the car for me because I liked the way it felt when I was inside it, and the styling did not put me off. I don't need the ego boost of having other people admire my stuff.

When I was talking about flashy, I said to paint your car a flourescent colour. With such a colour, your car (whatever it may be) will attract a lot of attention (be it positive or negative).

sunilb · December 2001

I remember reading a while ago that Acura [Honda] was trying to make their line more consistent-- both inside and out. This is why the RSX has the same triangular grill, and the serious (and needed) over-haul to the interior appointments. While it appears that they've abandoned a serious demographic, I find it interesting that MB decided to move into the same segment that the RSX is trying to fill (with their C230 coupe thing). Though, I'm not sure this is a large enough segment to tap into. Didn't BMW try to crack this one with their 318ti several years ago?
Maybe times have changed, but I'll be 30 in a few months and don't think I'll look at the RSX mostly due to the items we've mentioned here (exterior styling, and suspension).

only1harry · December 2001

BMW tried to fill the 4cyl. sport coupe gap with the cheaper 318i(s) but the Integra hurt its sales in the early & mid '90s so they never really took off. They knew the g1 & g2 Integras were selling very well and they wanted a piece of that market. I remember R&T doing a comparison test in '95 or '96 with just the GSR & the 318is. The GSR won most categories and was branded the better car & buy by a major car mag. No doubt that hurt the 318's sales even more.
It was very tough back then to go up against the GSR because it was one of the fastest naturally aspirated 4cyl. cars around (along with the Prelude) and with VTEC technology. It handled great for a FWD too (back then it did .84g because it came with better tires than the crappy all season Michelins they put on it later on..), got good gas mileage, was fairly loaded, and stickered for low '20's.
The Integra became the ultimate street-race car just like the Civic did before it, because of its power & light weight or power to weight ratio. A g3 ('94+) Integra LS weighed 2565lbs (RS even less) and GSR 2670. That was just 1hp per 15.7lbs, where a '93-96 2450lb Civic EX had to move 19.6lbs with 1HP. A g5 102hp DX 22.x lbs/hp and so on. If the Integra weighed 3,000+lbs or more, people wouldn't be putting on bolt on mods to get an extra 10hp because they 'd barely notice it. On a lighter car a few ponnies & ft-lbs of torque are much more noticeable. Same with the older GTIs that weighed 2,000-2400lbs. The difference between the VWs and the Hondas though is that the Hondas gained much more than the VWs with similar mods.
The race shop in NYC I go to, used to be mostly a VW shop. In the early to mid '90's, they discovered that some simple exhaust & intake mods gave the Civics & Integras more power for the money than the Golfs, Sciroccos & GTIs did, so they started tailoring more to Hondas. The owners told me that once they started doing some head work and cam work on the Hondas/Acuras, the power gains were far superior to those of VWs. They said you had to spend 3 times the money on a VW and even then you 'd be lucky if you came close to the gains of a Honda with less mods. And once they started doing engine work on the Hondas or turbos, the VWs could not touch them.. So these are the main reasons why the Integra and most Hondas were so popular among enthousiasts, street racers, auto-xers and road racers. Today's base VW Golf starts at 2750lbs with only 115hp. Not a very good car to mod.. The g3 GSR has more than often been refered to as "the car to mod". That phrase has also been used for the GSR by many imports car mags. Almost all 9-10sec. Civics (1/4 mi.) are powered by a GSR motor (turbocharged of course).
Those days will soon be gone because the RSX motor is not interchangeable with the new Civic's because the motor mounts are in a different position. This will cut down on auto theft a LOT though, as well as insurance rates, and that's a good thing.

varmit · December 2001

I think that trying to squeeze a Type S into the role of a Type R car is a bad move. Both from a marketing and performance point of view. I understand and mourn the loss of the GSR, but I also understand that Acura is riding high with the Type S. It's no longer the boy racer that the Integra was and now (should) appeal to a larger audience. It also raises their image as a luxury car retailer. They want to compete with BMW and Lexus, not Toyota and Subaru. Those pimply-faced teens coming into the showroom and oggling over the ITR are scaring off the old geezers who are going to spend the real money on an MDX, TL, or (heaven forbid) an RL.

