toyota_scion_tc

[quote="vAnt"]
It's kind of hard for me to prove. 1st I am not at the track every weekend. And my 1/4 mile times aren't usally close enough to judge. 2nd the track is closed. 3rd I don't have a way to weigh my car and run the 1/4 and lose 100 lbs weigh it again and run again. I'll talk to some of my friends at work that go out every weekend and see if they will prove it to you.

Cobra

Hi guys, I'm new here. I just thought I'd chime in since I'm having a fit trying to choose between an RSX-S or a Supercharged TC (when it's out). So I'd like to get some input from you guys, and especially guys like sand that own both. Basically I like the performance of the RSX-S but everything else about the TC better. I'm wondering if the TRD supercharger and possibly the TRD shocks/springs will make up most of the difference. I realize that the TC is heavier, but that isn't always that big of a disadvantage. I had a Prelude SH, it was porky too (~2900ish, just like the TC) but it ran faster lap times than the RSX-S... although it did have the benefit of the ATTS system. I'm looking at the TC as a replacement for my Prelude, while the RSX-S seems more like an updated Integra.

vAnt

If it is kind of hard to prove, then how did you come up with that number?

toyota_scion_tc

If it is kind of hard to prove, then how did you come up with that number?[/quote]

from friends I know that stay at the track everytime its open and from other racers.

Unfounded_Dreams

He makes a very good point with 5500 to spend you could kill the type S and I am a convert I had a RSX and converted to a TC because I was exhausted with losing to those damn WRX'S and the owners of those know they will kill the RSX so they always challenge I hope that my New TC- That will have a factory supercharger whenever they are ready will give it some kind of match........but the RSX non S sucks and yes having now owned both the TC is faster but the S is a whole different ball game boys because the 3rd gear on an S is a beautiful thing for anyone who has experienced it....that car will accelerate like no other in 3rd.......and that is the truth..............but Long Live the TC baby

vAnt

Why do people bother buying Impreza STi? The 2.5RS is alot cheaper.

With 14k they can easily beat an STi.

(Seriously stop making these dumbass "with this I can buy a turbo" posts.)

brian

Exactly my point on the 2nd page that I guess a lot of ppl glanced over.

20vTurbo

LMAO... exactly.. that is like the biggest ricer comeback. Well the car cost 4g's less and if I do this and that, then I will be faster. Hell I could buy a Mirage and beat the hell out of a Cobra... so plz stop the damn excuses. Blame the guy for asking such a dumb question. The tC is slow, and should be compared to an SI or something. Anything that runs high 14's is out of the tC range. This question will be a valid one when you get the SC for this car, until then, keep the vs. topics to cars in your league.

Nox

from scion/acura web sites
it may seem like im repeating info, but from what i read, previous stats are incorrect

STOCK

05 Acura RSX-S

$23,570 base

210hp/7800rpm

143tq/7000rpm

2840 lbs


05 Scion TC

$16,465 base

160hp/5700rpm

163tq/4000rpm

2905lbs

on paper the TC is cheaper by $7105 base, 65lbs heavier, and has obviously more low end tq.
right off the line...the TC looks good
wether or not the acura driver is "seasoned" may determine outcome, overall...these stats make me happier with my car...even if on paper it "looks" slower

pricewise...with a supercharger in this car it will still be a lot cheaper and will rip the crapura....i mean acura a new 1....and we all know...if ur gonna go with an acura...u better get it stick...u get 30k outta that auto trans max

vAnt

Just for a comparison.

Can the tC beat a Celica GT-S?

sand

First of all, have you driven both? That's going to be the most important thing, as your tastes and preferences are going to be different than anyone else. It sounds to me though like you're leaning towards the tC, just based on the way you describe your impressions of the two vehicles.

