MSP in comparison to a 2004 Toyota Celica Sport

[StreakinOraNgeX]

stock vs stock an rsx type s will beat the msp by a hair and hair alone, on the track and track alone. But from any type of rolls on the regular street, the rsx will get owned, takes to long for vtec to hit. secondly the gts "
vtec" is similar but not up to par as the type s..

 

[Dr.Sound]

a brand new selica GT-S arround here is $25,000
a new WRX is $23,000

 

[b00sted]

Both the GT-S and the Type-S are faster than an MSP in a straight line stock-for-stock, but not by much. You have to know how to drive them, though. Like jersey said, they make all their power with high revs. The Celica feels like dog unless you are in the top 1800 rpms, and the Type-S gets mean at about 5800rpm when VTEC kicks in. I drive my buddy's RSX-S all the time and can tell you that it will beat my MSP stock-for-stock, and spank it after he got header/exhaust/intake. I'm affraid to see it when he gets Hondata at the end of the month... Time to get my DP/exhaust/intercooler!

i disagree..i raced a type-s stock for stock and beat him, we stopped after about 90mph tho

 

[SPEEDHERO]

hm wow yeah your right they are almost the same price 2004 Celica GTS for $32.9K and 2004 WRX $31.9K (All in canadian funds)

What an overpriced piece of junk! ... I bought my msp for 23k (CAD) new

 

[FSDET]

toyotas goin gay
the mr2 sucks
the celica used to be 10x better specialy the turbocharged one in europe (which was WRC )
no more supras ...
the corollas used to look better, now it looks like a cake

 

[LASERBLUE135]

quote from SPOOLED

"Basically, everywhere I looked the Celica GT-S and RSX-S beat the MSP in the quarter by a couple tenths." (maybe the type S, but not the GTS)

"My dad can beat up your dad"

In response... where did you look, if "everywhere" you looked said that (because NO legitimate source claims this.)

your dad may be able to beat up my dad, but at least I'm not full of sh*t...

(SORRY EVERYONE (AND SPOOLED) FOR THE SLAM, BUT WHEN YOU PRINT B.S., SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO GET CALLED ON IT.

 

[mp5jeff]

i thought the rsx-s had i-vtec which comes in really early in the rpms? am i wrong?

 

[mp5jeff]

btw, stop magazine racing, those drivers suck...

 

[SPEEDHERO]

^ Haha they probably have the janitors racing and see whose janitor has the best 1/4 mile time

 

[Spooled]

"Basically, everywhere I looked the Celica GT-S and RSX-S beat the MSP in the quarter by a couple tenths." (maybe the type S, but not the GTS)

"My dad can beat up your dad"

In response... where did you look, if "everywhere" you looked said that (because NO legitimate source claims this.)

your dad may be able to beat up my dad, but at least I'm not full of sh*t...

(SORRY EVERYONE (AND SPOOLED) FOR THE SLAM, BUT WHEN YOU PRINT B.S., SOMETIMES YOU NEED TO GET CALLED ON IT.

Give me a random stock RSX-S and you a random stock MSP and I will beat you. Then we can switch, and you will beat me (if you know how to drive). I don't know where you are looking, but I want to see your source for an MSP having better straightline performance than an RSX-S (same driver, same conditions). I think you are the one who is full of s***, my friend. I have driven both cars extensively and know from first hand experience that the Acura is the faster car, hands down. A 170hp, 2843lb sedan (average aerodynamics), will not out-perform a 200hp, 2778lb hatchback (one of the most aerodynamic cars in the class) with smaller, lighter wheels, and a powerband that climbs past redline. Physics dominate.

Maybe you saw some kid with a base RSX who slapped a Type-S badge on and thought it was slow. Who knows. Point is that you can't just say "I beat an RSX-S with my MSP stock-for-stock" and say that the MSP is faster. You have to have the same driver go through the same tests with both cars. It's like getting two different cars dynoed at two different shops in different parts of the country and trying to compare the numbers.

 

[Spooled]

By the way, the "My dad can beat up your dad" thing was a joke. Just trying to get people to loosen up and not get into a pissing contest about this.

 

[Spooled]

Popular Mechanics should be considered a reliable source:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/2003/8/mighty_mites/print.phtml

The GT-S has a faster 0-60 time (although very minimal), and the MSP has a faster 1/4 mile time (0.01 faster), but the Celica has a higher trap speed. The RSX spanks both. End of story.

 

[xtrememps]

The cars are so close. Its a driver's race, and also dependent on conditions, etc. Yes the rsx is capable of being faster, but these are under ideal conditions.

 

[jersey_emt]

RSX-S has more significantly more HP, while the MSP has significantly more torque. They are equals (true drivers' race) at most speeds. RSX-S only has the advantage of more top end. Above ~90mph, the RSX-S will beat a MSP. Below that (which includes 0-60 and 1/4 mile) they are equals. I have driven both, and have raced both many times.

 

[Spooled]

The cars are so close. Its a driver's race, and also dependent on conditions, etc. Yes the rsx is capable of being faster, but these are under ideal conditions.

The Celica and MSP are defintely a drivers' race. With two unexperienced drivers, the MSP is more forgiving and would probably win. The RSX is a couple tenths faster and is a few MPH higher in the trap, which is a decent buffer. I'd really like to get my hands on a 2005 Type-S.

 

[4001]

Popular Mechanics should be considered a reliable source:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/2003/8/mighty_mites/print.phtml

The GT-S has a faster 0-60 time (although very minimal), and the MSP has a faster 1/4 mile time (0.01 faster), but the Celica has a higher trap speed. The RSX spanks both. End of story.

In a magazine review..... Those are some horrible times for almost all those cars. You just told the guy he cant say a MSP is faster cause in person and beat an RSX but then you throw some writing in his face and say thats highest level of proof a person can have to determine which car is faster, brilliant absolutely brilliant


Physics dominates yeah and Torque compensates (160 vs 142)

 

[4001]

The 2005 Type-S just got bumped up an extra 10HP

 

[Spooled]

In a magazine review..... Those are some horrible times for almost all those cars. You just told the guy he cant say a MSP is faster cause in person and beat an RSX but then you throw some writing in his face and say thats highest level of proof a person can have to determine which car is faster, brilliant absolutely brilliant


Physics dominates yeah and Torque compensates (160 vs 142)

Sure terrible times, but with the same drivers. It's all about consistancy in the tests. That's what I was pointing out in both situations: Street racing = different drivers and poor consistancy. I wasn't throwing anything in anyone's face. He said that I was full of s***, and I showed him that I wasn't. If you can't handle that, then (stfu) .

Torque moves the car, HP wins races. Torque is the ability to do work, while HP is the ability to do work QUICKLY.

 

[Spooled]

Physics dominates yeah and Torque compensates (160 vs 142)

Torque only compensates with the right gearing (which the MSP doesn't have).

 

[4001]

As someone else pointed out your just magazine racing The RSX might be faster in a magazine review but what type of real world racing (where they race for wins and championships instead of giving a car a lower review because of small buttons on the radio) do you know of where they determine which car is faster exactly like a magazine. Real races are determined by the driver and his car and what they can accomplish. By all means go with the 05 Type-S and get on the Honda/acura wagon, you fit the bill.