Well we have heard a few reports from members stating that Acura salespeople firmly believe that the RSX Type S is faster than the ITR. Looks like they got their info. straight from Car and Driver, I know the Acura salespeople in my area live by the reports they see in mags such as Car and Driver (which is actually one of the better auto mags out there most of the time). Car and Driver list the ITR as doing the quarter mile in 15.2 secs and the RSX Type S in 14.8 secs. But most of us know that the ITR can do a quarter mile in the mid 14 range in stock trim. So I think that is where most of the confusion is coming from. Dunno why Car and Driver got the ITR as a 15 sec machine in the 1320, they are usually very good with their times, more reliable than other mags for sure. The ITR has a superior power to weight ratio, higher rev capabilities, and probably close to the same gearing (with one gear less) so you would have to expect the ITR to be quicker overall. The RSX does have more torque but I don't think it is enough to overcome the weight penalty, plus those wheels look heavier than the ITR's. Just thought I would throw this out, maybe it has been discussed before.

J.

 

Just tell them to look at the graphs on the last page of the review. The graphs show that the Celica GTS is faster than the RSX Type-S (specifically faster acceleration). And we all know and it is common knowledge that stock to stock the the Celica stands no chance against a Type-R. So not sure what Car and Driver was doing here but something is wrong.

 

Do what I did.Tell the *** to put his money where his mouth is.About a week ago,after being insulted by an ignorant salesman,I offered to trade my ITR in for a Type S.That is,only if he could take the car and beat me to 70.Needless to say he didn't do it.they are just salesmen.Leave it at that.In most cases they have no idea how things stack up.

 

i know this has no relation to what you guys are talking about, but ever sit inside the Type S interior? I sat in it when the car was first released and i was in shock. I was like "holy crap this is nice interior". Well i got to sit in it again today, got a more thorough look/feel in the interior. If you feel the dash on the doors and the front panel, it feels like sh*t!!!! I could not believe how cheap they felt. It seriously felt like material used in a dodge neon or chevy cavaliar. G3 all da way

 

I hope salesman are telling people the Type-S is faster than our Type-R. This will hopefully result in more sales which means more prey for us for at autocross !! WHOOO HOOOO !! Most likely the Type-S will be in the same class.

Also, who cares about salesman, their job is to sell cars, not to state facts.

 

Honda claims that the 98 and 00 spec ITR's (JDM) do about 14.6 on the 1/4 and the new ITR does 14.3.

 

yeah, i find it hard pressed to see a type S running 14.34 seconds stock when honda claims the new ITR runs 14.3 stock. Did you guys see that posting in the celica forum about the type S running at 14.34 stock?

 

OK, I've got to set this straight once and for all. I work for Acura and have the official numbers that were obtained by an independent testing firm AMCI, here are their results that Acura is using:

AMCI Certified Test Results ( Type S only)

0-30 mph...2.88 seconds

0-60 mph...6.7 seconds

1/4 mile...15.19 seconds @ 95.6 mph

Top speed...145.3 mph

60-0 Dry Pavement Braking...2.9 seconds/133 feet

Anything else is mere speculation.

 

00/01 ITRs run what in a 0-60? 6.1, 6.2? I know 97/98s run 6.6 but is it really a .5 sec diff between 97/98s and 00/01s?

 

I think Car and Driver is on the take from Acura (and other manufactures). They probably got paid by Acura to claim the Type S is "faster and better" than it's predecessors. Seems like Car and Driver "selectively" uses numbers to achieve what it wants. Sort of like 9 out of 10 doctors recommend... It's all B.S.