Take a look at the sales of the new (comfy and less sporty) Eclipse vs. the old (turbo AWD boy racer) model from the early and mid '90s. The new posh-mobile is kicking the old one's bottom. Honda/Acura was trying to go that route and, from a peformance point of view, they succeeded. The new car is smoother, more comfortable, and performs better. The fact that it cannot be modded as easily only loses them a very minor percentage of their sales.

The problems with the RSX have nothing to do with the car's performance. Styling (which I generally like) has not been well received. The WRX is stealing the press spotlight and the $ from the hardcore enthusiasts. These things have nothing to do with the faster 0-60 times, the better handling, the smoother shifter, or any other performance standards.

brorjace · December 2001

Sphinx99: "Exactly. It's not a Honda, it's an Acura. Big difference. Go to a Lexus dealer and ... "

Actually, there less of a difference between Acura and Honda than there is between Toyota and Lexus. When Acura was launched, they were merely a 'step up' from a Honda ... even then, the Prelude was always a higher-end car than the Integra. If Honda was serious about 'luxury' they should have a V8, RWD flagship ... and not a V6 FWD model as their top-of-the-line. Merely load up a bland, re-styled Civic with a bunch of pricey features isn't helping any.

F1jules: "Is Acura going to release the Type-R RSX to the US next year?"

No one knows for sure.

"I test drove a couple different RSX Type-S' a few months ago and I was quite impressed with the performance of the engine but the handling left a bit to be desired. This was probably due in no small part to the mediocre all-season tires on the car though."

That was what Road & Track said.

"I liked the styling of the RSX when I first saw it but as I see more of them on the road it is becoming plain looking to me which is a shame because I really enjoyed driving it."

I'm sure I'll like the way it drives, it's other things that get me all worked up.

eludwig: "In the interest of shareholders, Honda HAS to meet the needs of the mass market to be successful. That means more luxury items, longer wheelbases, floaty suspensions, ABS, etc ... "

It is fallacious to think that you have to make a car that appeals to everyone ... or at least most people. There is plenty of room for niche vehicles. Yes, Americans tend to like luxo-cruisers ... but does EVERY car have to be like those overweight, tacky Pontiac Grand Ams or the comparable models from Ford and Daimler-Chrysler? Obviously not. I know plenty of people like myself who dislike SUVs intently. There's plenty of people who like pure sports cars or coupes that come close to the type.

Sunilb: "Honda 'could' offer many of the luxury items in the Type-S as options that a person could add as they desired (many other OEMs do this). However, this would require either: dealer-installed work, or building cars as they are requested to a certain spec. Honda prefers to create pre-determined packages that they can ship and sell as-is. My guess is that this is easier from an operations perspective."

Yes, it is easier for them to make all the cars the same, the problem is that Americans like to have choices. I don't think anyone is saying that luxury options be excluded from the RSX Type-S ... just that they be, in fact, OPTIONAL. Also, I don't expect to be able to buy a 'stripped' version of the car (without power windows, locks, etc ... But I don't want a car that comes pre-loaded with everything, either. After all, why doesn't it come with a spoiler, eh? Because some people don't like 'em. That's why a spoiler is optional on the RSX and most other cars. What a concept!

Eludwig: "You hit it right on the money- a stripped Type-S would be out of Honda's norm. The more you set up and break down a manufacturing line for individually-optioned cars, the more expensive (they become). Again, it all makes sense from a profitability and operational perspective. Honda just hides the outrageous prices of options into the starting sticker so you feel all warm and fuzzy about getting a deal ..."

And you're defending this??

only1harry: "Having the dealer install optional equipment to the Type-S would only make it more expensive. The dealers will make huge profits on the installation alone plus the markup on the parts."

Not necessarily. First of all American Honda can have policies in place to eliminate this. Second, as you found out, all things are negotiable and if you agree on the car and most of the options, the dealers will come down on a few in order to prevent the deal from falling through ... if you want those options at all, that is. >;^)

"The fact of the matter is that Honda doesn't expect to sell too many RSXs in North America. They estimate an average of 25,000 a year. They are selling about 2,000 a month so they 're right on target."

That's interesting to know, thanks.

