my brother in laws rsx type s!

rsx's are nice but for that money why not buy a turbocharged all wheel drive wrx? It kills rsx's and for just a little bit more (downpipe, exhaust and filter and some boost you have 300+ hp for under a grand and high 12 sec to low 13 sec 1/4 miles. Try spending that same bread on an rsx and you would be lucky to get 10 hp:eek: (laugh) (rofl)
 
Last edited:
i actually was down to those very cars when i was looking. a few things:

1. couldn't find a WRX for under $25,500, and even then, it wasn't equipped as well. i got my acura for $23,650 incl delivery.

2. the subaru guy was a jerk, the acura guy treated me like gold.

3. the WRX felt like a Dodge Neon inside, more like a $15k car than a $25k car.

IMO, the RSX is just a nicer car, not quite as quick, but in reality, my ES is about as quick as a street car needs to be. RSX-S/WRX type speed is a waste unless you go to a track -- i went through a 55 mph speed trap in my Acura at 125, pretty much by accident. well, kind of.;)

i spend a lot of time on i-club, and i can say that i would NEVER mod a WRX under warranty. SOA reps have been refusing to honor warranties just b/c the owner autoXed the car, even though the WRX comes with a free SCCA membership. i could point out close to a dozen WRX owners who have needed new transmissions b/c the stock ones are made of glass. a cat-back system or an intake voids your engine warranty at a lot of dealers. i just sold my old Protege to a guy who is suing Subaru under NJ's lemon law. SOA flat refuses to fix his car. i'll probably buy a used WRX some day, but that's it. i've driven both, one of my good friends has a Rex, and give me the Acura any day. the WRX is like a hot date -- fun for a while, but you probably don't want to marry her.
 
dmitrik4 said:
well, i was talking about the P5.:)

mmmm, MS-P.:D i want one. it's definitely closer competition. be nice to see some more power out of the stock turbo'd engine though.
Click to expand...


closer??? WTF i think the MPS will smoke that RSX. well that what i think.
 
We (wife & I) just bought a RSX for a second vehicle. Even though it is just the Premium (160hp) the engine is soooooooo smooth, we paid 26K cdn loaded. Leather heated seats feel nice on the bum too!

I know there is a lot of Honda haters in here, but I like Honda product and personnaly I think there engines cant be beat.

I still drive my P5 when I have the chioce.
 
brain said:
We (wife & I) just bought a RSX for a second vehicle. Even though it is just the Premium (160hp) the engine is soooooooo smooth, we paid 26K cdn loaded. Leather heated seats feel nice on the bum too!

I know there is a lot of Honda haters in here, but I like Honda product and personnaly I think there engines cant be beat.

I still drive my P5 when I have the chioce.
Click to expand...

Nawww mannn(no) (no)......if there were honda hater's in here we would be dissing honda's and Sh** like that and giving the sign that we don't F**king like Honda's(piss) (flame2). I honestly like honda's, but i just think there's too many of them. Fortunately i'm a mazda guy, but if a nice honda was given to me i'd take it in a heart beat. Honda's are great cars, alot of my friends own honda's and acura's. But between the Mazdaspeed and the RSX-TypeS. I rather chose the MS-P Reason's are:

1. It's a Family Sport Sedan
2. It's bigger.
3. Features a nice Kenwood Deck Stereo System
4. Has sparco interior and Exterior racing hart rims with nice body styling.
5. Turbocharged with LSD
6. It's Quicker than an RSX- TypeS
7. it's Cheaper than an RSX-TypeS
8. It's Limited Edition


That's Just my opinion though, everybody has a right to there opinion. Some may say the same and some may say not.

;)
 
good reasons all except for #6...;)

and i don't have a family.;)

i have to say, that i am extremely happy with my ES and don't regret buying it at all, esp for $210/mo less than the Acura was. but i guess i get less car too, which is expected.

there are things my mazda does as well/better:

--hold more people going to lunch (but that means i have to drive all the time now)
--uses regular gas (as opposed to premium, although my mileage isn't any better than the Acura)
--stops as well stock as the Acura did
--easier to drive while autoXing
--lower insurance
--looks just as good, IMO
--less noticeable by john q. law in traffic
--comes with really good stock tires

things my acura did better:

