Mazda 3s vs. Acura RSX

[harrison888]

Higher number can't really determine it's a faster car, but theoretically, a higher horsepower, lighter weight, closer gear ratio, does mean faster. Which in this case, the RSX-S has it all...30 more hp, 75lbs lighter, and closer ratio.

 

[servoeyes]

Higher number can't really determine it's a faster car, but theoretically, a higher horsepower, lighter weight, closer gear ratio, does mean faster. Which in this case, the RSX-S has it all...30 more hp, 75lbs lighter, and closer ratio.

You're right...but the general public doesn't look into that other stuff. THey quote HP and think it must be faster. Just like waaaay too many people think the WRX is so much faster than either of these cars...but they don't look at the HP-weight ratios, gearing, and drivetrain losses. All that adds up to make the WRX only about a .5s faster in the 1/4 stock for stock. They screw up a shift and you can damn near make up that time.

And even with all that said, it's the lack of low-end torque in the RSX that keeps it from being faster than an MSP. That's not to say that it can't be fast...drop a Hondata in there and it's a completely different car. But stock for stock it won't *smoke* an MSP. That's all I wanted to point out.

 

[monki]

Higher number can't really determine it's a faster car.

Its like saying better marks doesnt mean smarter students, which is true in some cases I agree. But when we talk about cars in different classes, its hard to use this argument. Its like saying, a BMW has higher number can't really say it is a faster car than a corolla!! (a magnified analogy of RSX vs. Mz3)

you had to do was take a little look into a magazine to save yourself from making a comment that made you sound uninformed.

Calm it down a bit!!! My logic is simple, 200>19x>18x>17x>16x... it doesnt matter what horsepower your MSP is running. I only know RSX eat fewer gasoline and run faster, thats it. Honestly, we should stop comparing this car with cars that are in a higher class than us... it made this car look bad, which it isnt! Mz3 is a good budget car!!

I'm an engineer...

lease is okay. dump it afterward.

 

[TampaBlackMSP]

Wow, the more you type Monki, the less you sound like you know anything automotive related... What the hell does this phrase mean?? "My logic is simple, 200>19x>18x>17x>16x... it doesnt matter what horsepower your MSP is running. I only know RSX eat fewer gasoline and run faster, thats it."

So I guess it doesn't matter what numbers my MSP puts out, the RSX is faster and 'eat fewer gasoline.' Wow, you might want to explore other hobbies. Even if my car was stock, it isn't slower than an RSX. At least not one without some serious mods.

Not to mention the comment about a higher class of car - you're kidding right? Last I checked, RSX's weren't $30K+ (this means over thirty thousand dollars in case you weren't sure) - get real and more importanly get informed before you start spewing nonsense.

And just becuase this makes even less sense, what does Servo being an engineer have to do with whatever statement you were trying to make about a lease? Ah, nevermind...it's probably not worth hearing explanations over....good day to you.

 

[JDM Sam]

I've personally driven a Mazda 3 2.3L stick and a base RSX stick. They're both pretty even but the rsx will pull the Mazda 3.

 

[Hoeboe2k]

You guys really need to relax. They're both great cars. RSX type S is better stock but of course it's more expensive. After just boltons, the MSP is going to be faster because it's already turboed.
Second of all, you guys strayed off topic quite a bit. The topic was whether the RSX is faster than the 3, not the MSP. The 3 and MSP are quite different cars. It's like suddenly bringing in the NSX to compare to the RX7. that may be taking it very far but we're not even comparing the right cars any more.

THEY BOTH ARE NICE CARS. I wouldn't disrespect anyone who picked one over the other.