"They planned and designed the RSX as to not appeal to current Integra owners. Honda has also publicly said they did NOT want RSX to appeal to the race and younger crowd as the Integra did. It's all about changing the image of the Integra. I don't get it. They 're willing to sacrifice 30-40% sales to attract a different kind of buyer? They must be making a heck of a profit on the RSX to intentionally reduce the number of sales."

I bet they are profitable ... with the all of them loaded to the gills with expensive junk.

"The thing that bothers me is that they basically said: forget the old Integra fans and most Honda/Acura enthusiasts."

Exactly. I feel like the company I supported and recommended to others for over a decade has just told me that my loyalty wasn't worth anything and I'm no longer welcome in their dealerships.

fxashun: "Maybe it wasn't Honda who wanted the Integra to become the ultimate racer car that it did. They killed the Integra, Prelude, and superior suspensioned Civic in about the same year. Maybe that was the direction the public took them but not necessarily where Honda wanted to go. I'm just as disappointed as you guys. I love my 93 EX though."

Yes, that really annoys me further. I wasn't a big fan of the 'Lude before but I'm sure I would have considered one as a 'plan B' with the Integra gone. Now I don't know what to do ... maybe an Accord Coupe LX, maybe something else cheaper from a different company. At least I have plenty of time to think it over ... or stew on it as the case may be. If my insurance wouldn't go through the roof I'd consider an S2000 with my current Civic as a winter car. Now there's a car that wasn't made with the average American motorist in mind!! >:^D

sunlib: "I remember reading a while ago that Acura [Honda] was trying to make their line more consistent-- both inside and out. This is why the RSX has the same triangular grill, and the serious (and needed) over-haul to the interior appointments."

The problem is that although this may make sense from a corporate standpoint, the public just sees the same generic shape ... in slightly different size cars. I remember a Road & Track article from a few years ago where they went over to the Japan to test drive the then-new TL (or RL I think). One of the R&T writers actually got into one of the designer's cars by accident and made a lap or two before they flagged him down and pointed him to the correct vehicle. When people think all your cars are/look pretty much the same thing, it is a bad thing.

--- Bror Jace

fxashun · December 2001

A4,A6 are identical 3 series and 5 series very similar Passat and Jetta similar C class and S class are scaled versions of each other....It works for them to have a "family" resemblance.

fxashun · December 2001

varmit · December 2001

Brorjace - Obviously, the RSX isn't the car for you. Time to find a new car... You can be disappointed all day long, but it's just as obvious that the RSX is being favorably reviewed and selling well enough to other drivers.

I could easily reverse your first argument. Lexus doesn't have a serious distinction between their lines because of the Camry/ES300, the Highlander/RX300, or the Landcruiser/LX470. Doesn't seem like a solid argument to me. Furthermore, I could counter your remarks about the RL by saying that Lexus isn't serious about performance because they don't have an NSX.

eludwig · December 2001

brorjace: "There's plenty of people who like pure sports cars or coupes that come close to the type."

Not in this country. What you define as "plenty", car makers see as paltry. Otherwise, we'd see pure sports cars being introduced left and right.

I think it's only a perception that there's this huge demand for niche sports cars. Otherwise, you should be a VP of Marketing for a major car maker. My point is they haven't missed some sweeping trend.

To most Americans, a car is simply an appliance. Want a real sports car? Buy a Porsche or Ferrari. (Oh- Don't sports cars have to have rear wheel drive? Otherwise they're converted econoboxes.).

eludwig · December 2001

1. Buy a used Toyota 4x4 truck with 100k miles for the winter.

2. Buy a '70's or '80's Porsche 911 for the other seasons.

3. Enjoy!

brorjace · December 2001

fxashun, most of the makes you listed who have a common look to their entire line-up of cars already have a strong family identity and well-known reputation because they've been in the auto business for most of the 20th Century. Acura only wishes it had that sort of reputation among the typical motorists. Don't get me wrong, I think what Acura has put out for the past 15 years (hard to believe it's been that long, eh?) have been some really good cars, it's just that few outside the car enthusiast community really get a good picture in their head of a car when you say the name "Acura".

For example, I was talking with some people in the office about the time I drove an Acura NSX and the non-enthusiasts didn't know what I was talking about. I had to tell them that it was Honda's version of a Ferrari ... and only then did they understand.

