As somebody mentioned a few weeks ago, the latest EVO magazine has an article discussing the latest Civic Type-R and RXS-R and also a comparison between the RSX-R and the ITR. Not a very in depth article but worth reading. They gave both the Civic Type-R and the RSX-R 4 1/2 stars; the ITR was given 5 and is described "as one of the best driver's cars we know".

However, what did seem clear from the article is that, apart from the (relatively small) increase in low end torque in the RSX-R, the ITR is far superior in terms of driving pleasure. Also the RSX-R seems very slow in their test - 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, 1/4 mile in 15.3!? (The ITR recorded a 0-60 of 6.2 in an earlier test.) Have Japanese magazines been getting better numbers?

I guess what I am asking is apart from its potential to be modified to go faster in a straight line because of its bigger displacement (even ignoring the test above, an extra 0.2L is not likley to make it a potential 300 hp monster), is the RSX-R inferior to the current ITR?



[Modified by norice, 11:20 AM 11/2/2001]

 

Honda's numbers on the new RSX-R are much quicker than what you posted. Im not sure about 0-60 (I think it was under 6 seconds) but 1/4 mile times were claimed to be 14.3.

I for one will buy an RSX-R if it comes here. But, I will also keep my ITR as well!

 

This is probably the worst forum to post this type of question. I doubt if you will get unbiased replies. No matter what kind of car you compare an ITR to, whether be a Porsche 911, an M3 or a Z06, there are one too many members here who will always argue like "ITR is lighter so it must be faster", and so on.
I have a feeling this thread will go on and on and on just like the one that was locked. Thanks yoshi for locking that one.

 

well the guys in oz got the rsx-r but with the rxs-s motor maybe that was the same car tested the rsx-r with the motor from the rsx-s.
i have also be hearing that is the same car we will be getting in the states kinda sucks

 

Ok not to further the madness, but one quick note I'll put.

It has been said and documented that the RSX-R that is OUTSIDE Japan, ie australia etc etc, is basically the US RSX-S engine w/ the body effects and interior mods of the JDM version. So with that said it does not surprise me that the mag thought highly of our ITR. I would love to see a comparo of the JDM INTEGRA-R vs our DC2's.

Fais-who doesnt think his ITR can beat everything w/ wheels

 

RSX-R shouldn't be a step down from ITR.

and even RSX-S is 15.5 at the Drag Strip...(that I saw in person).. so...
RSX-R should be way faster than that. 14.5 at least.

 

You couldn't be more wrong about the people in this forum. There are a lot of objective people here. True, there are some who believe their ITR is the best car in the world, but your generalization is way off. Just recently, there was a thread in which someone asked whether to buy an ITR or an e36 M3. I'd have to say over 80% of the respondents said the M3 was the better car. You won't see too many people here say the ITR is better than a 911 or Z06 either. What the heck have you been reading?

 

I wrote, "one too many" not "too many". I know what you mean. There are lots of good people here, and I think I get more useful information here than the Integra forum. There are three or four members here that just sticks out like a CRX with dual exhaust.

 

Agreed, the bad people are definitely in the minority. I have gotten lots of good help here and really like the forum. Sorry if I came on too strong.


[Modified by fso_BamBam, 7:42 PM 11/2/2001]

 

Perhaps I opened too big a can of worms here.

The RSX-R in the article was imported directly from Japan as was the ITR (remember, the RSX-R is not available in the UK either).

I think very few people here are rabid enough to believe that the ITR is the best car in the world or any such malarkey. However, a comparison between the ITR and the RSX-R is far from an academic debate to most of us. I have read two comparison articles to date and each reviewer has vastly preferred the ITR. I would like to seen contradictory opionions (or references to magazine articles) to give the other side of the story.


[Modified by norice, 11:46 AM 11/2/2001]

 

I also purchased that evo mag - and in it you'll see that they don't care so much about the numbers - that's why they and car magazine preferred the slower renault cleo 172 to the new Civic type R. They like cars that are involving and fun to drive. The main reason they prefer the, admittedly slower, old type r over the new one is that it's more adjustable in corners - easier to get the tail out. They may also like that it's a bit more raw in terms of noise and VTEC kick in. None of these things make the car faster - just more fun.

Here's what they concluded:

"For raw thrills, the new cars (new itr and new civic type R) can't match it and dynamically it's a lithe, adjustable and rewarding partner. Even more than it's replacement(with it's generous crash helmet accomodating headroom) it's a car made for track days"

On the new car's side, they did say that the new engines are a big improvement in low end power.

BTW, I'd love to drive the Renault - sounds sweeet

 

I have read several HK magazines about the new RSX-R (imported directly from Japan). The resullts were all very bad. For example, redline in 1st gear and shift to 2nd, the rpm will be out of the vtec range. The extra 20hp doesn't seem to compensate the extra weight of the car. The front is too heavy and causes more understeer etc etc......

