Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Acura RSX (All years/types)
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Make sure you close the gas cap properly after refueling. And if you didn't, and this light comes up, but you closed the gas cap properly, it may take a few trips before the lights go off. This must be mentioned in the user manual as it is in that of my two Hondas.
beowulf7
I don't think Accord coupe looks disproportionate or Civic coupe looks disproportionate, so a four/five door RSX wouldn't either. In fact, Accord coupe is shorter and lower than the sedan counterpart, and also sits on a shorter wheelbase (105.3" versus 106.9"). Integra sedan and coupe also had the difference (atleast in terms of wheelbase). The sedan had the same wheelbase as Civic sedan/coupe at 103.1" and the hatchback had it at 101". I don't think it looked awkward. In fact, the RSX may be about as long as Lexus IS300/BMW 3-series.
But I would rather see European/Japanese Accord as base Acura sedan in America. Smaller in dimensions than the American Accord, and lighter too.
notacon
If you liked ITR, you may find RSX-S too refined. These are two different cars even though the power output is similar. ITR was much lighter though. The RSX-S advantage may be in ownership costs, as ITR comes equipped with performance equipment (especially tires and brake pads), equipment level (if it matters) and ride refinement.
If you want a car like the ITR, you may want to wait for RSX-R. Once again, stripped of all fat, the new ITR (as it is called outside America) is light (<2600 lb.) and track oriented, while Type-S is more of a GT coupe. Still, you might want to test drive the S to see if it fits your needs.
In the end, I think it is a combination of car length and sporty appearance that would determine what looks good with 2 doors and what is better suited for 4 doors. Obviously, it is the automobile buying public that makes this determination. The Integra sedan did not fare very well, hence, Acura eschewed the sedan for the Integra's replacement, the RSX .
Unless there is a sports version of the Accord, then I might stop wanting the RSX sedan.... stay tuned...
http://www.mag-x.com/scoop/accord0112/01.jpg, and
http://www.europeanhonda.demon.nl/03euroaccord.jpg
Speculation in the motor department is a 2.4L 4-cylinder and possibly 2 V6's.
Who know's the truth, but I'm hoping for a very sporty Accord when my lease expires in June '03!
It's another tragedy that Acura did not integrate the brake lights on the optional spoiler. It looked so good on the Integra; why did Acura regress in spoiler technology? $600 does seem excessive for such a piece of plastic, but it is cheaper than the now-deceased Integra's $800 option.
All the best.
The WRX offers more power, room, roadholding, rear lsd, lower insurance rates, and a higher seating position, to name a few things I liked. The Acura has a smooth (but boring) engine, killer 6spd box, slightly better build/material quality, and good fuel economy.
I did not consider the Acura's standard leather, climate control, or Bose to be added value because I didn't like the idea of not being able to get the Type-S without them. Why pay for what you don't want, right? (Obviously, most folks would disagree with me here.)
On the downside, both cars are fugly as hell, have big blind spots to the rear, transmit lots of road noise into the cabin, sit on McStruts, and can now be seen everywhere on a road near you.
My WRX was 3 weeks out when, on a whim, I test drove a Prelude. Game over.
To all RSX-S drivers, are you using the premium (91 octane) fuel as recommended by Acura or something better or worse? What are the results? I remember a magazine concluding that in general, using a better grade fuel than what is recommended will affect neither performance nor mileage. However, by being a cheapskate (using lower grade fuel than what the manual suggests), your car's mileage and performance suffer by a nontrivial factor (I think it was ~10%). Can any RSX-S drivers attest to this, or do you all use 91 octane fuel?
While I have the RSX-S drivers' attention, has anyone else been told by the Acura dealership that the car requires a very finicky engine break in?
I hadn't thought about insurance premiums, but had assumed the WRX would be about the same as RSX, if not more. I guess I shouldn't assume. Many WRX owners would say the power advantage of the WRX and AWD is what mattered more than any ergonomic, drivability (eg the shifter on the WRX is not as nice as either of these two Honda products), comfort, quality of materials, etc., issues when compared to the RSX. Obviously opinions differ. I drive about 25,000 miles per year, so drivability and interior comfort/details matter to me almost as much as performance - hence the indecision. I had forgotten about the Prelude drive I took and will probably check one out again before deciding.