So my point was that making sacrifices in things like styling (homogenizing the line) when you don't have a classic reputation like many of the Europeans (or Lexus which is a great name for a luxury car) is not a good idea. This has only been made worse by their adoption of 'alphabet soup' nomenclature instead of the names that were just starting to have a reputation among non-enthusiasts like "Legend" and "Integra". Most automotive writers agree with me on the naming, by the way.

Varmit: "Obviously, the RSX isn't the car for you. Time to find a new car ... You can be disappointed all day long, but it's just as obvious that the RSX is being favorably reviewed and selling well enough to other drivers."

Well I'm not done ranting just yet. If anyone has an e-mail address for comments to American Honda's customer service, please post it and that I'll have some other target for my disappointment and frustration. >;^D

Besides, the car magazines are under commercial pressure to say nice things about ALL new cars (or else those companies will pull their advertising) so you have to take what they say with a grain of salt.

Oh, and despite the fact that the RSX is selling right now (when it's brand new), that in no way ensures that moving away from the Integra was a good move, financially speaking. Actually, it may turn out a lot like the move from the CRX to the Del Sol which turned out to be a mistake. And for the first year or so, that car seemed to be selling well ... at least among somewhat wealthy girls. Besides, according to what only1harry said, they had lowered expectations to begin with. Oh, and I've already heard rumblings that Honda realizes they made a mistake with the re-design of the Civic. Evidently younger buyers (and I'm young at heart) aren't thrilled with the car and sales are lower than expected. I can see why, those of us in the import performance community predicted this sort of reaction well in advance.

eludwig, I really think it's silly to think that in a region as diverse as North America, with well over a 100 million car owners, one can say there's no longer a viable market for a really sporty coupe ... especially at a time when the import performance scene is at an all-time high. Just look at the Integra's sales in the past decade. And the only thing that was 'wrong' with the car and what probably held down it's sales numbers was the fact that it had not been significantly re-styled since mid-1993 ... which is forever in this industry. That was one of the reasons I held off buying one ... I was waiting for the restyled version. So, you can see more clearly where I'm coming from.

Most sporty cars that are "iffy" as a financial undertaking are the more expensive ones starting at $30,000 because although they appeal to many, so few can actually afford them.

Anyway, look at the story behind the Mazda Miata's introduction. All the marketing folks for the large car companies fought off the idea fearing it to be non-profitable when it was simple common sense that a cute, fun to drive convertible would be a huge success ... and look at what happened when it was introduced. Waiting lists, additional dealer mark-ups, etc ... They couldn't build enough of them to satisfy demand. And unlike some cars that have come out since, it's still being produced.

American Honda just seems to be re-organizing their line for short-sighted 'corporate identity' reasons. They are writing off customers that kept the dealerships open for a decade and a half in the name of pursuing upscale motorists who are most likely quite happy in their Lexus, BMW, MB, Audi, Volvo, Saab, etc ... and unlikely to switch anytime soon since those makes have a great deal of brand loyalty. Besides, who's gonna give up their real luxury car to buy a $23,000 dressed up egg? Only real performance hounds like myself will appreciate the 200hp engine and 6-spd tranny ... and most of them are disappointed in the car for various reasons.

If there is a shake out in the auto industry in the next few years, Acura's latest moves might not merely be a mistake, but could actually be disastrous. There is a great and tragic history of copmpanies losing touch with what their customers want and it appears American Honda is following those examples quite closely. Only time will tell for sure, however.

As for the used 911, I'd rather not have to resort to the over-priced, used Euro-mobiles in order to get my jollies ... but I'll have to see what one of those would do to my insurance. >;^)

Obviously, though, my preference is to have one car, preferably a new one, preferably a Honda or Acura. <:^(