 

i'm sure spoon will come to the rescue... i hope?

 

I can't get my hopes up that the JDM DC5 motor will make it to our shores, but has anyone seen a price on this motor? Cause I don't doubt we'll be hearing about DC5-R powered RSX-S's here in the next 6 months.

sackdz - who can't wait for the real steve c to come tell us they're both inferior


[Modified by sackdz, 3:25 PM 11/2/2001]

 

You also have to remember that when most people are defending the R it is because of its price. For $24,430 sticker, it is one of the best all around performance cars ever made.

 

 

My generalizations regarding the Type R superiority were largely based on cost/performance ratios compared to other marques. Sure there are a lot of more expensive cars with better amenities or superior technology - but does it really buy you a better driving experience? In many instances not. Similarly, there are cars in the same price range as the Type R that have different drivetrain setups that may be more appealing to different consumers. My inference was that the R is simply one of the best choices for people with limited budgets; is a car that has a very forgiving safety envelope and is one that can be thoroughly enjoyed by both a novice driver and one with significant experience. I still think the Type R is a shitty drag racer - but that's just my opinion.

I think like all new cars - the new RSX-R is just going through development pains being a new model. I don't think that Honda would have invested in the R&D to develop a new car primarily intended for the Japanese domestic market and have it fall short of performance expectations. That would be corporate hara-kiri. But this is all speculation since you cannot buy the RSX-R anywhere but Japan right now. Perhaps we will never know......

 

If the various tests done in several BM vdo's are any indication, then the DC5 is better stock vs stock.

In the latest Hot Version #53 vdo, a tuner expressed how much difficulty they and other tuners are having w/ the front MacF suspension. Even still, the sus mod'd DC5 beat out the DC2 w/ similar mods in both dry and wet conditions at Ebisu Circuit.

The testers commented that even though the DC5 is quicker around the track and more refined, they miss the "raciness" of the DC2.

yoshi - who has no personal real world tests, so has to rely on my friends at BM vdo

 

The DC2R has a great soul, the sum is far greater than the parts. You fall irrationally in love with it....it's hard not to. I doubt the new R will have that appeal (though for some it will i'm sure)

 

I cannot say anything with absolute certainty since I have not driven a DC5-R, but I can offer my personal opinion and predections based on driving a type-S.

I honestly do not think the DC5 is the same breed of car as the DC2. I noticed the very first time I drove a type-S that many of the characteristics that attracted me to Hondas back in the early 90s (low cowl height, lots of glass, that "even lighter than it really is" feel) are completely gone. The DC5 just doesn't feel like a continuation of the Integra line to me, or even a relative to it.

That doesn't necessarily make it a bad car, but I do doubt that the DC5-R will be as much fun for someone like me to drive. Forget the numbers, I'm talking about the grin factor. Regardless of whether the DC5-R is faster than the DC2-R (and I'd put money on the DC5-R being faster), the DC2-R is a simpler, more elemental car and that is what puts a smile on my face.

And I'm still pissed about the MacPherson struts.

 

From what i've read the new REAL JDM Integra Type R is MUCH better than the old one. It's just a shame we Australian's get a new Type R thats just using the RSX-S engine, and some other crappy detuning. So it's not as good as the real one. The real one is absolutely brilliant.

 

Let us see the E36 M3 and the E46 M3.. I think more people still like the M36 over the E46 M3. Newer and more HP doesn't always mean better. Everyone was skeptical about the E46 M3 being better. They are right... !!

 

I'm guessing must be brand new issue since I haven't gotten it yet. The new CTR ran 6.8 in 0-60mph. They said the car was very good oversall but doesn't feel like the old CTR in how toss able it was. The UK spec ITR ran 6.2 sec 0-60mph.

Also remember test could be done on full tank and also only 98 RON is normally highest fuel in the UK which is 96 octane here. So I'm sure the lower octane affects power with 11.5 to 1 compression ratio. As it's recommended to run 98octane in the car or better. I talked to my friend in the UK and he said the car would run on 93 octane but not as well if on higher grade of fuel. They there dealership recommends when you fill up use some octane booster to get the most out of it.

The new Clio OMG talk about a change it's better on inside but not much better else were compared to the older models I've seen. Renault Clio V6 is nice but it has a rather cheap interior for £26,000 also it's not much faster reg. Clio

I think the only reason people will buy the new CTR in the UK is because of it's price around £16,000. Though I feel folks will pass out some extra quid for £22,000 230bhp Ford Focus RS(Rallye Sport)..which is basically the same car being drivin' in the WRC in 2wd verison..not the awd verisons...plus they will only come out in limited #'s. And there will be Ford Cosworth 300hp turbo awd Forcus coming out as soon they decide to go into production but I think there waiting to see how the RS does once it's released into the public next yr.

