fearturtle44

Same here. Nice feeling.....

Kevin

xBassist

I owned an 02' RSX for all of 3 months... Bought one at the end of November, traded for my xB in Feb... It was uncomfortable, rough ride, 2nd gear had a grinding noise every time I shifted, could not see SHIET out of it...

BUT... I loved the interior styling.. Something that honda usually sucks at.. I love the dash and center console design in the RSX.. Also the way the cupholder/change tray switch thing works...

The car was not really that fast... "You just didn't know how to drive it"... ok bud, I've driven manuals since I was 14, I think I know how to drive a little honda sports car... It is also FAR FAR away from being a luxury car..I consider the tC to be much closer to a luxury car than the RSX... When you think of luxury, you think comfort with a big back seat (if applicable)..

Anyway, as per all the comments made... Buy what makes you happy... I personally buy cars for looks, not performance... When I bought my RSX last november, I got it because in my price range, it stood out from the honda civics and the VW jettas that were floating around all over the place like a bunch of stagnant turds...

Buy what you like, the acticle just states that salesmen are going to have a hard time convincing people to buy $4k-5k, whatever it was, for the RSX over the tC.

werd

Ren

tC:
3,016 pounds without SC, figure 3,030 with SC.
3030/200 = 15.15 (lower is better)
5-speed

'02-'04 Type-S:
2,770 pounds
2770/200 = 13.85
6-speed

'05 Type-S:
2,840 pounds
2840/210 = 13.52
6-speed w/better gearing

The increase in power more than makes up for the 70 pound difference. The better gearing only improves on it.

Power-to-weight ratio is one of the most important factors in making a car fast. That along with the 6-speed makes the RSX quite a bit faster in the 1/4. Don't feel bad, that factory supercharger makes the tC easy to mod, although you'll need to get into the mid-13's to compete with an '05 Type-S that only has bolt-ons. It's at that point that making the RSX faster starts getting expensive, and where the tC has the advantage.

rbloedow

Finally, someone who can look past the fanboy-ism a give objective analysis

monstrous

At the introduction for the tC they had the major competition on hand to thrash on an autocross course. I was very impressed with the RSX, very nice car, however my lap times between the two cars where virtually identical. I would wager that with the addition of the TRD anti roll bar ( in my opinion the best mod that one could make on a tC, and almost free) the tC would pull clear by a few tenths on the course we where on. Not that anyone asked, but a smacked Mark D. from our dealership around like a last place race horse, by more than 1 full second per lap, ouch.

20vTurbo

LOL, how can you compare a SC tC, when NOBODY has info on it. Plz, give the damn car the time to come out and then we can compare. It is so funny to compare something nobody has evidence upon. It is just like when the SRT4 came out. Nobody believed the claims, and numbers were underrated. The tC could be in the same boat, so until we get some dyno numbers and some track time on the car, then we can compare objectively.

oneslowxa

I like the tc's for features/price a lot, but I like honda/acura for the materials, finish and fitment. it's a tough call though, you can usually find an acura for under msrp, and not worry about resale value. IMO toyotas have good resale value, but not as good as honda's

I do like the styling of the tc over the rsx however.

I can't wait to see the SC in action, i am tired of speculation, and gossip.

Ren

Was it a base RSX or Type-S? It wouldn't surprise me even if it was an S, because the stock Michellins on the RSX are a joke, as are the brake pads. Upgrading those alone (which shouldn't be necessary on a "luxury" coupe) makes a big difference in lap times.