I personally think anyone debating on the two vehicles needs to decide what they're going for: performance or value. If you just want performance the RSX-S would be the winner, but if you're looking for value with good performance the tC with supercharger would be a good compromise of the two. Again, I think it's pointless to debate mods because the RSX-S responds VERY well to mods, that $900 upgrade I mentioned would get you a lot of car. Do I think the RSX-S is the greatest thing since sliced bread? No. Frankly if I didn't buy my car in 2001 before the Z and RX8 came out I would've had a hard time deciding, things were very different back then in the sports coupe market. Acura is rumored to be making more changes for 2007 to address this...

And as vant and others have mentioned, you can mod practically anything and make it fast. For instance Jackson Racing and Comptech are working on superchargers for the base RSX/Civic Si owners that should be ready around the same timeframe as the 'charger for the tC is. Does that mean you should get a base RSX and save the money? IMO, no because you're starting on a lesser platform.

Once you really figure out what you truly want from your next car it will really make that final decision that much easier though. If I were just looking for the fastest car under $25K though I think the RSX-S is the clear winner. (I'd probably be in an RX8 right now though if it weren't for the extra doors and the reliability of the transmission/engine. There are too many people running into issues with their RX8s, not to mention 2 serious TSBs in 1 year. ) At least with the tC/RSX you know your biggest concern is pretty minor (potential for excessive rattles). I haven't had a single issue with either car, although I've obviously only owned the tC for 2 months now. And at $16K with power everything, sunroof, and a decent sound system for stock, the tC is clearly the best value out there right now. IMO, even the options are very competitively priced compared to other manufacturers.

vAnt

The SRT-4 would take that title... But I believe the Type S would be a close 2nd. (Have yet to experience the CobaltSS)

Good choice on avoiding the RX-8. A small fun fact- It uses a quart of oil every couple thousand miles.

sand

Nox: if you want to compare numbers, best to compare from the mag that has tested both cars (Car and Driver) , and as stated previously, the RSX-S numbers are superior. I can't remember the links to both on C&D's site but you can read the reviews online, just do a search from their frontpage. Again, I have both cars and feel C&D accurately represents the performance difference between the two. I don't think it would take an experienced driver to win in an RSX-S, but it will take a driver who knows how to shift properly. The Type-S has a close ratio 6-speed that can give inexperienced drivers problems, I've heard stories of several kids blowing their engines from mis-shifting.

As far as your last statement, well let's just say I won't acknowledge it as obviously you didn't do enough research to see that the Type S doesn't even come with an auto tranny. Not to mention that Acura's are known for running forever (just like Toyota's) with excellent resale value.

sand

True I stand corrected, the SRT-4 is faster. I'm just not a big fan of the styling, interior, build quality, resale, actually the list goes on and on. And yes, I saw that Long Term update in Motor Trend about the oil consumption on the RX8 also.

WarrenSteve

ion red line = cobalt SS.

and its been out for a year.

same 215hp... and with incentives u can get one pretty cheap..

Nox

first off SAND...it was a j/k....the tranny thing...the rsx-s only comes in a manual...the rsx comes w/opt for man or auto...the acura auto sux thats why the company just warrantied them to 100k that unfortunatly is fact...they were notorious for burning out at 30k and under.

as for comparisons....i clearly stated PAPER...this is whats on PAPER...i was correcting previous mistakes in hp, weight and price.

i clearly stated that


...please dont h8

toyota_scion_tc

did anyone actually see my point about comparing a tc to a stock rsx b/c tc doesn't have a sport model!!!!

vAnt

You're completely right. I didn't know that the redline shared the same engine as the SS. Oh well... It's still a fun car to watch on commercials ;p

No one cares because the thread was about the Type-S.

Should people stop comparing the 350z to the s2000 because the s2000 doesn't have a coupe version?

Cobra

Unfortunately no. I've driven a base RSX automatic that my friend got as a rental car. But obviously it's not representative at all of the performance of the RSX-S. It is representative of the interior and comfort though, as well as the layout of the gauges and controls and such. I've sat in both an RSX-S and a TC, and I liked the TC better. I wish I could drive them, but with the rabid salesman in my area you have to show really serious interest (read: possible commitment) in a car before they will let you drive one. And I was also told essentially that I could only drive an automatic because they don't want people killing the clutches on their manuals.