--better build quality (just being honest here -- no weird door/headliner rattles, less wind noise, no sloppy-feeling shifter, no wobbly gas pedal)
--faster (and NO, the MSP is NOT quicker in a straight line. if you feel otherwise, show proof, but the laws of physics back me up)
--handled better than the ES does in autoX (less understeer, less body roll)
--6-speed (easily the best shifter/gearbox i have ever used)
--MUCH smoother engine (again, you get what you pay for)
--quieter on the highway
--held more cargo (hatchback vs. sedan -- no contest)

so there ya go. if i was offered both for free, i'd take the acura. but since i have to pay for it, i'll take the mazda. you may feel differently, and that's OK.:)
 
dmitrik4


No offence but there is no way in hell you can compare your protege ES with a MS protege (the one with the turbo). B/c the MS-P will blow the RSX away!!!!!!!! hands down!!!!
1 it cost less at 20,500
2 is one of TOP 3 handling car out on the road
3 look better then a RSX type-s
4 is faster
5 has more stuff in it. ie sparko interior and kenwood system
...ect


so please don't give me a bull on how the RSX is better the
MS-P. BUT i will conceede that hondas are great cars. Had a Ledgen and all i had to say is it looked nice, had speed and the engine was going strong with 150K. So i don't have any thing agianst hondas. but the fact of the matter is MS-P is better then the RSX type-s
 
Dmitrik4 I like the RSX Type-S and all but not to get a little off topic but the RSX isn't faster than an Integra Type-R, so how is the RSX-S faster than the MS-P. Please tell me where it beats the MSP in straight line performance, Which the MS-P has taken over the Type-R FWD fastest stock car from the factory. SCC has stated that the MS-P is the fastest FWD from the factory which when they were going uphill the MS-P didn't have any turbo lag going uphill and it beat the Type-R. The RSX-S is a Bad A** car i would take one if it was given to me, but i don't think it's better than the MS-P which also to bring that the MS-P is alot cheaper 2.


MS-P's Specs are:

0-60....6.5sec
1/4mile 14.9@93.18mph hmmm(scratch) (thought) i think that's quicker than the RSX'S 0-60.....6.7sec 1/4mile 15.2sec@n/a mph.
 
the MSP is rated at 170hp... but the type S is rated 200hp. perhaps the turbo kicks in at lower RPM than the type s thus giving it the advantage?`
 
enry said:
the MSP is rated at 170hp... but the type S is rated 200hp. perhaps the turbo kicks in at lower RPM than the type s thus giving it the advantage?`
Click to expand...

Yes, suposely the Turbo give's us the advantage and the Turbo kicks in at 25-2600rpms and pulls all the way to redline with no turbo lag or down hills in the rpm range.
 
tritonheat1 said:
Here's the RSX-S Performance data YOU LIKE:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2002/acura/rsx/types2drhatchback20146m/specs.html?id=lin0018


http://www.modernracer.com/acurarsxtypes.html

0-60 in............6.7sec
1/4mile 15.2sec@92.7mph. thank u much(wiggle) (flash)
Click to expand...

Keep in Mind YOU posted these links:

edmunds link: 6.7sec (RSX-S)

no numbers on the MSP.

modernracer.com(???) Acura: 6.7, 15.2@92.7mph
MSP: 6.9, 15.4@91mph

looks like modernracer.com doesn't agree with you.

Motor Trend

Acura : 7.2, 15.1@93.2mph

MSP:

In front of me, i have the May '02 issue of Car and Driver.

Acura RSX-S: 6.1, 14.8@N/A mph

Also, the September '02 Car and Driver:

MSP: 6.9, 15.4@91 mph

I'm going to assume that a faster 0-60 and a lower ET would infer a higher trap speed.

so only Motor Trend was unable to get a Type-S under 7 seconds 0-60. i don't know where you go your previously
quoted "specs" on the MSP of 6.5, 14.3@93.18mph, but EVERY resource i have seen (even the ones YOU supplied) have recorded the Type-S as being quicker.

you can't take a performance number for the Acura from one place and compare it to a number for the MSP from another source.
it's shaky enough magazine racing like this, even if your source is the same.

the facts are these:

1. the RSX Type-S has a better power-to-weight ratio:

MSP...2844 lbs, 170 HP = 16.73 lbs/hp
RSX-S...2766 lbs, 200HP = 13.83 lbs/hp

2. the RSX-S has better (shorter) gearing in every gear except 1st:

Acura MSP
1st: 3.267 3.31
2nd: 2.130 1.84
3rd: 1.517 1.31
4th: 1.147 0.97
5th: 0.921 0.76
6th: 0.738 N/A

Final: 4.389 4.11

the only thing that might give the MSP an advantage off the line is the LSD.

but you can't defy Physics. shorter gearing and 17.33% less weight per HP equals a faster car, EVERY TIME.
 