Actually if I was living in the UK right now and had the money I would buy either older model CTR because there going pretty cheap now days for daily driver and for weekend car it would have to be the new style Lotus Elise. Now that be just perfect.

 

It seems that the "soul" of the car is 'refined' as the car is refined. I know because I work in the auto industry. Look at Porsches. They were once great sports cars. Now they are great Grand Tourers. Yes, they may be quicker and faster, but they are less involved. The same is true according to EVO and rumored by others [of whom I've not read the articles].

One can make a car fast and it can still be uninvolving. It is quite possible that this has been done with the new "ITR." There are reports from EVO of torque steer due to what I believe is a higher Torque Bias Ratio on the Helical Limited-Slip Differential. You'll notice it in your DC2R as well, but since they did not mention THAT I ASSUME that it's a bit worse on the RS-X platform. Maybe it is; maybe it isn't.

<list>[*] The stiffer body is a plus. How much stiffer is the RS-X R compared to the DC2 R? Hmmm...
[*] Added weight for the 'twice as stiff body' [referring to Static Stiffness] is a negative unless the power improvement offets the additional weight.
[*] i-VTEC produces more torque across the rev range. Good. Very good. Does it produce enough? I dunno...
[*] The upgraded engine is quieter. That's a negative for "evo-ness" or pure driving pleasure. I like the FEEL of the DC2 R more than I like it's actually speed. IT FEELS RIGHT.
[*] The cable shifter is better for NVH [Noise, Vibration and Harshness], but is a negative for "evo-ness." How? It will NOT be as direct and 'mechanical' in feel. I also like the 2nd Order vibration pulses [from the engine combustion] transmitted to my hand at idle... It adds to the overall CHARACTER of the car.
[*] MacPherson Struts... Don't like them, but they CAN be made to work. Witness the Porsche 911 Series as well as the BMW M Series. How well DO they work on the new "ITR?" I dunno.
[*] Rear suspension mods don't sound too hot to me. Read the latest Motor Trend for details of the RS-X's rear suspension geometry. To be honest, their observations could have something to do with a stiffer bodyshell [combined with their descriptions and observations, of course], but Honda has cleverly not made any mention as to how stiff the DC2R's bodyshell is compared to the RS-X R's bodyshell...
[*] Brembo calipers are better as are the larger discs. How well the biasing is I cannot begin to tell... SCC commented that they did not like the biasing on the test car they drove in Japan.
[*] New "ITR" does not involve the rear [wheels] as much as the DC2 R in rotation. Not good... At least for me it isn't. Now fast street driving is much different than track work. I like the nose-tuck-in behavior on the road as the speeds are relatively low. On the track where at some courses where some sweepers and turns may be approaching 100 mph the DC2R MAY prove to be a bit unsettling initially. We'll see soon.

</list>

In short, the car is more refined which makes it less involving. Dynamically the rear is not as easily provoked. This could be a by-product of the higher torque bias ratio in the diff, coupled with other more fundamental issues in the suspension geometry and damping ratios. Simply stiffening the rear could assist here, but there will be a trade-off on ride quality. MOTOR magazine commented on how well the car rode. MOTOR is an Australian magazine and their roads ae composed of different materials than here. I know because I've been to Ford of Australia's Proving Grounds in Geelong on a development trip. Their roads are NOISIER than US roads even though they appear to be smoother. The NOISE transmitted makes one feel that the car is more harsh. So the car SEEMS to be very much BMW E46 M3-like dynamically in some regards and much less E30 M3-like. A shame if true. The Australian magazine WHEELS also commented how the cars character has changed. I spoke with one of the journalists abut one month before that issue was published and he was disappointed that the car was not up to the Japanese-spec. Essentially, the car has 196 bhp as opposed to 220. I am not priviledged to know what has been done. A simple drop in compression ratio will not have that large of an effect.

So it may be out and out quicker on a track, but less involving at the same time. VERY possible. Look at the Ferrari 360 Modena compared to the F355; every preceding model of the venerable Porsche 911 and the E30 vs E36 vs E46 M3 Coupes. Hell, BMW even makes a CONVERTIBLE M3. Talk about hypocrisy. "M" is for MOTORSPORTS. Perhaps BMW and Honda Marketing instinctively know that precious few would tolerate a sports/track day car as an everyday driver, especially with the World Economy being in the sh1tter for a decade now and Japan on the verge of a full Depression. Oh, well... The King is dead; Long live the King.


[Modified by KJR, 11:26 AM 11/3/2001]

 

lordastro> From what i've read the new REAL JDM Integra Type R is MUCH better than the old one.

As I mentioned above, the RSX-R evaluated in EVO was imported directly from Japan (as was the ITR), so I am not sure why you caplitalised the word 'real'.

Please provide references to the articles that you have read. I have yet to read an article supporting your assertion (which is one of the reasons I started this thread).