Mr_Meaty

Another big factor is the powerband. The RSX doesn't reach max torque until 6000. We've probably all seen the stock tC dyno's by now and can see that not only does it reach max torque at 4000, but it's pretty high from 1500 to 6000.

The R32 hit's max torque at an astonishing 2800! That's almost turbo range! (if only it were $10,000 less!)

pmscion

Exactly! That was my point.

You're right about the all wheel drive to some degree, but it does not account for the large disparity. I guess what you and I disagree about for the most part is how similar the RSX and Tc really are. I think the engines are far too different to just trot out the power to weight ratio and say the RSX will be faster. That has been my point all along. When comparing cars with very different engines power to weight won't necessarily tell you who's faster. No matter how many comparisons I give to prove this you guys won't believe it. I won't bother giving anymore even though I thought of 4 or 5 really good ones. Anyway, I guess that belief is what Acura plays upon when they move the torque and power peaks even higher up in the rev band to make the car appear to have more power for 2005.

It looks to me like Honda/Acura think that S2000 buyers are sophisticated and intelligent enough to understand engine power bands, while RSX drivers are dumbass kids who only look at the HP figure.

Ren

Agreed, but 14.8-14.9 with a good driver is very common. I've seen timeslips with 14.7. The people running 15+ are not experienced.

The previous poster is correct - the engine difference will be negligible. The gearing and weight are too much to ignore. My best educated guess says a SC'd Scion tC with 200 actual crank hp will never go lower than 15. 15.3 or higher is a lot more likely.

Wrong. See first paragraph.

There are a dozen reasons why Motortrend got 13.9 out of a car that is capable of mid-13's, but I'm sure you're aware of the variables. As for high 13's with bolt-ons, you can find this info yourself on the RSX forums, but very low 14's are typical with only CAI and hondata. Add an exhaust, header, motor mounts, and better tires (not slicks), and you're in the high 13's. You can deny that all you want, but there is a gigantic thread of posted timeslips at ClubRSX in the 1/4 section that will prove it as many times as you like.

Irrelevant comparison due to drivetrain differences, as a previous poster pointed out.

You know, it's okay to admit that a more expensive car is faster. Hell, I'm the first to admit that a stock SRT-4 will waste an RSX-S, for $2k less.

pmscion

First of all a stock Tc does 15.7 according to Car and Driver. So basically you think that adding 40 hp or 25% (at the bare minimum) is going to improve the time only 0.4-0.6. Yet when it comes to the RSX you claim that bolt-ons, that won't raise its hp by nearly 25%, will shave a second or more off the quarter time.

Anyway you have never addressed my basic point. When comparing cars with significantly different engine characteristics lb/hp is not enough to prove that one will be faster than the other. Basically this is the age old torque and power curve vs. peak horsepower argument. Physics says that the torque and the power curve are important factors. The multiple vehicle dynamics classes I took in college proved it to me. I'm not saying torque is more important than hp I'm merely trying to say that it is a factor that is important and should be considered. Neither of us knows which car will be faster. I think the SC'ed Tc will be, but I could turn out to be wrong. My point is that lb/hp, in this case, is not proof that you are right.

Azure_Pearl_tc

If you have extra money, get an RSX-s
If you like that high revving sound, get the RSX-s
If you like Honda's, get the RSX-s...they are very nice cars. I think that's what edmunds is saying.

I personally could have purchase the RSX but didn't because I like the torquey sensation on the stock tc- it feels like a small v6. There's more room with the tc, the cabin is quite luxurious enough, the handling is good, and the stereo sure does sound better. And for that extra $6000 savings for buying the tc instead of a RSX-s, I could install a stage 3 turbo and put 260 to 300 hp at the wheels with an upgrade clutch. If I want a track day, I would still have some left over money to install springs and shocks, and upgrade the brakes. But right now, it's a nice driving to work car until the warranty runs out. Then it'll be modified.

If you have more money, I'm sure any car can be modified to almost any level, including the RSX-s.

Ren

All I can say to this is never trust a magazine time (remember the 13.9 out of an RSX with ~240whp). 15.7 doesn't surprise me, but I prefer to see the times from many car owners to get a better idea. Bolt-ons get the RSX into the 13's with the help of the other advantages that the car has over the tC - gearing and light weight. Of course if the tC does make it into the 14's, I will be the first to applaud. I am thinking of buying one, after all.

I have named all the important factors that make one car faster than another, and never claimed that power-to-weight ratio proves anything. I only suggest that combining the better power-to-weight ratio with a 6-speed puts the odds in the RSX's favor, despite any power curve advantage in the tC. One of the things that 6-speed does for the RSX is keep you in the meat of the curve at every shift - a drag racing RSX stays between 6,000 and 8,100 rpm in every gear (except the 4k - 8k in 1st).

Other than that, you are correct in every point in that paragraph :D