2.0 litre i-VTEC
in-line 4 cyclinder
16 valve dohc
220 bhp
0-60mph 6.0 seconds
145mph top speed
Honda is offering the car with the stylish body kit available for the RSX type S and HID headlight as an option.
You can see pictures and specs of the car in
http://www.warrender.co.uk/homepage.htm
and
http://www.honda.co.jp/INTEGRATYPE-R/
Does anyone knows if this car will be sold in US?
Honestly, the interior materials in the RSX didn't appear to be that much nicer than those in the WRX (pay particular attention to all the hard dash/door plastic and the funky headliner in the RSX -- this was all "soft touch" material in the Integra). Although boring, the interior of the Prelude is of better quality than both.
The seats in the WRX were much more supportive (for me, anyway) than those in the RSX-S. No slippery leather, either!
The WRX would have been much cheaper (~$850/yr!) for me to insure than the RSX-S -- credit the number of doors and low theft rates for Subes in general. However, after looking at the numerous cracked-up WRX's on iclub.com, I've got to think that rates might have gone up since I got my quote back in August.
Consumer Reports says that it found the noise to be "considerable".
I use Sunoco Supreme 92 (whatever it's called in the US or other countries, I don't know) mainly. Whenever I use Shell 91 or Esso 91, my mileage dips about 2mpg. Not much. When I use Sunoco 94, I get the same dip. I think it's because I drive the car a tad harder with the 94. I'm not sure though.
When it comes to road, wind and engine noise. It is a bit louder than any other car I've ever driven (A boatload of rentals, and the old '88 Accord). I got used to the noise and don't pay much attention to it anymore. I definately noticed it when I first got the car. Wind noise I don't pick up though. On the highway, with a full load of people who are sleeping, the engine noise did start to come thru. Usually I have the stereo on so I don't notice.
Hope that helps.
Oh, and I've never used anything lower than 91.
I'm not a fan of the styling on the current model, and they don't feel as solid at highway speeds as the older ones did.
Supremely comfortable, though, it's just a damn shame they're so expensive to maintain. I mean, come on! $800 for a brake job? That would eat up my mileage allowance in a hurry.
Pardon the off-topic post, all.
Now, I'd be interested in Edmunds doing a long-term road test of the RSX-S. That is where the excitement lies. If the RSX "[has] an overall feeling of refinement, and exemplary steering ... RSX is a car you can drive to work every day and still cut loose in it over the weekend", imagine how well the RSX-S would rate! The RSX-S would be even more luxurious w/ its leather and 6-disc CD changer. Now only if Acura would address that styling for the 2003 model ... and drop the price to be more competitive with the Tiburon GT ($20 k)
I'll tell you why: There are hundreds of people on this board alone that have seen the new tib, and seen the price, and seen the features and style that come with that price, and they all say they will consider it, or even worse, actually plan on buying it.
The fact that Acura has sprinkled low-cost (no option) luxury bits on the RSX in the effort to move it "upmarket" serve only to dilute the character that the Integra had. By keeping the focus on affordable performance, the RSX-R looks to be another class-leading Honda. In Type-S trim, however, the RSX is neither a serious luxury or sporting machine. With its copius road noise and tight cabin, it qualifies only for the "pretend luxury" class.
It's another case of like the Nissan Altima. The outside is gorgeous but the interior leaves a lot to be desired. In addition, like most Korean designed cars the exterior doesn't look proportional or integrated. The front, side, and rear look like they were designed by 3 different companies.
As for people buying up Tiburons, I guess that is a good thing to. After all, auto mechanics need jobs to.
Just look at the new Sonata - it's blatant that the front was inspired by Mercedes Benz.
But I do think the Tiburon strays away from this notion just a bit (yes I think those headlamps look a little VW-ish, too).
himiler: "pretend luxury" = entry luxury. I think that's why an IS300, even though it crosses the 30+K barrier (the "near luxury" category), is referred to by most automotive magazines as an "entry level" sedan; a clear criticism of its not-so-upscale interior. At least the RSX tries to avoid that same criticism.
