They both produce 100 hp/liter; have heard handling is similar; have heard GTS has stingy 6 speed compared to RSX. Anything else?

 

both front wheel drive, both have a lame performance package, but the celica "looks fast".

 

The Celica is a good 300 lbs. lighter, and you can feel it.

The Celica has a livelier, more tossable feel to it. In some ways it is more like the old Integras than the RSX is.

In a straight line, the RSX is faster. The Celica's haphazard interior design is annoying, and although both have crappy shifters, the RSX's sucks a little less. Newer Celicas have a lower rev limit that really hampers acceleration. There is basically no way to keep the motor on the big cam between shifts. But an '00 GTS is a very fun car, and quite comparable to an RSX-S.


[Modified by MK Ultra, 6:16 PM 2/3/2003]

 

WOW!!! thats a HUGE compliment coming from you!!

 

I think that the Celica is better in terms of handling. I realized that celicas are not only about speed, which is well worth comparing to the RSXS

 

Both Sport package. Both FWD. Yes.

 

The 2003 have the old higher redline back. The GTS is a great match for the RSX stock for stock. Fortunately for RSX owners, the aftermarket is far superior for the our car then the GTS.

 

Celica GT-S also seems to be more expensive than the RSX. The RSX has a decided advantage in terms of torque and aftermarket support. The RSX has a more refined feel to it. The Celica GT-S is very racy looking and is very lightweight.

In my opinion the only cars worth comparing to the RSX for the money is the Subaru Impreza 2.5RS to the base RSX and the WRX to the Type-S.

 

My friend had a 2000 Celica GTS with I/E/aem pulley/blitz clutch/lsd/aluminum flywheel and ran 14.7 on 18's. It's a nice car, but I've never driven a Type S either. It is hella light. He sold it a month ago because there wasn't an aftermarket support for it.

 

I personally liked it better than the RSX-S. Felt like it slalomed much better and was more willing to rotate. The brakes are phenomenal. The cam changeover is overly abrupt, and it doesn't have the off-cam pull of the K20. I sat in one at the Miami autoshow, and I'm not sure if they changed the gearbox for 03, or if this car had a TRD shortshifter installed on it, but the shifter felt flatout AWESOME. Felt much like an S2000 box with a slightly longer throw and a little bit more fluid shift action. Seems like it rolls more than the RSX, but it transitions better. Has a lot of issue putting power down if it hits cam changeover exiting a tight corner. Fun car to drive though. Responds well to mods. 159whp stock for a friends, seen a bunch of dyno charts showing 174whp with just Injen CAI. LSD would really wake the car up.

 

Hp/L doesn’t mean jack **** unless you are a ricer who likes to jack off to irrelevant figures.

 

ha, funnies **** i've heard in a while. btw, have you considered the wrx? or the new mitsu lancer evo. suppose to be on sale feb. which is now. i think the rsx-s is a great car, just that the wrx and lancer have alot more power stock, and they handle well.

 

I wouldn't be so sure TRD has gives a lot of support the Celica's. Also Celica camber can be adjusted with out the use of camber plates so in Stock auto-x they will probably out due the RSX-S due to being able to get a better "performance" aligment.

 

Hp/L is a good way to see how efficient and engine is, and it is amazing to see a little NA 2.0 putting out 240hp (S2000), but I think the original poster was saying it's irrelevant when it comes to performance. A lot of guys who don't know cars will brag about hp/l until they're blue in the face, but it's not going to make their car any faster. If you've got a 1.6 making 100hp/l, you're still only making 160hp...and will probably get owned by a lot of cars with "inferior" engines.

 

you want to impress me? show me torque per liter.

 

TRD has an aftermarket for it, but nothing to write home about.

To those who mentioned times, there are a few celica's who have run 14.1-14.2's with basic bolt-ons on street tires.

But, the Celica's aftermarket pretty much stops there. It lacks alot of the aftermarket Honda has, and a lot of people have jumped ship. Aside from bolt-ons, motor swaps and such play a big important with honda's as well, as you can take a 2.4L and make it work with the RSX/Si heads. *shrugs* If only the Celica had that option.

 

Who are you to say that the rsx s has a crappy shifter. I bet youve never even driven one for more than 10 mins let alone being able to afford one tight ***. I dare to compare. I own one of these cars and had both for several days before purchasing one you ****. The celica is good for a girls car but not for fun. hope to here from you tightass. What do you think of the 350z. Not that you can afford one. write back soon.

 

jesus ..why cant people post with a little bit of maturity .....i'm sure you can prove your point with out acting like your in middle school .....

 

I apoligze for my maturity level it was something considered midle schoolish. These peopl that reply with litres this and horse power that have to actually realize that matters seldomly. They should take the time to respect themachines . I doe own a rsx s and i known cars very well and enjoy feedback on a level of competition. the 350z is what im looking at now and would appreciate some feedback on its reviws aswell as people who have driven it for more than 10 minutes. Anyway the rsx s is said to have one of the best transmisons out there under 50000 . reply please.

 

power to weight ratio is usually a good determinant when comparing cars and their performance

 

PhatAssAcura owns an RSX-S. You should pay more attention to who you address a thread to.

I was the one who said the RSX has a crappy shifter, and it most certainly does. I probably only put ~500 miles on my friend's old RSX-S in the year he had it. The shifter is smooth, sufficiently precise, and utterly devoid of any mechanical feedback.

It feels like it belongs on a video game, not a car.

I've driven one enough to be familiar with the way it shifts. I strongly suspect that the lack of mechanical feedback in the RSX's cable shifter is a significant factor in the large number of disastrous mis-shifts encountered.

Since you've asked my opinion of the 350Z, I'll just go ahead and say that it is an overweight, overrated, *****-stretcher for old men, and the kind of car ricers and import fanboys drool over for no good reason.

 

I am sure. I know the Celica. I visit the celica boards frequently as my car purcahse was between the GTS and the Type-S. I don't think you really know to much about either vehicles because there is a very distinct difference in aftermarket support. The RSX has a tremendous advantage in that stand point.

 

I appreciate your feedback. Please define deviod the word dosent fit that discription. What kind of car would you recomend mr ***** strecther. HaHa.Do you Know any way to get around the missed throughts Which I have noticed as well as the clunk I experience between 12&3rd. Acura has said they dont notice it but i do.I dont want this to be a problem in the future.The clunking noise is quite but noticible and happen in those non perfect shifts.Reply

 

I dont think there was any question as to who he was talking to. I didnt say the rsx had a crappy shifter.