????????????

 

The latest issue of Car and Driver has 0-60 in 6.1sec and 1/4 mile at 14.8sec. There was a posting the other day on the celica forum about someone seeing a guy with his brand new RSX Type-S at the track (so much for breaking in the engine ) who ran a 14.7sec time.

 

Thats just not fair 0-60 6.1 sec. thats faster that my R, oh well maybe I should've waited for an rsx-s. Can it really do that 0-60 time or is that B.S.

 

Honda gave their estimate as 6.8 secs, but said that an aggressive driver could pull 5.8. If that's true, think of what that same aggressive driver could pull in an R - probably about the same.

 

Too bad it's ugly!

 

My friends is black and it looks cocky as hell, but could use some shoes the stock ones take so much away from the car. The R rims look way better.

 

I don't know what it takes to get those times, but I don't know if I would do that to my car. It's probably like with the S2000 where to get the best times, you gotta launch at greater than 6000rpm. Yikes! A friend of mine who autocrosses an S2000, says that lauch at anywhere from 7000 to redline! Let's just say the original clutch didn't last too long.

 

I love the RSX. It looks so dope in the factory bodykit and it MUST be lowered! The best part of the the car is the interior of course!
-importtuner

 

Im sure the OEM kit and some aftermarket wheels would make it look a lot better. If I were to get one, it would have to be black. The other colors are just too boring - Ruby Red

 

True Ross, the RSX really looks phat in Black, but it will look awesome in that dark blue, I think its called Aegean Blue or something; its that color that looks so dope on the TL-S.
-importtuner

 

Im not sure if I know the blue you are talking about. It would look nice in EBP, the blue of the Civic Si also.

 

It is sooo high and stubby! I checked out the red one today and did not like it at all! And the interior was worst of all!

 

I really do like the G3 interior. all the black reminds me of the 80's

All this new grey and cream **** sucks. **** those white gauges.

 

i dun understand how the rsx can be faster than an R....R has 195 horsepower, RSX has 200. Even though the RSX does have about 12 more lbs. ft of torque, is that enough to overcome the big weight difference? 2772 to 25??

 

RSX-type S is not faster. Trust me, I own a ITR and test drove the RSX-S. It's not even in the same ballpark. Half the magazines that test cars don't even run the car with anything but a G-tech, or just 'go off' of the manufactor numbers that are given to them.

When I test drove the car it didn't even feel like it could beat my friends 95 GSR with I/E/H ...... I do love the seats though! Overall, the interior of the car is very fresh.

 

"An aggressive driver could get a second less" yeah, by powershifting and blowing the tranny

 

damn, a lot of hostile replies from you ITR owners. anyways, the people saying it's slow should drive the car after it's broken in. i'm sure it was a similar experience when breaking in your type-R's.

 

I think it'll be close...and i doubt most RSX-S owners are gonna leave their cars stock...w/ I/H/E they'll probably be right on par w/ ITRS, maybe a bit faster. Which is why i need to make some damn money so when a person asks me what i have i can say "hehehe" instead of "ah its stock"

 

The new issue of Sports Compact Car rated the RSX-S at 7.1 sec 0-60, didn't know about the 1/4.
But they were averaging the times though. Personally, this car would look nice only if lowered and have eye lids at the bottom of the two front lights.

 

can you put I/H/E on an RSX???

I guess an intake and exhaust would work, but the stock header on the iVTEC motor has that crazy new "e-pipe" design...

I think the RSX Type S makes up for its extra weight with a healthy dose of low-end (relatively, this ain't no 327) torque.

 

14.3 on the 1/4 for the JDM R....my 98 spec does 14.6 lightly modified....hmm....can't wait to go up against one

 

I already went up against one. It was out for a test drive, and the guy came after me. I smoked him easily, but I don't think he knew how to drive because I drove the Type S last night and it's quick.

I can definitely say that the 0-60 times are on par. It really did feel about as quick as my R. It's a little slower to rev, and feels more tourquey across the range, more like a Prelude, but quicker. The gears are shorter, due to the 6 speed, and allow you to take advantage of the RPMS better than the R. This is how the 0-60 is about the same, eventhought the weight is slightly up.

0-60 time of 6.0 and below should be easily attained in the current R, and with a broken in Type S, I would expect it to be very close.


[Modified by FBP_1171, 8:16 AM 7/12/2001]

 

Yeah, but theres was with a f--king stopwatch and seat of the pants .... real accurate!!

 

I haven't seen the numbers yet, but I doubt its as fast as the type-r, but its probably close. No limited slip? and weighs more should keep it slightly slower.

 

The helical LSD does nothing in straight line accels.

Car magazines do, in fact, instrument the cars and drive them.

The car should be every bit as quick in a straight line. It has MORE BHP and TORQUE THROUGHOUT THE ENGINE RPM RANGE. It also has slightly more aggressive gearing to multiply the more power. No surprises here.

It's more aerodynamic.

However, if straight line speed is your thing then why not get a WRX or even a Mustang Cobra?

As it stands, the RS-X will not post quicker times on a race course in equal hands even though the subjective facet of Handling the RS-X will probably be at least as good: It is a newer car with 8 yrs of "lessons learned" to be applied to it.

Now. What do you think the RS-X Type R will be like?