This is my situation as far as performance goes. I drive spiritedly, but I don't race. I need something that has enough performance and handling to be fun, but is also comfortable for daily driving and long trips. So far, I've had a B17A swapped CRX with a full race setup suspension and everything. It was fun on the highway, but it rode like a dump truck, was completely uncomfortable, was loud, and to wring the performance out of the DOHC VTEC motor you had to literally rev the ____ out of it and drive with your foot to the floor even in daily driving and traffic. I don't want that. Right now, I've got an automatic Nissan Maxima SE. It's a nice car for daily driving, but it's about as much fun to drive as... well it's not to get right to the point of it. It's slow, it's got body roll like all hell, and it turns like a brick. And that's after several hundred dollars worth of modifications. My favorite car I had was the Prelude. It turned and stopped sweetly, it was comfortable for daily driving, and it had a big enough engine (2.2 liter 200hp/157ft-lbs) to be fun on the highway when you could open it up and still had enough torque where I didn't have to rev the ____ out of it in traffic.

The TC seems to fit more along the lines of the Prelude, while the RSX-S seems to fit more along the lines of my CRX. Obviously the K20 isn't as gutless as my B16 was, but I'm still scared I'm going to have to wring it out to get any satisfaction out of it. It's nice to be able to wring it out, but then again it's not nice to have to. As far as a supercharger, I thought about one for the Prelude too, but if it exploded the engine the day after installation I'd be ____ out of luck and money. That's why I like the idea of it being covered by the warranty. The K20 has a lot of potential, but I highly suspect the 2AZ-FE has more(IF the aftermarket develops for it that is). It's significantly larger displacement, it has low compression, and in general there is TONS of room to make more power with this engine. It's nowhere near what it is capable of. Who knows what an ECU reflash would do for the TC? I'd make a pretty good bet that it would yield similar gains as Hondata. Honda/Acura has a tendency to wring out as much performance as possible from it's engines/transmissions, while Scion seems to want to sell a blank canvas and leave it to the owner to get the performance out of it.

Overall, the main hangup I have with the TC is that it's stock performance isn't that great. It's decent, and almost the same as my Prelude was(slightly higher 0-60, same quarter mile though), but it's not a 14 second car like the RSX-S is. Handling wise, it's a bit chubby and tuned more for comfort than performance like the RSX-S is. What I'm waiting for, and what will make my decision for me, is whether or not the TRD supercharger and suspension parts fix those two flaws. If they do, then I am sold, because even though the price will be brought up to the ~$20,000ish range it still is a more comfortable and feature filled car than the RSX-S is. If not, then I still have some thinking to do.

k20a3epsi

my .02

both cars are great deals because you get your money's worth. The rsx-s is geared towards another niche like it has already been said. Obviously, the rsx-s would take the cake in the performance section, but the tC seems to be a more well rounded car.

Performance:
Acura would win on drag and road tracks. (I don't see how you can overcome great cornering having a complete glass roof as the heaviest point of the car?) Also...the one thing that makes the rsx-s 200/210 hp engine so quick is the 6 speed gearing. Trust me, without that transmission, that car would be nothing.

tC is probably easier to drive around town and more bearable in everyday aspects. The camry 2.4 motor is highly reliable just as the k20 is for honda, however the extra torque of the 2.4L makes things nice when putting around town.

stock for stock I say both are nice cars. It just depends on whether or not you are willing to spend that extra money on an "A" emblem and a very nice motor with n/a potential, or a tC with a slick moonroof, reclining rear seats and probably a better stereo. I bought my 2002 si brand new for $15,995 and can EASILY claim that i've recieved my money's worth.


I look forward to seeing some tc's up close and maybe having a few fun runs. keep it safe.