Last edited:
enry said:
the MSP is rated at 170hp... but the type S is rated 200hp. perhaps the turbo kicks in at lower RPM than the type s thus giving it the advantage?`
Click to expand...

enry-

yes, the MSP reaches its peak power at a lower RPM than the Type-S. but that doesn't matter except for around-town driving and that's not what we're discussing here.

(and just for kicks...not that it's by any means a scientific test, but i DID beat a Type-R Integra from 70-125 mph last fall.do not attempt! keep it on the track. we went thru a speed trap and the Type-R got pulled over doing 65-70mph over the 55 mph limit. :( i was lucky enough not to get pulled and avoided going to jail. :( :eek: :D)

if the MSP was available or even confirmed for production when I bought my Acura last July, i probably would have bought the Mazda. i would have traded off a little straight-line speed for sharper hadling and a $3000 price difference.

sorry to go into so much detail with the numbers, but facts are facts and it bugs me to hear people proclaiming as truth things that clearly aren't. i understand the enthusiasm for the MSP (again, i wish i could get one), but it's not the greatest car ever, just as the RSX-S is not. or the WRX, regardless of what some of the folks on i-club seem to think.:) if tritonhheat had claimed better handling numbers for the MSP, i would hhave agreed wholeheartedly -- Honda fell down with the handling of the RSX-S, especialy with the HORRIBLE tires they fitted to it. Mazda seems to do a better job of not cutting corners that way.
 
Last edited:
dmitrik4 said:


Keep in Mind YOU posted these links:

edmunds link: 6.7sec (RSX-S)

no numbers on the MSP.

modernracer.com(???) Acura: 6.7, 15.2@92.7mph
MSP: 6.9, 15.4@91mph

looks like modernracer.com doesn't agree with you.

Motor Trend

Acura : 7.2, 15.1@93.2mph

MSP:

In front of me, i have the May '02 issue of Car and Driver.

Acura RSX-S: 6.1, 14.8@N/A mph

Also, the September '02 Car and Driver:

MSP: 6.9, 15.4@91 mph

I'm going to assume that a faster 0-60 and a lower ET would infer a higher trap speed.

so only Motor Trend was unable to get a Type-S under 7 seconds 0-60. i don't know where you go your previously
quoted "specs" on the MSP of 6.5, 14.3@93.18mph, but EVERY resource i have seen (even the ones YOU supplied) have recorded the Type-S as being quicker.

you can't take a performance number for the Acura from one place and compare it to a number for the MSP from another source.
it's shaky enough magazine racing like this, even if your source is the same.

the facts are these:

1. the RSX Type-S has a better power-to-weight ratio:

MSP...2844 lbs, 170 HP = 16.73 lbs/hp
RSX-S...2766 lbs, 200HP = 13.83 lbs/hp

2. the RSX-S has better (shorter) gearing in every gear except 1st:

Acura MSP
1st: 3.267 3.31
2nd: 2.130 1.84
3rd: 1.517 1.31
4th: 1.147 0.97
5th: 0.921 0.76
6th: 0.738 N/A

Final: 4.389 4.11

the only thing that might give the MSP an advantage off the line is the LSD.

but you can't defy Physics. shorter gearing and 17.33% less weight per HP equals a faster car, EVERY TIME.
Click to expand...






Man No doubt the RSX-S is a Bad a** car but it's not faster than the MS-P. Yeah the RSX has more HP and it has a 6-speed tranny But the MSP has the advantage on Torque with (LSD) and Turbo. If the MSP loses to a 142lb-fts@6000rpms and redlines to 7800rpms, which i-Vtec doesn't kick in till 7400rpms, and the MS-P which has 160lb-fts@25-2600rpms till 6600rpms then There's something wrong with the (LSD) and not to mention, Turbo is boosting already at low rpm with no turbo lag at all, all the way to redline. I must hardly say with the MS-P's advantage if it's not faster than the RSX-S to 60mph and 1/4mile then there's something really wrong here. not just (Motortrend) got good number's but Autoweek got good number's too. Http://www.autoweek.com/cat_content...=reviews&loc_code=index&content-code=00066877

And not to mention i Burn My friend's 02 SE-R SpecV
also he has: Injen CAI, Spintech Exhaust, and eibach 2''springs.

SpecV: 175HP- 180lb-fts torque with (Helical LSD)


i own a 91 MX-6 GT 2.2l Turbocharged and intercooled Stock with 139,945 miles on it and burn him by 2 1/2 car lenghs even with mine and my father's bowling balls in the trunk.

MX-6 GT: 145hp- 190lb-fts torque.

so i know for a fact that the MS-P is quicker even though the HP and power to weight ratio goes to the RSX-S.