--- <b>Bror Jace

only1harry · December 2001

The Miata! It is still selling strong and hasn't changed much in 11-12yrs!! They only made some small cosmetic changes, gave it a litte more power and keep making it a better handler. My friend sold his '91 Miata (1.6L) and bought another, a '00 Miata with the optional R package (bigger front sway bar, springs/shocks, lighter alloys) and Limited Slip Diff. Man does that thing handle nice! I 'm sure they have kept many of their loyal fans. Recently, one of my friends that owns a Type-R bought a used Miata as a 2nd car, and another one is considering it because they both keep the mileage low on their rare ITRs. Granted, these are single guys (in their late 20's) and the 2-seater Miata is not too practical but I 'm just trying to point out a success story that the Miata is. Miatas are easily into the $20K's with only 150HP but they 're considered pure sports roadsters with not much luxury and although there are many other choices out there with a lot more power, they 're still selling great. Those that buy them want a (light) car that's fun to drive and to feel connected with the road. They 're not interested in luxury items, and most are true car enthousiasts. The Toyota MR2 Spider saw the Miata's success and is trying to steal some of its market share.
Varmit: I don't think that Acura is trying to squeeze the Type-S into the Type-R's role. The Type-S is clearly a daily driver. The Type-R is not. It's noisy, has a higher redline, the ride is not as soft, spartan in luxury items ('97s didn't even have rear windshield wipers & A/C was optional even with '98 models) which is everything a sports coupe is supposed to be. Unless you have a small commute, I would not recommend the ITR. The reason "true" sports coupes like the Type-R will never sell in great numbers is because of their lack of practicality. Many people including my brother, use the ITR as a 2nd car, for Sunday drives, autocross or track events/road racing. Clearly that is not Acura's intentions for the RSX and I 'm not sure if you meant it that way.. The problem with buying a car such as the ITR, is that many people cannot afford a 2nd $24K car, and most of the time a spouse puts a stop to it. Many of my friends wanted a Type-R and could afford it as a 2nd car, but their wives strongly disagreed. I kind of tricked my wife into buying the GSR which I had no intentions of using it daily as my commute is 160 mi/day! My intentions were to modify its suspension and using it for auto-x racing on the wknds. I told her I would sell the '97 Civic and just keep the '99 GSR. Once I bought it, I told her the GSR was not fun for long commutes and the gas mileage not as good as I thought, and that it used Premium gas, etc., and it made sense to keep the Civic and to use the GSR to offset the mileage by using it at least once week for work so as to not pile the miles on the Civic too quickly. I was lucky and it worked

Had I waited another 3 weeks I 'd be the owner of a Type-R. 2-3 weeks after I bought my '99 GSR they announced the ITR was coming back in '00 after being absent for a year (no ITRs were sold in the US in '99, but did in Canada, go figure..).

drewdrew94 · December 2001

Hello,

What is the going price people are paying for an 02 RSX base, 5spd, no leather?
I will be shopping for one soon and I think invoice is fair, is anyone getting under that?
Thanks

varmit · December 2001

Brorjace - Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt a perfectly good rant.

I guess my point is that no one is arguing against the differences between the old and new. Acura knew in advance that they were not improving the Integra. They were replacing it with a very different car. They also knew that, in Type S form, it would not appeal to the boy racers who favored the GS-R and Type R. It's a balance of luxury and performance, not performance and performance. We can sit here and speculate about whether or not this is a good move, but to what end?

Only1harry - Actually... that was my point. Acura never intended the Type S to be an ITR (or even GSR) kind of car. It seemed to me that a number of folks on this board expected the Type S (being the top line offering at this time) to be an all out performance machine. That was never Acura's intention.

I suspect that Acura is doing what it has always done with the Type R and SE trim levels. They introduce them when the base cars start looking long in the tooth. When the design is first introduced, there is no need to bolster sales with a special edition. They save that ace in their sleeve for when the competition gets stiff later in the game.

Along came a Spider... The Miata has been able to 12 years because it was uncontested. The MR Spyder would've forced changes in the Miata if Toyota mass produced it. If the Celica, Eclipse, Cougar, and WRX did not exist, then maybe the Integra could've remained what it was. A little competition can do big things to a vehicle's design cycle. What prompted BMW to drop the 4 cyl version of the Z3? Why did Porsche want to wait for the Boxter S before providing one of the mags (R&T or C&D?) with a car for a comparo? Look no further than the S2K.

