http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...t_acurarsx.xml

We didn't think it fair to base performance estimates in our Acura RSX Type-S preview story (June 2001) on the previous-generation Integra Type R. That car was just too much of a stripper, and it was light, loud, and fast. So we looked at the better-equipped Integra GS-R's numbers instead, did a little calculation, and estimated a 0-to-60-mph time of 6.7 seconds for the RSX Type-S, or a half-second quicker than the older car.
Turns out that was a bit conservative, because this new 200-hp replacement for the Integra got the job done in just 6.1 seconds. Furthermore, it bested the GS-R's quarter-mile time by 0.8 second and 5 mph (at 14.8 seconds at 95 mph) and even eclipsed the Type R's time of 15.2 seconds at 93 mph.

hmmmm....

 

C&D's been smoking some good ****. They only know how to drive cars with torque...

 

I think we went over this a while ago, before you returned from your hiatus. They obviously used the first time they obtained way back in 1997, when people were getting 7.0 sec 0-60 runs out of the R instead of the 6.1 of today. They prob. just plugged it in there to state their claim better

Cosworth, amen to that. They prob. launch the car at 3Krpm.


[Modified by Ross1013, 5:04 PM 7/17/2001]

 

BS. I know a guy that owns a stock ITR and he beat a RSX Type S last week. I have yet to race one, but the RSX-S is considerably heavier than the ITR, but only makes 5 more HP.

 

I drove it, and although it's a nice, quick car, theres no way it could beat an ITR. With some weight-loss and I/H/E, maybe.

 

RSX stands for REPAIR SERVERAL XIMES

 

They got 6.1 seconds so be it. I won't be bashing them because I can't dispute their results, can anyone?

 

I can dispute their 1/4 time results. I mena **** first time at the track on my stock R I did a 14.8!

 

Also....Car and Driver subscribes to the "Newer is Better" theory of automobiles.... So the RSX is naturally faster better more reliable since it was made this year and not last year! That is something that always bothered me about C+D...

Cheese~

 

Why is the topic above SO hard to accept.
When Super Street compared ITR and the WRX and stated that the ITR has a faster 0-60, nobody complained of that error. Most magazines have ran the WRX at well under 6 seconds 0-60, or was the bullshit too?

 

I am not a big fan of the RSX, and I dont think HONDA made it to compete/Replace the R, it was clearly designed to replace the GSR, I am not a person hwo says NEWER is BETTER becasue it is simple newer but lets face it HONDA had great sucess for 8 year with the G3 Teg, do you think the would put out a car that wasnt alaround better ( styling is an un-qualitative factor ) ?? The RSX may very well be faster for CD than the R they tested but as we all know you have to be a sucky driver to only get 15.3 out of an R in the 1/4. The RSX is a bteer platform for an R however, think about it, the RSX has a more rigid body, larger dispplacement, 6 speeds, etc. However I will say this I have driven the RSX, RSX-S and of course my R, the R is faster, it feells faster, it sounds faster, it IS faster, had my wife follow me in the R on my test ride on the RSX-R, shes a good driver, we test drove the S from ACURA of seremonte, I could not keep up with her, wether a roll on or a stop light launch, I know the RSX S will get a little faster with break in, but it is WAY to smoothed over and HOMOGINIZED, and it feels like a fat *** prelude at speed in the corners, NO THANK YOU, extremely nice interior, far superior to the R's, but thats the only catagory I feel it bets the R in.

DAVE

 

dude I can tell you this the WRX is no faster 0-60 than the R, I own both, it has the R in First gear launch for sure but buy 0-60 I have caught uo to my wife and vice versa, and handling and gear box the R wails on the WRX, however, the WRX has more tuning potential I will admit

 

so an ITR can do 60mph in well under 6 seconds, stock ITR?

 

I thought you could get in the 5's for 0-60 for the R...

I hope to see some of those magazine racers in the rsx type s on the streets! Reality check anyone?

 

Someone said it in another thread and I'll say it again. C&D is trying to make the car they are testing look good. Bottom line. If they have to bend some numbers to do so, so be it.

 

Uh I have no way of measuring my 0-60 all I know is if I drive the WRX and the wifey the R, ill jump all over her off the Line, but when I get right aound 60 all I hear is VTEC beside me, by 100mph all I see is taillights, and its the same result if she drives the WRX and I drive the R, actually the when I drive the R its not even that clsoe becasue I can launch it better than here, I may not be car and driver, but do YOU have a WRX and an R sitting in the driveway to drive back to back???? I DID NOT THINK SO.

Dave

 

ITR571- are both cars stock? You guys must be a helluva driver to get the ITR launched to (almost) equal WRX.

jxxx- why are you arguing so hard on an ITR board? you know that we won't listen.

 

I think I'm with euro on this one. It's all just marketing, if C+D says the Type-S is faster than the no longer available Type-R then everyone who wants an R will go buy the Type-S. I was in the dealership the other day and the had the C+D article on the RSX Type-S as part of thier propaganda in the waiting room. From the exp. I've read here, the Type-R wins out.

 

WRX is bone stock, ITR has intake, and APEXi VAFC, not much I can't launch the ITR as well as the WRX but I launch it better than the wife so I usually catch her a little sooner. but no matter how good you are the WRX will jump off the line faster than almost any car out there, its power band is total different than the R, and its starving for ait at 7K, gearing is quite different also, don't get me worn its a heck of a car, I mean I did buy it but I think stock for stock I would take the R over it, but AWD and TURBO upgradability is why I bought it, on a side note, I just installed the STI short shift kit in the WRX last night so the results may be slightly different next time the 2 cars go up against one another, And to the guy who said the WRX get 5.7 0-60, all I say is I wish, I jump and Z28's but by 60 they are past me and acording to C7D they do 5.7 also, hmmmmmm, maybe C&D was hyping the WRX, I think so

 

NO I don't own both cars. At 25, with student loan and a house in the bay area, and you know how expensive they are, a third car for the wife and I is WAY OUT of the question at the moment.
Anyway, the best way I suppose is to take both to the track with the same person driving.

 

I think C&D test is possible for a 6.1 0-60, however, if I were to own an ITR, I would not trade it for an RSX. I won't even trade my GSR for an RSX.

 

I am 24 in the bay area, San bruno, I hear you on the housing costs, I just bought a condo and cut me deep.


Dave

 

I would think the WRX can do 60 in well under 6 secs. Road and Track did it, and so did Motor Trend, and Subaru ads themselves, well, those are ads.
Although a different comparison, a 91MR2 turbo I had back then, on most times, was doing flat 6 secs, with the only mod is a custom test pipe, although I never dynoed it, I am certain it is well below 227hp.

 

My car went 15.2 @93 stock.LOl,what in the hell are they thinking?With a **** time like that I wouldn't even publish it.

 

Why is it so hard to believe? When they test cars they test then with a full tank of gas, 40 pounds of test gear, they don't go over redline at all. Of course their 1/4 mile times are going to be a lot less than what we do at the track. The difference between their runs and ours is CONSISTENCY. Every car they test is subjected to the same conditions. Sure I can pull a 14.3 in my basically stock Type R, but that will only work if I compare it to a "basically stock" RSX.

If they say the RSX is faster I'd rather believe them.