SpecV curb weight: 2743lbs has 30 more horses with mods and 10lb-fts of torque less than the MX-6, and also is 12 pounds lighter.

RSX-S curb weight: 2767lbs has 30 more horses and 18lb-fts pounds of torque less than the MS-P, and also is 76 pounds lighter.


(scratch) (thought) (scratch) (thought) (scratch)
 
did you even read what i wrote? your response is "well, the MSP has a turbo and LSD"? THAT'S your argument? :rolleyes:

1. you didn't address ANYTHING i said. i showed you HARD, VERIFIED facts. where are these "independent tests"? SHOW them to me, don't quote a MAZDA engineer who may or may not be exaggerating.

2. what does your "friend's SE-R" or your MX-6 have to do with ANYTHING? we're not talking about either of those cars. maybe your friend is a crappy driver. who knows? it's irrelevant.

3. torque DOESN'T MATTER. the MSP and SE-R may be easier to drive around town and may FEEL faster, but in the end, horsepower is what counts.

(i have a degree in Mechanical Engineering, trust me, i'm not making this up.) read this:

Torque and Horsepower

that lays everything out in clear, indisputable, SCIENTIFIC FACT. complete with equations to prove it.

4. the K20A engine in the RSX-S switches cames at 5600rpm, NOT 7400. peak power is made at 7400RPM, but the cam switchover is MUCH earlier than that. and if you look at a dyno curve, the power delivery is pretty linear, unlike the old VTEC engines, which jumped once the second cam took over. so if you're making an argument, please have your facts straight.

5. YES, THE MSP ENGINE HAS MORE TORQUE AT THE FLYWHEEL. but as anyone with any technical knowledge knows, the purpose of the gearbox is to multiply that torque. the multiplied torque AT THE WHEELS is what starts the car moving. that's how the RSX makes up for its "torque disadvantage."

torque at the wheels for each car at the torque peak:

1st gear

RSX: 142*3.267*4.389 = 2,036.12 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*3.31*4.11 = 2,176.656 ft-lbs

2nd gear

RSX: 142*2.130*4.389 = 1,327.50 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*1.84*4.11 = 1,209.98 ft-lbs

3rd gear

RSX: 142*1.157*4.389 = 721.09 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*1.31*4.11 = 861.46 ft-lbs

4th gear

RSX: 142*1.147*4.389 = 714.85 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*0.97*4.11 = 637.87 ft-lbs

5th gear

RSX: 142*0.921*4.389 = 574.00 ft-lbs
MSP: 160*0.76*4.11 = 499.78 ft-lbs

so in first gear, the MSP's "torque advantage" is actually about half (6.5% @the wheels) of what you think (11.25% @the engine). in 2nd, the RSX puts 9% more torque to the ground. in 3rd, the MSP has a 16% advantage @the wheels. in 4th, the RSX has a 13% advantage @the wheels.

but again, TORQUE IS IRRELEVANT. POWER is what matters.

****************************************************

the bottom line is, if the two were raced by comparable, good drivers (which was the point of my magazine quotes), the MSP would have the advantage off the line (probably to about 25 mph), then the RSX would start to pull ahead and would stay there. once you're rolling, the LSD and stickier tires don't help. it doesn't matter HOW power is made (turbo vs. N/A), it just matters that it IS made.

the RSX makes more than the MSP and it has less weight to carry around. period.

ok, this is the last post i'm going to make here. if you can't listen to logic, there's no point in discussing this any further. you seem like a good guy (a little young, but that's ok :) ), just not as knowledgeable about physics and maybe a little overenthusiastic about the MSP.
;)
 
dmitrik4 why can't you give it up. The MSP is faster and BETTER over all as a car. if you dont' like it to bad. plain and simple. Oh yeah your ME degree. did you graduate and from which school or are your a freshman that goes around telling every one that "I AM A M.E.!" LOL. oh yeah by the way i go to NJIT. and i do know a thing about torque and HP. torgue is what gets you going. the higher the torque the faster of a start you are going to get. low torque means slower start from a full stop. PLUS
V-TECs are know for have most the HP at higher RMPS.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sm1ke
    • Like
  • Poll
Poll NEW Nissan Z pics and vids
Replies
2
Views
659
Silly Wabbit
S
O
    • Like
Our Mazda Garage...
Replies
5
Views
599
Conrad 16.5
Conrad 16.5
L
    • Like
Got a new vehicle: 2022 Acura TLX Type-S
Replies
4
Views
1K
LinuxRacr
L

Latest posts

Back