Furthermore, imagine if the Miata were an Infinity, Lexus, BMW, or MB. Would a car under any of those marques be able to get away with a 12 year run? Would any of those marques even sell something so basic? Nope. It lacks the luxury and prestige with which the brands are supposed to be known. So even if the Integra was selling well on it's own, it was hurting the Acura image.

fxashun · December 2001

who hasn't heard of the NSX isn't an enthusiast. That sounds more like a closed minded person who might like a particular brand or something. An enthusiast would at least know the name of nearly any car make from Alpha to Zagato.

dkneedsnwcr · December 2001

Who's "Zagato"?

brorjace · December 2001

varmit: "We can sit here and speculate about whether or not (The RSX) is a good move, but to what end?"

I guess when people make decisions I don't like that affect me personally, and they are really BAD decisions, I like to rub their noses in it. >;^D

Oops, fxashun you need to re-read my post. It was the average co-worker - a young, intelligent women (who's boyfriend is a racer and she drives a Honda Civic standard) who did not know what an NSX was by name alone ... not an enthusiast.

--- Bror Jace

eludwig · December 2001

Brorjace raises a good point about the Miata.

Anyway, if I were to dream a second my ideal car would be a rear-wheel drive coupe with a high-rev 4-cylinder motor, ABS on 4-wheel discs, F1 paddle shifter, room for a 6'3" driver, power everything, no leather, and a timeless design (read: likely not Japanese), all for $25k. But it will never happen.

So July of '03 when my lease runs out I'll be looking at a wide variety- from new GTI's and Civic Si's to older 911's, 240Z's, and 2002tii's.

Brorjace, your front-wheel drive requirement is what really hurts your choices. How about a '03 Tiburon? It definitely looks much better than the Celica or RSX, in my opinion.

drewdrew94 · January 2002

Hey Guys,

I know this is a weird but does anyone in here own a RSX (non type S) and if so, what did you end up paying for it?
I am seriously considering purchasing a new 02 RSX, 5spd., no leather, no dealer add ons, here in the next couple of weeks and I just want to know if asking the dealer for invoice is fair
game or should it be more like $500 over invoice?
Does anyone know if these cars are selling well or are they sluggish like I suspect?
Thanks for all opinions!

beowulf7 · January 2002

Happy New Year, everyone. I'm planning on going to the Philadelphia Auto Show (http://www.phillyautoshow.com) this weekend (Jan. 5 or 6). Does anyone know if Acura will be there? I want to ingrain the salespeople there on suggestions for RSX, many of which have been brought up in this forum. Hopefully, they'll make note of it and suggest to their bosses and work its way up and down the chain to RSX designers and engineers, in the event they plan to tweak this vehicle for the 2003 or 2004 models. I'm also very interested in checking out the all new 2003 Tiburon, which, as eludwig said, looks much better than the RSX from a styling perspective. I think it is a toss-up with the Celica in terms of looks; however, I haven't seen the Tiburon in person yet.

m_les · January 2002

to drewdrew -- all you need to know, and all there is to know about rsx pricing is contained in the Edmunds TMV calculation elsewhere on this site.
to beowulf -- there are acuras parked at most every auto show, even the insignificant ones like philly. but the folks babysitting the cars have no more contact with acura management than you do. they are trained to hand you a brochure, and that's it.

revka · January 2002

Thanks m_les! Also, here's a direct link: Edmunds' TMV New Vehicle Pricing Calculator. Happy shopping!

Revka
Host
Hatchbacks / Station Wagons / Women's Auto Center Boards

ckrll · January 2002

For a base model without leather, I've been quoted about $700 off MSRP by a North Carolina Acura dealer.

John

drewdrew94 · January 2002

Thanks, your post is exactly what I was looking for other shoppers values.
I have a dealer right now at about $900 over invoice. Not too shabby.
But that of course is without the doc fee (which does anyone really pay that?) which I hope to not have to pay.

Of course this is being quoted on a car that is not on the lot as of yet, so I feel pretty sure there might be some more room in there.
To top it off they are going to give what I want for my trade.

I have dealt with Acura before and they are very good and very professional with putting together a deal that is good for all parties involved.

