Everyone keeps on whining about how the DC5 is worse than the DC2 because it uses Mac Struts, and its so high, and its ugly, blah blah blah. I was just thinking, what would happen if there had been DC5's all over the place and then all of a sudden, Honda came out with the DC2.

People would be like...okay...I trade in 30 hp, a six-speed close ratio transmission, enhanced chassis ridgidity, and all around better performance in exchange for double wishbone suspension and some extra road noise...what a rip off.

No thank you, I'll keep my Type-S.

 

i love the dc5
good point...in time, i think that the k20 will have as much (if not more) potential than any b18 out there

 

Interesting argument. The new generation of Honda's (DC5's, EP3's, etc) take such dramatic changes from what we're used to Honda producing that it's hard to get used to them, and appriciate them for what they are

 

thats a really good way of putting it

 

this has to be one of the most retarded threads out in this forum.

what if the 911 turbo came before the carrera.... people would be like damn, slower car ...damn.



what if you came out of your moms womb before your dad did? does this make any sense at all?


I know your just trying to justify your bad choice in purchasing a car, but no need to be retarded about it.



[Modified by Soup ****, 9:55 PM 12/24/2002]

 

Umm... NO
This is just a look at how and why people are reacting to the DC5, if it bothers you so much then don't read the thread

 

Soup **** has 9 THOUSAND posts...he has the time to read and make useless comments on everything.

 

Well....

....

...yeah

I can't argue with that

Yay SoupNazi!

 

Well, it is kind of a silly argument to be honest with you, and I even bought an EP3 recently.




[Modified by Todd00, 12:32 AM 12/25/2002]

 

i agree. it's like saying would you want an R33 if they had the R34 available before it? the DC5 has more honda R&D, "technology", and different marketbase under it. there is a 10 year difference in the platforms. in 94, no honda/acura had a 6 speed tranny and 200 HP, so why would you make a comparison?

i'd still take my DB8 and mainly because of styling cues. honda needs to stop employing midgets to design their cars, because that's what they resemble now.


[Modified by dLo GSR, 10:53 PM 12/25/2002]

 

If the DC5 had been what Acura was selling when I bought my car, I would have bought something else.

 

I agree that the name of this thread is pretty stupid, its about as stupid as saying that "I dont think a DC5 should be called an intera cause I say so."

 

the dc5 looks like a fat beetle, my dc2 is SEXY

 

yea those round headlights & high beams are sooooo sexy. *puke*


[Modified by F1HONDA, 9:40 PM 12/25/2002]

 

agreed only DC2's I like have jdm front conversions

 

even stupider argument. it's personal preference, not ******* set standard.

and by the way, i happen to like the round lights over the RSX lights. personal preference.

 

Arguments over the styling are asinine.

There are plenty of real reasons to dislike the DC5.

 

Sometimes I get the feeling that if the RSX were still called an "Integra" there would be much less hating. Honestly, what is so bad about the RSX? Okay, it's a little heavy, and the MacPherson front struts are less "tuner friendly," but come on now...

 

it's mostly a lot of the owners (im not pointed this to rs-sex, f1nal zeros, etc.)

 

Ahh.. my name comes up alot here doesn't it... Could it be that my name is brought up by many dc2 owners because what I say is the truth and I actually research my information before I post? Who knows..

This little argument between the DC2 and DC5 is getting old and boring now. This little argument has been on going since the RSX got it's forum here on H-T. In the end it does not come down to performance but rather looks. Some people like the styling ( myself included) and some people don't. Performance wise the DC5 hands the DC2 it's *** in handling, speed, and road comfort. Now you will get some that say the gsr can handle better and is faster because it is lighter.

Well I am sorry to burst your bubble but countless test between both cars have the DC5 out handling the gsr in every aspect. Would you add a few pounds to your car for 30 more hp? I know I would, but I guess some people prefer looks over speed. So in the end this little argument is never going to end. If you think about it gen 2 owners are still complaing about the gen 3 integra's looks and handling. Go figure. Oh well, I like both cars. But I would take a type R over a gsr any day. But thats just my opinion. Hope this little argument ends soon, but I doubt it. Good Luck guys.

 

How is this thread stupid? The reason I posted this topic was to illustrate how the DC5 outperforms the DC2 in every way, yet some people still maintain that the DC5 is a dissapointment following the DC2. I just don't understand it...its better than the DC2 in every way. MK Ultra always chimes in with some stupid "spirit of the Integra" ****, and then someone will chime in with macpherson strut argument and yet the car performs better in every way.

I mean, why is it okay to insult the RSX's styling but then when someone mentions the holy DC2, suddenly its all about preference and looks don't matter. Well, if looks don't matter, then what does? Performance? Oh, in that case the RSX is clearly superior to the DC2.