Basically you spend $22k for a high 14 second car that's just okay on the track, but only need another $2k to turn it into a high 13 second autocross terror :D

I4K20C

I like the tc, don't get me wrong guys but don't get over your heads. No need to bash other cars. The RSX is a fine car, priced at 23k..it's true competion b4 was the WRX, and still is imo. Luxery? You guys are talking about a baseline luxery brand, ofcourse it's not going to have the same luxery as a RL. so why was it placed in the Acura line-up? Because the RSX lies with the Prelude, above the Civic SI, and around the 00-02 Accord Ex V6. They canceled the prelude because it was cutting the accords sales, so why would Honda put the RSX in Honda where it could just cut more scales, so it's not as luxerious as a true Acura, but at the same time, they put it there for sales purposes. Acura is more comparable to Lexus. With 210hp, which is 50 more hp...6k from teh factory doesn't seem to much..considering if your going to get a TRD supercharger, your price ia lreayd bumped up to 18-20k on the TC. Your at 200-210, add some pulley's on there, maybe your at 220-240 hp. Take a RSX-S get a cybernation turbo and the power jumps to 240 to the WHEELS.

I'm not saying the tc isn't going to get there, but everyone who is bashing the RSX are morons, they need to show respect where it is deserved. Honda has built some of the best motors in terms of gaining power. the B series was increbile, know the k-series (RSX, SI Hatch, TSX) are showing to be jusst as great, with companies getting 400-500 powers down on the ground, this car is becomming the next B series motors.

Cocky ppl suck! /End of Rant/

I4K20C

Another thing, the RSX-S competition was never meant to be the tc's competition.

It's comp. was the Celica GTS (Priced right around the RSX but was 20hp less and around the same torque).. and the Subaru WRX (had 27 more hp, more torque, less luxery, lower reliability, priced 1k more)

As far as the 2nd gear problem.. the GTS had the same problem wit it's tranny.. the WRX has a problem wit its tranny, the Evo has a problem wit it's tranny, i gurnatee you the tc will hae a problem with it's tranny.. it all depends on how you drive it folks... if you drive it no more than 3k, shift nice and easy, you will not have nething.. you drive teh car like it's stolen.. i dont care what kinda car you have.. your gonna have tranny problems..

chucksu

I my self look at price as the main factor to compare cars. I dont care about the size of the car or the power. If the MSRP of the cars im looking into are +-$1,000 I find it comparable. So in my mind there is no comparing a $16k tC to a $20K RSX. You save $4k or more that could be used to make the tC better then the RSX. Now you got the ppl saying yeah you could spend that money on the RSX to but then you would compare a $20K tC to a $24K RSX so its still not the same.

molten_slushbox

i dont mean to make my first post on here anti Tc because i am thinking of getting one, but if i could afford a type S id have one, not that the tc isnt a great value, but the rsx type s is just an awsome car, it has the best interior ive ever seen in a sub 30k car, i has on of the best engines ever made with massive potential whether u do NA or FI, its just a different sort of car. the Tc is an awsome value, but its basically a camry coupe with 17s, the engine is not very sporty at all(much like my current car )

rsx is a really nice car and its not just a civic

pmscion

You confused 13.85 for 14.85. Rsx's don't get close to the 13's stock. I'm not ripping on the RSX. I'm merely saying that it is not luxury and it is not as fast as some of you think. I owned one for 35,000 miles. Most of you who think it is God's gift to cars have never owned one. If you took it for a test drive and thought it was great I can understand because I thought the same thing too. That's why I bought it. Live with it for 35,000 and then come back and post when you know what you're talking about.

PunkInDrublic

The 13.85 meant pounds per horsepower, not the 1/4 time.

pmscion

Sorry, my fault. I should have given his post a second more thought before replying. Anyway, lb'hp is a valid way to compare two cars with similar engine characteristics. The problem is these two vehicles don't have remotely similar engine characteristics. When one car revs almost 2500 higher and the other car has 60 lb ft more torque (in SC'ed form) lb/hp ceases being valid. It's like saying a Champ car has a much better power to weight ratio then a Pro-Stock dragster therefore it must be a lot faster in the quarter mile. That analogy may be a little off, but I know if I did 5 minutes of research I could find a valid one along the same lines.

monstrous

It was an S. Not bashing anything, again I think the rxs is a great car. I do think it is competition for the tC however. If the tC where $25000, and it easily could be and still be competitve, would that put it in the same class as the rsx? The car is a stone cold bargain at $16465, and kicks the snot out of a lot of other cars we sell for a LOT more money, Mercedes Benz C230 coupe being one, although it costs much more. I don't see how getting much more than I pay for as a bad trait in anything I would buy, and I can only think of a few cars that under promise and over deliver, the tC is one of those cars.

Ren

Power-to-weight ratios never, ever cease being valid. Of course it isn't the only factor - gearing, space under the curve, and torque all play a part. But without getting into a long discussion about hp vs. torque (it's been done to death), I'll just say that you can have all the torque in the world, but it doesn't guarantee a win in a drag race.

You're right, comparing a cart car to a dragster is way off - first of all, a top fuel dragster has a FAR better power-to-weight ratio than a cart car (try 6,000+hp and 2,100 pounds vs. 800+hp and 1,500 pounds), and they are designed (and geared) for very different types of racing. The 60 (or whatever) extra lb-ft in the tC will not help it much against an RSX-S in the 1/4, because every other factor is working against it.

Have a good driver take an RSX-S with bolt-ons to a 13.8 in the 1/4. Then have the same driver get in a stock Mustang GT and run a 14.2. He'll tell you that the GT felt a lot faster than the RSX. That's the most noticeable thing torque will do for you. That's also a race that was won by a better power-to-weight ratio and the 6-speed, despite the drive wheel handicap (yeah I know, mod the stang and see what happens... but you get the idea).

I'm not saying the RSX is the end-all-be-all of cars (although I did own one, and I am a fan), I'm only saying that:

1) Stock for stock, assuming accurate hp numbers from Toyota, it's faster than a blown tC. I would guess somewhere between 6-8 car lengths in the 1/4, given equal drivers. More for an '05. In fact, let's be sure to drag this thread back from the dead once we have some real numbers. I will be happy to eat my words, although I'm sure that won't be necessary :D

2) At a particular point, modding the RSX gets expensive, and the tC's factory boost and larger displacement will have it posting better times for less money invested.

erc21

Strongly considered a used, certified RSX, but then came across the tC and am glad I got it. I originally wanted a 2000 Ram Air Trans Am for the speed, but due to the fact that I'm 21, the insurance was more than the car payments, so the tC is a way more sensible buy. Plus, the tC's interior just looks sooooo much better anyway. My main point, you want reliability, buy a tC or an RSX, but if you want speed, THEN ACTUALLY BUY A FAST CAR, lol!

pmscion

I knew I should have rephrased the "ceases to be valid" after I saw the post up. I knew someone would nit pick that. Obviously I meant less valid. I know a semi truck won't beat a RSX because it has more torque. Anyway, since we are nit picking I didn't use a top fuel dragster in my example. I said Pro-Stock dragster, big difference.

We are comparing stock RSX-S to a SC'd Tc. I don't care about what a modded RSX will do. A stock RSX-S is a 15 second car. I don't care what it does with different tires and 100 lbs stripped out of it. I think it would be crazy not to expect a supercharged Tc to not break into the 14's. A stock RSX-S driven off the dealers lot and left alone will, on a rare occasion, do high 14's but not easily.

If you look on the RSX message boards people do not easily run 13.8 with a few bolt on mods. Here is a review of an AEM project RSX in Motortrend. That car with all the bolt on's and NOS only ran 13.92! Not to mention suspension upgrades and tires to put the power down.

http://motortrend.com/features/performance/112_0302_pt/

Here is an example of real world cars for my power to weight argument. Volkswagon R32 has a ratio of about 14.1 lb/hp and runs 14.3 in the quarter. A RSX has a ratio of about 13.9 lb/hp and runs 14.8 in the quarter. (both Car and Driver numbers) My point is the power to weight is not necessarily going to be the deciding factor when comparing cars that don't have similar engines.

JasonH

The difference there is all-wheel drive. The RSX and tC are more the same than they are different in the world of motor vehicles. In a 1/4 mile drag race between the two, the one with the better power-to-weight ratio will win. If you throw other factors into the equation (like different transmissions, tires, or drive wheels) things can change, but, for the most part, power-to-weight ratios will determine which car is faster.