I had a 00 Acura Integra GSR that I had to sell...

beowulf7 · January 2002

drewdrew, methinks going from a 2000 GSR to a base 2002 RSX is a step backwards. Just my opinion.

m_les, "insignificant"? LOL. Since I'm not originally from the Philly area, I won't take offense to that. Given its close proximity, I figure it's worth the investment of $9 (admission) and a few hours. I went to the one in 1999 and found that to be semi-informative and now that I'm up for a new car again, it might be worth the effort and time.

drewdrew94 · January 2002

I no longer have the 00 GSR, I sold it last summer and bought a used Eclipse convertible and I know an RSX is going to be alot more reliable than a 4 yr old Eclipse!
Thanks!

fxashun · January 2002

I did mis read non-enthusiast. Well you had no point then. The names Ferrari and Porche are icons of fast cars. Just as Accord/Civic are icons of dependable affordable cars.
But how many non enthusiasts could call up the latest Ferrari by name or number? And the 911 has been 911 forever. Forget Maserati or Lamborghini. I'm sure the non enthusiast would be hard pressed to name a Ferrari or any other non Porche from photos either.

eman6628 · January 2002

I am new to the Honda/Acura family of cars, just recently purchased an RSX automatic. When driving I can feel all the bumps on the road, unlike my other previous cars,(Celica/Camry/Corolla). Is the suspension suppose to be very stiff deso it need breaking in or can it be adjusted (by the dealer)?

stuartbonia · January 2002

First thing you should do is check the air pressure in your tires. Sometimes the pressure is way too high when you get a new car.

Secondly, it's a sporty car, you will feel the road.

robertsmx · January 2002

You're going to feel more bumps and road irregularities in a Honda/Acura than in a Toyota/Lexus. That is how they supply the road feel to the driver as opposed to isolation.

I too switched over from owning only Toyotas to Hondas, but I'm glad I did. If the ride is too harsh, you may still want to check the tire pressure.

rk888 · January 2002

Hey guys, just wondering if you could please help me with this topic. I'm pretty much a novice when it comes to cars and I want to ask a few things.

In Hong Kong, there is only 1 trim, which is a cross between the base and middle trim. Some of the features including 15" wheels: I want to know what is the difference if one wishes to upgrade to a 16" or 17"...what are the pros/cons in terms of performance? Please use specifics.

I'm also thinking of the sports package, which means the front/back/side skirts plus rear spoiler. The dealer said that if I want the back and side skirts, then the 4 mudguards can't be installed as well. Will driving without them in a RSX cause much rock chips, wet stains to the car? I mean, are they a must for RSX specifically, or can that car get by without them and still won't suffer much damage behind the wheels. Thanks.

beowulf7 · January 2002

I went to the Philly Auto Show on the opening day (Sat., 1/5). I got there kind of late so I didn't get a chance to meticulously look at the RSX and similar cars in its class. (I got a little distracted by the concept and exotic vehicles.) I finally got to see the interior of the RSX and I can say I'm impressed. Things are kept simple (large, round gauges) and appear easy-to-use while driving. The styling is bland from the side profile, but I'm starting to like the headlights and taillights. Oh why couldn't Acura add a couple character lines to the RSX? Yes, they want the mature crowd (as opposed to the boy-racers that the Integra may have) as potential buyers, but that's still a lame excuse.

The car I was highly looking forward to was also at the show. Yes, I'm referring to the 2003 Hyundai (cough, cough) Tiburon GT. That coupe looks sweet, the interior is on par with the RSX's, and it will have a 2.7 V6 engine purportedly generating 181 HP. Edmunds had a preview of it in an article published last month. The "booth babe" said it will be available in late Feb. or March and will sell for $17-20 grand, depending on the trim. The only options that will be available immediately are sunroof and auto transmission. She also said the car will weigh in at 2900 pounds, which means that it won't be as fast as the 2700+ pound RSX-S. Oh well, can't win them all.

The redesigned Tiburon looks like a very strong contender. If only the public (present company included) can get past the name of the make! I'll be test driving both of these cars over the next couple months. I'd be interested to know if MT, R&T, and/or C&D mags have a more detailed review - please let me know if you spot such an article. I didn't get a chance to ask Acura on what tweaks they plan on making to the 2003 version of the RSX, although I would assume it would be minor, if not insignificant.

rk888 · January 2002

hambone32 · January 2002

I've read several comments on people's preferences of the RSX or Celica. Personally, I think the RSX is a nicer car because it has a more refined ride. Really, it's more refined overall. I also like the conservative style of the RSX. However, after seeing both the cars parked next to each other, I have to admit that the Celica is a very sporty looking car and it makes the RSX look rather plain. I'm assuming that most people who prefer the RSX are practically offended by the looks of the Celica. I do have to admit that the Celica screams young driver, particularly young female driver, and I prefer the RSX for that reason. However, in defense of the Celica, it is really does look like a sports car, while the RSX does not.

varmit · January 2002

I think I would prefer the Celica's styling if it didn't have that weird angular bulge running over the rear wheel arch. Otherwise it's a great looking car.