I just wish people could come up with solid, concrete reasons why the DC2 is better than the DC5. I'm not talking about "Feel the Integra Force" Yoda/MK Ultra crap, but actual solid reasons. And please leave out the double-wishbone suspension thing...if Progress Group can get .99 G on the skidpad with minor suspension work, I think the car handles fine.

 

My oh my. How may of you RSX/EP owners have actually owned a DC2? How many DC2 owners have actually owned an EP/RSX? Until you can make an accurate accessment of your own and quit reading magazines and internet chat boards, then shut the hell up.

I currently do, and I've owned a ton of other EG/EF/DC2/EK configurations as well.

The RSX-S is a better car, performance wise, then the DC2 GSR. However, the RSX-S is not a better car, performance wise, in any aspect, than the DC2-R. And if you think it is, then you need a reality check.

Yes, Honda screwed the true FWD performance owner by putting the mac strut up front. The double-wishbone is a superior FWD suspension setup, no matter how you look at it. RSX/EP owners just need to realize this and deal with it.

The RSX/EP chassis is far superior to any older Honda. The K series motor will probably turn out to be a better motor than the B series. DC2 owners need to deal with this.

The RSX/EP does not feel return as much feedback to the driver than the previous gen. car does. Honda is starting to refine, and this is just a progression of the times. Deal with it.

So, I suggest that everyone quit your whining and focus on what makes each car good in its own way. RSX owners need to shut the hell up about their paper-tiger car and how it is better than a GSR. Just wait for the next DC2R to come own you. And don't start talking about the DC5R because we don't have it on our shores. If it comes over, then come talk to me. Not before.

DC2 owners need to realize that early 90's technology makes for a fun car, but there are different ways of doing things now, and the RSX/EP is a better car than any stock non-R EG/DC2/EM ever released.

Oh, and this:

And please leave out the double-wishbone suspension thing...if Progress Group can get .99 G on the skidpad with minor suspension work, I think the car handles fine

It's called R compound tires. Slap a set of these on any car and you can almost pull a G on the skidpad. But skidpad results sometimes has little to do with how suspension really works on the racetrack.


[Modified by Todd00, 2:01 PM 12/26/2002]

 

Well I have had experience with all these cars. I have driven gs-r's, the new Si, type R, rsx, and type S. So I am speaking from experience on what I say. My friend has a Gs-r and my brother has a 01 type R, and I test drove the new Si, and I tested the base rsx and I own the type S.

From personal experience I was disappointed with the Gs-r. It's a nice car to begin with but the body swayed badly around corners and engine was nice, but not what I expected from the car. I drove it for a while and still was not impressed. It felt unresponsive at certain points of the driving experience. The road comfort was nice and the handling was decent. But with modifications the Gs-r could be a nice car, handling and speed wise. But as for stock I was very disappointed in the car.

The type R was an amazing car right off the show room floor. This little beast was bad from the get-go. The handling, cornering and straight acceleration were amazing in stock form. I would drive this car on a daily basis and each day this car amazed me. I originally went to the dealership to purchase a CW type R (98) or PY type R (o1) but soon realized that they had stopped producing them. So I then heard about the RSX type S so then placed a pre-order at the dealership.( this was 6 months before it was released) I was very interested in the new integra that was soon going to be hitting the street. When my order arrived I first test drove the Base rsx. It was a nice car, cloth seats held you in good and low-mid power was good. But a negative part of the car was that it ran out of breath fast and the brakes were smaller. I then test drove the RSX-S and I was amazed with the car and have been since. The leather seats are the only thing I would complain about. The leather doesn't really hold you as you go around a cornner. You tend to slide due to the leather. Top end, handling and road comfort were all very impressive. I was used to the ride of a type R so I was expecting to have a rough and loud ride. But It was quite and the ride was very nice, but it also had the power there when you needed it. Another negative point on the RSX it that it is to high in stock form. When you lower it a bit it looks nice and the handling performs a bit better.

I then test drove the new Si and was not really impressed. It had a nice ride and the seats were the **** ( I now want these seats, anyone selling thiers? ) Handling was decent, but it has the same motor as the base rsx so it ran out of breath fast. Torque is strong in the little car but needs top end to keep up. The Si is a nice car for daily driving and has a comfy ride.

So when I speak of these cars I am not speaking from chat room information or other people opinions but rather from personal experience. If I have the chance and if I find one I still want a 97-98 CW type R, but they are hard to find around here and I like my type S. So maybe in time others will drive all these cars and then decided from there. Good Luck guys.

 

SOUP ****---Your a Dick!

 

i agree. when i first got my car, i hated the handling. but an ITR rear sway bar and some koni yellows fixed that right up