I'm not saying the Tiburon (I was referring to the new 2003 model, not the el cheapo 2001 one) is the ideal sports coupe. It's simply a car that gives a lot for the money. Many of you are discounting the 2003 Tiburon GT simply because it's made by a Korean company. Fine. That's why Hyundai is countering with a 5 yr. bumper-to-bumper warranty (and 10 yr. power train that no one cares about). Acura only gives a 4 yr. b2b warr.
Once I test drive both cars (2003 Tiburon GT and 2002 RSX-S), I'll have a better idea. I was leaning more towards the RSX-S since it is an Acura and it has 200 HP. But when I saw the Tiburon in person at an auto show and checked out the specs at www.2003tiburon.com, I had second thoughts. Both of these cars, IMHO, now rank ahead of the Celica and Eclipse.
thel asked, "would Acura care about competing with the Tiburon, or any other Hyundai???" I don't work for a car company nor am I marketing person. That said, I bet that any product that can potentially steal marketshare would be a cause of concern. In other words, if the sports coupe/hatchback buying public is going to by Tiburons at the RSXs' expense, yes, Acura will care.
And unless Hyundai has really worked hard on Tiburon, I doubt it is going to attract the same buyers who like cars like RSX, Celica etc. Some who go by style, may.
There is some truth to it, but is there a reason for that belief? I think so. To add to that, is the 10 year powertrain warranty transferable? I don't think it is, and many people will have trouble with that, as well as hurting value of car after about 3 years of ownership. Unless somebody wants to own the car for next 10 years, used car market may not hold up, even if the company manages to. I'm not sure if long warranty may backfire companies like Hyundai/Kia/Isuzu (all offering 10 year 100K-120K power train warranty), and lately, Chrysler offering 7 year warranty. It is a risk for these companies, and it may be coming at a cost as well.
The Tiburon? A little VW here, a little Porsche there, a bit of Ferrari...nothing to really call its own. I think the pros refer to this as "cookie cutting" design.
But I do disagree with most posts describing the type S as ugly. Again, this is subjective, but I find it to be clean and subtle with the ghost of the prior integra in certain design details very appealing. Here are a few quick thoughts and impressions about all the cars I researched and drove before making the decision:
C-Coupe- Bizarre overall proportions, but some nice details. No headroom, and I'm only 5'9". Syrupy steering with slower responses than the true athletes of this group. OK shifter. Nice low end torque, but engine does not provide as visceral a thrill as others. Expensive when optioned up.
3 Series- Great car. Enough said, but too expensive.
WRX- fun, fun and more fun. I don't like the looks at all, and the interior says plain cheap. Little turbo lag, shifter better than C, not as good as type S. Amazing power above 3000rpm. If you don't mind the details, you can't go wrong with this one.
Celica - Um, style-wise, will date very poorly. Cramped interior with surprisingly lousy shifter. Engine response ok, but peakier and buzzier than others. Uninspired interior.
Prelude - Wow, felt like 1989 inside this car. Not a bad thing, but I was looking for something a little more today than yesterday. Dynamically, this car is great. Excellent engine, steering and shifter. With discounts, a great buy.
Jetta - Nice design. Great interior and material quality. 1.8T has more lag than WRX and shifter is clunky compared to the best in this group. Not for me.
type S- Great drivetrain. Best shifter of the group by far. Super seats and interior ergonomics. This is the one that just put a huge smile on my face. Hatchback makes it versatile. Gripes are few, but there should be an armrest and heated seats would be nice. Overall, you just can't go wrong with this one.
I can post impressions of the rest if anyone is interested.
I would love a 4 door version of the RSX, and it is coming....
Is that just wishful thinking based on the Integra experience, or do you know something we don't?
Besides, it looks much better with the side skirts and underspoilers.
'06 Civic LX coupe
'11 BMW 335i coupe xDrive
'13 Honda Accord sedan (wife's car)