In comparison, the RSX has nothing that looks weird, but nothing that stands out either. I like the overall shape and the view of the front and rear ends. It needs something on the flanks, though. Maybe a character line along the lower half of the doors or over the rear quarter. Anything, so long as it isn't a hit-me-over-the-head-with-it motif like the Celica's rear end.

robertsmx · January 2002

15 inch wheels versus 16 or 17 inch:
Usually it is the unsprung weight from a larger wheel that can hurt performance, but it can be countered if you can make a good choice of wheel, that is lighter. If you wish to change to a larger rim, you might want to keep the overall diameter of the wheel (metal + rubber) the same. For example, US version (RSX base as well as the Type-S) get P215/55/R16 tires. We can calculate the overall diameter of the wheel in the following way (the numbers in italics are from the specifications for the tire),
16 + ((215 * 2) * 55)/(25.4 * 100)
This is equal to 25.31 inch.

Now, if I were to replace the 16 inch rim with 17 inch, I would have to reduce the aspect ratio (55 above) so that the overall diameter remains the same. I would go to 50 aspect ratio tire (lower aspect ratio=lower profile). So now we would have,
17 + (215*2*)*50/(25.4*100) = 25.46 inch

The overall diameter is just a little more and will have negligible effect.

If you go to a different overall diameter, assuming that the wheel would still fit without rubbing, it could affect your speedometer/odometer reading as well as have some effect on overall gearing. Integra Type-R in Japan comes with P215/45/R17 tires so an overall diameter of only 24.62".

I don't know about the other question though, but I hope you got the answer to atleast one.

dkneedsnwcr · January 2002

rk888: I don't have the ground effects kit, nor do I have splash guards. If you plan on driving over gravel roads, I don't think splash guards are going to help you out that much. Just my opinion. On the rear, I notice that there is a lot of dirt being built up behind the rear wheel on the bumper. But it's the bumper so I'm not too concerned about it. I'm not sure, but I think you should be able to put the splash guards over the side and rear skirts.

As for tires, apparently, with larger tires the car handles better, I think it has something to do with the lower profile sidewall. The downside is that the tires will cost a bit more than your 15" tires. That's the basic knowledge that I have.

With respect to the celica, I don't mind it. It just wasn't me. The RSX suits me just fine.

robertsmx · January 2002

IMO, a car needs more than character lines, and RSX seems to deliver. Tiburon also looks like a nice coupe, but given my behind the wheel experience in various Hyundai cars (Sonata, XG300 and Tiburon, all rental), unless there is something drastically different about it, I might just end up admiring its value, and style about which I admit having a mixed feeling.

Honda usually goes for evolutionary simplicity, and I happen to like that. You'd always find something carried over from other Honda/Acuras of the past. For example, the RSX rear reminds me of early 90's Acura Legend. But at times it can be too simple (last Prelude), if you really expected something spicy. RSX looks nice to me from any angle. Nice and compact. I got another chance to be in an RSX (service loaner) this afternoon with a friend to lunch. It was the automatic version though. If my wife weren't against manual transmission (and two doors), I would have traded our 2002 Civic by now (a car that replaced my dear Prelude for the same reason).

tnjrobi1 · January 2002

I was looking to buy a new RSX Type S until I saw the price release on the new 350Z today.

The RSX I was pricing was going to be over 25K with options and the new Z is only 26K.

I would like to know what some of your opinions are about this change of heart. Should I stick with the RSX or go for the Z?

diploid · January 2002

Is that in American currency...the new Z is supposed to go 0-50 in less than 6 seconds. 26 is just too good of a deal for something that fast. And you know what they say, if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

tnjrobi1 · January 2002

The prices for the new Z were announced today. See below link for details.

www.nissannews.com

Acura RSX (All years/types)

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles